32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[atxwatch]

Originally Posted by Bulldozer

Do you mean your wife's watch?

Lol. Do I??? Or MAYBE I worded that one precisely as itended

[Rolex1982]

Hmm after 15 months of daily usage my watch also has the low amplitude sickness. I noticed that i needed to adjust the watch more often (i don’t like it when it runs more than 1 minute off) so i used the watch tracker app to track the watch. And it runs about -5s/d so i went to my AD which has is own certified Rolex watchmakers. He looked at my watch and checked it. And guess what, it runs slow and it has a low amplitude. They took it in for repairs. Because i knew of the existence of this topic i asked the watch maker if it was a ‘known issue’ and he confirmed that it was but they didn’t explain to me what they were going to do with it.

The watch is now 2,5 years old. I bought it unworn 15 months ago so i hope warranty applies. The AD thinks it does but they did say that they do repairs under a 1000 EUR without consulting me so i will hear it when i can pick it up again in about 6 weeks.

The sales rep who helped me was new and was very impressed by the meteorite dail. He said they never seen it in this location. This one gets allocated by the CEO at their headquarters. He showed it to all his colleagues there.

[saxo3]

Rolex 32xx Movement Variants (March 2023)

Rolex SA announced variants of the 32xx movements: 3230 B, 3235 C, 3235 D

Below I have compiled all the information I found on their new website, which was launched during Watches and Wonders (27 March to 2 April 2023) in Geneva.

[DauJones]

Does this mean that the pre march 2023 version of eg a sub date has a different movement?


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro

[Toshk]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Rolex 32xx Movement Variants (March 2023)

Rolex SA announced variants of the 32xx movements: 3230 B, 3235 C, 3235 D

Below I have compiled all the information I found on their new website, which was launched during Watches and Wonders (27 March to 2 April 2023) in Geneva.

Could the B be a fix?

[Bulldozer]

Originally Posted by Toshk

Could the B be a fix?

Of course it could be. We won't know for several months.

[SearChart]

These variants have been in use for years, it signifies the size of the mainplate and/or date mechanism cover.
I don't know why they'd openly release this information as it's only useful when selecting a movement holder before a service or when you need to replace a specific part that might differ in the versions.

[saxo3]

First time I saw it this week published by Rolex under https://newsroom.rolex.com

Released just to confuse and increase entropy?

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by saxo3

First time I saw it this week published by Rolex under https://newsroom.rolex.com

Released just to confuse and increase entropy?

No, but not sure why it would be released to the general public.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by SearChart

No, but not sure why it would be released to the general public.

Released to let 'caliber nerds' believe that there is a 32xx fix?

If it is only what you say (mainplate and/or date mechanism cover) then I agree it's meaningless for the 'general public'. I don't count me in this group though …

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Released to let 'caliber nerds' believe that there is a 32xx fix?

If it is only what you say (mainplate and/or date mechanism cover) then I agree it's meaningless for the 'general public'. I don't count me in this group though …

Rolex will never acknowledge that there is an issue, so it won't be that.

Giving clarification to a general question an ignorant customer (and/or sales associate) might have is more likely: ''why is the same movement in this watch and that watch while they both have different sizes''. Then they can refer to this article showing that there's different versions.

Also not sure why now they've decided to release this info as the verions have been a thing in myrolexnetwork since the caliber's release.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Released to let 'caliber nerds' believe that there is a 32xx fix?

If it is only what you say (mainplate and/or date mechanism cover) then I agree it's meaningless for the 'general public'. I don't count me in this group though …

You've been drawn in too deep.
Let it go, or your life will go down the toilet.

The more BS there is to confuse and confound the prols the better in this game of BS baffling brains in order to sell.
Follow the money, as that's what drives everything.
It started back in the "Vindication Swim" days along with the Everest ascent. As good as Rolex is at some core things, they are absolute masters of this stuff.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Dirt

You've been drawn in too deep.
Let it go, or your life will go down the toilet.

2 x No!

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by saxo3

2 x No!

Agreed.

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Agreed.

My 32xx’s are all killing it. 214270. 124270. 216570. 226570. 122610.
Every single one. Just doing great.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

My 32xx’s are all killing it. 214270. 124270. 216570. 226570. 122610.
Every single one. Just doing great.

My DJ 126300 was also running just great but on the timegrapher this morning after a full wind I noted these results crown down.

Dial up was 245.

Now on its way to the RSC under warranty.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

My 32xx’s are all killing it. 214270. 124270. 216570. 226570. 122610.

Every single one. Just doing great.

Explorer 214270: 3132
Explorer 124270: 3230
Explorer 216570: 3187
Explorer 226570: 3285
Submariner 122610: 3235

Don't start digging, you will be VERY disappointed.

Here my comparison between the same Explorer watches (216570 vs. 226570) that you also own.

