32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Hand length and weight are certainly a factor but in this case it's only transient as the hands move around the dial in the vertical planes.
As the hands are moving uphill more torque is required to drive them, when they are going downhill it's not really a consideration. In effect, it's a 50/50 proposition to put it in its simplest terms but still a factor.
It can be demonstrated at home by yourself with a simple experiment by setting your watch aside in any vertical position and leaving it to run down and stop of its own accord. You will notice a traditional lever escapement will stop with the Seconds hand roughly as its rotating upward and load is at its maximum. For example, the Seconds hand will stop in the vicinity of the 12 o'clock marker if the watch is left to stop in the "Crown up" position. The other vertical resting positions will yield their own result relative to the Crown position when the watch eventually stops.

Also weight and length are a more serious consideration when we are comparing different types of movements.
For example, a mechanical movement can handle longer and heavier hands because of the inherently higher torque used to drive the movement from the Mainspring.

Way out on the other end of the spectrum, a Quartz movement typically has considerably less torque so weight and length of hands is a much more important factor. But again, it's mostly a factor in the vertical positions but torque is still a factor in the horizontal planes with a Quartz movement that has an Analogue display.

But what about when you compare, say, an OP41 with an OP36, both left face-up? The same movement is working harder at all times in the 41, unless it's calibrated differently. Now, I'm going to assume it was designed to handle the "load," of the 41 hands, but I would also imagine that would cause the 36 to run faster if calibrated identically.

The previous generation of non-date watches had different calibre movements (3132) in the larger dialed (therefore, long-handed) pieces (Exp 39, OP39) vs the smaller-dialed ones like the 36mm and Sub (3130). Similar difference for large-dialed date watches (3136 in DJII, 3156 in DDII). The "12" series use the same calibre in 36, 40, and 41mm watches.

I started to wonder about this when I realized that most of the complaints on here (granted, very small overall sampling) about 32xx issues, especially recurrent ones, were in larger-diameter watches (DJ41, SD43). But who knows...

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

But what about when you compare, say, an OP41 with an OP36, both left face-up? The same movement is working harder at all times in the 41, unless it's calibrated differently. Now, I'm going to assume it was designed to handle the "load," of the 41 hands, but I would also imagine that would cause the 36 to run faster if calibrated identically.

The previous generation of non-date watches had different calibre movements (3132) in the larger dialed (therefore, long-handed) pieces (Exp 39, OP39) vs the smaller-dialed ones like the 36mm and Sub (3130). Similar difference for large-dialed date watches (3136 in DJII, 3156 in DDII). The "12" series use the same calibre in 36, 40, and 41mm watches.

I started to wonder about this when I realized that most of the complaints on here (granted, very small overall sampling) about 32xx issues, especially recurrent ones, were in larger-diameter watches (DJ41, SD43). But who knows...

Dial up is in the "horizontal" plane as is Dial down.
Note the different set of physics which apply between the two planes

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Dial up is in the "horizontal" plane as is Dial down.
Note the different set of physics which apply between the two planes

That’s the reason I mentioned that position. Gravity not impacting it in the same way and the torque required is same at all times.

Now, of course, I’m also wondering if Mk 1 and Mk 2 214270s were calibrated differently, given the difference in hands.

[Justin-rwx]

Submariner Date (126610LN purchased 2/16/22 from an AD)
On 2/25/22 I set the time as close as possible to time.is (0 sec delta)
On 3/3/22 (6 days later) the watch was lagging by 4 seconds
On 3/12/22 the watch was lagging by 8 seconds
On 3/13/22 I set the time as close as possible to time.is (0 sec delta)
On 3/19/22 (6 days later) the watch was still accurate to 0 seconds lead/lag

What's interesting is that setting the watch on two different occasions, the first time it was 4 seconds lagging after 6 days, and the second time it was dead on after 6 days. Both times I set the time and then wound the watch manually 25 times (full rotations).

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by Justin-rwx

Submariner Date (126610LN purchased 2/16/22 from an AD)
On 2/25/22 I set the time as close as possible to time.is (0 sec delta)
On 3/3/22 (6 days later) the watch was lagging by 4 seconds
On 3/12/22 the watch was lagging by 8 seconds
On 3/13/22 I set the time as close as possible to time.is (0 sec delta)
On 3/19/22 (6 days later) the watch was still accurate to 0 seconds lead/lag

What's interesting is that setting the watch on two different occasions, the first time it was 4 seconds lagging after 6 days, and the second time it was dead on after 6 days. Both times I set the time and then wound the watch manually 25 times (full rotations).

That is excellent on both accounts. Wind the watch 40+ full turns before screwing the crown back in. Accuracy is always at the top of the power reserve and there is no way to over wind so wind it 40+ turns as a general rule if the movement is still running and 60 turns if the movement stopped.

[saxo3]

Just sold my 126710BLRO, was not easy at all to let it go ...

The new owner knows and does not care about the 3235 movement issue of this watch.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

I own two and I don’t care. If it proves to be a problem when I’m out of warranty then maybe I’ll care. At this point they are the most accurate watches I own.

[Omarion07]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Just sold my 126710BLRO, was not easy at all to let it go ...

The new owner knows and does not care about the 3235 movement issue of this watch.

It’s a pity Saxo3… I’m pretty sure you didn’t lose any money selling it. But I wonder if you’ll regret your decision when Rolex come up with a solution for this issue (If they haven’t already). If history is any indication, the 3231, 3236 , 3286 calibres are bound to come sooner or later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Just sold my 126710BLRO, was not easy at all to let it go ...

The new owner knows and does not care about the 3235 movement issue of this watch.

Ah man. Well at least you got out at a good time.

I don't think $30k USD will do it for me. Maybe at $40-50K I'd sell just because there's other things I'd prefer to do with the cash than this watch.

Hope you find another piece you love.

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Just sold my 126710BLRO, was not easy at all to let it go ...

The new owner knows and does not care about the 3235 movement issue of this watch.

How many times were it at RSC ?

[alphadweller]

I'm currently tracking my 2017 SD43 against my 2020 Sub41.

First 48h (full wind dial up) show -5.4 s/d for the SD43 vs. +1.3 s/d for the Sub41.

Makes me wonder if Rolex fixed the 3235 with their latest batch.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

I'm currently tracking my 2017 SD43 against my 2020 Sub41.

First 48h (full wind dial up) show -5.4 s/d for the SD43 vs. +1.3 s/d for the Sub41.

Makes me wonder if Rolex fixed the 3235 with their latest batch.

Assuming Sub date? For true comparison.

[Castlesinthesky]

I initially voted that my 126710BLRO was running perfectly. Now, 4 years into ownership it's started losing 12s/d. I think I'll be sending it in to RSC when I get around to it.

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Assuming Sub date? For true comparison.

Sub Date indeed

[George58]

My long 23 year pp 5066 woman's size tissue delicate watch accuracy report good enough for me

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Just sold my 126710BLRO, was not easy at all to let it go ...

The new owner knows and does not care about the 3235 movement issue of this watch.

Wow good on your for disclosing, sad to hear you decided to get rid of it but I totally understand your decision as I did the same with 2 of mine that went bad and didn’t have much attachment to it.

I do suspect a lot of Rolex owners don’t care about the movement issue…

[aboutadog]

Originally Posted by amanbra

Yeah just enjoy the watch, if the issue hits you'll notice when all of a sudden like after a weekend it's really slow.

Amen.

[xcesiv]

My 124060 sub ran great for the 2 weeks I owned it. Awesome watch, but that 904L sadly irritated my wrist.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by xcesiv

My 124060 sub ran great for the 2 weeks I owned it. Awesome watch, but that 904L sadly irritated my wrist.

Disappointing.
Maybe PM or Titanuim watches is where you need to land on that

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by xcesiv

My 124060 sub ran great for the 2 weeks I owned it. Awesome watch, but that 904L sadly irritated my wrist.

You have a legitimate reason to go pm :).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by xcesiv

My 124060 sub ran great for the 2 weeks I owned it. Awesome watch, but that 904L sadly irritated my wrist.

1st April post?
Great for 2 weeks, did you participate in the thread poll?

[xcesiv]

Originally Posted by saxo3

1st April post?
Great for 2 weeks, did you participate in the thread poll?

Yes I did. The 5th post down states "For those that don’t know your amplitude, just vote on what your timekeeping is doing." I wore the watch for 2-3 days straight, then once every 3 days when the rash developed. It never stopped as I'd wind it when in between wears. My vote was: "Yes, no issues."

