32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by saxo3

You are welcome.
What went wrong with the previous measurement?
Do you mind sharing the newest data?

Data attached below. These all seem fine to me.

I’ve really no idea what was wrong with the previous measurement, but I can only assume I didn’t leave the watch to settle sufficiently beforehand and between each position.

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by saxo3

It would be interesting to measure the isochronism (3647) of your watch.

For that you need to do more measurements, e.g., every 12 hours after full winding, in order to get more data points: t = 0, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60 hours.

Avoid to measure from 23:00 - 01:00 and 05:00 - 08:00. These are periods with reduced 32xx amplitudes.
Example (below) two 3235 watches measured along the entire power reserve in DU position.

Just a point of clarification please: are you suggesting to avoid these periods for date movements which obviously are 24h? As my watch is an explorer with the no date 3230, presumably this time restriction would not apply? If I conduct this experiment, the most suitable time each day would be 05.30h and 17.00h. I’m assuming this would work perfectly well with the explorer movement?

Thanks.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Mountain

Just a point of clarification please: are you suggesting to avoid these periods for date movements which obviously are 24h?
Yes.
As my watch is an explorer with the no date 3230, presumably this time restriction would not apply?
Probably not, but I could not test a 3230.
If I conduct this experiment, the most suitable time each day would be 05.30h and 17.00h. I’m assuming this would work perfectly well with the explorer movement?
Yes.
Thanks.

You are welcome

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by saxo3

You are welcome

Thanks again, appreciate the confirmation.

[noellly]

Do you consider that testing a movement inside a case can cause disturbances
Proper witshi equipment and amplifying the signal is a must for correct values. Especially with sports watches.

Another interesting thing, the 32 movement is often very dry at the date wheel, is 3230 performing better?

[Aerogph]

Originally Posted by noellly

Do you consider that testing a movement inside a case can cause disturbances
Proper witshi equipment and amplifying the signal is a must for correct values. Especially with sports watches.

Another interesting thing, the 32 movement is often very dry at the date wheel, is 3230 performing better?

Normally the disturbance happens on thicker cases such as the Sea-Dweller and the Deep-Sea.

Is my understanding that at the moment the share the very same issue, being that the complicated movement are more prone to develop it earlier. Somehow, the required energy to power those functions like the DayDate, GMT and Date drag the amplitude down.

If we take let's say, an Explorer II mounting caliber 3285 like Charles has, you'll notice that the amplitude values are generally lower than in a Submariner. However, sometimes could be the opposite. The fact is that we and Rolex haven't really understood the real cause of it. All imho.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by noellly

Do you consider that testing a movement inside a case can cause disturbances

Of course. Can you clarify what you mean and quantify the disturbances?

Originally Posted by noellly

Proper witshi equipment and amplifying the signal is a must for correct values. Especially with sports watches.

Witshi, Weishi, Witschi?

Originally Posted by noellly

Another interesting thing, the 32 movement is often very dry at the date wheel, is 3230 performing better?

Often very dry? How do you know that? Are you a watchmaker servicing 32xx watches?

[JMGoodnight369]

Originally Posted by Aerogph

Normally the disturbance happens on thicker cases such as the Sea-Dweller and the Deep-Sea.

Is my understanding that at the moment the share the very same issue, being that the complicated movement are more prone to develop it earlier. Somehow, the required energy to power those functions like the DayDate, GMT and Date drag the amplitude down.

If we take let's say, an Explorer II mounting caliber 3285 like Charles has, you'll notice that the amplitude values are generally lower than in a Submariner. However, sometimes could be the opposite. The fact is that we and Rolex haven't really understood the real cause of it. All imho.

Well I’ll go ahead and tell you this theory is incorrect. I had to service my 124060 Submariner 10 months into owning it due to low amplitude. This was bought from an AD. It’s the same 3230 as the explorer. The date or GMT functions have nothing to do with this issue

[CedCraig]

I follow the YouTube channel WatchAdvisor. I think Alexander does an excellent job reviewing the watches and has great photography. On a recent Rolex video I made a comment about the problems with the 32xx movements. He said he hadn’t hear about that yet, but that he’d check into it. I figured “yeah, right.”

His latest video was on the 1908, which uses the 7140 movement, and interestingly has a silicon hairspring. I made the comment “Very nice looking and thank goodness it doesn’t have the 32xx movement.” His reply was “I heard from official AD Rolex watchmakers lots of 32xx come back during the five year warranty … the problem seems to be the gear train … and the materials used for the gears and pinions …”

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

I follow the YouTube channel WatchAdvisor. I think Alexander does an excellent job reviewing the watches and has great photography. On a recent Rolex video I made a comment about the problems with the 32xx movements. He said he hadn’t hear about that yet, but that he’d check into it. I figured “yeah, right.”

His latest video was on the 1908, which uses the 7140 movement, and interestingly has a silicon hairspring. I made the comment “Very nice looking and thank goodness it doesn’t have the 32xx movement.” His reply was “I heard from official AD Rolex watchmakers lots of 32xx come back during the five year warranty … the problem seems to be the gear train … and the materials used for the gears and pinions …”

This reads like a clear contradiction.