The difference in performance after full winding is huge.
The 3187 movement is still top after 5 years, the 3285 movement is already crap after 1.5 years.

[CharlesN]

Oh Dear,

This shows yet another comparison between old movements (31xx and newer 32xx).

Again we see the poor running of the 32xx series of movements and still Rolex have NOT managed to either fix permamantly or now produce movements that are as good as they used to be.

How long will Rolex go on producing movements that they know are all faulty ?

By now a company as large as Rolex should have managed to do something ... They know there is a problem (They read all the foirums so they have seen what is shown and proven here).
I used to have an ExpII with a 3187, I sold it to get the new model and then when i discovered it was a promlematic movement I sold that newer model and went back to what I had. I lost plenty of money doing this but I only want watches that are of a good quality.

Modern Rolex watches are not for me any more and wont be until they prove that they have improved their quality.

I dont think I am alone in my thoughts either.

[atxwatch]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Oh Dear,

This shows yet another comparison between old movements (31xx and newer 32xx).

Again we see the poor running of the 32xx series of movements and still Rolex have NOT managed to either fix permamantly or now produce movements that are as good as they used to be.

How long will Rolex go on producing movements that they know are all faulty ?

By now a company as large as Rolex should have managed to do something ... They know there is a problem (They read all the foirums so they have seen what is shown and proven here).
I used to have an ExpII with a 3187, I sold it to get the new model and then when i discovered it was a promlematic movement I sold that newer model and went back to what I had. I lost plenty of money doing this but I only want watches that are of a good quality.

Modern Rolex watches are not for me any more and wont be until they prove that they have improved their quality.

I dont think I am alone in my thoughts either.

Of course you are not. After the W&W announcement of "upgraded" movements in the Skydweller and Daytona, I am holding off on what would have been a certain purchase of at least one of those two this year. If I WERE to buy one, it would be with the full disclosure to the AD that I would try to immediately trade it unworn for the prior model (which obvs means I will never get the new model anyway...which is fair).

Now...some folks have so much money they simply don't care about spending 15k on a watch and it being defective. For better or worse, I do not have that level of eff-you money. I still do care and so do tons of others.

[saxo3]

Charles, post #3797 displays your 32xx watch (bought in July 2021)

Below you find the time evolution of your Explorer II Ref. 226570 starting from the date of purchase until about 17 months later.

You took all timegrapher data after full winding of the 3285 caliber.



Movement Rates
- The average rate X remained very good for 1.5 years (after purchase) and was always inside (or very close) to the -2/+2 sec/day, which is the green marked area (Rolex).

- After about 1 year, the three vertical rates are outside COSC, which is the blue marked area (COSC).

- Most owners would not recognize any change and claim that this watch keeps great time, which is confirmed here by the X value.

Movement Amplitudes
- Independent of movement position after full winding, all amplitudes significantly decreased with time. After about 500 days the vertical amplitudes only reached 205-215 degrees after full winding, so certainly below the criteria of 200 degrees after 24 hours.

- It is evident that this watch had developed the 32xx problem. It would only have been a question of several months before timekeeping (the rates) would also have decreased significantly.

My Conclusion
- The time evolution of this 3285 watch, only measured 6 times in all positions with a timegrapher, is a gold-plated example why many 32xx owners say, "my watch is great, keeps good time, and has no issue". They cannot see that the amplitude virus started to decrease the movement performance because the movement rates are still good.

- As I always said, the key observable are the too low amplitudes after full winding. Sooner or later the amplitudes decrease, often much more pronounced in all 3 vertical positions, and will then slow down the 32xx movements, most likely all produced ones so far (IMO) within the 5-year warranty period (IMO).

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by Andad

My DJ 126300 was also running just great but on the timegrapher this morning after a full wind I noted these results crown down.

Dial up was 245.

Now on its way to the RSC under warranty.

Honest clarification requested, I'm not sure if you are serious or mocking?




On a different point, I was surprised to see this on a mainstream watch media site:

We’ll go deeper on this watch when we’re able to get more time with it, and get some answers about the ongoing amplitude issues affecting newer calibers, and that might impact the 4131.

ref: https://wornandwound.com/hands-on-wi...rolex-daytona/

[CedCraig]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

On a different point, I was surprised to see this on a mainstream watch media site:

ref: https://wornandwound.com/hands-on-wi...rolex-daytona/

I just saw that article mentioned on WUS and I predict this is the crack in the dam on this topic. For a major watch website to actually publish the words “We’ll . . . get some answers about the ongoing amplitude issues affecting newer calibers, and that might impact the 4131” is astonishing. It’s an acknowledgment that shows W&W knows enough about the 32xx problems to specify low amplitude and using the word “ongoing” shows they consider this a real, current issue.

It would have been very easy for W&W to downplay the problems with the 32xx movement by saying something like “a few instances of timekeeping issues, common with many new movement designs” or something like that, but they didn’t. Easier still to not mention it. Will be fascinating to see what happens next.

