32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Rooibard]

So easiest fix for Rolex is to use Tudor movements in their watches , every Tudor I own is more accurate than all my Rolexes . Tudor is no longer the poor man’s Rolex but rather the smart man’s Rolex . My mate Steve in the uk and I both own tudors that run absolutely dead on , no deviation for months , my other 2 tudors run -2s/d . My bb pro also has no date issue so that seems to be sorted . Maybe Tudor should send some of their technicians across the road to help Rolex .

[JC316]

Originally Posted by Rooibard

So easiest fix for Rolex is to use Tudor movements in their watches , every Tudor I own is more accurate than all my Rolexes . Tudor is no longer the poor man’s Rolex but rather the smart man’s Rolex . My mate Steve in the uk and I both own tudors that run absolutely dead on , no deviation for months , my other 2 tudors run -2s/d . My bb pro also has no date issue so that seems to be sorted . Maybe Tudor should send some of their technicians across the road to help Rolex .

Hey! You need at least 1000 posts before you can make comments like this!

1st post BOOM!

[Rooibard]

I have read all 3000+ posts and have owned 4 Rolexes and 3 tudors , have been working on watch movements for 15 years so know a thing or two about watch mechanicals and servicing . I love Rolex watches but they have got themselves into a bit of a pickle here .

[Omarion07]

Originally Posted by Rooibard

I have read all 3000+ posts and have owned 4 Rolexes and 3 tudors , have been working on watch movements for 15 years so know a thing or two about watch mechanicals and servicing . I love Rolex watches but they have got themselves into a bit of a pickle here .

Not going to happen pal. Rolex will never use a movement shared by 4 other manufacturers. The time of sharing parts with it’s “more affordable” sister has long passed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Rooibard

So easiest fix for Rolex is to use Tudor movements in their watches , every Tudor I own is more accurate than all my Rolexes . Tudor is no longer the poor man’s Rolex but rather the smart man’s Rolex . My mate Steve in the uk and I both own tudors that run absolutely dead on , no deviation for months , my other 2 tudors run -2s/d . My bb pro also has no date issue so that seems to be sorted . Maybe Tudor should send some of their technicians across the road to help Rolex .

Oddly enough, I was just reading about the new Ranger in another forum, and several posters are having issues with the movement failing, giving other potential new buyers pause.

Plus, Rolex would never use a non-manufacture movement (Kinessi movement used by a few companies,) and it’s also sort of disposable, in that RSC doesn’t fix those movements. At service time, they simply swap them out with remanufactured movements on hand.

[Rooibard]

Let’s hope they spend less time trying to silence all the RSC staff and more time trying to find a solution , before our 32xx Rolex prices tank and and our so called investment pieces become worthless . We all have a lot to lose here especially the guys that spent 2or3 times retail on their Rolexes .

[CedCraig]

I know it won‘t make any difference, but I sent it anyway.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

it won‘t make any difference

I just wonder how many seconds it will take for the clerk at Rolex to place the letter in the permanant filing tray (Aka .. The bin).

Rolex wont take any notice at all.

They know they have a problemm.
Rolex clearly are not going to do a recall of watches with the problem as that would be technically impossible I think apart from the cost.

If (and its a BIG "IF") the ever get a fix they will very slowly and silently roll it out and do what is needed when a watch goes in for a service.

They will not say it has been done .. And they will only do it when a watch is in for a chargeable service to reduce their costs.

All of that is not exactly honourable but just look how they have behaved so far for an example.

There are problems with the 32xx movements .. That has now been proven beyond a doubt, Possibly the root causes of the problems, or at least some of them, have been found by research done by individuals who have no connection to Rolex other that being Rilex warch owners, and Still Rolex say and do nothing.

[CedCraig]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

I just wonder how many seconds it will take for the clerk at Rolex to place the letter in the permanant filing tray (Aka .. The bin.

I estimate it will take about 15 seconds to slice open the letter, pull it out, glance at it ever so briefly, then toss it in the recycling bin. 😂. After all I did use high quality Crane stationery, so that might justify that ever so brief glance.

