32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by Tommy125

For those who bought the 3235 watches before they increased the ball bearing numbers, will they update it during a warranty service?

Rolex will NOT let anyone know what they do during a warranty repair or a fully paid for repair.

Rolex seem to be a power unto themselves and just plain and simply do not divulge what the do.

Their attitude seems to be take it that way or leave it ... They don't care what you think. They are a big enough company to not need to care.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Tommy125

For those who bought the 3235 watches before they increased the ball bearing numbers, will they update it during a warranty service?

My guess is no, unless 1) the rotor unit is damaged or 2) this is "the" fix and becomes routine (like the 3186 fix). My understanding is that the rotor unit isn't disassembled during service and is replaced if needed, and left alone otherwise. So it's not just a matter of adding additional ballbearings. Again, my understanding about how that portion of the movement is treated.

[Moretti]

I was posting here a while ago, so just quick update.

DJ 41, bought September 2019, was running spot on for the first half a year. Gradually went south and last month I tested it against atomic clock and was doing -15 spd. Sent it in to RSC, received back after a week (???) and it was doing -25 spd (???). Of course no feedback whatsoever what has been done. Anyway, I sent it again, asking for a full service of the movement (btw the ball bearing was really noisy here so I will let you know if I can hear a difference once I get my watch back).

GMT Master 2, bought Dec 2020, initially was doing -0,5 spd, after half a year went to 0, now it's doing +1 spd, I haven't changed my lifestyle in any significant manner, so this is actually quite interesting. I will be observing this watch, how it behaves. The ball bearing is significantly more quiet in this one.

In the meantime I bought a Sub date end of May this year. So far it's to early to tell anything reasonable about timekeeping, apart from the fact that it's losing around 0,5 spd, ball bearing is quiet.

[gwozhog]

Maybe a new thread should be started called The Bad 7Ball Club

[saxo3]

For whatever my measurements, data, explanations, and opinions are worth in this long 32xx data thread, in my view there are (unfortunately) by far too much 32xx speculations, as we see in this and also other threads.

I certainly do understand that people are interested what exactly the 32xx issues are, e.g., to search and find out which components are affected, what must be changed, if 32xx upgrades are upcoming or already applied, if parts numbers will be changed ….

I also acknowledge that understanding details of mechanical watches is part of the hobby. But how does that help me? Not much. Honestly, I do not research for the sources of the 32xx issues. Even if I would know all movement problems and things Rolex SA has tested, upgraded, exchanged until now…. what would it change for me? NOTHING. I only want a 32xx watch with good timekeeping, all up to consistent +3-5 sec/day (or even better) is fine for me.

There is something new (at least for me), which I have not shared yet in detail on this board.

It is based on my automised 5-postion timegrapher measurements (rates and amplitudes are important) along the entire power reserve plus wearing on my wrist.

The studied watch (Sea-Dweller 126600, caliber 3235) had problems from the very beginning in 2017, was repaired in 2019, and the issue is slowly coming back again, with low amplitudes for all vertical positions.

The 3235 timekeeping on the timegrapher AND on my wrist remains very good for a long time, even at much reduced amplitudes measured after full winding.

This makes it very difficult to identify the issue at an early stage of new ownership and after a repair because the key figure are the caliber amplitudes. This one cannot determine without a timegrapher.

As soon as the movement amplitudes reach (after full winding) the 200 degrees value regime, the loss in timekeeping becomes very prominent and accelerates with time.

For me, that is an important part of the explanation why owners do not realize (for at least many months) that their 32xx watches already have a problem.

One could compare it with a virus inside a human body, it is there and has started to grow in quantity, the host has no pain, until a threshold is reached (too low caliber amplitude) when the pain starts and becomes worse and worse. This analogy may explain why many 32xx watches only declare the issues after several months or a few years.

Dirt claimed here (https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...&postcount=101) that "They're reportedly all good when they're new". This is factually wrong. I have shared data in the long 32xx thread clearly disproving this point:

All the three 3235 and 3285 watches I own had shown a reduced amplitude syndrome from the very beginning. Concretely, my 126710 BLRO (2018) is unworn and completely sick. According to my records it had been fully wound 10 times only and running for about 30 days in total. End 2019 it was running with -19 sec/day (5-position X-value).

