32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[LNGSD43]

Just sent my SD43 in for a second time with same issue. Ran perfect for two years after first service now rapidly heading south again. My AD said he would request RSC to expedite given that it’s the second time within the warranty period. Will report back on time taken for service and any insight given, however unlikely that is. UK Service centre.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by LNGSD43

Just sent my SD43 in for a second time with same issue. Ran perfect for two years after first service now rapidly heading south again. My AD said he would request RSC to expedite given that it’s the second time within the warranty period. Will report back on time taken for service and any insight given, however unlikely that is. UK Service centre.

Sorry to hear but interesting (not surprising) how things can change during 8 months when your 126600 (3235) was "running perfect" (11/2022) after first repair.
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=3127

[LNGSD43]

Yes it’s disappointing but not wholly unexpected. We’ll see what happens this time.

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by Scholar

Watchmaker Al of Archer Watches posted this overview of the issues with the 32 series on Watchuseek and saxo suggested I share it here:

Thanks for reposting Archer's comments from WUS. I completely missed that thread. A crystal clear explanation of what's going on with the 3235. The best I've read so far.

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by LNGSD43

Yes it’s disappointing but not wholly unexpected. We’ll see what happens this time.

Unfortunate and unwelcome situation, I’m sure.

Given this is the second time it will have been repaired, are you planning to stick with it, or will you sell when you get back?

[LNGSD43]

I’ll stick with it and hope it’s finally resolved. I’m struggling to believe they haven’t figured this out by now. Will update in due course with good or bad.

[Mountain]

It doesn’t appear that they’ve successfully solved the issue yet, but I guess we should be hopeful or trust that they will sooner or later. Wishing your watch all the best!

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by LNGSD43

I’ll stick with it and hope it’s finally resolved. I’m struggling to believe they haven’t figured this out by now. Will update in due course with good or bad.

Perhaps the reality cheque is in the mail, but i sincerely hope yours is fine now

[LNGSD43]

I guess only time will tell. Trying to be positive. Still have an SD4K to rely on so fortunate in that way.

[daysky1]

As for me. I have a few Rolex watches and I like the -2 +2 seconds a day Superlative Chronometer that is in each one of them. My take is it's a Rolex and I switch watches 3-5 times a day. I don't check them except when setting one that has stopped due to running out of power reserve. I spoke with my AD about my possibly getting a Witschi and he stated I would probably drive myself crazy.. I am a perfectionist after all. I am satisfied for now just knowing what the watch is supposed to do.....but a Witschi does sound intriguing but the 1000 might not be enough for me...as I am not sure it will be able to measure all the beat rates of the watches I have besides Rolex, ie Omega etc just a few btw.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by daysky1

As for me. I have a few Rolex watches and I like the -2 +2 seconds a day Superlative Chronometer that is in each one of them. My take is it's a Rolex and I switch watches 3-5 times a day. I don't check them except when setting one that has stopped due to running out of power reserve. I spoke with my AD about my possibly getting a Witschi and he stated I would probably drive myself crazy.. I am a perfectionist after all. I am satisfied for now just knowing what the watch is supposed to do.....but a Witschi does sound intriguing but the 1000 might not be enough for me...as I am not sure it will be able to measure all the beat rates of the watches I have besides Rolex, ie Omega etc just a few btw.

You clearly have a wide range of movements in your collection.
Which Rolex movements do you have?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by daysky1

My take is it's a Rolex and I switch watches 3-5 times a day. I don't check them except when setting one that has stopped due to running out of power reserve.

That's a lot.

Originally Posted by daysky1

I spoke with my AD about my possibly getting a Witschi and he stated I would probably drive myself crazy.

You speak about a Witschi or a Weishi timegrapher?
It is not any AD but you who controls how often to use a timegrapher.

[saxo3]

32xx movement amplitudes for different lift angle settings.

Following some discussion and claim in another thread …

I have taken (today) new data for my Sea-Dweller 126600 with fully wound 3235 caliber.
Here is the dependence of my timegrapher amplitude readings on lift angle setting:

51° - 272° +/- 2°
53° - 284° +/- 3°
55° - 295° +/- 3°
57° - 305° +/- 3°

Measurement time: 2 min with 120 readings for each data point; vertical lines in the graph below are the precision values (1-sigma value = error bar).

