32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[fsprow]

I just point out that the Chinese Timegraphers (I have had two) are not terribly accurate. I now have a Swiss Witschi (note the subtle difference in spelling vs. Weishi) machine and the differences can be substantial, particularly re amplitude. The Swiss machine has a very precise crystal kept in an internal oven and is used by many watchmakers.

I imagine relative changes (eg loss of amplitude over time) are pretty good, just noting that the absolute values may not be.

[CedCraig]

Originally Posted by fsprow

I just point out that the Chinese Timegraphers (I have had two) are not terribly accurate. I now have a Swiss Witschi (note the subtle difference in spelling vs. Weishi) machine and the differences can be substantial, particularly re amplitude. The Swiss machine has a very precise crystal kept in an internal oven and is used by many watchmakers.

I imagine relative changes (eg loss of amplitude over time) are pretty good, just noting that the absolute values may not be.

I‘ve never heard of RSC sending back Weishi-determined low amplitude watches without being serviced because the amplitude was actually fine. That leads me to believe for the purpose of diagnosing the 32xx virus problem, a Weishi is fine.

Although if the Weishi consistently overestimates the amplitude, there could be many more watches with the virus that actually have low amplitude but haven‘t gotten to the major time loss stage.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by fsprow

I just point out that the Chinese Timegraphers (I have had two) are not terribly accurate. .

I had a Weishi 1900.

I "Graduated" to a Witschi Chronoscope S1.

I made many measurements on my Weishi prior to the upgrade and I found that the results of Amplitude, B.E. and rate were remarkably similar between the two machines. Some of the readings taken can be seen much earlier in this thread.

I upgraded for some of the other advantages they were available by using a Witschi.

[T3rmina1]

Here's a thread on 4chan, an anonymous message board, where a someone claiming to work at an AD comments on the 32xx issue
Take with a very large grain of salt, obviously


How many 32XXs do you have sent to you for repair due to the loss in amplitude over time?

Not that many. Rolex owners generally don't check the amplitude of their movements. I'd be surprised if 1 in a 100 even knows what that is. They really only notice if the timekeeping is way off, like 30 seconds per day.

That said, when the movements are checked, basically half of all 32xx movements about a year old and every 32xx movement that's over two years old has the "problem".

The problem is real, but also overblown. The amplitude only tails off dramatically about 48 hours after a full wind.

We're instructed to tell buyers who ask about it that it's not a problem, it's an accepted part of the design.

Do you get the sense that Rolex truly doesn't think it's a problem, or is this damage control? Do you know if they're trying to fix it or resolve it with a new generation of movements?

(Good thing this forum is anonymous, otherwise I'd be out of a job.)

Yes, they're aware of it. Yes, they're trying to fix it.
But because it's not a problem that the vast majority of wearers will notice, it's not an out-of-control brushfire.

I don't know if you remember the datewheel issue that the Kenissi movement in the Tudor GMT had, but THAT was a problem. Very visible to anyone regardless of how much knowledge they had. That was a fucking disaster.

When the fix is implemented it will be treated as the next generation of movements. I don't see them calling it the 32xx EVO or anything like that.

[Marast-66]

Originally Posted by T3rmina1

Here's a thread on 4chan, an anonymous message board, where a someone claiming to work at an AD comments on the 32xx issue
Take with a very large grain of salt, obviously


How many 32XXs do you have sent to you for repair due to the loss in amplitude over time?



Do you get the sense that Rolex truly doesn't think it's a problem, or is this damage control? Do you know if they're trying to fix it or resolve it with a new generation of movements?

Hahahaha, if this person work at Rolex I am Muhammad Ali


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[T3rmina1]

Originally Posted by Marast-66

Hahahaha, if this person work at Rolex I am Muhammad Ali


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Given the relatively measured tone, and how much it lines up with things we've seen elsewhere, I'd assign it about 10% belief. That's a bit more than the belief I'd assign to you being Ali.

We could probably test by asking ADs about the problem, and seeing if they say that it's not a problem, it's an accepted part of the design

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by T3rmina1

Given the relatively measured tone, and how much it lines up with things we've seen elsewhere, I'd assign it about 10% belief. That's a bit more than the belief I'd assign to you being Ali.