JayBlack: If there‘s a model you like and you can get it at retail, go ahead. I just got a 2022 Air-King. I figure if it develops the problem during the warranty period I can send it in for repair and then sell it. If it runs well for 5 years I probably won‘t have to worry about the issue.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

I estimate it will take about 15 seconds to slice open the letter, pull it out, glance at it ever so briefly, then toss it in the recycling bin. 😂. After all I did use high quality Crane stationery, so that might justify that ever so brief glance.

[JayBlack]

so no solution to this day ? so what to do with the 32xx movements? avoid or ?

[fmc000]

Originally Posted by JayBlack

so no solution to this day ? so what to do with the 32xx movements? avoid or ?

The "or" was unnecessary.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by fmc000

The "or" was unnecessary.

The "?" too.

[Rooibard]

Buy a Tudor it’s the only reliable Rolex at the moment

[LNGSD43]

For anyone looking for long term after warranty fix, my SD43 was running -3sec/day out of the box in august 2019. I broke at -12 and sent it off August 2020. I’m at the two year mark now and still running better than anything I’ve ever owned. I don’t have any fancy time grapher details but it’s running perfect. I wear the watch 7 days a week and in harsh environments ( I work at Sea). Incidentally, since the repair there is ZERO rotor noise. It’s quieter than my 3135 watch. The noise was quite audible when I got the watch.

[SearChart]

So far only slight changes (reversing wheel clicks, rotor ballbearing/engraving, mainspring barrel finishing) and nothing to do with the fix.
3230 come in very very infrequently compared to others with this issue.

And of course, no communication from HQ to anyone else, just follow warranty repair protocol.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by SearChart

So far only slight changes (reversing wheel clicks, rotor ballbearing/engraving, mainspring barrel finishing) and nothing to do with the fix.
3230 come in very very infrequently compared to others with this issue.

And of course, no communication from HQ to anyone else, just follow warranty repair protocol.

Hi Bas, nice to see you here.

There has been rampant speculation that you were sequestered by ROLEX for spilling the beans here on TRF

Hope you are well my friend

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Hi Bas, nice to see you here.

There has been rampant speculation that you were sequestered by ROLEX for spilling the beans here on TRF

Hope you are well my friend

Yes, they kidnapped me and told me stay away from you guys!

[LNGSD43]

Mine’s at two years since warranty service now. I’m hoping whatever was done has permanently solved the issue. So far so good.

[fmc000]

Originally Posted by LNGSD43

Mine’s at two years since warranty service now. I’m hoping whatever was done has permanently solved the issue. So far so good.

Well, just read three posts above yours...

[Omarion07]

Originally Posted by SearChart

So far only slight changes (reversing wheel clicks, rotor ballbearing/engraving, mainspring barrel finishing) and nothing to do with the fix.
3230 come in very very infrequently compared to others with this issue.

And of course, no communication from HQ to anyone else, just follow warranty repair protocol.

Bas have you received any 2022 models for 32XX problems repair? Just want to get an indication if the issue is still on going


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by Omarion07

Bas have you received any 2022 models for 32XX problems repair? Just want to get an indication if the issue is still on going


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I did a DJ36 with 3235 from June this year just last week. But the problem is that we don't know exactly when that watch was produced, we can only see when the warranty card was activated.

But the other 4 I did were all close to 5 years old, 3 DJ41 and a SD43.


Worst thing is that not all have the wear on the pivot, many don't even show signs of internal wear & tear yet won't reach 180 degrees of amplitude fully wound... I wish I could pinpoint the issue, but I'm stumped, it just doesn't make sense why they run so badly and some are not affected at all.

[CedCraig]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Worst thing is that not all have the wear on the pivot, many don't even show signs of internal wear & tear yet won't reach 180 degrees of amplitude fully wound... I wish I could pinpoint the issue, but I'm stumped, it just doesn't make sense why they run so badly and some are not affected at all.

This is bad news. If the real problem has not been specifically identified, or cannot be, then Rolex can‘t come up with a solution.