Result: about 5° amplitude increase per 1° higher lift angle.

Measuring at 55° instead of the correct 53° overestimates the amplitudes by about 10°.

[alphadweller]

Just got myself a Weishi 1900 timegrapher. I'm posting the results at 0h (full wind) and 24h for my SD43 and TT Sub41, following Bas' tech sheet from Rolex.

My SD43 is sick in spite of being unworn, with a rate of -5 s/d on average after a full wind and an amplitude below 200º on all vertical positions after 24h . I'm no taking it to the RSC unless accuracy falls below -15 s/d. I'll start wearing it when I turn 50 next year, hoping there'll be a permanent fix by then if accuracy suddenly falls off a cliff as many owners’ reports seem to suggest.

My TTSub41 is fairing much better, well within specs. Happy days . These results are in line with real-life observation against an atomic clock. With the help of positional variance (DU resting position), I can easily self-regulate and bring the TT Sub41 down to 0 s/d. I've been wearing it on rotation since Sep 2020, several days a week.

This was an interesting exercise. I like to know what's going on.

[Easy E]

When did you purchase the SD43, how old is it?

It’s your watch, your call, but I would send the SD in. Your 24hr readings are not great.

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by Easy E

When did you purchase the SD43, how old is it?

It’s your watch, your call, but I would send the SD in. Your 24hr readings are not great.

I bought it in 2017. It's out of warranty. I decided not to take it two years ago when accuracy was slightly out of spec, not worth it to me.

[saxo3]

Thanks for the interesting data

Originally Posted by alphadweller

My SD43 is sick in spite of being unworn, with a rate of -5 s/d on average after a full wind and an amplitude below 200º on all vertical positions after 24h .

I have the same observation for two 32xx watches, one unworn and one rarely worn: both strongly degraded in amplitudes and accuaracy over time. Most people believe that an unworn caliber cannot degrade much. That is NOT true for the 32xx series. These calibers certainly 'prefer' to run.

Originally Posted by alphadweller

My TTSub41 is fairing much better, well within specs. Happy days . These results are in line with real-life observation against an atomic clock. With the help of positional variance (DU resting position), I can easily self-regulate and bring the TT Sub41 down to 0 s/d. I've been wearing it on rotation since Sep 2020, several days a week.

How old is your Sub41, 09/2020?
It may be interesting to measure the power reserve of the Sub41.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

.

Can you post the timegrapher data for your WG Sub that you mentioned here?

We can compare how it changed since 01/2023

[Mountain]

[QUOTE=saxo3;12870651 These calibers certainly 'prefer' to run.[/QUOTE]

Interesting, do we have data to support this, with wearing habits prior to the issue occurring? Certainly, in my case, my Explorer was worn daily from October 2021 until early January 2023, when I stopped for a short while. The loss of precision started immediately after this period.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Mountain

Interesting, do we have data to support this, with wearing habits prior to the issue occurring? Certainly, in my case, my Explorer was worn daily from October 2021 until early January 2023, when I stopped for a short while. The loss of precision started immediately after this period.

This does seem to be a trend from what I've seen that's sprinkled throughout this thread and others

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks for the interesting data



I have the same observation for two 32xx watches, one unworn and one rarely worn: both strongly degraded in amplitudes and accuaracy over time. Most people believe that an unworn caliber cannot degrade much. That is NOT true for the 32xx series. These calibers certainly 'prefer' to run.



How old is your Sub41, 09/2020?

It may be interesting to measure the power reserve of the Sub41.

Sure, you're welcome Saxo!
Indeed, the SD43 is a NOS watch. I bought it new from an AD in May 2017. I've been tracking its accuracy since the beginning, but not its amplitude. In 7 years, it has degraded from -0.5 s/d to -6 s/d, unworn (total safequeen).

That's right, the Sub41 is from Sep 2020, and it's frequently worn. I'll be able to confirm its power reserve tomorrow, as it's been running 36 hours only since I started the test.

