32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Not specific to the 3230, I've unfortunately seen this on all types. Amplitude is checked before the date mechanism is assembled.

The plan of action is to start with replacing the balance staff, then pallet fork, escape wheel, rest of the gear train.
Pallet fork and balance staff replacement usually get me enough amplitude to barely reach tolerance...

Are these parts visibly worn or "off" in any way that you can see? Is there some inherent defect that takes awhile to manifest in a part but the tolerances are so small that they are invisible? Or is it more a problem of stacking tolerances across the parts where certain assemblies will be doomed from the start due to the individual tolerances adding up to something that will fail or never work quite right?

That could help explain why only some movements are affected.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by saxo3

OMG, so you first dismantle the entire movement, clean everything in an ultrasound bath, then re-assemble with 'perfect' lubrications, then measure too low amplitudes and afterwards you must change one piece/component after the other (although you do not see any signs of wear) until you get acceptable amplitudes? Is that what you have to do?

Barely reach tolerances? What are the amplitude tolerances (H- and V- positions) after a service? I am curious to know these numbers (for my 32xx watches, two need a repair).

Bas, many thanks for all these information and explications, very interesting and much appreciated.

Correct, parts that did not show any sign of wear/deterioration at all that are replaced out of desperation to reach a minimum amplitude off 200 degrees after 24hrs.
A 24 hours test can be simulated by releasing a couple of ratchet wheel rotations.

This problem runs so much deeper than just migration of lubricants and a pivot that occasionally wear out prematurely.

[sheldonsmith]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Correct, parts that did not show any sign of wear/deterioration at all that are replaced out of desperation to reach a minimum amplitude off 200 degrees after 24hrs.
A 24 hours test can be simulated by releasing a couple of ratchet wheel rotations.

This problem runs so much deeper than just migration of lubricants and a pivot that occasionally wear out prematurely.

That’s where my head has been. The delicate escapement combined with the thinner (weaker?) mainspring to get to 72 hours of power reserve has a design flaw in the mix when produced serially.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Correct, parts that did not show any sign of wear/deterioration at all that are replaced out of desperation to reach a minimum amplitude off 200 degrees after 24hrs.
A 24 hours test can be simulated by releasing a couple of ratchet wheel rotations.

This problem runs so much deeper than just migration of lubricants and a pivot that occasionally wear out prematurely.

That would mean a fundamental 32xx design problem! Not solvable since the introduction of the 3235 and 3255 in 2015?

Consequence: the movement failure rate (very low amplitudes after full winding) during the 5 years warranty period is extremely high for all 3235, 3255, 3285, 3230, and not only for watches sold in 2015,16,17,18…2022.

[the dark knight]

Man, I've been following this thread loosely, but some of the recent posts are really concerning. I've already limited my purchases of the 32xx watches due to this thread and others like it. I "only" have 2 32xx watches, but I'm tempted to sell one of them. I don't think I can bear selling both as I really like them and even selling one would hurt. But these issues are truly concerning. Really tempted to just hope for the best and ride this out with just the one watch and maybe buy more when the inevitable and hopefully improved 33xx emerges.

[JMGoodnight369]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Man, I've been following this thread loosely, but some of the recent posts are really concerning. I've already limited my purchases of the 32xx watches due to this thread and others like it. I "only" have 2 32xx watches, but I'm tempted to sell one of them. I don't think I can bear selling both as I really like them and even selling one would hurt. But these issues are truly concerning. Really tempted to just hope for the best and ride this out with just the one watch and maybe buy more when the inevitable and hopefully improved 33xx emerges.

That’s where I’m at too. I’m really hoping this ends up being like KIA when all their motors started blowing up. They replaced all the engines and bumped up the warranty. I’ve got 3 and a half years on one watch and 4 and a half of warranty on another so I’m gonna ride it out and send them back until they either get it fixed or warranty runs out. I liquidated some of my older watches to update to the new submariner line because the fit and proportions are on point. But at what cost? Rolex screwed the pooch on the 32xx movements and it’s been kept under the wraps this whole time. This is not the attitude a luxury brand should have if they are charging this much for a product. I won’t be buying another 32xx watch until it’s widespread news they have either fixed it or gone back to the good ole Swiss lever escapement

[Seo]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Not specific to the 3230, I've unfortunately seen this on all types. Amplitude is checked before the date mechanism is assembled.

The plan of action is to start with replacing the balance staff, then pallet fork, escape wheel, rest of the gear train.
Pallet fork and balance staff replacement usually get me enough amplitude to barely reach tolerance...

Wow that’s scary…

To the doubters why don’t you argue with Bas?

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by saxo3

That would mean a fundamental 32xx design problem! Not solvable since the introduction of the 3235 and 3255 in 2015?

Consequence: the movement failure rate (very low amplitudes after full winding) during the 5 years warranty period is extremely high for all 3235, 3255, 3285, 3230, and not only for watches sold in 2015,16,17,18…2022.

I think every single 32×× will develop low amplitude in its current state at some point. Some people might be very lucky and reach 5 years without noticing a severe loss of accuracy, most are completely oblivious, and the rest will have to deal with warranty claims.

There's new unsold watches, not even swiped the card yet that run out of spec and won't reach 200 degrees.

I'm sure it will eventually get fixed and slowly all watches will silently get updates during their services.
The lack of transparency to customers, the incredible size of the problem and the fact that Rolex HQ does not even transparently communicate about the issue to RSC affiliates, AD's/Boutiques and only commands to service under warranty, this is what frustrates and worries me. It also completely takes the pleasure out of the job.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by Seo

Wow that’s scary…

To the doubters why don’t you argue with Bas?

The issue is known for years now, with plenty of evidence. People may choose to believe what they want, I'm not here to argue with anyone.

[JMGoodnight369]

Originally Posted by SearChart

The issue is known for years now, with plenty of evidence. People may choose to believe what they want, I'm not here to argue with anyone.

WOW. I think this right here has been what a lot of us have been waiting to hear and thank you for coming out and saying it. It seems like HQ is more concerned with building another factory to lock out more watches rather than make sure they maintain the quality they have advertised for all this time. It’s a bummer because the quality and reliability is what drew me to the brand originally. The lack of transparency is frustrating for us owners as well but I can’t imagine what it’s like to have a passion for your work and to be left in the dark like that with no answers for yourself. I asked about the issue to the representative at RSC NYC when I was there and it was an expert level avoidance on the subject. They definitely know because it was a perfectly trained response of “we haven’t seen any new watches come in with this issue before, but we will put the upmost care into getting yours working properly”. What you posted sealed the deal for me. I’ll hold out for a while and send them in when needed but if I fix isn’t there before the warranty is up I’ll be going back to the 31xx references.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by SearChart

I think every single 32×× will develop low amplitude in its current state at some point. Some people might be very lucky and reach 5 years without noticing a severe loss of accuracy, most are completely oblivious, and the rest will have to deal with warranty claims.

There's new unsold watches, not even swiped the card yet that run out of spec and won't reach 200 degrees.

I'm sure it will eventually get fixed and slowly all watches will silently get updates during their services.
The lack of transparency to customers, the incredible size of the problem and the fact that Rolex HQ does not even transparently communicate about the issue to RSC affiliates, AD's/Boutiques and only commands to service under warranty, this is what frustrates and worries me. It also completely takes the pleasure out of the job.

Thanks Bas.

The content of this clear post, based on your daily hands-on experience as RSC watchmaker, is a bit like dynamite for Rolex HQ and a warning to all board members.

I fully share and confirm what you say with many timegrapher measurements of my 3235 and 3285 movements, as well as the analysis (and graphs) of data provided by others in this thread.

It also confirms what I posted before:

I have NOT even seen 1 (one) contribution on TRF where a member has shown (with data) that his 32xx watch keeps (or kept) high movement amplitudes (after full winding) together with good timekeeping over a period of several (4-5) years, i.e., starting from the date of purchase and without any RSC repair or regulation of the 32xx movement.

Bas, I found a parameter to distinguish between good and bad 32xx movements, based on their different isochronism. It is quite a new insight for me, which I did not post or see anywhere else.

What's your experience with the isochronism of the 32xx?

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by SearChart

I think every single 32×× will develop low amplitude in its current state at some point. Some people might be very lucky and reach 5 years without noticing a severe loss of accuracy, most are completely oblivious, and the rest will have to deal with warranty claims.

There's new unsold watches, not even swiped the card yet that run out of spec and won't reach 200 degrees.

I'm sure it will eventually get fixed and slowly all watches will silently get updates during their services.
The lack of transparency to customers, the incredible size of the problem and the fact that Rolex HQ does not even transparently communicate about the issue to RSC affiliates, AD's/Boutiques and only commands to service under warranty, this is what frustrates and worries me. It also completely takes the pleasure out of the job.

I appreciate you stating this to the point. Thank you.

My follow up question is do you believe that watches that are currently being sent in for service are actually getting fixed, or just resetting the problem? That is to say if a watch is sent in today for repair is the repair permanent or will the problem return? I realize that may be a difficult question to answer and really only time will tell.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by SearChart

I think every single 32×× will develop low amplitude in its current state at some point. Some people might be very lucky and reach 5 years without noticing a severe loss of accuracy, most are completely oblivious, and the rest will have to deal with warranty claims.

There's new unsold watches, not even swiped the card yet that run out of spec and won't reach 200 degrees.

I'm sure it will eventually get fixed and slowly all watches will silently get updates during their services.
The lack of transparency to customers, the incredible size of the problem and the fact that Rolex HQ does not even transparently communicate about the issue to RSC affiliates, AD's/Boutiques and only commands to service under warranty, this is what frustrates and worries me. It also completely takes the pleasure out of the job.

Bas, your additional insight is greatly appreciated even if it is frightening and depressing for 32xx owners and Rolex lovers such as myself.

I have two questions:

1) Do Rolex perform minimum amplitude tests as part of the original manufacturing and certification process? Or are these production qualifications purely based on timing performance? You mentioned "brand new, card never swiped" watches which can't hit proper amplitude. Presumably their timekeeping is ok or they wouldn't have passed the COSC tests. But if their amplitude is already out of spec that would seem to suggest amplitude checking is not part of the production QA process.

2) Have you ever seen a 32xx watch which is 3-5 years old which did not have this issue? Surely 32xx-powered watches have come across your bench for non-timing issues such as a crystal replacement or bracelet sizing. Have you ever taken one of these and checked its amplitude and found it to still be ok even though it had not been serviced since it was new?

Originally Posted by SearChart

I think every single 32×× will develop low amplitude in its current state at some point.

I'm sure it will eventually get fixed and slowly all watches will silently get updates during their services.

Regarding these statements, I would assert that if the first one is accurate, the second one is all but impossible. We are talking about millions and millions of 32xx watches over the last 8 years. And there is still no fix. So how many more millions will be produced before a solution is found? And at that point, how would there possibly be enough manpower to perform the repairs? As it stands today, there are multi-month waits to get a watch serviced by RSC. Can you imagine if the floodgates opened and "everyone" sent their watches in? At a bare minimum Rolex would have to perform entire movement swaps but even then they simply don't have enough watchmakers to do this in a reasonable timeframe. I would suggest that no watch company on the planet has the infrastructure to do a total product recall like we see in the automotive industry. This would be a catastrophic, and possibly existential, event for Rolex.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks Bas.

The content of this clear post, based on your daily hands-on experience as RSC watchmaker, is a bit like dynamite for Rolex HQ and a warning to all board members.

I fully share and confirm what you say with many timegrapher measurements of my 3235 and 3285 movements, as well as the analysis (and graphs) of data provided by others in this thread.

It also confirms what I posted before:

I have NOT even seen 1 (one) contribution on TRF where a member has shown (with data) that his 32xx watch keeps (or kept) high movement amplitudes (after full winding) together with good timekeeping over a period of several (4-5) years, i.e., starting from the date of purchase and without any RSC repair or regulation of the 32xx movement.

Bas, I found a parameter to distinguish between good and bad 32xx movements, based on their different isochronism. It is quite a new insight for me, which I did not post or see anywhere else.

What's your experience with the isochronism of the 32xx?

Funny that you say that about isochronism. Those who run at very low amplitude and give you the most trouble during a service are running with very high and inconsistent Delta values as well, thus poor isochronism.

The ones that get great amplitude after a service generally lose very little degrees in amplitude after 24hrs, and they have tight values as Delta. When running well these 32×× movements are capable of incredible accuracy/timekeeping.

[SearChart]

Fluctuating amplitudes at very low degrees (after 48+ hrs to empty), are normal because the mainspring is designed to givce its most consistent power in the first 24 hours.

[Tridor]

Look, folks ... Bas has said a few times now that the 32xx is problematic for a variety of reasons. I think everyone should take heed of his expertise and advice. As for me, I'm staying away from anything with a 32xx in it, and am seeking out 31xx series movements for watches to add to my collection. I again would like to thank Bas for educating us on the deficiencies of the 32xx and, perhaps, saving people a lot of time, aggravation, and money, by steering clear of what is plainly a defective design.

[saxo3]

Isochronism characterization of 32xx movements

The measurement of amplitudes and rates (5 positions) along the power reserve, i.e., from full winding until the movement stops, delivers an insight about the 32xx caliber, which has not been presented in this thread and nowhere else in a watch forum.

The key word is isochronism, which describes the correlation between the amplitude and rate of a mechanical device such as a pendulum or a watch movement.

The desired feature is that the rate (s/d) should change very little while the amplitude (degrees) decreases with time during a power reserve measurement. In analogy to a mechanical pendulum where the rate is independent (small angle approximation) of amplitude, see my post 3338 (page 112).

How can one measure this for a watch movement? Rather simple: Amplitudes and rates are measured (after full winding) every "few" hours with a timegrapher, as shown in many posts and graphs in this thread.

The new part is that we do not plot amplitudes and rates as a function of time but study how the movement average rates (Xrate) change with the average amplitudes (Xamplitude), the latter one naturally decreases during the power reserve measurement when the watch is not moved or wound.

For a theoretically perfect mechanical movement, the amplitudes decrease while the rates remain constant. I call this the perfect isochronism.

Of course, such an amplitude independent stable rate situation will only be possible down to a certain minimum amplitude, when amplitudes further decrease, the rates will strongly deviate to (very) negative values, i.e., -10, -15, -20 … seconds per day.

I have studied this effect (32xx isochronism behaviour) for about one year now.

The graph below compares the isochronism analysis results (Xamplitude vs. Xrate) for the following watches:

GMT-Master II, Ref. 126710 BLRO, caliber 3285, owner: EasyE
GMT-Master II, Ref. 126710 BLNR, caliber 3285: owner: EasyE
EXPLORER II, Ref. 226570, caliber 3285, owner: CharlesN
SEA-DWELLER, Ref. 126600, caliber 3235, owner: saxo3

The numbering (1,2,3,4,5,6) for the GMT BLNR indicates the sequence of timegrapher measurements, done (by EasyE) from full winding (1) towards the last data point (6) taken 60 hours after full winding.



One can see that for all 32xx watches (shown in this graph) the average rates decrease steadily while the average amplitudes decrease, as expected, during the power reserve measurement. It is amazing how linear this isochronism behaviour is, even to very low amplitudes. The blue shaded area indicates the -2/+2 sec/day zone.

The visible straight lines are linear fits to the data, which provide the slope values m. Compare these coloured lines with perfect isochronism case, which is sketched by the dotted green vertical line (no data) at Xrate = 0 s/d.

The best and most healthy 32xx calibers have the highest "m" value, which correspond to the best isochronism situation. Or, in simple words, for the steepest curves the movement rates are more stable while the amplitudes naturally decrease with time. This is the best isochronism as described above: rates are (more or less) independent of amplitude.

The graph also shows that, with respect to isochronism, the best watches are the SEA-DWELLER followed by the GMT BLNR and BLRO. The EXPLORER II contains the 'worst' caliber in this comparison, it has the lowest slope (m) and therefore rates change more quickly (to negative values) during the decrease of amplitudes.

I measured my Sea-Dweller very frequently (using an automized system) within the same PR scan, which explains the large quantity of data points.

I hope this post is understandable and triggers some discussion.

[Etschell]

32xx is basically a lemon. It can be fixed I guess but damn I am glad I haven't bought a rolex with this movement.

[Omarion07]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Isochronism characterization of 32xx movements

The measurement of amplitudes and rates (5 positions) along the power reserve, i.e., from full winding until the movement stops, delivers an insight about the 32xx caliber, which has not been presented in this thread and nowhere else in a watch forum.

The key word is isochronism, which describes the correlation between the amplitude and rate of a mechanical device such as a pendulum or a watch movement.

The desired feature is that the rate (s/d) should change very little while the amplitude (degrees) decreases with time during a power reserve measurement. In analogy to a mechanical pendulum where the rate is independent (small angle approximation) of amplitude, see my post 3338 (page 112).

How can one measure this for a watch movement? Rather simple: Amplitudes and rates are measured (after full winding) every "few" hours with a timegrapher, as shown in many posts and graphs in this thread.

The new part is that we do not plot amplitudes and rates as a function of time but study how the movement average rates (Xrate) change with the average amplitudes (Xamplitude), the latter one naturally decreases during the power reserve measurement when the watch is not moved or wound.

For a theoretically perfect mechanical movement, the amplitudes decrease while the rates remain constant. I call this the perfect isochronism.

Of course, such an amplitude independent stable rate situation will only be possible down to a certain minimum amplitude, when amplitudes further decrease, the rates will strongly deviate to (very) negative values, i.e., -10, -15, -20 … seconds per day.

I have studied this effect (32xx isochronism behaviour) for about one year now.

The graph below compares the isochronism analysis results (Xamplitude vs. Xrate) for the following watches:

GMT-Master II, Ref. 126710 BLRO, caliber 3285, owner: EasyE
GMT-Master II, Ref. 126710 BLNR, caliber 3285: owner: EasyE
EXPLORER II, Ref. 226570, caliber 3285, owner: CharlesN
SEA-DWELLER, Ref. 126600, caliber 3235, owner: saxo3

The numbering (1,2,3,4,5,6) for the GMT BLNR indicates the sequence of timegrapher measurements, done (by EasyE) from full winding (1) towards the last data point (6) taken 60 hours after full winding.



One can see that for all 32xx watches (shown in this graph) the average rates decrease steadily while the average amplitudes decrease, as expected, during the power reserve measurement. It is amazing how linear this isochronism behaviour is, even to very low amplitudes. The blue shaded area indicates the -2/+2 sec/day zone.

The visible straight lines are linear fits to the data, which provide the slope values m. Compare these coloured lines with perfect isochronism case, which is sketched by the dotted green vertical line (no data) at Xrate = 0 s/d.

The best and most healthy 32xx calibers have the highest "m" value, which correspond to the best isochronism situation. Or, in simple words, for the steepest curves the movement rates are more stable while the amplitudes naturally decrease with time. This is the best isochronism as described above: rates are (more or less) independent of amplitude.

The graph also shows that, with respect to isochronism, the best watches are the SEA-DWELLER followed by the GMT BLNR and BLRO. The EXPLORER II contains the 'worst' caliber in this comparison, it has the lowest slope (m) and therefore rates change more quickly (to negative values) during the decrease of amplitudes.

I measured my Sea-Dweller very frequently (using an automized system) within the same PR scan, which explains the large quantity of data points.

I hope this post is understandable and triggers some discussion.

Thank you Saxo for all the time and effort you've put into this thread so far. Your insight is very appreciated. Only time will tell if the precision of your serviced SeaDweller will remain within acceptable standards or deteriorates. What Bas mentioned earlier is scary, and puts many people, including myself, off any Rolex with 32xx movements. I'm due to receive my new DJ41 at end of this month and I don't feel one bit excited about it after the the things I've read today. But at the same time, I know for a fact Rolex will fix this issue sooner rather than later. Their reputation is on the line her and that's one thing they don't want to mess with. If LinkedIn job posts is anything to go by, they've posted over 20 advertisements for R&D watchmaker professions both in Geneva and Biel in the last few weeks. There has to be a silver lining to all of this.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Tridor

Look, folks ... Bas has said a few times now that the 32xx is problematic for a variety of reasons. I think everyone should take heed of his expertise and advice. As for me, I'm staying away from anything with a 32xx in it, and am seeking out 31xx series movements for watches to add to my collection. I again would like to thank Bas for educating us on the deficiencies of the 32xx and, perhaps, saving people a lot of time, aggravation, and money, by steering clear of what is plainly a defective design.

That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. Here is mine:

I have purchased two watches with the 32X movement and have had zero issues, you can say I’m lucky to be one of the 75% with no problems as identified in your poll. I do not claim there is not an issue, I trust Bas and completely believe him, however I just “ordered” my grail this weekend and it has a 32X, I am not concerned. Why not? Rolex is the most successful watch company this world has ever known. They are not perfect, again I do not dispute Bas’ statement, but you do not achieve the superiority Rolex has by sustaining a bad product. I have ultimate confidence, that Rolex will solve this issue. Will my grail someday need to be sent to RSC for overhaul/repair because of this issue? It may very well be, but I trust Rolex, I trust the AD I am buying my grail from, and in the end, everything will be fine.

So, this will not stop me from buying an incredible watch I will enjoy.

[JMGoodnight369]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. Here is mine:

I have purchased two watches with the 32X movement and have had zero issues, you can say I’m lucky to be one of the 75% with no problems as identified in your poll. I do not claim there is not an issue, I trust Bas and completely believe him, however I just “ordered” my grail this weekend and it has a 32X, I am not concerned. Why not? Rolex is the most successful watch company this world has ever known. They are not perfect, again I do not dispute Bas’ statement, but you do not achieve the superiority Rolex has by sustaining a bad product. I have ultimate confidence, that Rolex will solve this issue. Will my grail someday need to be sent to RSC for overhaul/repair because of this issue? It may very well be, but I trust Rolex, I trust the AD I am buying my grail from, and in the end, everything will be fine.

So, this will not stop me from buying an incredible watch I will enjoy.

I think the part that’s different now is that the higher ups at Rolex are moving the brand into more of a luxury area. Yeah they’ve been classified as a luxury item for a very long time, but they still maintained the “tool” watch vibe that built the company. Personally I feel like that tradition has been watered down over the past couple decades and now with all the hype over brands like AP and PP they are wanting to get there. For me it’s disappointing that we can’t have the best of luxury with the reliability of a tool in one package made to the highest standard in both regards. I do agree with you that I think they will fix it. It’s just a little frustrating to find out they’ve know about it for a while now and they just keep it hush hush while we keep begging to spend tens of thousands of dollars

[Tridor]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. Here is mine:

I have purchased two watches with the 32X movement and have had zero issues, you can say I’m lucky to be one of the 75% with no problems as identified in your poll. I do not claim there is not an issue, I trust Bas and completely believe him, however I just “ordered” my grail this weekend and it has a 32X, I am not concerned. Why not? Rolex is the most successful watch company this world has ever known. They are not perfect, again I do not dispute Bas’ statement, but you do not achieve the superiority Rolex has by sustaining a bad product. I have ultimate confidence, that Rolex will solve this issue. Will my grail someday need to be sent to RSC for overhaul/repair because of this issue? It may very well be, but I trust Rolex, I trust the AD I am buying my grail from, and in the end, everything will be fine.

So, this will not stop me from buying an incredible watch I will enjoy.

You're opinion is equally valid, as is your desire to feel good about your 32xx purchases. As to the 32xx, Rolex' lack of transparency will result in a major reputational hit. Some folks currently have sent their watches back 3-4 times for warranty work and still no permanent fix appears to exist. What happens after expiration of the warranty when the problems persist? Will Rolex cover them or extend the warranty? By doing so, it will be a tacit admission of a design defect. If it refuses to cover or extend those pieces, then its reputation likely will be impacted adversely.

[Seo]

Originally Posted by SearChart

The issue is known for years now, with plenty of evidence. People may choose to believe what they want, I'm not here to argue with anyone.

There are people in this thread, high up people in this forum, who pop in and keep dismissing these concerns. They don’t ever respond directly to your posts though. ;)

[EEpro]

The facts have been shown. Nothing left to argue over. If you "believe" anything at this point then it's a religion. The data has spoken. The experts have seen the top of the mountain and it's not worth worshiping.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by JMGoodnight369

I think the part that’s different now is that the higher ups at Rolex are moving the brand into more of a luxury area. Yeah they’ve been classified as a luxury item for a very long time, but they still maintained the “tool” watch vibe that built the company. Personally I feel like that tradition has been watered down over the past couple decades and now with all the hype over brands like AP and PP they are wanting to get there. For me it’s disappointing that we can’t have the best of luxury with the reliability of a tool in one package made to the highest standard in both regards. I do agree with you that I think they will fix it. It’s just a little frustrating to find out they’ve know about it for a while now and they just keep it hush hush while we keep begging to spend tens of thousands of dollars

The concerning thing is, how will they fix it? Someone above made the point that there are millions of these watches already out there. Logistically almost seems impossible. And it appears this is a design issue with the movement and most of them will eventually develop problems. If Rolex doesn't permanently fix them and more and more of these break outside of warranty, they are going to face an epic class action lawsuit. The reputational hit would be immense.

I was a bit more sanguine about these issues because I was in the "Rolex will eventually make it right" camp, but even if they wanted to I don't know how they could. Seems like a mess.

But OTOH, considering our litigious society, it appears Rolex will have to make things right, whether voluntarily or by force. So that does give me slight pause about running out and selling my 32xx Rolexes. Kind of hard to figure out the right course of action TBH.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by JMGoodnight369

I think the part that’s different now is that the higher ups at Rolex are moving the brand into more of a luxury area. Yeah they’ve been classified as a luxury item for a very long time, but they still maintained the “tool” watch vibe that built the company. Personally I feel like that tradition has been watered down over the past couple decades and now with all the hype over brands like AP and PP they are wanting to get there. For me it’s disappointing that we can’t have the best of luxury with the reliability of a tool in one package made to the highest standard in both regards. I do agree with you that I think they will fix it. It’s just a little frustrating to find out they’ve know about it for a while now and they just keep it hush hush while we keep begging to spend tens of thousands of dollars

Excellent points, and over-all I agree with you.

Forgive me if this has been brought up before, but.. well, we are a very focused group here on TRF, so what I am submitting is that our awareness of the deficiency is higher then the general public. If you think about it, in the general public, a person who buys a Rolex could probably go for five or more years without even realizing there was anything wrong. Unless of course, the accuracy was really out of sorts, but to the average person, a mechanical watch losing a couple minutes every few days might even not be recognized. I wonder if this is influencing Rolex not being very forthright about this issue, nothing public

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Isochronism characterization of 32xx movements
I hope this post is understandable and triggers some discussion.

The obvious question is …….

Is there a place on this forum for outstanding posts. This one certainly qualifies.

It’s great that so much information that has been collected over quite a long time is now finally being proved beyond question.

The people who deny that anything is wrong must now see that there certainly is.

As to Rolex doing repairs either openly or silently is questionable ….. I have my doubts still unfortunately as Rolex are still so silent on this topic.

Thanks Saxo3 and Baz. ———- Great work.

[taybo20]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Isochronism characterization of 32xx movements

Thank you for this! I have two 3235 movements (sub and Datejust) and this looks perfectly acceptable to me. I have no problem with my 3235 movements so far and your data seems to support that. I also keep mine on a winder.

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Excellent points, and over-all I agree with you.

Forgive me if this has been brought up before, but.. well, we are a very focused group here on TRF, so what I am submitting is that our awareness of the deficiency is higher then the general public. If you think about it, in the general public, a person who buys a Rolex could probably go for five or more years without even realizing there was anything wrong. Unless of course, the accuracy was really out of sorts, but to the average person, a mechanical watch losing a couple minutes every few days might even not be recognized. I wonder if this is influencing Rolex not being very forthright about this issue, nothing public

It's certainly possible that our subset here is pretty focused on stuff like this but on the other hand Rolex makes such a big deal about accuracy in it's advertising and goes so far as to print "superb chronometer" on every dial. But not sure how much that factors into the average buyers decision.

I mean heck, plenty of high-end watches don't have any accuracy guarantee at all or even hacking movements. You can certainly spend a LOT more on a watch than a Rolex and end up with something not terribly accurate, rugged or reliable. And spend a LOT less and get a watch that is more accurate, rugged and reliable. For a certain part of the market though, the Rolex niche was a luxury watch that was also a very good watch.

[Seo]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Excellent points, and over-all I agree with you.

Forgive me if this has been brought up before, but.. well, we are a very focused group here on TRF, so what I am submitting is that our awareness of the deficiency is higher then the general public. If you think about it, in the general public, a person who buys a Rolex could probably go for five or more years without even realizing there was anything wrong. Unless of course, the accuracy was really out of sorts, but to the average person, a mechanical watch losing a couple minutes every few days might even not be recognized. I wonder if this is influencing Rolex not being very forthright about this issue, nothing public

This is 100% why. This defect is not life threatening nor part of a regulated industry. The people at Rolex perform a cost benefit on this. This is very different to something like the automotive industry. I don’t think anyone diving etc will trust their life in a Rolex over a proper dive computer.

Many don’t even wear the watch, some don’t even set the time when wearing it and many won’t wear the watch over consecutive days to even noticed the difference.

There is a risk this all blows up in their face but more likely they will quietly move on to a new movement family with the issue solved.