In my opinion it would be much more helpful if some members, owning several 32xx watches, would do more measurements, share them, and stop speculating.

Cheers

PS: This post is a copy/paste from a discussion here:
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=867406

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by saxo3

All the three 3235 and 3285 watches I own had shown a reduced amplitude syndrome from the very beginning. Concretely, my 126710 BLRO (2018) is unworn and completely sick. According to my records it had been fully wound 10 times only and running for about 30 days in total. End 2019 it was running with -19 sec/day (5-position X-value).



In my opinion it would be much more helpful if some members, owning several 32xx watches, would do more measurements, share them, and stop speculating.



Cheers



PS: This post is a copy/paste from a discussion here:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=867406

Why don’t you wear your watches? They an investment?



Why don’t you send it your watches for the silent fix you insist Rolex are doing? Then you’ll have your 3-5spd watch and you should be happy.



I think you just really like measuring things.



We established what the key symptoms of the issue are, they are easily detectable.



At this point you’re better off using the immense amount of time you’re spending capturing data over and over again and learning to be a watchmaker.



The data you’re capturing won’t fix the issue, it won’t help anything. You think Rolex will call you in to present your charts to them?

They going to be like “wow thank you for the time series data of the amplitude and timing over all positions in all temperatures between 10 degrees and 30 degrees over the full power reserve. We can now go back and fix the issue”

“We should have done this seven years ago, dammit”

[Aerogph]

Hey all guys,

I'd like to contribute the discussion with my view on the 32xx timekeeping issue. The dataset has been collected on a Rolex Submariner 124060 with 3230 caliber, 2021.

The watch has been worn daily with the first month on rotation with an Omega Master Co-Axial. When worn on full wind the amplitude reached around 270°-275° and daily rate was on average (on wrist) around +0.3 to +0.7 s/d. The daily gain has more or less stayed the same and could compensate the loss or gain with the resting position.

This is one of the recordings on a Witschi:

Dial Up +0 s/d
Dial Down +0.2 s/d
Crown Up +0.1 s/d
Crown Down -0.0 s/d
Crown Right - 0.0 s/d
-----------------
D +0.2
X +0.6 270°

Amplitude more or less stayed the same but the timekeeping has gradually changed over the year, moving from the + side to the minus. There wasn't an option in the poll like that.

Now it loses in every position but the amplitude is still on the 270-280°. I have personally seen a few 32xx with amplitude going below the 250° on dial up and then developing the issue shortly after. Just my 2 cents

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Aerogph

Now it loses in every position but the amplitude is still on the 270-280°. I have personally seen a few 32xx with amplitude going below the 250° on dial up and then developing the issue shortly after. Just my 2 cents

Welcome

I totally agree with this observation, once I notice my phone app show the timing go slow I check this and bingo below 250 dial up. And yes it gets worse over time from there.

[thesingularity7]

I got an OP41 new from an AD two weeks ago. I've had it on WatchTracker for the last 15 days with an average of -4.3spd. Adding this here just for record keeping.

Put it on a timegrapher yesterday and here are the readings:
Dial Up: -4spd, 271, 0.0ms, 52.0
Dial Down: -1spd, 263, 0.0ms, 52.0
Crown Up: -4spd, 229, 0.0ms, 52.0
Crown Down: -5spd, 237, 0.3ms, 52.0
12 Up: -5spd, 235, 0.0ms, 52.0
6 Up: -3spd, 234, 0.2ms, 52.0

Average: -3.6spd across these 6 positions.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by thesingularity7

I got an OP41 new from an AD two weeks ago. I've had it on WatchTracker for the last 15 days with an average of -4.3spd. Adding this here just for record keeping.

Put it on a timegrapher yesterday and here are the readings:
Dial Up: -4spd, 271, 0.0ms, 52.0
Dial Down: -1spd, 263, 0.0ms, 52.0
Crown Up: -4spd, 229, 0.0ms, 52.0
Crown Down: -5spd, 237, 0.3ms, 52.0
12 Up: -5spd, 235, 0.0ms, 52.0
6 Up: -3spd, 234, 0.2ms, 52.0

Average: -3.6spd across these 6 positions.

Congratulations and thanks for your interesting contribution and data.

I have a few comments:

(1) The lift angle for 32xx movements is 53 degrees, not 52. A change of your timegrapher settings will increase the amplitude values by about 6 degrees but will not impact on the rates.

