32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by JBoone

What is your opinion? Thanks!

Simple answer: avoid all 32xx watches, either choose a previous generation 5-digit Rolex with a reliable movement or change the watch brand.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Simple answer: avoid all 32xx watches, either choose a previous generation 5-digit Rolex with a reliable movement or change the watch brand.

+1

These movements have been around 10 years. If a company with the expertise and resources of Rolex can't come up with a permanent fix all these years later, the movement is just a dud.

I've been saying variations of the following for a while. Rolex will eventually introduce a 33xx that will hopefully work out all these issues. They may come up with some way to service/regulate the 32xx watches that come in so that they run as long as possible without encountering the amplitude issue (maybe by sacrificing accuracy outside their 2s standard) as a "fix", and Rolex and everyone will move on.

[Dr. Robert]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Simple answer: avoid all 32xx watches, either choose a previous generation 5-digit Rolex with a reliable movement or change the watch brand.

Would six series Rolex watches with the 31XX movements be ok?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by Dr. Robert

Would six series Rolex watches with the 31XX movements be ok?

I have had a few 31xx watches and still have one 31xx equipped Rolex (ExpII).
It has none of the problems found in the 32xx watches. None of my 31xx watches had a problem.

I have had a few 32xx watches and they were all problematic. They are long gone from my collection.

[Michael N Q8]

I have had a few 31xx watches and still have one 31xx equipped Rolex (ExpII).
It has none of the problems found in the 32xx watches. None of my 31xx watches had a problem.

I have had a few 32xx watches and they were all problematic. They are long gone from my collection.

I'm in the same boat...I sold the BLRO and now only have 31XX movement models and previous model Daytonas that all perform as expected without any issues. I would not buy another 32XX movement watch.

[Opifex]

I have an Explorer 1 new as of 8/2024. I put it on my timegrapher and dial up indicates 0.0 s/d with an amplitude of 285 beat error 0.0 after a full wind. On the wrist for 12 hours per day and resting dial up for 12 hours per day I have lost 20 seconds in 27 days or .74 seconds per day. Honestly if that remains constant I would be impressed with its performance.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Opifex

I have an Explorer 1 new as of 8/2024. I put it on my timegrapher and dial up indicates 0.0 s/d with an amplitude of 285 beat error 0.0 after a full wind. On the wrist for 12 hours per day and resting dial up for 12 hours per day I have lost 20 seconds in 27 days or .74 seconds per day. Honestly if that remains constant I would be impressed with its performance.

Thank you for joing this thread.

What are the amplitudes and rates for the other 4 positions (3U, 6U, 9U, DD)?

It has been reported many times that good timekeeping does not exclude the too low amplitude issue of all 32xx movements, especially in the vertical positions.

I suggest to measure all 5 positions after full winding (t = 0) and after t = 24.

Once done, "forget" the timegrapher, enjoy the watch, and repeat the measurements in 6 months ;-)

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Ah yes, an American threatening with a lawsuit, how original.
Rolex will mop the floor with you, I wouldn't even bother.

A class action lawsuit from 32xx owners is a good idea. Forum threads similar to this one led to a successful lawsuit against Porsche and their faulty 996 engines.

[Goatrope]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

A class action lawsuit from 32xx owners is a good idea. Forum threads similar to this one led to a successful lawsuit against Porsche and their faulty 996 engines.

I remember this. Despite the subtle anti-american sentiment expressed here by some, we continue to reject the assertion that nothing can or will ever be done.

Personally, I've avoided the issue by not buying a 32xx watch, and would like to see this thread continue with factual data submissions rather than the lawsuit discussion. Maybe we can start that as a separate topic for those impacted by the issue.

[Opifex]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thank you for joing this thread.

What are the amplitudes and rates for the other 4 positions (3U, 6U, 9U, DD)?

It has been reported many times that good timekeeping does not exclude the too low amplitude issue of all 32xx movements, especially in the vertical positions.

I suggest to measure all 5 positions after full winding (t = 0) and after t = 24.

Once done, "forget" the timegrapher, enjoy the watch, and repeat the measurements in 6 months ;-)

Okay, here are the results.

