32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[CMAGS84]

Originally Posted by mario1971

Don't do this because you won't be able to sleep. Let's not get paranoid. It is enough to check the incidence from time to time and if it is normal, enjoy the watch. ;)

Great advice. I’m so happy with my blue DJ 36 and very fortunate that my AD called me less than 3 months after I expressed interest. It keeps great time and if an issue pops up that’s what a warranty is for. I plan to keep it forever. I have to image that Rolex will eventually find a permanent fix and hopefully a few years down the road these will be as solid as the 3135.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CMAGS84

Great advice.

For some it is a lot of fun to see how GOOD a mechanical watch is, also looking at some numbers and timekeeping properties.

suum cuique!

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Yes, that'll likely be my next watch-related investment.

To clarify: I wouldn't send in based on amplitude alone. Rather, to your earlier point, using that as a clue that the poor timekeeping is indicative of a bigger problem than simply requiring regulation. Same watchmaker clocked it at -5 s/d yesterday and recommended sending in on that basis alone.

Even if measured in the highest-friction position, it sounds like 241 is at the very bottom of the "healthy" range.

I also got a slip of paper with two other stats: One was the beat error (which I'd asked for) of 0.2. The other was "delta 5" (assuming the little triangle on the paper was meant as a "delta"). Not sure what that's for, other than it's the same as the timekeeping number (-5/day).

Danny a timegrapher is a double edge sword. It’s sort of like buying a loupe depending on certain personalities it can get you into a routine of constantly testing and worrying about these things. You know yourself best so you decide. I have one but I keep it in the attic else I’ll be constantly testing watches instead of enjoying them. Also I changing my collection towards Daytonas as their movement is rock solid. I don’t throw any of my other nomos, omega or Daytonas on the grapher… just the damn 32xx I have. Three of them at the moment.

For me your watch is clearly showing the early stages of going bad.

If this is going to weigh on you. Ie you get it back from Rolex and you’ll be testing timing every week to make sure it’s staying in spec then maybe parting ways with it best? Just throwing a suggestion out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by amanbra

Danny a timegrapher is a double edge sword. It’s sort of like buying a loupe depending on certain personalities it can get you into a routine of constantly testing and worrying about these things. You know yourself best so you decide. I have one but I keep it in the attic else I’ll be constantly testing watches instead of enjoying them. Also I changing my collection towards Daytonas as their movement is rock solid. I don’t throw any of my other nomos, omega or Daytonas on the grapher… just the damn 32xx I have. Three of them at the moment.

For me your watch is clearly showing the early stages of going bad.

If this is going to weigh on you. Ie you get it back from Rolex and you’ll be testing timing every week to make sure it’s staying in spec then maybe parting ways with it best? Just throwing a suggestion out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I part ways with it, it'll just be to buy another, lol. And when I do, I'd use the timegrapher at times to check its condition.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

That's interesting, please post a photo of it!

Hey, saw your PM! And sorry, should have clarified: Watchmaker jotted down four numbers on a yellow post-it note; I never got a printout. I'd asked for amplitude and beat error specifically. What it had was:

-5, 0.2, 241, delta 5

-5 was timekeeping (service rep told me this specifically), presumably 0.2 was beat error and 241 the amplitude. Doing some searching online, I see that delta is the maximum difference in timekeeping across different positions. So it does appear that these numbers are some sort of average across multiple positions.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Watchmaker jotted down four numbers on a yellow post-it note; I never got a printout. I'd asked for amplitude and beat error specifically. What it had was:
-5, 0.2, 241, delta 5

The watchmaker probably gave you the measured average values 'X', and the delta value 'D' which is the maximum difference for all measured rates

X (rate) = -5 s/d
X (beat error) = 0.2 ms
X (amplitude) = 241 degrees
D (max rate difference) = 5 s/d

With X = -5 s/d most likely ALL rates are negative.

A possible combination of rates in 5 different positions is shown below.