We could probably test by asking ADs about the problem, and seeing if they say that it's not a problem, it's an accepted part of the design

Or it could be categorised as a feature of the model which will be made redundant on the 33xx as a natural path of advancement

An accepted part of the design that is currently being corrected to match the specifications that Rolex has set.

[alphadweller]

Even if Rolex come up with a new design addressing the low amplitude (new barrel, mainspring, escapement) and decide to call it 33xx, they will still secretely improve the 32xx and introduce new parts and materials for years to come without telling us.

Only RSC watchmakers will know when they receive the info on what parts need to be changed in the 32xx. Maybe they'll make a new mainspring just as thin but much stronger, thus pushing more torque and keeping the amplitude higher. Same with the pallet, maybe they'll find a stronger material capable of off-setting the fragility from the smaller contact surfaces. Millions of 32xx in circulation call for a necessity to improve the movement if there's some kind of design flaw.

[saxo3]

Timegrapher data for NEW WATCHES

After the start of this thread in January 2021 I conclude that by end of July 2023, i.e., about 8 years after the introduction of the first 32xx watch in 2015, there is NO DOUBT that the 32xx caliber problems still are widely spread worldwide. The well documented characteristics of the 32xx issues do not allow everybody to find out easily, not worth mentioning a few (very) prominent deniers-by-default.

My only remaining motivation to continue posting on this board is my curiosity to find out if there is a silent fix (or a permanent solution) introduced by Rolex SA and, if so, when this becomes visible, on either new or repaired 32xx calibers.

Imagine a fix would have been found and introduced some time ago (a few months or 1-2 years), then I would expect that reports of low amplitude watches would start to fade out here, and that 32xx calibers repaired in 2022/2023 would last longer than before. Is that the case? I do not know.

Therefore, I find it most interesting to continue to collect timegrapher data especially for NEW WATCHES purchased in 2023 (and 2022). Everybody who can participate with facts, please measure and post data for your 2023 (and 2022) watches in this thread.

One good candidate to start is EasyE with his new 32xx watch bought this year.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Timegrapher data for NEW WATCHES

After the start of this thread in January 2021 I conclude that by end of July 2023, i.e., about 8 years after the introduction of the first 32xx watch in 2015, there is NO DOUBT that the 32xx caliber problems still are widely spread worldwide. The well documented characteristics of the 32xx issues do not allow everybody to find out easily, not worth mentioning a few (very) prominent deniers-by-default.

My only remaining motivation to continue posting on this board is my curiosity to find out if there is a silent fix (or a permanent solution) introduced by Rolex SA and, if so, when this becomes visible, on either new or repaired 32xx calibers.

Imagine a fix would have been found and introduced some time ago (a few months or 1-2 years), then I would expect that reports of low amplitude watches would start to fade out here, and that 32xx calibers repaired in 2022/2023 would last longer than before. Is that the case? I do not know.

Therefore, I find it most interesting to continue to collect timegrapher data especially for NEW WATCHES purchased in 2023 (and 2022). Everybody who can participate with facts, please measure and post data for your 2023 (and 2022) watches in this thread.

One good candidate to start is EasyE with his new 32xx watch bought this year.

I plan (hope) to start the LV data run this weekend.

[Easy E]

What is happening here? This is on my WG Sub, 9U, 48hrs

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

What is happening here? This is on my WG Sub, 9U, 48hrs

It looks like that this caliber reached already (in 9U position) what I call the "oscillation mode", i.e., amplitude and rate readings become completely erratic and change quickly (within a few seconds), e.g., the 331 degrees amplitude value which are nonsense. Such oscillations after 48 hours are by far too early; I observe this effect rather close to the end of the power reserve, where it is normal. In conclusion, not at all a good sign for this specific caliber.

I had a quick look just now. You observed that effect after 60 hours already in January 2023, for the same watch ;-) but maybe earlier because there was a 12 hour "data gap".