Full wind:

DU: +2 s/d 280 degrees 0.1ms
DD: +2 s/d 268 degrees 0.0ms
3U: -2 s/d 238 degrees 0.3ms
6U: -1 s/d 235 degrees 0.0ms
9U: -1 s/d 237 degrees 0.0ms

24 hours:

DU: +1 s/d 257 degrees 0.0ms
DD: +2 s/d 240 degrees 0.1ms
3U: -2 s/d 207 degrees 0.4ms
6U: -4 s/d 218 degrees 0.0ms
9U: -2 s/d 218 degrees 0.0ms

Just a theory but could it be that the amplitudes are lower on purpose to stretch out the power reserve?

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by Opifex

Okay, here are the results.

Full wind:

DU: +2 s/d 280 degrees 0.1ms
DD: +2 s/d 268 degrees 0.0ms
3U: -2 s/d 238 degrees 0.3ms
6U: -1 s/d 235 degrees 0.0ms
9U: -1 s/d 237 degrees 0.0ms

24 hours:

DU: +1 s/d 257 degrees 0.0ms
DD: +2 s/d 240 degrees 0.1ms
3U: -2 s/d 207 degrees 0.4ms
6U: -4 s/d 218 degrees 0.0ms
9U: -2 s/d 218 degrees 0.0ms

Just a theory but could it be that the amplitudes are lower on purpose to stretch out the power reserve?

These are healthy looking numbers

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by Opifex

Okay, here are the results.

Full wind:

DU: +2 s/d 280 degrees 0.1ms
DD: +2 s/d 268 degrees 0.0ms
3U: -2 s/d 238 degrees 0.3ms
6U: -1 s/d 235 degrees 0.0ms
9U: -1 s/d 237 degrees 0.0ms

24 hours:

DU: +1 s/d 257 degrees 0.0ms
DD: +2 s/d 240 degrees 0.1ms
3U: -2 s/d 207 degrees 0.4ms
6U: -4 s/d 218 degrees 0.0ms
9U: -2 s/d 218 degrees 0.0ms

Just a theory but could it be that the amplitudes are lower on purpose to stretch out the power reserve?

There is a big difference between being low by design and being out of spec and running slow. Your numbers look good.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Opifex

Okay, here are the results.

Full wind:

DU: +2 s/d 280 degrees 0.1ms
DD: +2 s/d 268 degrees 0.0ms
3U: -2 s/d 238 degrees 0.3ms
6U: -1 s/d 235 degrees 0.0ms
9U: -1 s/d 237 degrees 0.0ms

24 hours:

DU: +1 s/d 257 degrees 0.0ms
DD: +2 s/d 240 degrees 0.1ms
3U: -2 s/d 207 degrees 0.4ms
6U: -4 s/d 218 degrees 0.0ms
9U: -2 s/d 218 degrees 0.0ms

Just a theory but could it be that the amplitudes are lower on purpose to stretch out the power reserve?

Thank you; my view of your numbers:
t = 0: all amplitudes look very good,
t = 24: a bit too low amplitude in 3U, rest good,
all vertical positions have negative rates.

Regarding your question: in my view it makes no sense to design a watch movement with only 1 mainspring for very high caliber amplitudes, which drop quickly within the first 12-24 hours after full winding. A power reserve of 70 hours, while maintaining excellent timekeeping, is no rocket science, but for Rolex it is. Other brands easily achieve 4 and 5 days of power reserve with high amplitudes and constant rates, but their calibers use 2 and 3 mainspring barrels connected in series.

[Opifex]

Thanks to everyone for the feedback! 😊

[TCFP]

I have a 126610LN that I've owned and worn daily since September of last year. For the first year, it was the most accurate automatic watch I've ever owned, maybe -.4/sec a day on average.

Then, over the last couple of months I've seen less accuracy and then these last few weeks, it's suddenly averaging -12/sec a day! Now I'm alarmed and will be calling the Dallas RSC on Monday to send it in as I have a few years left for warranty.

Big concern that I'm wondering about. I just bought a Datejust 31mm with the 2236 movement for my wife as a Christmas surprise. I believe these movements have been around longer. Are people experiencing issues with those as well?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by TCFP

Big concern that I'm wondering about. I just bought a Datejust 31mm with the 2236 movement for my wife as a Christmas surprise. I believe these movements have been around longer. Are people experiencing issues with those as well?