This 124270 (3230) from May 2021 may only need a regulation.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by saxo3

The watchmaker probably gave you the measured average values 'X', and the delta value 'D' which is the maximum difference for all measured rates

X (rate) = -5 s/d
X (beat error) = 0.2 ms
X (amplitude) = 241 degrees
D (max rate difference) = 5 s/d

With X = -5 s/d most likely ALL rates are negative.

A possible combination of rates in 5 different positions is shown below.



This 124270 (3230) from May 2021 may only need a regulation.

Possibly but based on what I’ve seen with my dj and ym most likely Danny has caught this watch at the early stages of going bad.

After the first warranty of my dj and I started to measure a lot this is exactly what I saw. Timing falling off.

I’d bet a fair bit that in another 3-5 months this is showing the dial up full wound amp of 220 or less if left as is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Hey, saw your PM! And sorry, should have clarified: Watchmaker jotted down four numbers on a yellow post-it note; I never got a printout. I'd asked for amplitude and beat error specifically. What it had was:

-5, 0.2, 241, delta 5

-5 was timekeeping (service rep told me this specifically), presumably 0.2 was beat error and 241 the amplitude. Doing some searching online, I see that delta is the maximum difference in timekeeping across different positions. So it does appear that these numbers are some sort of average across multiple positions.

Danny this is what I saw on my dj after it’s first trip to rsc for the timing /amp issue.

The timegrapher showed corresponding decline in amp over this period of constant measurement.

Wait another month or two and see if the trajectory is similar. I’m going to bet it is but of course we can’t be sure until the results come in.



And this was my YM. I sold it as soon as that last reading came up and my timegrapher confirmed the amp drop.



My tt sub did this too…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

I would NOT bet against that Danny's 3230 has already or will develop an issue; but I would certainly buy a timegrapher to check from time to time.
Timekeeping runs with a smartphone app are 'funny' but less clear and don't provide any information about amplitude values and changes over time.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I would NOT bet against that Danny's 3230 has already or will develop an issue; but I would certainly buy a timegrapher to check from time to time.
Timekeeping runs with a smartphone app are 'funny' but less clear and don't provide any information about amplitude values and changes over time.

But they do provide a valid tracking of timekeeping and are a useful reference especially when wear patterns are consistent. It is the first sign of something being up that should trigger further investigation which is how Danny turned up here… I see this as the first symptom of the issue of this movement.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

This 124270 (3230) from May 2021 may only need a regulation.

That might be true, if the watch had always been at -5. But it was a very abrupt drop, which tells me there's more at play.

Originally Posted by amanbra

But they do provide a valid tracking of timekeeping and are a useful reference especially when wear patterns are consistent. It is the first sign of something being up that should trigger further investigation which is how Danny turned up here… I see this as the first symptom of the issue of this movement.

I tend to agree, at least for those who are looking out for a first problem. Had timekeeping been consistent and consistently good, as it was previously, I wouldn't have had cause to check amplitude, and probably wouldn't have been too concerned if it was a bit low (but still in spec). In this case, and at this stage, the low amplitude is a piece of supporting evidence that things are heading in the wrong direction, rather than a problem in and of itself.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by dannyp

That might be true, if the watch had always been at -5. But it was a very abrupt drop, which tells me there's more at play.

I agree with you and see your reluctance to buy and use a timegrapher, perhaps it is too difficult. I will not argue with you further, you know it better. A structured analysis, a few TG numbers, or a simple graph say more than 1000+ words

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

I tend to agree, at least for those who are looking out for a first problem. Had timekeeping been consistent and consistently good, as it was previously, I wouldn't have had cause to check amplitude, and probably wouldn't have been too concerned if it was a bit low (but still in spec). In this case, and at this stage, the low amplitude is a piece of supporting evidence that things are heading in the wrong direction, rather than a problem in and of itself.

The low amplitude is symptomatic of the problem.
Without opening up the watch(an invasive process) the simple act of recording of low enough amplitude is reason enough to trigger corrective action.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Dirt

The low amplitude is symptomatic of the problem.
Without opening up the watch(an invasive process) the simple act of recording of low enough amplitude is reason enough to trigger corrective action.