So we‘re left with an old movie quote „You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?'“

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by SearChart

So far only slight changes (reversing wheel clicks, rotor ballbearing/engraving, mainspring barrel finishing) and nothing to do with the fix.
3230 come in very very infrequently compared to others with this issue.

And of course, no communication from HQ to anyone else, just follow warranty repair protocol.

When you refer to the clicks and ballbearings, are you referring to the former now being ceramic and the latter's increase in numbers (shown about 10-15 pages back in this thread)?

Even if done in complete secrecy (internal, even), any chance that either could have any impact on the issue, even if indirect in appearance?

Originally Posted by SearChart

Yes, I did a DJ36 with 3235 from June this year just last week. But the problem is that we don't know exactly when that watch was produced, we can only see when the warranty card was activated.

But the other 4 I did were all close to 5 years old, 3 DJ41 and a SD43.


Worst thing is that not all have the wear on the pivot, many don't even show signs of internal wear & tear yet won't reach 180 degrees of amplitude fully wound... I wish I could pinpoint the issue, but I'm stumped, it just doesn't make sense why they run so badly and some are not affected at all.

So, I guess a follow-up on my question above: Did the 2022-stamped DJ have the click/ballbearing updates?

Your observation would also suggest that the worn pivot is but an indirect symptom, rather than pivot friction in any way being the cause.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by dannyp

When you refer to the clicks and ballbearings, are you referring to the former now being ceramic and the latter's increase in numbers (shown about 10-15 pages back in this thread)?

Yes, the reversing wheel clicks are now ceramic and the rotor has more ball bearings

Even if done in complete secrecy (internal, even), any chance that either could have any impact on the issue, even if indirect in appearance?

No these two changes only affect the automatic module's efficiency and longevity

So, I guess a follow-up on my question above: Did the 2022-stamped DJ have the click/ballbearing updates?

It was an earlier one from 2022 and didn't have either of the updated parts yet


Your observation would also suggest that the worn pivot is but an indirect symptom, rather than pivot friction in any way being the cause.

It definitely badly affects a movement when that pivot is wearing down and the oil gets gummed up with metal shavings.
But there's definitely more going on.
The date wheel stud is also prone to wear and complete loss of lubrication in a short time.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Worst thing is that not all have the wear on the pivot, many don't even show signs of internal wear & tear yet won't reach 180 degrees of amplitude fully wound... I wish I could pinpoint the issue, but I'm stumped, it just doesn't make sense why they run so badly and some are not affected at all.

We know for sure that we have the following categories of 32xx watches:

1) Ones that run slowly and the amplitude is bad
2) Ones that run within spec, time-wise, but the amplitude is bad
3) Ones that are new or newly serviced and both the timekeeping and amplitude are good.

But my question is, do we have proof that this category exists:

4) Ones that are old (let's say 3 years or more), never serviced, but amplitude is still good

For example, have you had any customers bring in a never-serviced 32xx which is 3 years older or more for something like a bracelet sizing or a cosmetic touch-up and then you checked the amplitude just out of curiosity?

I am really starting to wonder if it is even possible to have a 32xx which keeps a strong amplitude for many years. Many people don't check their timekeeping enough to know if there is a problem. Even fewer have a way to check amplitude. And the 32xx continues to keep pretty good time even when the amplitude becomes very weak. So those elements all combine to produce the possibility of many, many problem watches going undiagnosed.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by hiboost

i am really starting to wonder if it is even possible to have a 32xx which keeps a strong amplitude for many years. Many people don't check their timekeeping enough to know if there is a problem. Even fewer have a way to check amplitude. And the 32xx continues to keep pretty good time even when the amplitude becomes very weak. So those elements all combine to produce the possibility of many, many problem watches going undiagnosed.

+1

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Yes, I did a DJ36 with 3235 from June this year just last week. But the problem is that we don't know exactly when that watch was produced, we can only see when the warranty card was activated.

But the other 4 I did were all close to 5 years old, 3 DJ41 and a SD43.


Worst thing is that not all have the wear on the pivot, many don't even show signs of internal wear & tear yet won't reach 180 degrees of amplitude fully wound... I wish I could pinpoint the issue, but I'm stumped, it just doesn't make sense why they run so badly and some are not affected at all.

