32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Seo]

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.

This is a very interesting graph plot. With my 6 watches varying from nomos omega rolex and patek the timing when static dial up increases as the pr decreases. In my head this makes sense as the amplitude drops and imperfect isochronism the watch ticks a tad faster.

The only two watches I didn’t observe this is a seiko 6r35 which is simply a terrible movement and my problematic dj with 3235.

[JMGoodnight369]

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

That is a very interesting thought and your logic is sound. This wouldn’t be something a luxury brand makes public. It’s embarrassing and it would tarnish the brand to a lot of brand enthusiasts. Which if we consider the number of members here it’s a very small number of Rolex owners. I think the majority of owners don’t care as these watches are nothing more than a status symbol. They don’t care if their timepiece even tells the time correctly. Those are the clients they want though. I’m sure we annoy them sending in watches because they don’t perform exactly as advertised. Rolex customer service is okay but nothing to write home about. Yeah you get some sparkling water or chocolates but the dialogue is always very bland without a personal sort of connection. It’s very sterile. I don’t think Rolex would risk their name or status to admit to putting out a faulty movement. The other watch houses would have a hay day touting their products reliability while mocking the crown

[Mountain]

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

While I agree with much of this, I think the average person would certainly notice their watch losing a couple of minutes every few days! Both of my parents have worn Rolex watches for as long as I can remember, neither are into watches, but they do rely on them for their daily lives. They would definitely notice.

When you get beyond watch enthusiasts and social media show—offs you find the normal people who wear the same watch day in day out: these people rely on their watches and would certainly be disappointed at such accuracy.

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

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.

They certainly have quite a challenge on their hands when you think about the logistics of fixing- particularly as they’ll want to do so with as little noise as possible.

I have one of the new explorers, it’s about 18 months old. It started losing time dramatically in December’22 & went to the RSC for repair. I got it back about a month ago & I’m keeping a close eye on the accuracy.

All of this is intensely annoying as I absolutely love the explorer otherwise. I really don’t want to part with it so I guess I’ll have to put my trust into the fact that Rolex will fix eventually.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

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 Bas. ———- Great work.

Many thanks Charles

A discussion about technical aspects, e.g., the isochronism described in post 3652, would be by far more interesting for me than all the other stuff like 8.64E4 seconds/day, watches as jewelry, Rolex will fix it, or other nonsensical stuff that we have read again and again in this thread. 2023 is already year 8 after the introduction of the 3235 movement in 2015.

Originally Posted by taybo20

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.

How do you know that your 3235 movements have no problem? You observe good timekeeping? You measured amplitudes and rates? Are you sure you understand this graph?

Originally Posted by Seo

This is a very interesting graph plot. With my 6 watches varying from nomos omega rolex and patek the timing when static dial up increases as the pr decreases. In my head this makes sense as the amplitude drops and imperfect isochronism the watch ticks a tad faster.

The only two watches I didn’t observe this is a seiko 6r35 which is simply a terrible movement and my problematic dj with 3235.

Thanks for you feedback and interest.

[fmc000]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I do not claim there is not an issue, I trust Bas and completely believe him

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

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.

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I have ultimate confidence, that Rolex will solve this issue.

After 5+ years I'm not so sure anymore. We'll see, I surely hope you're right.

[HiBoost]

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 share your admiration for the brand, but we also have to account for the fact that the Roman Empire was quite impressive, until it wasn't. Or as they say in the investment world, "past performance is not a guarantee of future results." I think the key word in your post is "sustaining." Rolex cannot keep this up. By continuing to shift models over to the 32xx they have painted themselves into a corner whereby they have to make it reliable, replace it, or fail. I have two 32xx watches - one is garbage, one is perfect. I love everything about these two watches other than the anxiety their movements bring me. So I am definitely in the camp of rooting for a solution. That is, in fact, 100% of the reason I have participated in this effort to bring the issue further into the light of day. I want to exert whatever pressure is possible on Rolex in order to help them help themselves (and thus, help us).

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

I fear there is truth to this, i.e. Rolex desires to shake up the current hierarchy and create a "Holy Quadrinity." There are several problems here, however. First, current alum such as AP are widely known to not have particularly robust movements. They are more about being beautiful, delicate things than they are real world tool watches. And I regularly see new Patek owners say things like "I thought the timekeeping would have been a little better, but whatever." In other words, once you get to the Rolls Royce and Bentley levels, I'm not sure people are really looking at JD Power numbers anymore - you have to compete on other merits.

Rolex to me is Lexus. Not the most prestigious. Not made from the most exotic materials. But a very nice product that is, above all, built on a reputation of reliability. Now imagine what Lexus would be if you started seeing them broke down on the side of the road everywhere. You didn't have the prestige of a Rolls, nor the performance of a Porsche, nor the exclusivity of a McLaren, and now you've lost reliability too?? Game over.

Furthermore, I would hope it is obvious to those at Rolex HQ that you can't simply move upmarket by raising MSRP. Rolex is a brand that doesn't even show you their movements. A $500 Hamilton will have a display case but a $110k Rainbow Daytona is a "nothing to see here" affair when it comes to the movement. Rolex movements have always been characterized as "robust, dead reliable, and not much to look at." Take the first 2 out of the description and you aren't left with much to brag about!

Rolex also aren't big on complications. They've got a chrono and an annual calendar and that's pretty much it. Hell, even Bell and Ross and Bulgari have tourbillons in their lineups. Rolex have a long way to go if haute horology is the game they wish to play.

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

First, current alum such as AP are widely known to not have particularly robust movements. They are more about being beautiful, delicate things than they are real world tool watches. And I regularly see new Patek owners say things like "I thought the timekeeping would have been a little better, but whatever."

"Don't leave me out!" -VC

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I share your admiration for the brand, but we also have to account for the fact that the Roman Empire was quite impressive, until it wasn't. Or as they say in the investment world, "past performance is not a guarantee of future results." I think the key word in your post is "sustaining." Rolex cannot keep this up. By continuing to shift models over to the 32xx they have painted themselves into a corner whereby they have to make it reliable, replace it, or fail. I have two 32xx watches - one is garbage, one is perfect. I love everything about these two watches other than the anxiety their movements bring me. So I am definitely in the camp of rooting for a solution. That is, in fact, 100% of the reason I have participated in this effort to bring the issue further into the light of day. I want to exert whatever pressure is possible on Rolex in order to help them help themselves (and thus, help us).




I fear there is truth to this, i.e. Rolex desires to shake up the current hierarchy and create a "Holy Quadrinity." There are several problems here, however. First, current alum such as AP are widely known to not have particularly robust movements. They are more about being beautiful, delicate things than they are real world tool watches. And I regularly see new Patek owners say things like "I thought the timekeeping would have been a little better, but whatever." In other words, once you get to the Rolls Royce and Bentley levels, I'm not sure people are really looking at JD Power numbers anymore - you have to compete on other merits.

Rolex to me is Lexus. Not the most prestigious. Not made from the most exotic materials. But a very nice product that is, above all, built on a reputation of reliability. Now imagine what Lexus would be if you started seeing them broke down on the side of the road everywhere. You didn't have the prestige of a Rolls, nor the performance of a Porsche, nor the exclusivity of a McLaren, and now you've lost reliability too?? Game over.

Furthermore, I would hope it is obvious to those at Rolex HQ that you can't simply move upmarket by raising MSRP. Rolex is a brand that doesn't even show you their movements. A $500 Hamilton will have a display case but a $110k Rainbow Daytona is a "nothing to see here" affair when it comes to the movement. Rolex movements have always been characterized as "robust, dead reliable, and not much to look at." Take the first 2 out of the description and you aren't left with much to brag about!

Rolex also aren't big on complications. They've got a chrono and an annual calendar and that's pretty much it. Hell, even Bell and Ross and Bulgari have tourbillons in their lineups. Rolex have a long way to go if haute horology is the game they wish to play.

Keep in mind that Rolls Royce motor cars don't break down. They merely fail to proceed
I also note that when they're picked up/retrieved from the side of the road after they've "failed to proceed", it's within a completely covered truck.
Now that may be for any number of reasons including superlative protection of the paintwork and or body work, but I imagine it has the added benefit of concealing the vehicle from the public's awareness.
Naturally, public awareness is all well and good as long as they are proceeding along the road with typical Rolls Royce style and grace, not to mention a certain element of conspicuous consumption.

Perhaps Rowlex Wristwatches have attained such exhalted status as a Rolls Royce motor car?

I can see some common traits between the two brands
I've given some deep consideration to the periodical Rolex and car comparisons and have come to the conclusion that Rolex shares a characteristic or two with Toyota in that they have similar volume of production relative to their respective industries and Toyota's aren't as highly regarded in terms of reliability as what they used to be and built a solid reputation on

[whatsthetime?]

This was the reason for my prior post thinking that the 32xx calibre came out in 2020.
I understand that it didn't, but the statement below from Rolex sure led me to believe it did.

[Vince_76]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed. How unfortunate that there is no fix for the time being

[Easy E]

Back with fresh data. Back in December 22 I had several watches that I had taken a fair amount of TG readers. One of which is my DD40. I was super not happy with the number so that one went in for warranty repair - shipped Jan 6, returned Mar 3, exactly 8 weeks to the day. I have been a bit busy the last couple of weeks but here are the current readings as of this morning.

[taybo20]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Many thanks Charles

A discussion about technical aspects, e.g., the isochronism described in post 3652, would be by far more interesting for me than all the other stuff like 8.64E4 seconds/day, watches as jewelry, Rolex will fix it, or other nonsensical stuff that we have read again and again in this thread. 2023 is already year 8 after the introduction of the 3235 movement in 2015.

How do you know that your 3235 movements have no problem? You observe good timekeeping? You measured amplitudes and rates? Are you sure you understand this graph?

Thanks for you feedback and interest.

To be fair I personally have no problem. That doesn’t mean the watch isn’t as perfect as it should be. The reason I say this is because the two 3235 I have keep very accurate with the 3185 I have in the winder with them. And compared to an omega speedmaster gmt (caliber 3603) and a tag (caliber 5), the 3235 keep much more accurate time. The Omega was by far the worst of any watch I’ve ever owned.

I also submit that I may be missing something with the graph, and I don’t have the equipment to test amplitude. At the same time, I submit that nothing will ever be as accurate as a clock that continually updates itself like the clock in my phone.

[Easy E]

Prior to the 0-48 reading I had a couple of days of 0 and 24 readings. The attachment includes the data in the most previous post.

A high level summary of pre and post service:
Pre 0hr AvgRate -4.96, AvgAmp 219.8
Post 0Hr AvgRate +.95, AvgAmp 239.1

Pre 24hr AvgRate -4.48, AvgAmp 229.6
Post 24Hr AvgRate -1, AvgAmp 218.4

Pre 48hr AvgRate -10.3, AvgAmp 176.8
Post 48Hr AvgRate -3.28, AvgAmp 184.2
(Only one data set for each @48hr)

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Prior to the 0-48 reading I had a couple of days of 0 and 24 readings. The attachment includes the data in the most previous post.

A high level summary of pre and post service:
Pre 0hr AvgRate -4.96, AvgAmp 219.8
Post 0Hr AvgRate +.95, AvgAmp 239.1

Pre 24hr AvgRate -4.48, AvgAmp 229.6
Post 24Hr AvgRate -1, AvgAmp 218.4

Pre 48hr AvgRate -10.3, AvgAmp 176.8
Post 48Hr AvgRate -3.28, AvgAmp 184.2
(Only one data set for each @48hr)

The 24 hr readings are the most curious to me. In all honesty I don't know how to interpret this. The rate was corrected, but the amplitude dropped (at that mark). Go figure.

[Vince_76]

So it sounds like oil migrating is not the primary (sole) suspect?

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by SearChart

I knew it was worse than we thought when 32xx's come in and have no wear at all, yet run terrible.
Or when you serviced one and it's perfectly lubricated, yet it cannot even reach 200 degrees fully wound dial up...

Are your employers aware of these posts? While I definitely value your input, for your own sake, you may wish to tread lightly ..

[EEpro]

Yes.

[Tridor]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Prior to the 0-48 reading I had a couple of days of 0 and 24 readings. The attachment includes the data in the most previous post.

A high level summary of pre and post service:
Pre 0hr AvgRate -4.96, AvgAmp 219.8
Post 0Hr AvgRate +.95, AvgAmp 239.1

Pre 24hr AvgRate -4.48, AvgAmp 229.6
Post 24Hr AvgRate -1, AvgAmp 218.4

Pre 48hr AvgRate -10.3, AvgAmp 176.8
Post 48Hr AvgRate -3.28, AvgAmp 184.2
(Only one data set for each @48hr)

Those amplitude numbers are not good at all. As someone said previously, we're 8 years into the 32xx and still there's no permanent fix.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Back with fresh data. Back in December 22 I had several watches that I had taken a fair amount of TG readers. One of which is my DD40. I was super not happy with the number so that one went in for warranty repair - shipped Jan 6, returned Mar 3, exactly 8 weeks to the day. I have been a bit busy the last couple of weeks but here are the current readings as of this morning.

Comparison before/after service

The 3255 rates are much better after the service. For Amplitude 6U (before service) something went wrong with the measurement after 24 hours, imo.



Isochronism Day-Date 40 before/after service compared to your GMT-Master II BLNR (no service). The DD40 improvement in isochronism is very clear.

[saxo3]

Why timegrapher measurements and all my graphs with 32xx data?

Because I am curious, every day, and do not want to stop learning.

The usefulness of the diagrams I have shown in posts #3652 and #3685, which contain measurement data for the so-called 32xx isochronism, may not be so obvious to some members.

If you look at the following three points in such a diagram, one can get a good picture of the health of a 32xx movement:

(1) The maximum value of the average amplitude (X-Amplitude), which is usually measured after a full winding. This value should be as high as possible.

(2) The slope "m" of the fitted curve for the data points. It should be as high as possible, which means that the caliber rates do not depend (strongly) on the caliber amplitude, which is called isochronism.

(3) The average rate (X-Rate) after full winding, which should be inside COSC or better in the -2/+2 sec/day range.

If you repeat this rather simple timegrapher measurements, only about 2-3 times per year, you can detect significant movement changes, e.g., a slow decrease in maximum amplitude (after full winding) after several months. This would allow any interested 32xx owner to perform a simple analysis of his 32xx watch.

The presented isochronism analysis does NOT solve the movement problem, it does NOT detect the root cause of the 32xx issues, it does NOT answer "when Rolex will have a permanent fix" ….

BUT it enables any watch owner to do a simple diagnostic. It is obvious how VERY useful a timegrapher can be, despite the so many negative posts against this instrument and against members who do care about accuracy (and precision) of their Rolex watches.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Why timegrapher measurements and all my graphs with 32xx data?

Because I am curious, every day, and do not want to stop learning.

The usefulness of the diagrams I have shown in posts #3652 and #3685, which contain measurement data for the so-called 32xx isochronism, may not be so obvious to some members.

If you look at the following three points in such a diagram, one can get a good picture of the health of a 32xx movement:

(1) The maximum value of the average amplitude (X-Amplitude), which is usually measured after a full winding. This value should be as high as possible.

(2) The slope "m" of the fitted curve for the data points. It should be as high as possible, which means that the caliber rates do not depend (strongly) on the caliber amplitude, which is called isochronism.

(3) The average rate (X-Rate) after full winding, which should be inside COSC or better in the -2/+2 sec/day range.

If you repeat this rather simple timegrapher measurements, only about 2-3 times per year, you can detect significant movement changes, e.g., a slow decrease in maximum amplitude (after full winding) after several months. This would allow any interested 32xx owner to perform a simple analysis of his 32xx watch.

The presented isochronism analysis does NOT solve the movement problem, it does NOT detect the root cause of the 32xx issues, it does NOT answer "when Rolex will have a permanent fix" ….

BUT it enables any watch owner to do a simple diagnostic. It is obvious how VERY useful a timegrapher can be, despite the so many negative posts against this instrument and against members who do care about accuracy (and precision) of their Rolex watches.

Thank you for your efforts with this. Very helpful.

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Why timegrapher measurements and all my graphs with 32xx data?

Because I am curious, every day, and do not want to stop learning.

The usefulness of the diagrams I have shown in posts #3652 and #3685, which contain measurement data for the so-called 32xx isochronism, may not be so obvious to some members.

If you look at the following three points in such a diagram, one can get a good picture of the health of a 32xx movement:

(1) The maximum value of the average amplitude (X-Amplitude), which is usually measured after a full winding. This value should be as high as possible.

(2) The slope "m" of the fitted curve for the data points. It should be as high as possible, which means that the caliber rates do not depend (strongly) on the caliber amplitude, which is called isochronism.

(3) The average rate (X-Rate) after full winding, which should be inside COSC or better in the -2/+2 sec/day range.

If you repeat this rather simple timegrapher measurements, only about 2-3 times per year, you can detect significant movement changes, e.g., a slow decrease in maximum amplitude (after full winding) after several months. This would allow any interested 32xx owner to perform a simple analysis of his 32xx watch.

The presented isochronism analysis does NOT solve the movement problem, it does NOT detect the root cause of the 32xx issues, it does NOT answer "when Rolex will have a permanent fix" ….

BUT it enables any watch owner to do a simple diagnostic. It is obvious how VERY useful a timegrapher can be, despite the so many negative posts against this instrument and against members who do care about accuracy (and precision) of their Rolex watches.

Yeah, thanks for persevering with a data based approach to this. It's really brought a lot of people out of the woodwork with their own stories and data. Just keeps getting more interesting.

[LFFL]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I just posted this in another thread, I repeat to share with participants here.

Below are two different engravings on the 3235 movements.

The left photo was published by Rolex SA yesterday, the right photo is from SearChart (aka Bas).



I assume that the former "ADJ. 5 POS. + TEMP." represents a part of the COSC acceptance criteria while "SUPERLATIVE ADJ." is a more advanced adjustment procedure done by Rolex SA, i.e., the famous -2/+2 sec/day precision specification.

Or does the new engraving come along with an improved 32xx movement which contains some visible component modifications to cure the 32xx issue(s)?

Which model were these movements pulled from, and apply to which manufacture year? Could anyone confirm if the 'SUPERLATIVE ADJ." revision fixes the low amplitude issue? Sorry if I missed it if already been covered.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by LFFL

Which model were these movements pulled from, and apply to which manufacture year? Could anyone confirm if the 'SUPERLATIVE ADJ." revision fixes the low amplitude issue? Sorry if I missed it if already been covered.

Left photo: Datejust 36, posted on Instagram by Rolex in 02/2023.

Right photo: Datejust 41, posted on TRF by Bas in 03/2019.

My question "Or does the new engraving come along with an improved 32xx movement which contains some visible component modifications to cure the 32xx issue(s)?" was not answered directly but no visible component modification and often no component wear detectable.

The root cause of issues seems to be (or is) the 32xx design including the migration of lubricants, so basically 'everything' imo.

Apropos design: the Rolex 32xx calibers have only one mainspring barrel for approx. 70 hours of power reserve. Fifty Fathoms movements (1151, 1315) have 2 or 3 series-coupled barrels for 100 or 120 hours power reserve, which is much better imo.

[fmc000]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Why timegrapher measurements and all my graphs with 32xx data?

Because I am curious, every day, and do not want to stop learning.

The usefulness of the diagrams I have shown in posts #3652 and #3685, which contain measurement data for the so-called 32xx isochronism, may not be so obvious to some members.

If you look at the following three points in such a diagram, one can get a good picture of the health of a 32xx movement:

(1) The maximum value of the average amplitude (X-Amplitude), which is usually measured after a full winding. This value should be as high as possible.

(2) The slope "m" of the fitted curve for the data points. It should be as high as possible, which means that the caliber rates do not depend (strongly) on the caliber amplitude, which is called isochronism.

(3) The average rate (X-Rate) after full winding, which should be inside COSC or better in the -2/+2 sec/day range.

If you repeat this rather simple timegrapher measurements, only about 2-3 times per year, you can detect significant movement changes, e.g., a slow decrease in maximum amplitude (after full winding) after several months. This would allow any interested 32xx owner to perform a simple analysis of his 32xx watch.

The presented isochronism analysis does NOT solve the movement problem, it does NOT detect the root cause of the 32xx issues, it does NOT answer "when Rolex will have a permanent fix" ….

BUT it enables any watch owner to do a simple diagnostic. It is obvious how VERY useful a timegrapher can be, despite the so many negative posts against this instrument and against members who do care about accuracy (and precision) of their Rolex watches.

[Easy E]

For kicks I ran my DD40 measurements out to 60hrs. I have done that previously on a couple of watches, including the DD40 prior to repair. So far I have found the 60hr readings to represent near useless rates and amplitudes. On my recently repaired DD40 the difference between pre and post service are rather distinct.

Pre 60hr AvgRate -26.12, AvgAmp 147.4
Post 60Hr AvgRate -6.36, AvgAmp 159.6

FWIW

[HiBoost]

If there is one bright side to this issue, it is the ease of detection. You don't have to be a super genius with exotic equipment, any normal person who takes a few measurements can clearly see the trend. One horizontal reading, one vertical, at full wind and again at 24 hours, are all you need. Write them down and repeat in 6 months. Done. You literally can't miss it.


Perhaps I should make a framed print of this and try to exhibit it in a gallery in Geneva. I could call it "Death Of An Icon."

[Vince_76]

What’s the best iPhone app to track performance?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Vince_76

What’s the best iPhone app to track performance?

WatchTracker