True. My point was that I wouldn't have had cause to check amplitude if timekeeping were fine, and if I happened to get that 241 reading, that alone (paired with great timekeeping) wouldn't have concerned me too much.

However, it is low enough that, taken with the watch's timekeeping behavior, suggests that the problem is more than one of regulation.

[saxo3]

For the past 5 months, there has been a lot of text chatter within this thread but almost no new data collected or posted for discussion and understanding.

This is a shame as a lot of chat without data is defeating the original purpose of this thread: to collect and discuss new 32xx data.

We seem to be getting nowhere without new data added. Personally, I think 32xx watches from 2020/21 are very interesting to investigate.

CharlesN (some still remember him?) is "absent" for some months, therefore a major source of valuable data is on hold now.

The data collected by Charles and others were useful and all pertaining to the original subject of this thread, which is all about the possible, and now probable, problems that are being seen in the 32xx movements, both older and newer ones.

Data from other movements are often not applicable within this discussion and only fogs the analysis.

After all, many other members were willing and able to not just measure their watch but also to do it under several conditions: various positions (CH, CB, 9H, 6H, 3H), rate and amplitude changes, accuracy and precision measurements along the entire power reserve (about 72 hours), number of windings to obtain maximum caliber amplitude .... all of that in a known, accurate, systematic, and precise way.

This all led to some really interesting, proven, and recorded analysis with the aim to better understand when and possibly why and how some of the problems manifest themselves.

Perhaps, and I can only hope, that one day, sooner rather than later, Charles will re-join this thread and will be back on course providing data.

I should mention that we both have measured the rate temperature dependence of 32xx watches and see a reproducible and rather strong difference between "cold" and "warm", but this seems too much here.

Charles, if you are reading this post please re-join us here, we need more interesting contributions.

[Onequik135i]

I have owned my 126610LN since receiving the phone call April 2021, I will further update this thread by the readings I receive from my Ace Timegrapher. Last I checked several months back it seemed to be spot on, will see.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I should mention that we both have measured the rate temperature dependence of 32xx watches and see a reproducible and rather strong difference between "cold" and "warm", but this seems too much here.

Charles, if you are reading this post please re-join us here, we need more interesting contributions.

Well now, that's some Challenger level stuff right there!! Curious what that data revealed?

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by dannyp

That might be true, if the watch had always been at -5. But it was a very abrupt drop, which tells me there's more at play.



I tend to agree, at least for those who are looking out for a first problem. Had timekeeping been consistent and consistently good, as it was previously, I wouldn't have had cause to check amplitude, and probably wouldn't have been too concerned if it was a bit low (but still in spec). In this case, and at this stage, the low amplitude is a piece of supporting evidence that things are heading in the wrong direction, rather than a problem in and of itself.

I'm not saying you don't have a problem, but if you do it's only in the beginning stages. -5s/day is not terribly off (advanced cases of 32xx flu are losing 5 seconds a minute) and 241 amplitude isn't necessarily a problem. Don't forget, Rolex doesn't spec an amplitude at full wind. They only say that it should be >= 200 degrees 24 hours after full wind (with no wearing/winding obviously). So if you got 241 at full wind, you may very well be at 205 or 210 after 24 hours. My sickly Sub is 190 after 24 hours whereas my DJ41 is at 215. That right there demonstrates the value of a basic timegrapher. Both watches have excellent timekeeping at or near full wind. But the timegrapher lets me see into the future to know that the Sub is slowly sinking to its death...

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Well, if there’s one thing you fellas have convinced me of it’s to never buy a timeographer. Without one I am perfectly happy with the performance of my watches because I don’t have a machine to tell me when I’m supposed to be upset.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I'm not saying you don't have a problem, but if you do it's only in the beginning stages. -5s/day is not terribly off (advanced cases of 32xx flu are losing 5 seconds a minute) and 241 amplitude isn't necessarily a problem. Don't forget, Rolex doesn't spec an amplitude at full wind. They only say that it should be >= 200 degrees 24 hours after full wind (with no wearing/winding obviously). So if you got 241 at full wind, you may very well be at 205 or 210 after 24 hours. My sickly Sub is 190 after 24 hours whereas my DJ41 is at 215. That right there demonstrates the value of a basic timegrapher. Both watches have excellent timekeeping at or near full wind. But the timegrapher lets me see into the future to know that the Sub is slowly sinking to its death...