First, he hadn't heard about 32xx problems, then he knows from AD watchmakers and speculates about gear train, materials, pinions.

[CedCraig]

Originally Posted by saxo3

This reads like a clear contradiction.

First, he hadn't heard about 32xx problems, then he knows from AD watchmakers and speculates about gear train, materials, pinions.

In one of his videos two weeks ago I made a comment about the 32xx movements and he said he hadn’t heard about the problems, but would check into it.

In his latest video from two days ago I commented again and that’s the reply he gave.

So during the two weeks between the videos he apparently checked with contacts in the industry and was told by Rolex watchmakers that indeed a lot of watches with 32xx movements are coming in for service. My reading is that the Rolex watchmakers said that the problems are related to the gear train and materials used for the gears and pinions.

I don’t see a contradiction. I see a watch industry insider following up on the 32xx issue and reporting back what his Rolex contacts (watchmakers) told him.

This is the video where I first commented: https://youtu.be/bKvscUzaR7c

This is the video with his response: https://youtu.be/QADg5gu6YuY

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

In one of his videos two weeks ago I made a comment about the 32xx movements and he said he hadn’t heard about the problems, but would check into it.

In his latest video from two days ago I commented again and that’s the reply he gave.

So during the two weeks between the videos he apparently checked with contacts in the industry and was told by Rolex watchmakers that indeed a lot of watches with 32xx movements are coming in for service. My reading is that the Rolex watchmakers said that the problems are related to the gear train and materials used for the gears and pinions.

I don’t see a contradiction. I see a watch industry insider following up on the 32xx issue and reporting back what his Rolex contacts (watchmakers) told him.

This is the video where I first commented: https://youtu.be/bKvscUzaR7c

This is the video with his response: https://youtu.be/QADg5gu6YuY

Thanks for the clarification!

OK for the "two weeks between the videos" part.

I find it very surprising that a so-called "watch insider" hears about this problem for the first time. This thread alone reports about the 32xx issues since January 2021, so more than 2 years.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

This is the video with his response: https://youtu.be/QADg5gu6YuY

Here is the text of his video:

---------------------
"14,355 views 20 Apr 2023 #rolexwatches #rolex #watchesandwonders
#rolex #RolexPerpetual1908 #watchesandwonders @ROLEX

Inspired by one of the first Rolex watches fitted with the Perpetual rotor, the Rolex Perpetual 1908 is the first member of the Perpetual collection. This new collection is a reinterpretation of traditional watchmaking style imbued with quintessential watchmaking expertise and the aesthetic heritage of Rolex. The 1908 is defined by its design, which conveys the full strength of the watch’s character in the simplicity of the display and by details that confer its unique identity. This timepiece perfectly embodies the spirit of the Perpetual collection, at whose core lies the celebration of the art of watchmaking in its noblest form. The 1908 features a 39 mm case in 18 ct yellow or white gold, with gracious lines and a transparent back that allows the refined aesthetics of the movement to be admired as well as the pivoting of the oscillating weight. The curve of the lugs is highlighted thanks to a gentle chamfering on their top edges. The bezel is divided – the lower part being given an elegant fluting and the upper part domed. Made of virtually scratchproof sapphire, the domed crystal and the transparent case back benefit from an anti-reflective coating. Guaranteed waterproof to a depth of 50 metres (165 feet), the case provides optimal protection for the movement nestled inside.

The 1908 is equipped with calibre 7140, a movement wholly developed and manufactured by Rolex, unveiled this year. A distillation of technology, this self-winding mechanical movement delivers outstanding performance in terms of precision, power reserve, convenience and reliability. Calibre 7140 demonstrates carefully finished aesthetics, notably on the bridges, which feature Rolex Côtes de Genève – a decoration that differs from traditional Côtes de Genève for the slight polished groove between each band.

Calibre 7140 incorporates the patented Chronergy escapement, which combines high energy efficiency with great dependability. Made of nickel-phosphorus, this escapement is resistant to strong magnetic fields. The movement also includes the patented Syloxi hairspring, produced by Rolex. This silicon hairspring has a patented geometry that ensures the calibre’s regularity in any position. The oscillator is mounted on the patented high-performance Paraflex shock absorbers, designed by the brand, which increase the movement’s shock resistance. The oscillating weight is fashioned in 18 ct yellow gold and cut out. It is, furthermore, fitted with an optimized ball bearing.

Calibre 7140 is equipped with a self-winding system via a Perpetual rotor. Thanks to its barrel architecture and the escapement’s superior efficiency, the power reserve of calibre 7140 extends to approximately 66 hours.

The 1908 is fitted on an alligator leather strap. Matt brown or matt black, this elegant strap is individually tailored for the new watch, with a green calfskin lining and tone-on-tone stitching. It is equipped with a Dualclasp, a double folding clasp, in 18 ct yellow or white gold. Thanks to its carefully designed shape, the Dualclasp always sits centred on the wrist.