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by Dirt

This does seem to be a trend from what I've seen that's sprinkled throughout this thread and others

Yes, some definite anecdotal evidence. Perhaps a survey on pre-isssue wearing habits would be helpful. Having said that, the only thing we’re really interested in finding out is whether Rolex can solve the issue long term, and in a reasonable time frame!

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Mountain

Interesting, do we have data to support this, with wearing habits prior to the issue occurring? Certainly, in my case, my Explorer was worn daily from October 2021 until early January 2023, when I stopped for a short while. The loss of precision started immediately after this period.

We do not have many timegrapher data but similar experience (as you) was reported here (also in other threads) by member EEpro:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=1121
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=2862
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=3290
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=3874

[JMGoodnight369]

I have noticed this trend with accuracy deviation after a period of not being worn as well. I have a 2021 124060 and a 2022 126610LV. I just got the 124060 back from low amplitude service in April and since I’ve rotated about every 4-6 weeks. The LV ran at +1.5 from the AD in November and is currently running at -1. Some days are slower than others but that’s the average. The 124060 came back from service at +1.5-2 and is currently at -0.1. To me it seems like they are regulating these a little bit different recently. I definitely picked up on the “likes to be worn” trend with the LV. The more I wear it the more consistent it is. I was doing an every other day switch with them and timekeeping was all over the place with the LV. It would be -3/-5 some days and others would be +0.5. I’m going to do another stretch with the LV starting today. The last reading I got from it was -5.7 at around hour 60 of the power reserve resting DU.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Can you post the timegrapher data for your WG Sub that you mentioned here?

We can compare how it changed since 01/2023

This time of year is pretty chaotic for me at work. I had to travel last week, with nearly zero notice. I was only able to get 0,12,24hr readings. For now that's all I have. Thanks again for you assistance.

[csaltphoto]

the worn vs unworn was something I noticed as well. I mentioned it either earlier in this thread or another thread. It seems noteworthy though from a testing perspective at Rolex. Most products are tested with an accelerated version of real world activity whether it's movement, exposure to elements and so on. I've seen pictures of all those testing gadgets at Rolex which simulate wearing but I wonder if they simulated not wearing for extended periods and how that would effect lubricant migration on the smaller and redesigned bearing surfaces?

[CedCraig]

Originally Posted by csaltphoto

the worn vs unworn was something I noticed as well. I mentioned it either earlier in this thread or another thread. It seems noteworthy though from a testing perspective at Rolex. Most products are tested with an accelerated version of real world activity whether it's movement, exposure to elements and so on. I've seen pictures of all those testing gadgets at Rolex which simulate wearing but I wonder if they simulated not wearing for extended periods and how that would effect lubricant migration on the smaller and redesigned bearing surfaces?

I really doubt Rolex tests for this. „Hey, our watches work REALLY well when worn all the time, but suck if not. Don‘t let your Rolex become a low amplitude safe queen! Wear your ROLEX proudly.“

[S.Explorer]

That's interesting...so it seems there's a chance of increased wear on the watch starting. Maybe it can't repeatedly take the sudden increase in torque?

[Saint_Tail]

Originally Posted by Mountain

Interesting, do we have data to support this, with wearing habits prior to the issue occurring? Certainly, in my case, my Explorer was worn daily from October 2021 until early January 2023, when I stopped for a short while. The loss of precision started immediately after this period.

How long did you stop wearing it?

And I was wondering, if the watch is beginning to loose precision, would wearing it again daily for some period of time (i.e one week, one month) will bring the precision back?

[Andad]

Originally Posted by saxo3

32xx movement amplitudes for different lift angle settings.

Following some discussion and claim in another thread …

I have taken (today) new data for my Sea-Dweller 126600 with fully wound 3235 caliber.
Here is the dependence of my timegrapher amplitude readings on lift angle setting:

51° - 272° +/- 2°
53° - 284° +/- 3°
55° - 295° +/- 3°
57° - 305° +/- 3°

Measurement time: 2 min with 120 readings for each data point; vertical lines in the graph below are the precision values (1-sigma value = error bar).

Result: about 5° amplitude increase per 1° higher lift angle.

Measuring at 55° instead of the correct 53° overestimates the amplitudes by about 10°.

Measuring the variation in amplitude based on lift angle changes on your Timegrapher is not very accurate.
Why not just calculate the difference?