An answer has been given in this thread:
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=3711

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by TCFP

I have a 126610LN that I've owned and worn daily since September of last year. For the first year, it was the most accurate automatic watch I've ever owned, maybe -.4/sec a day on average.

Then, over the last couple of months I've seen less accuracy and then these last few weeks, it's suddenly averaging -12/sec a day! Now I'm alarmed and will be calling the Dallas RSC on Monday to send it in as I have a few years left for warranty.

Big concern that I'm wondering about. I just bought a Datejust 31mm with the 2236 movement for my wife as a Christmas surprise. I believe these movements have been around longer. Are people experiencing issues with those as well?

Dang, sorry to hear. Concerned because I also have a 126610 that was purchased in Sep of '23. Running well so far, but please do let us know how the servicing works out!

[TCFP]

Originally Posted by saxo3

An answer has been given in this thread:
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=3711

Thank you. That is reassuring.

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Dang, sorry to hear. Concerned because I also have a 126610 that was purchased in Sep of '23. Running well so far, but please do let us know how the servicing works out!

I hope you don't experience the same issue. I figured I was in the clear. Almost makes me want to go to the 116610LN but I much prefer the look of this watch (slimmer lugs and AR coating). It's a shame because I longed after my first Rolex for years, not knowing that these movements were having issues.

I will definitely report back. I'm hoping it doesn't take too long as it's probably busy right now with the holidays.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by TCFP

I have a 126610LN that I've owned and worn daily since September of last year. For the first year, it was the most accurate automatic watch I've ever owned, maybe -.4/sec a day on average.

Then, over the last couple of months I've seen less accuracy and then these last few weeks, it's suddenly averaging -12/sec a day! Now I'm alarmed and will be calling the Dallas RSC on Monday to send it in as I have a few years left for warranty.

The best thing you can do BEFORE sending your watch in for repair is to get a timegrapher and measure the amplitudes, rates, and beat errors in all 5 positions.

A simple and cheap timegrapher model (Weishi 1900) will do the job.

After RSC you can measure again, compare your timegrapher data, and see how much it has changed. That would be interesting for this thread.

In addition, you would also have your own reference data for the future, should the low amplitude problem occur again.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by TCFP

Thank you. That is reassuring.



I hope you don't experience the same issue. I figured I was in the clear. Almost makes me want to go to the 116610LN but I much prefer the look of this watch (slimmer lugs and AR coating). It's a shame because I longed after my first Rolex for years, not knowing that these movements were having issues.

I will definitely report back. I'm hoping it doesn't take too long as it's probably busy right now with the holidays.

I feel the same way about the 116610. I much prefer "neo-vintage" 5-digits, but I also have a huge bias towards new watches.

I am constantly considering selling the 126610 and just moving on from Rolex (outside my 16613) until a new generation of movements comes out.

[Easy E]

So, not a 32, but still a Chronergy escapement (4131). +1.18 at 48Hrs. That's pretty good. I don't know what other Daytonas look like, but this seems stable through the PR.


*note, missed the 36Hr reading due to 2nd Thanksgiving that ran well beyond advertised.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

So, not a 32, but still a Chronergy escapement (4131). +1.18 at 48Hrs. That's pretty good. I don't know what other Daytonas look like, but this seems stable through the PR.

Your Daytona data are good. The first timegrapher data set I see for a 4131 caliber, measured along the power reserve.

My graphs for amplitudes, rates, and the isochronism are below.

The isochronism of this 4131 caliber is much better than for your two GMT's. From full winding to 60 hours, the average rate of the 4131 remains within -2/+2 s/d (indicated by the blue shaded area). This is excellent.

[Easy E]

Thanks for the graphs. Agreed, this looks much better than the GMTs. So is it that:
1. Because its new?
2. The difference between a GMT and a Chrono, with the GMT adding extra friction for the 24hr hand and the date? Seems like the Chrono would look a lot like a 3230 no date if that is the only difference.
3. The 4131 is unique enough in every way that no comparison can be made?
4. The problem with the 32s is not inherently in the Chronergy Escapement, its something else?

[saxo3]

1: no
2: ?
3: ?
4: no

? = I don't know and don't want to speculate.