Ok, I was reminded of two things I meant to ask back when you made this post (you know, a whole week ago...). I'd had two hypotheses about contributing factors during your absence, I was told both were stupid, and while I'm willing to believe that, nobody could explain to me why in terms I understood... Was hoping to ask you:

1. Magnetism. Had a watchmaker (Rolex AD/plaque service center) tell me that minor components of modern Rolex movements are still subject to magnetism, but that it could result in a slight slowdown (rather than the dramatic speed increase of older movements). This made me wonder if magnetized small components were creating unanticipated friction in areas with very tight tolerances for such and leading to issues? Essentially, something getting pulled ever so slightly out of alignment (where perhaps a greater tolerance existed on older movements)?

2. Same caliber, different hand lengths/weights. Historically, I don't recall Rolex using the exact same caliber on watches with such large dial diameter differences (and therefore hand lengths, and therefore hand weights). I know that it was always versions of the same calibers, but assumed that each variant was calibrated specifically to the amount of force needed to move the hands. If calibration is the same for all 32xx, but the lengths/weights of the hands aren't, I'd wondered if this could at least have something to do with the worn pivots?

Again, probably stupid, but never quite understood why...

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

2. Same caliber, different hand lengths/weights. Historically, I don't recall Rolex using the exact same caliber on watches with such large dial diameter differences (and therefore hand lengths, and therefore hand weights). I know that it was always versions of the same calibers, but assumed that each variant was calibrated specifically to the amount of force needed to move the hands. If calibration is the same for all 32xx, but the lengths/weights of the hands aren't, I'd wondered if this could at least have something to do with the worn pivots?

Again, probably stupid, but never quite understood why...

I don't think this is necessarily stupid, but in my theory it potentially plays a part in concert with a number of factors.

I have found that in cases like this, it's often a combination of factors that have knock on effects and compound to create a bad outcome.
Each factor in of itself may not necessarily be problematic and viewed as inconsequential in isolation but when working in unison cause problems.

Magnetism is a fairly remote possibility all things considered unless there is historical evidence to suggest that near on 25% of watches that present with a problem are magnetised to some degree
In all my years, I have only ever magnetised one watch and that was from moving rather large loud speakers when doing a spring clean.
The watch was freshly serviced 2 weeks prior and running to perfection. After that day of spring cleaning it was off the scale running fast but RSC de-magged it FOC and confirmed it was magnetised. Afterward, it was back to being perfect

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Ok, I was reminded of two things I meant to ask back when you made this post (you know, a whole week ago...). I'd had two hypotheses about contributing factors during your absence, I was told both were stupid, and while I'm willing to believe that, nobody could explain to me why in terms I understood... Was hoping to ask you:

1. Magnetism. Had a watchmaker (Rolex AD/plaque service center) tell me that minor components of modern Rolex movements are still subject to magnetism, but that it could result in a slight slowdown (rather than the dramatic speed increase of older movements). This made me wonder if magnetized small components were creating unanticipated friction in areas with very tight tolerances for such and leading to issues? Essentially, something getting pulled ever so slightly out of alignment (where perhaps a greater tolerance existed on older movements)?

2. Same caliber, different hand lengths/weights. Historically, I don't recall Rolex using the exact same caliber on watches with such large dial diameter differences (and therefore hand lengths, and therefore hand weights). I know that it was always versions of the same calibers, but assumed that each variant was calibrated specifically to the amount of force needed to move the hands. If calibration is the same for all 32xx, but the lengths/weights of the hands aren't, I'd wondered if this could at least have something to do with the worn pivots?

Again, probably stupid, but never quite understood why...

No stupid questions at all.

A movement contains a lot of steel parts that can be magnetised. When you don't demagnetise the movement before disassembly you'll often find that screws and springs will cling to the steek tweezers, larger objects like gears (of which the pivots and pinions are steel) are too heavy and are never magnetised strongly enough to stick.

The biggest problem will always be the hairspring and these parachrom hairsprings just cannot be magnetised, so the effect of magnetism from daily life is negligible.

As for the second question, these forces are negligible too.