I just sent mine in. I figure that it’s best to get it looked at with early symptoms, vs advanced. No one factor alone would have caused me to send for service now, but the sudden change in behavior, with the watch’s age, and the hint that amp might be off all together suggested a problem developing.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by dannyp

I just sent mine in. I figure that it’s best to get it looked at with early symptoms, vs advanced. No one factor alone would have caused me to send for service now, but the sudden change in behavior, with the watch’s age, and the hint that amp might be off all together suggested a problem developing.

I did the opposite. I left the sick watch running in the hopes the problematic part got worn out and then replaced.

And yes I’m incredibly sure you’re at the early stages of this but I had 8 32xx watches and during a phase measured a lot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Onequik135i

I have owned my 126610LN since receiving the phone call April 2021, I will further update this thread by the readings I receive from my Ace Timegrapher. Last I checked several months back it seemed to be spot on, will see.

I hope you measure shows that it’s all fine and then you stop. It really takes away from the owning experience to constantly worry about this.

It would be really good to know there are some good 32xx out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by amanbra

I did the opposite. I left the sick watch running in the hopes the problematic part got worn out and then replaced.

And yes I’m incredibly sure you’re at the early stages of this but I had 8 32xx watches and during a phase measured a lot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I felt it important to get this looked at early for two reasons:

1. I should document this early and have it looked at. When it comes to warranty service, I have to believe that a watch failing in 10 months will raise more eyebrows than one stopping after four years.

2. If I decide I'm just never going to enjoy this one, better to part ways with it having only ten months of wear than several years worth of scratches, dings, etc.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by saxo3

For the past 5 months, there has been a lot of text chatter within this thread but almost no new data collected or posted for discussion and understanding.

This is a shame as a lot of chat without data is defeating the original purpose of this thread: to collect and discuss new 32xx data.

We seem to be getting nowhere without new data added. Personally, I think 32xx watches from 2020/21 are very interesting to investigate.

CharlesN (some still remember him?) is "absent" for some months, therefore a major source of valuable data is on hold now.

The data collected by Charles and others were useful and all pertaining to the original subject of this thread, which is all about the possible, and now probable, problems that are being seen in the 32xx movements, both older and newer ones.

Data from other movements are often not applicable within this discussion and only fogs the analysis.

After all, many other members were willing and able to not just measure their watch but also to do it under several conditions: various positions (CH, CB, 9H, 6H, 3H), rate and amplitude changes, accuracy and precision measurements along the entire power reserve (about 72 hours), number of windings to obtain maximum caliber amplitude .... all of that in a known, accurate, systematic, and precise way.

This all led to some really interesting, proven, and recorded analysis with the aim to better understand when and possibly why and how some of the problems manifest themselves.

Perhaps, and I can only hope, that one day, sooner rather than later, Charles will re-join this thread and will be back on course providing data.

I should mention that we both have measured the rate temperature dependence of 32xx watches and see a reproducible and rather strong difference between "cold" and "warm", but this seems too much here.

Charles, if you are reading this post please re-join us here, we need more interesting contributions.

This is still a spot where people come and see data and talk about the issue.

From my perspective you complete overanalyse the issue. The thread has demonstrated what happens multiple times over.

1. Timing changes on the watch.
2. Timegrapher shows amp dropping below spec.
3. The really bad ones can hold amp over 210 at full wind dial up.
4. Unlike a healthy movement as the pr drops the movement slows down further.
5. There is no known fix yet.
6. No one that actively contributes here is a watchmaker and therefore we can't go much further with this.

You’ve been hinting at knowing temp data for awhile but never share anything. You act like a person that is better than everyone but for me you’re just a person completely fixated on data for the sake of data.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by dannyp

I felt it important to get this looked at early for two reasons:

1. I should document this early and have it looked at. When it comes to warranty service, I have to believe that a watch failing in 10 months will raise more eyebrows than one stopping after four years.