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

It looks like that this caliber reached already (in 9U position) what I call the "oscillation mode", i.e., amplitude and rate readings become completely erratic and change quickly (within a few seconds), e.g., the 331 degrees amplitude value which are nonsense. Such oscillations after 48 hours are by far too early; I observe this effect rather close to the end of the power reserve, where it is normal. In conclusion, not at all a good sign for this specific caliber.

All 3 verticals were pretty much the same.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

I plan (hope) to start the LV data run this weekend.

I had another look at my post 3404 (04.01.2023) and re-evaluated the status of your 32xx watch movements you measured about 7-8 months ago.

Based on the later input, given by Bas (07.04.2023) in 3829 for optimal values after full winding, I changed my "color classifiaction".

I am aware that you have sold some of these watches but cannot quickly find this information.

Anyhow, below is my updated table, I hope you find that useful.

It would be interesting to measure again (after about 7-8 months) your 126710BLNR and the 126710BLRO.

The 126619LB (WG SUB) you did already, it clearly decreased performance in 3U position, see 4264.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I had another look at my post 3404 (04.01.2023) and re-evaluated the status of your 32xx watch movements you measured about 7-8 months ago.

Based on the later input, given by Bas (07.04.2023) in 3829 for optimal values after full winding, I changed my "color classifiaction".

I am aware that you have sold some of these watches but cannot quickly find this information.

Anyhow, below is my updated table, I hope you find that useful.

It would be interesting to measure again (after about 7-8 months) your 126710BLNR and the 126710BLRO.

The 126619LB (WG SUB) you did already, it clearly decreased performance in 3U position, see 4264.

Both DJs, The LN Sub, SD43, BLRO are all traded out - gone.

[Easy E]

Are is the latest on my 126619LB WG Sub. Due to current work load and family dynamics I did not get a 36hr reading, but the point is pretty clear - compared to 6-ish months ago.

[Murdoc370]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Timegrapher data for NEW WATCHES

[...]
Therefore, I find it most interesting to continue to collect timegrapher data especially for NEW WATCHES purchased in 2023 (and 2022). Everybody who can participate with facts, please measure and post data for your 2023 (and 2022) watches in this thread.

One good candidate to start is EasyE with his new 32xx watch bought this year.

Happy to oblige:

0 0 0 24 24 24 42 42 42 48 48 48
Rate Amp BE Rate Amp BE Rate Amp BE Rate Amp BE
DU 0 270 0 0 253 0,2 0 238 0 0 223 0
DD 1 277 0,1 0 252 0,1 3 239 0,2 1 224 0
3 up 0 237 0 0 216 0,0 -1 202 0 -2 184 0
6 up 0 239 0,3 0 223 0,3 -3 199 0,3 -3 193 0,3
9 up 0 240 0,4 0 220 0,4 0 208 0,4 -3 189 0,5
12 up 0 239 0,2 0 223 0,0 -1 204 0 -2 186 0

This is from a Explorer II Ref. 226570 w/ cal. 3285, bought new @AD in March 2023.

Kind regards

Dennis

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Murdoc370

Happy to oblige:

0 0 0 24 24 24 42 42 42 48 48 48
Rate Amp BE Rate Amp BE Rate Amp BE Rate Amp BE
DU 0 270 0 0 253 0,2 0 238 0 0 223 0
DD 1 277 0,1 0 252 0,1 3 239 0,2 1 224 0
3 up 0 237 0 0 216 0,0 -1 202 0 -2 184 0
6 up 0 239 0,3 0 223 0,3 -3 199 0,3 -3 193 0,3
9 up 0 240 0,4 0 220 0,4 0 208 0,4 -3 189 0,5
12 up 0 239 0,2 0 223 0,0 -1 204 0 -2 186 0

This is from a Explorer II Ref. 226570 w/ cal. 3285, bought new @AD in March 2023.

Kind regards

Dennis

Can you PLEASE post these data in a better readable format?

[Murdoc370]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Can you PLEASE post these data in a better readable format?

After checking my original post, I'm just trying to paste it in a readable format out of Excel for you to C&P, but I keep failing :(

Any suggestions (besides a screenshot)?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Murdoc370

After checking my original post, I'm just trying to paste it in a readable format out of Excel for you to C&P, but I keep failing :(

Any suggestions (besides a screenshot)?