[xcesiv]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Disappointing.
Maybe PM or Titanuim watches is where you need to land on that

Yes I messed up big time. I had a Y serial 16710 that I haistly got rid of for the 124060. I had no skin irritation issues with the 16710 whatsoever. I've always had problems with sterling silver, buttons on certain jeans, belt buckles, etc. I had a problem with a stainless chain years back, and the jeweler I purchased it from was perplexed and so was I. After this more recent incident I now have a better understanding of the correlation between the 904L stainless and the rash. I have no problems with any of my chains or earrings, but they are 18K yellow gold & 950 Platinum.

[xcesiv]

Originally Posted by amanbra

You have a legitimate reason to go pm :).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is the plan, either an 1803 or 18239. My other option is anything pre mid 80's in stainless. Although my 16710 from 2002/2003 didn't bother me, to be safe I'd probably go 316L next time around. My first choice is an early 80's 16750. Problem with all of these is finding one that fits my liking.

[srmatth82]

My Explorer 124270 was running -5s/day straight from the AD. Watch was purchased 12/31/21. I decided to wear it for a while to see if it would self regulate and I also played around with leaving it dial up overnight. The watch stayed -5s/day so I decided to take it to the AD for service. I figured it would only get worse over time so better have it taken care of now.

[Gab27]

Originally Posted by xcesiv

Yes I messed up big time. I had a Y serial 16710 that I haistly got rid of for the 124060. I had no skin irritation issues with the 16710 whatsoever. I've always had problems with sterling silver, buttons on certain jeans, belt buckles, etc. I had a problem with a stainless chain years back, and the jeweler I purchased it from was perplexed and so was I. After this more recent incident I now have a better understanding of the correlation between the 904L stainless and the rash. I have no problems with any of my chains or earrings, but they are 18K yellow gold & 950 Platinum.

If 316 does not bother you and 904 does, do you think this is due to the higher nickel content in 904?

[xcesiv]

Originally Posted by Gab27

If 316 does not bother you and 904 does, do you think this is due to the higher nickel content in 904?

I believe so yes. I was sad to see it go, but I couldn't continue on wearing something that kept giving me problems. I did some research on here, and from what I could gather the 904L has roughly double the nickel content compared to 316L. I also read that keeping the watch clean was very important, and that the buildup of dirt and grime between the links from sweat can cause this problem. The nickel is "trapped" inside the stainless, and the percentage that is actually released is very low. Sadly for whatever reason, the watch still gave me issues.

I washed the watch in dish soap and warm water before and after each wearing, and made sure I took a shower as well. I tried to hold out thinking maybe some residue coating was left on the watch from the machining process, yet every time I wore it the rash got worse, even though the watch had just been cleaned and I had just showered. I haven't worn a watch on a daily basis for around 6 years, so it's not that much of a loss for me, but it definitely felt good to have one on the wrist again.

[Gab27]

Originally Posted by xcesiv

I believe so yes. I was sad to see it go, but I couldn't continue on wearing something that kept giving me problems. I did some research on here, and from what I could gather the 904L has roughly double the nickel content compared to 316L. I also read that keeping the watch clean was very important, and that the buildup of dirt and grime between the links from sweat can cause this problem. The nickel is "trapped" inside the stainless, and the percentage that is actually released is very low. Sadly for whatever reason, the watch still gave me issues.

I washed the watch in dish soap and warm water before and after each wearing, and made sure I took a shower as well. I tried to hold out thinking maybe some residue coating was left on the watch from the machining process, yet every time I wore it the rash got worse, even though the watch had just been cleaned and I had just showered. I haven't worn a watch on a daily basis for around 6 years, so it's not that much of a loss for me, but it definitely felt good to have one on the wrist again.

That's a real bummer. I'm sorry about that and I hope you find either an older 316 or a new PM model you really like that doesn't cause any irritation.

Maybe even Rolex will venture into the use of more titanium in the future (to be honest, I am kind of surprised they have not already.)

[dieselgeek]

My amplitude is 212, beat error 0.1 to 0.4 and it's -6 a day on the wrist. Shows an avg of that on the timegraph as well. 2020 GMT II

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by dieselgeek

My amplitude is 212, beat error 0.1 to 0.4 and it's -6 a day on the wrist. Shows an avg of that on the timegraph as well. 2020 GMT II

Damn, another one..