(2) I assume that you did a full winding of the caliber before you took the data?

(3) Rolex calibers are regulated in 5 (not 6) positions and 12U position is normally not measured.

(4) Maybe the caliber can be regulated in the future, but I would not touch it now and observe timekeeping during the coming weeks/months.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Aerogph

Hey all guys,

I'd like to contribute the discussion with my view on the 32xx timekeeping issue. The dataset has been collected on a Rolex Submariner 124060 with 3230 caliber, 2021.

The watch has been worn daily with the first month on rotation with an Omega Master Co-Axial. When worn on full wind the amplitude reached around 270°-275° and daily rate was on average (on wrist) around +0.3 to +0.7 s/d. The daily gain has more or less stayed the same and could compensate the loss or gain with the resting position.

This is one of the recordings on a Witschi:

Dial Up +0 s/d
Dial Down +0.2 s/d
Crown Up +0.1 s/d
Crown Down -0.0 s/d
Crown Right - 0.0 s/d
-----------------
D +0.2
X +0.6 270°

Amplitude more or less stayed the same but the timekeeping has gradually changed over the year, moving from the + side to the minus. There wasn't an option in the poll like that.

Now it loses in every position but the amplitude is still on the 270-280°. I have personally seen a few 32xx with amplitude going below the 250° on dial up and then developing the issue shortly after. Just my 2 cents

Welcome and thanks for your contribution with 3230 data.

Which timegrapher model you are using?

Can you compare TG rates/amplitudes/beat errors (for all 5 positions) when the watch was new / very good with the present situation? Simply TG screenshots.

Also interesting to see the difference between full winding (t=0) and after 24 hours at rest.

Originally Posted by Aerogph

Amplitude more or less stayed the same but the timekeeping has gradually changed over the year, moving from the + side to the minus.

Now it loses in every position but the amplitude is still on the 270-280°

You have an explanation for the change in timekeeping and how much it is?
270-280° are good 32xx values in H-positions, what are the amplitudes in V-positions?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

(3) Rolex calibers are regulated in 5 (not 6) positions and 12U position is normally not measured.

Quite right
Rolex isn't quite as thorough as Grand Seiko though I doubt the necessity or real world benefit for a wristwatch movement to be measured at the 12U position as it has little effect when worn on the left wrist.
Anyway, that's their prerogative
I suppose i should be more considerate of left handers and their watch wearing habits

[Tommy125]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Quite right
Rolex isn't quite as thorough as Grand Seiko though I doubt the necessity or real world benefit for a wristwatch movement to be measured at the 12U position as it has little effect when worn on the left wrist.
Anyway, that's their prerogative
I suppose i should be more considerate of left handers and their watch wearing habits

I think if I wear on my right it may not be affected also. The 12 up may only be important if you wear your watch on the inside of the wrist.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Quite right
Rolex isn't quite as thorough as Grand Seiko though I doubt the necessity or real world benefit for a wristwatch movement to be measured at the 12U position as it has little effect when worn on the left wrist.
Anyway, that's their prerogative
I suppose i should be more considerate of left handers and their watch wearing habits

12U is not a question of left / right hand, as said by Tommy125.

Blancpain regulates in 6 positions, see photo with engraving.


Source: Blancpain.com

[Andad]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Rolex will NOT let anyone know what they do during a warranty repair or a fully paid for repair.

Rolex seem to be a power unto themselves and just plain and simply do not divulge what the do.

Their attitude seems to be take it that way or leave it ... They don't care what you think. They are a big enough company to not need to care.

Charles,

I’m sure Rolex are working on all the issues they are finding on all areas of their watch making.

To think that they don’t care is bizarre?

They did not become the company that they are by not caring and I’m sure they are aware of all feedback.

We have some very clever members on TRF.

Saxo and the watchmakers here have expertise way above most.

We are not going to fix the issues with the 32xx movements by finding more and more members whose watch movements have these issues.

I think we have established that there is a problem.

Is there a way that the experts on TRF can accept the problem, evaluate these movements, isolate the faults and find a fix.

Would this be a better way forward E?




Eddie.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Andad

Charles,

I’m sure Rolex are working on all the issues they are finding on all areas of their watch making.

To think that they don’t care is bizarre?

They did not become the company that they are by not caring and I’m sure they are aware of all feedback.

We have some very clever members on TRF and Saxo is one whose expertise is way above most.

We are not going to fix the issues with the 32xx movements by finding more and more members whose watch movements have these issues.

I think we have established that there is a problem.

Is there a way that the experts on TRF can accept the problem, evaluate these movements, isolate the faults and find a fix.

Would this be a better way forward E?




Eddie.

Yeah totally agree this is beyond finding and collating more info.

The thing is we have had watchmakers analyse the issue and show us which part is showing the wear issues. Then everything went quiet yet the issues kept appearing.

In the end Rolex are the only ones who will be able to work out what is actually wrong and how to fix it. Like Charles says they are not going to say squat…

Unless a part number all of a sudden updates or a new movement comes out or rsc leak something we are at a dead end. :(.

Anyway for science I have a august ym40. Let’s see how this one goes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tommy125]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Rolex will NOT let anyone know what they do during a warranty repair or a fully paid for repair.

Rolex seem to be a power unto themselves and just plain and simply do not divulge what the do.

Their attitude seems to be take it that way or leave it ... They don't care what you think. They are a big enough company to not need to care.

They may care more than we think.

“I have a long time friend who is a Rolex watchmaker. He still tells me they are still trying to sort things out. With many being returned for warranty work. Around 32% of their sales. Some are addressed the first time in, Some can't seemed to be corrected. My local Rolex AD watchmaker says the same.

Now they are replacing anything they "think" may be related and reporting back to the factory along with the used parts for analysis.

He did say Rolex wants to make it right and are very much involved. So I'm sure things will sort out in the long run.”

Quoted from the post: https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...=869184&page=3

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Andad

Is there a way that the experts on TRF can accept the problem, evaluate these movements, isolate the faults and find a fix.

Would this be a better way forward E?



Eddie.

Accept the problem – done, but many prominent don't.

Evaluate these movements – done, my studies continue.

Isolate the faults – difficult objective, some more points discovered but not all posted.

Find a fix – super difficult objective, close to impossible even with professional equipment and systematic studies.

Other participations – difficult, too much shatter posts and personal stuff in this (e.g. 2766) and several other threads (e.g. "Precision vs accuracy argument is getting a bit ridiculous")

Nominated and contributing TechXperts – by far too little on TRF.

Better way forward E? – Yes.

[Omarion07]

Originally Posted by saxo3

12U is not a question of left / right hand, as said by Tommy125.

Blancpain regulates in 6 positions, see photo with engraving.


Source: Blancpain.com

Saxo3, according to the link attached Rolex regulates in 7 positions for 24 hours.

https://newsroom-content.rolex.com/-...er_english.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Tommy125

They may care more than we think.

“I have a long time friend who is a Rolex watchmaker. He still tells me they are still trying to sort things out. With many being returned for warranty work. Around 32% of their sales. Some are addressed the first time in, Some can't seemed to be corrected. My local Rolex AD watchmaker says the same.

Now they are replacing anything they "think" may be related and reporting back to the factory along with the used parts for analysis.

He did say Rolex wants to make it right and are very much involved. So I'm sure things will sort out in the long run.”

Quoted from the post: https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...=869184&page=3

Wow really this would be the first time anyone has report Rolex quoting a %.

You serious at 32%

How sure are you about this? We have so many questions for you.

32% is insane considering many people don’t even wear Rolexes they buy…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tommy125]

Originally Posted by amanbra

Wow really this would be the first time anyone has report Rolex quoting a %.

You serious at 32%

How sure are you about this? We have so many questions for you.

32% is insane considering many people don’t even wear Rolexes they buy…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not my info I quoted @DJ2020.

He also added in another post, “Most of the ones returned are not really that far off the -2\+2 mark. I have been told they are returned (to the annoyance of the AD) 2 days after purchase claiming that it's running -3 spd. or +4 spd.

Their policy (AD)(mine) is to tell them to wear it for two weeks and don't touch it. Bring it back to them if you feel you have a problem. Most never return. Out of the ones that do and after being ran on a simulator are within spec.

Some that are slow are just not worn with enough activity to wind the mainspring to 50% or more.

Point being, Yes there are alot being returned, But at the same time a good portion that are returned is only a failure of the owner simply not understanding what effects a automatic movement. A $10k and up Rolex does not make a difference in the fundamentals of a automatic movement accuracy.”

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Omarion07

Saxo3, according to the link attached Rolex regulates in 7 positions for 24 hours.



https://newsroom-content.rolex.com/-...er_english.pdf

Omarion, what you say is NOT correct.
Here is the relevant paragraph from the link you quote:

-------------
THE SUPERLATIVE CHRONOMETER CERTIFICATION

For each Rolex watch, the Superlative Chronometer certification comprises checks to guarantee the key areas of performance that may be disrupted during the course of the manufacturing process – precision, power reserve, waterproofness and self-winding.

All tests are conducted after the movement has been cased, to be as faithful as possible to the conditions under which the watch will be worn by its owner. Exclusive testing methodologies are employed, making use of entirely automated high-technology equipment developed by Rolex. Each movement is submitted to COSC (the Swiss Official Chronometer Testing Institute) for its official certification, after 15 days and 15 nights of testing involving seven eliminating criteria in five static positions and at three temperatures. All Rolex movements obtain this official Swiss chronometer certificate.

• PRECISION
After casing the movement (an operation which can affect precision by several seconds per day), Rolex tests the precision of each watch over a 24-hour cycle, in seven static positions as well as in a rotating rack, according to an exclusive methodology that simulates real-life wear. The tolerance criteria are much stricter than for the official certification with regard to the average rate deviation, the daily precision as perceived by the wearer. The deviation for a Rolex Superlative Chronometer must not exceed −2/+2 seconds per day, after casing, versus −4/+6 seconds per day required by COSC for the movement alone.
-------------

Rolex does not REGULATE but measure the PRECISION in 7 static positions. That is completely different.

I do not know what the quoted 7th position could be.

Why would Rolex test in only one additional position, i.e., one intermediate angle between the known positions / angles for DU, DD, 9U, 6U, 3U?

Is the "seven" in the text a simple Rolex typo error undiscovered since March 2017?

I wrote that the 32xx movements are REGULATED in 5 positions, which is correct.

One can verify and see it on the 32xx engravings 5 POS. + TEMP.


Rolex caliber 3235


Rolex caliber 3255

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Tommy125

I think if I wear on my right it may not be affected also. The 12 up may only be important if you wear your watch on the inside of the wrist.

You make a most valid point
But on reflection, I think the last time I ever saw someone wearing their watch on the inside of the left wrist was maybe 30 odd years ago, and probably closer to 40 years.
But at my age time flies, so it could've been longer

To that end, I can recall plenty of lefties wearing on the right wrist out in the wild and someone wearing a watch on the inside of the left wrist would've stood out like the proverbial dogs pills.
The volume of these possibilities judging by pics alone on this forum would probably bare witness to this.
I'll admit i tried it myself for about a week around 50 odd years ago because I thought it might have some merit after seeing it on TV or in a movie and gave up on it as the best example of a very bad joke after I realised how weird it looks and is basically unworkable with regard to day to day convenience and comfort.
Anyone who is into it can knock themselves out though Especially if they view it as being extra cool or something

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Omarion, what you say is NOT correct.
Here is the relevant paragraph from the link you quote:

-------------
THE SUPERLATIVE CHRONOMETER CERTIFICATION

For each Rolex watch, the Superlative Chronometer certification comprises checks to guarantee the key areas of performance that may be disrupted during the course of the manufacturing process – precision, power reserve, waterproofness and self-winding.

All tests are conducted after the movement has been cased, to be as faithful as possible to the conditions under which the watch will be worn by its owner. Exclusive testing methodologies are employed, making use of entirely automated high-technology equipment developed by Rolex. Each movement is submitted to COSC (the Swiss Official Chronometer Testing Institute) for its official certification, after 15 days and 15 nights of testing involving seven eliminating criteria in five static positions and at three temperatures. All Rolex movements obtain this official Swiss chronometer certificate.

• PRECISION
After casing the movement (an operation which can affect precision by several seconds per day), Rolex tests the precision of each watch over a 24-hour cycle, in seven static positions as well as in a rotating rack, according to an exclusive methodology that simulates real-life wear. The tolerance criteria are much stricter than for the official certification with regard to the average rate deviation, the daily precision as perceived by the wearer. The deviation for a Rolex Superlative Chronometer must not exceed −2/+2 seconds per day, after casing, versus −4/+6 seconds per day required by COSC for the movement alone.
-------------

Rolex does not REGULATE but measure the PRECISION in 7 static positions. That is completely different.

I do not know what the quoted 7th position could be.

Why would Rolex test in only one additional position, i.e., one intermediate angle between the known positions / angles for DU, DD, 9U, 6U, 3U?

Is the "seven" in the text a simple Rolex typo error undiscovered since March 2017?

I wrote that the 32xx movements are REGULATED in 5 positions, which is correct.

One can verify and see it on the 32xx engravings 5 POS. + TEMP.


Rolex caliber 3235


Rolex caliber 3255

From what we read of a potential 7th position, then it is not a fixed position as in the classic sense but it's actually dynamically put into motion through a sequence.
I never heard of it though, even if it is novel

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

12U is not a question of left / right hand, as said by Tommy125.

Blancpain regulates in 6 positions, see photo with engraving.


Source: Blancpain.com

Voila
Another prime example of how good this forum can be
Thanks for the heads up on Blancpain.

[DJ2020]

Once upon a time, Elgin B.W. Raymond pocket watch movement were listed as
DU, DD, C12, C3, C6, C9, temperature and Isochronism (8) positions.

Grand Seiko is also tested to 6 positions plus temperature.

[Nanasaka90]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Accept the problem – done, but many prominent don't.

Evaluate these movements – done, my studies continue.

Isolate the faults – difficult objective, some more points discovered but not all posted.

Find a fix – super difficult objective, close to impossible even with professional equipment and systematic studies.

Other participations – difficult, too much shatter posts and personal stuff in this (e.g. 2766) and several other threads (e.g. "Precision vs accuracy argument is getting a bit ridiculous")

Nominated and contributing TechXperts – by far too little on TRF.

Better way forward E? – Yes.

Hi, can you kindly explain why finding a fix would be a close to impossible? Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Nanasaka90

Hi, can you kindly explain why finding a fix would be a close to impossible? Thanks

Avec Plaisir ;-)

Andad (aka Eddie) asked the following question, which I answered point by point:

"Is there a way that the experts on TRF can accept the problem, evaluate these movements, isolate the faults and find a fix."

I am convinced that no expert on TRF can find a fix but only Rolex SA.

[DJ2020]

If I had a guess (and this is purely speculation) I would say problems started occurring 2019 thru late 2021 (movement production years) When employes were put in roles to fill in during covid issues.

First thought to be related to a lubrication issue. But lubrication did not seem to remedy the problem long term. Clearance issues were being explored between components with different results.

Keep in mind that a lot of watches were not put into service right away. Some has set for a couple years in safes (investors) and are just now coming to light.

Now we have the seemingly bad odor from problem threads being posted as owners are concerned and checking their timekeeping.

I believe Rolex has the arduous task of weeding out issues of simple regulation versus real problems with the movement. Then determining if it is a assembly, manufacturing or design issues for each questionable component. Then determine a correction to be taken. Early models did not seem to have any issues other than regulation from consumers who demanded the +2/-2 be adhered to.

This takes time. I'm certain any company who has been faced with this type of problem wants desperately to get to the bottom of it. The cost of scraping a movement is just to high and well as developing a new one.

In time I am confident it will be rectified but in a smooth quiet way. The "brand" is what sells Rolex. No problem will be officially admitted even after it's resolved to preserve the name and propitiate the illusion Rolex has masterfully created.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Tommy125

Not my info I quoted @DJ2020.

He also added in another post, “Most of the ones returned are not really that far off the -2\+2 mark. I have been told they are returned (to the annoyance of the AD) 2 days after purchase claiming that it's running -3 spd. or +4 spd.

Their policy (AD)(mine) is to tell them to wear it for two weeks and don't touch it. Bring it back to them if you feel you have a problem. Most never return. Out of the ones that do and after being ran on a simulator are within spec.

Some that are slow are just not worn with enough activity to wind the mainspring to 50% or more.

Point being, Yes there are alot being returned, But at the same time a good portion that are returned is only a failure of the owner simply not understanding what effects a automatic movement. A $10k and up Rolex does not make a difference in the fundamentals of a automatic movement accuracy.”

ah right thanks for the clarification...