Thanks, a screenshot is ok.
You have more than one 32xx watch?

[Murdoc370]

The watch is at the very end of its power reserve and just about to stop running in the next few hours. At this time, the amplitude readings become useless.

If you would wind the watch just a tiny little bit, the AMP readings would go back to plausible values, perhaps around 120-150°.

Kind regards
Dennis

[Murdoc370]

Screenshot - for now.

This is my only 32xx. I did measure my 3 cal. 31xx, too, which is of no use here though :)

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Murdoc370

Screenshot - for now.

This is my only 32xx. I did measure my 3 cal. 31xx, too, which is of no use here though :)

Thanks, numbers look good after t = 0 h and t = 24 h.

More data points (0,12,24,36,48,60) would be better.

You can skip 12U measurements. Rolex does not regulate the caliber in this position, it also is a very unusual wrist position.

Which timegrapher do you use?

[Murdoc370]

Until today: Weishi 1000, but the recent arrival of a new Weishi 1900 will eventually lead to a new series of measurements I guess :)

Direct comparison of both Weishis showed quite identical results though. My trusty old No. 1000 still seems to work pretty well.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Murdoc370

Until today: Weishi 1000, but the recent arrival of a new Weishi 1900 will eventually lead to a new series of measurements I guess :)

Direct comparison of both Weishis showed quite identical results though. My trusty old No. 1000 still seems to work pretty well.

When you start to use your new Weishi 1900, please adapt the parameter settings that the rate is displayed with higher resolution, e.g. 1.3 s/d instead of 1 s/d. The Weishi 1000 can't do it.

[Idcutthat13]

I have a datejust 126234 bought new at AD a month ago. The first day or two on wrist it was roughly a second or two slow per day. Then it was dead on for a couple weeks. Slightly gaining maybe 1 second per day. Then all of a sudden I noticed it’s slow by 5 seconds.
I realize this wasn’t scientific but I wanted to let you know what I’ve seen on wrist.
I do have a timegrapher and need to do a good, controlled evaluation of the watch.
When on the time grapher fully wound and after sitting there for 30 minutes the amplitude was roughly 270.
I have a solids understanding of how to correctly test it on the timegrapher so I’ll do that and post.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Idcutthat13

I have a datejust 126234 bought new at AD a month ago. The first day or two on wrist it was roughly a second or two slow per day. Then it was dead on for a couple weeks. Slightly gaining maybe 1 second per day. Then all of a sudden I noticed it’s slow by 5 seconds.
I realize this wasn’t scientific but I wanted to let you know what I’ve seen on wrist.
I do have a timegrapher and need to do a good, controlled evaluation of the watch.
[B]When on the time grapher fully wound and after sitting there for 30 minutes the amplitude was
I have a solids understanding of how to correctly test it on the timegrapher so I’ll do that and post.

[jakjakman]

Question for those who have had their watch repaired under warranty to fix this problem. Are you happy with the repair? For example, if your watch was losing 30 seconds a day, is it back within a range you're happy with now?

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by jakjakman

Question for those who have had their watch repaired under warranty to fix this problem. Are you happy with the repair? For example, if your watch was losing 30 seconds a day, is it back within a range you're happy with now?

My DD40 came back in March 23 running at -.92sec/day 214.4amp, averages at 24hrs. I haven't checked it since. But, yes happy when it returned.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by jakjakman

Question for those who have had their watch repaired under warranty to fix this problem. Are you happy with the repair? For example, if your watch was losing 30 seconds a day, is it back within a range you're happy with now?

Not with the first repair (2019) of my Sea-Dweller (3235) bought in 2017.

The low amplitude problem came back in all three vertical positions. Needed a second RSC repair (2022) just at the end of the warranty period.

I cross fingers now but do believe that this is not the end of caliber repair for this watch.

I really like this watch and did not sell it after the 1st or 2nd repair.

This specific watch, a Sea-Dweller Ref. 126600 (3235), was the reason why I started looking into the 32xx topic..

Today I own two more watches, with 3285 movements, both run like crap.