2. If I decide I'm just never going to enjoy this one, better to part ways with it having only ten months of wear than several years worth of scratches, dings, etc.

Fair points. I see that logic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by amanbra

I hope you measure shows that it’s all fine and then you stop. It really takes away from the owning experience to constantly worry about this.

It would be really good to know there are some good 32xx out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would venture a guess that most are fine. A 10% failure rate would mean 50k+ watches going bad every year. That would have made more chatter than these forums. There's also a distinct possibility that some will be impacted such that they run out of spec, but never to the point that the average person would notice.

Originally Posted by amanbra

You’ve been hinting at knowing temp data for awhile but never share anything. You act like a person that is better than everyone but for me you’re just a person completely fixated on data for the sake of data.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hadn't seen mention of the temperature data before today. If that's the case, I wonder whether some part/material that was different in previous movements has a tendency to expand/contract based on temperature.

That would also explain a scenario where the problem seems to magically vanish without any "changes" being made: the material (whether a part or lubrication) is changed and just the new one is supplied to service centers.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by dannyp

I would venture a guess that most are fine. A 10% failure rate would mean 50k+ watches going bad every year. That would have made more chatter than these forums. There's also a distinct possibility that some will be impacted such that they run out of spec, but never to the point that the average person would notice.

I don't know if most are fine I've had a 50% hit rate with the issues and i'm reasonably sure another will be an issue in the next year. Now i'm not suggesting the true rate is 50% but for my sample size that's where it's at.

I think a lot of people don't notice because they:
1. don't actually wear the watch,
2. don't even set the time when wearing it
3. not use it for timing keeping anyway
4. only wear in rotation so they dont' keep it running long enough continuously to notice.

a few of us here love this part of the hobby but lets face reality a lot of people buying these watches aren't in it for the love of watches.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by amanbra

I don't know if most are fine I've had a 50% hit rate with the issues and i'm reasonably sure another will be an issue in the next year. Now i'm not suggesting the true rate is 50% but for my sample size that's where it's at.

I think a lot of people don't notice because they:
1. don't actually wear the watch,
2. don't even set the time when wearing it
3. not use it for timing keeping anyway
4. only wear in rotation so they dont' keep it running long enough continuously to notice.

a few of us here love this part of the hobby but lets face reality a lot of people buying these watches aren't in it for the love of watches.

Probably right
But they have a Rolex

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

I would venture a guess that most are fine. A 10% failure rate would mean 50k+ watches going bad every year. That would have made more chatter than these forums. There's also a distinct possibility that some will be impacted such that they run out of spec, but never to the point that the average person would notice.




I hadn't seen mention of the temperature data before today. If that's the case, I wonder whether some part/material that was different in previous movements has a tendency to expand/contract based on temperature.

That would also explain a scenario where the problem seems to magically vanish without any "changes" being made: the material (whether a part or lubrication) is changed and just the new one is supplied to service centers.

Temp does indeed play a roll.
It's part of the suite of parameters that comprise COSC certification with 3 different temps which come into play.
Interestingly, and I don't have a clue as to why
But one of my all time best timekeepers used to lose a little time whenever I flew.
Is it an altitude thing?
Just the other day I ran across the manual for the movement which I have in a GS and the manual outright states the a diagram and everything that timekeeping slows when temps are higher and speeds up when colder. This is to be fully expected as the Balance expands and contracts with temp variations.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Temp does indeed play a roll.
It's part of the suite of parameters that comprise COSC certification with 3 different temps which come into play.
Interestingly, and I don't have a clue as to why
But one of my all time best timekeepers used to lose a little time whenever I flew.
Is it an altitude thing?
Just the other day I ran across the manual for the movement which I have in a GS and the manual outright states the a diagram and everything that timekeeping slows when temps are higher and speeds up when colder. This is to be fully expected as the Balance expands and contracts with temp variations.

Yep this makes a tonne of sense as the spring will be “tighter/stiffer” when cold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk