Taking a look at the 3235

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Yes, it is common to see gummed up dried oil at the date driving wheel, which can reduce amplitude in severe cases.
There was also a batch of movements that get extreme wear on the barrel arbor, due to a series of barrels (10s of thousands probably) that didn't get lubricated. You'll see black gunk coming out of the barrel.

Thanks

The puzzle is completed (for me).

[RustyW]

Does anyone know a rough date around when the 32xx movement issues may have been updated/fixed by Rolex?

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by RustyW

Does anyone know a rough date around when the 32xx movement issues may have been updated/fixed by Rolex?

If I read the last couple of posts from Bas correctly, it hasn't

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

So what you're saying is that there are, in theory, at least two potential causes of the amplitude drop and that:

1. They have nothing to do with one another.
2. One of them is specific to models with dates.
3. The date-specific one may be a design flaw, the bare lubricant one is a QC issue.

I think the QC angle may be a long stretch of the imagination at this juncture. Especially as the standard proceedure was to lube as part of the warranty repair and some watches were going back a number of times for the same treatment whilst under warranty because of the same issue.
There is some reason why the lube is not staying where it's supposed to be.
As has been mentioned, the lube is migrating at an unprecedented rate in some instances. Whilst lube can be expected to naturally migrate to a degree and it may be expected to migrate even more within a movement that's inactive, it's a normal phenomenon. Watch movements has measures designed into them to mitigate this occurring and some involve application of substances to help retain lube in some instances.
I imagine it's hard to pin down what's going on with these new movements with regard to lubrication, but I suspect that the answer may lie within another realm of manufacturing that Rolex are not fully aware of.
I think more is yet to be revealed before a conclusive result emerges for Rolex and the end user.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Easy E

If I read the last couple of posts from Bas correctly, it hasn't

Rolex will no doubt be trying to work through it.
But something is just beyond their field of understanding.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Dirt

I think the QC angle may be a long stretch of the imagination at this juncture.

I only asked about QC based on Bas' comment about the "batch" of barrels that lacked lubricant. I took that to mean that it was never applied at the factory as it should have been, rather than it migrated elsewhere. The way he worded it made it sound like there was a certain subset where a production step had been bypassed.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by dannyp

I only asked about QC based on Bas' comment about the "batch" of barrels that lacked lubricant. I took that to mean that it was never applied at the factory as it should have been, rather than it migrated elsewhere. The way he worded it made it sound like there was a certain subset where a production step had been bypassed.

This is exactly what I said, definitely a QC issue in the case of the barrel arbor being dry.

A similar thing happened in a large batch of 22×× movements, where one of the great wheel's pivots didn't get lubricated, causing similar amplitude and timekeeping issues and then need a warranty service.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by SearChart

This is exactly what I said, definitely a QC issue in the case of the barrel arbor being dry.

A similar thing happened in a large batch of 22×× movements, where one of the great wheel's pivots didn't get lubricated, causing similar amplitude and timekeeping issues and then need a warranty service.

Out of curiosity, any pattern there in terms of what calibre those showed up in (33/35/55/85) and when?

This could help explain why this seems to happen more in some pieces than others. That there are multiple potential causes of the same outcome (low amplitude, loss of timekeeping) could also help explain why some watches are going back multiple times under warranty.

[Tbenti514]

Hi, I’m curious why on my 126334 datejust 41mm that uses 3235 caliber have ‘chronometer perpetual’ engraved next to the rolex logo in movement. Almost all the 3235 calibers i see do not have this engraving…

[Tbenti514]

Originally Posted by Tbenti514

Hi, I’m curious why on my 126334 datejust 41mm that uses 3235 caliber have ‘chronometer perpetual’ engraved next to the rolex logo in movement. Almost all the 3235 calibers i see do not have this engraving…

Picture showing Chronometer written

https://ibb.co/bLYs8Vd

Any help will help!! Thank you!

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Tbenti514

Picture showing Chronometer written

https://ibb.co/bLYs8Vd

Any help will help!! Thank you!

This has come up in a couple of 32xx threads; basically at some point (late 2021/early 2022) Rolex changed the text on 32xx movements. It's also when additional ballbearings were added to the rotor. Your watch should match the images on Rolex's website (since I can see more ballbearings), whilst the majority of earlier images out there would be of the older variant.

[Tbenti514]

Originally Posted by dannyp

This has come up in a couple of 32xx threads; basically at some point (late 2021/early 2022) Rolex changed the text on 32xx movements. It's also when additional ballbearings were added to the rotor. Your watch should match the images on Rolex's website (since I can see more ballbearings), whilst the majority of earlier images out there would be of the older variant.

Thank you so much; very appreciated!