[the dark knight]

A bit OT, but what is a healthy amplitude for a 31xx movement? I have a 2 year old 216570 and on a full wind the best it could do was in the 270s, DU. All the non-Rolex watches I tested seemed to get into the 300s on a full wind.

Still new to the timegrapher thing, I did get some very preliminary numbers from my 126710s. On a full wind, both watches are in the 270s DU/DD and in the 210-220 range CU/CD. After about 48 hours the BLRO falls to about 220s and 170s respectively (yikes!) and the BLNR is about 250s and 210s.

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

A bit OT, but what is a healthy amplitude for a 31xx movement? I have a 2 year old 216570 and on a full wind the best it could do was in the 270s, DU. All the non-Rolex watches I tested seemed to get into the 300s on a full wind.

Still new to the timegrapher thing, I did get some very preliminary numbers from my 126710s. On a full wind, both watches are in the 270s DU/DD and in the 210-220 range CU/CD. After about 48 hours the BLRO falls to about 220s and 170s respectively (yikes!) and the BLNR is about 250s and 210s.

And to piggyback on that question... Is the 32XX movement designed to run at a lower amplitude as a way to extend the power reserve?

[CedCraig]

Originally Posted by csaltphoto

And to piggyback on that question... Is the 32XX movement designed to run at a lower amplitude as a way to extend the power reserve?

From what I’ve read about the Chronergy escapement, the answer is no, but the watchmakers here will likely reply.

I believe the longer power reserve comes from the longer, but thinner, hairspring stuffed into a similar sized barrel, with thinner walls, and the claimed improved efficiency of the escapement design.

My theory, based on not much, is that these exact design changes result in lower amplitude over time. Perhaps the thinner, stuffed in hairspring just doesn’t provide the juice it should (or sort of sticks together a bit) and/or the redesigned pallets and escape wheel teeth don’t work as well as originally thought.

If true, and it’s a giant IF, that would mean the 32xx movements have a fundamental design flaw that will be nigh on impossible to fix. I really hope I’m wrong.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

From what I’ve read about the Chronergy escapement, the answer is no, but the watchmakers here will likely reply.

I believe the longer power reserve comes from the longer, but thinner, hairspring stuffed into a similar sized barrel, with thinner walls, and the claimed improved efficiency of the escapement design.

My theory, based on not much, is that these exact design changes result in lower amplitude over time. Perhaps the thinner, stuffed in hairspring just doesn’t provide the juice it should (or sort of sticks together a bit) and/or the redesigned pallets and escape wheel teeth don’t work as well as originally thought.

If true, and it’s a giant IF, that would mean the 32xx movements have a fundamental design flaw that will be nigh on impossible to fix. I really hope I’m wrong.

Didn't Bas above already confirm there is a fundamental design flaw in these movements?

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Didn't Bas above already confirm there is a fundamental design flaw in these movements?

He stated that yeah. But so far no one can pinpoint it down to something specific. We know what the new parts are mostly. It's the interaction wherein the devil is in the details.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

A bit OT, but what is a healthy amplitude for a 31xx movement? I have a 2 year old 216570 and on a full wind the best it could do was in the 270s, DU.

300 DU, DD: 300
3U, 6U, 9U: 270
see post #3797

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Still new to the timegrapher thing, I did get some very preliminary numbers from my 126710s. On a full wind, both watches are in the 270s DU/DD and in the 210-220 range CU/CD. After about 48 hours the BLRO falls to about 220s and 170s respectively (yikes!) and the BLNR is about 250s and 210s.

Read the thread, look at tables & graphs

From my 3235, second repair in 11/2022, measured in 03/2023:

After full winding:
DU, DD: 270
3U, 6U, 9U: 240

After 48 hours:
DU, DD: 240
3U, 6U, 9U: 190

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by csaltphoto

And to piggyback on that question... Is the 32XX movement designed to run at a lower amplitude as a way to extend the power reserve?

Originally Posted by CedCraig

From what I’ve read about the Chronergy escapement, the answer is no, but the watchmakers here will likely reply.

I believe the longer power reserve comes from the longer, but thinner, hairspring stuffed into a similar sized barrel, with thinner walls, and the claimed improved efficiency of the escapement design.

My theory, based on not much, is that these exact design changes result in lower amplitude over time. Perhaps the thinner, stuffed in hairspring just doesn’t provide the juice it should (or sort of sticks together a bit) and/or the redesigned pallets and escape wheel teeth don’t work as well as originally thought.

If true, and it’s a giant IF, that would mean the 32xx movements have a fundamental design flaw that will be nigh on impossible to fix. I really hope I’m wrong.

You contradict yourself?

[Andad]

[QUOTE=HiBoost;12704977]Honest clarification requested, I'm not sure if you are serious or mocking?

serious.