Like all Rolex watches, the Perpetual 1908 is covered by the Superlative Chronometer certification redefined by Rolex in 2015. This designation testifies that every watch leaving the brand’s workshops has successfully undergone a series of tests conducted by Rolex in its own laboratories according to its own criteria, following the official certification of the movements by the Swiss Official Chronometer Testing Institute (COSC). The in-house certification tests apply to the fully assembled watch, after casing the movement, guaranteeing superlative performance on the wrist in terms of precision, power reserve, waterproofness and self-winding. The precision of a Rolex Superlative Chronometer is of the order of −2/+2 seconds per day – the rate deviation tolerated by the brand for a finished watch is significantly smaller than that accepted by COSC for official certification of the movement alone.

The Superlative Chronometer status is symbolized by the green seal that comes with every Rolex watch and is coupled with an international five-year guarantee.

#wherethewatchesarethestars #rolexwatches"
---------------------

How can this guy, or anybody else, claim that the NEW 7140 movement "delivers outstanding performance in terms of precision, power reserve, convenience and reliability"?

For me it reads like all the marketing BS from Rolex SA.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

I think that says more about the insular nature of this thread than it does about the ubiquity of the problem.

[Omarion07]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Here is the text of his video:





How can this guy, or anybody else, claim that the NEW 7140 movement "delivers outstanding performance in terms of precision, power reserve, convenience and reliability"?



For me it reads like all the marketing BS from Rolex SA.

Saxo3, you know the old saying "innocent, until proven guilty". Now we're treating anything with the word "chronergy" in it, "guilty, until proven innocent". This is a brand new movement from Rolex, and we're jumping into conclusions that it'll fail before the watch is even released. We don't know for a fact if this issue is inherent within the chronergy escapement design or if it's something else entirely. Until we see a 1908 giving off very low amplitudes and losing time constantly, we'll assume that Rolex (and Alexander's) claims to be accurate (no pun intended), just like we do with cals 31xx, 4130, 9001, etc. Same goes for cals 4131 and 9002.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Omarion07

Saxo3, you know the old saying "innocent, until proven guilty". Now we're treating anything with the word "chronergy" in it, "guilty, until proven innocent". This is a brand new movement from Rolex, and we're jumping into conclusions that it'll fail before the watch is even released. We don't know for a fact if this issue is inherent within the chronergy escapement design or if it's something else entirely. Until we see a 1908 giving off very low amplitudes and losing time constantly, we'll assume that Rolex (and Alexander's) claims to be accurate (no pun intended), just like we do with cals 31xx, 4130, 9001, etc. Same goes for cals 4131 and 9002.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

You did not understand my post?

My point is that nobody can say that the new 7140 will NOT be good, but also nobody can say that it will "deliver outstanding performance in terms of precision, power reserve, convenience and reliability." Such a claim from a YouTuber (LOL) is bare nonsense.

Everyone is free to believe anything he/she wants.

[Omarion07]

Originally Posted by saxo3

You did not understand my post?



My point is that nobody can say that the new 7140 will NOT be good, but also nobody can say that it will "deliver outstanding performance in terms of precision, power reserve, convenience and reliability." Such a claim from a YouTuber (LOL) is bare nonsense.



Anybody is free to believe whatever he/she wants.

I understand where you're coming from. If it weren't for the 32xx amplitude issues, no one would doubt these claims. But to me, the default is to take Rolex's word with this movement until "proven faulty".

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Omarion07

Saxo3, you know the old saying "innocent, until proven guilty". Now we're treating anything with the word "chronergy" in it, "guilty, until proven innocent". This is a brand new movement from Rolex, and we're jumping into conclusions that it'll fail before the watch is even released. We don't know for a fact if this issue is inherent within the chronergy escapement design or if it's something else entirely. Until we see a 1908 giving off very low amplitudes and losing time constantly, we'll assume that Rolex (and Alexander's) claims to be accurate (no pun intended), just like we do with cals 31xx, 4130, 9001, etc. Same goes for cals 4131 and 9002.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

Just for the record.
It's not exactly a brand new movement/escapement at this juncture.
Aside from a few run of the mill Automatic watch movement issues, broadly speaking there is one glaring thing which keeps cropping up time and again or a fairly common denominator for the want of a better expression and it has an entire suite of characteristics that go along with it.

Now I don't mind that people are wedded to the idea of having the latest and greatest from the mothership.
That's all good. But when there are flow on effects that are sure to have an impact on service pricing where the rest of us with more serviceable movements are subsidising the mothership's cost base or potentially lead to blow outs in routine service turn around times, let alone potentially have a bearing on the mental health of service technicians, then it's not necessarily all sweet and lovely or add to the betterment of society
Make not mistake about it, the mothership is almost certainly spreading any aspects of their service cost base around wherever they can.
Of course, they may have fully factored it all into the up front purchase price too, which would partially explain the exponential rises in the purchase prices I suppose

As they say, time will tell on the movement but at this point in time it makes all of Omega's efforts to get on top of their journey with the Co-axial look particularly earnest if one is to look around for an equivalent example of capacity.

[Mountain]

I’ve just completed the isocronism experiment on my explorer, measuring from fully wound at 0 to 60 hours left in the dial up position. All measurements taken dial up.

I’m very happy with the results, so following the service about a month ago, all seems well with my watch.

[sski]

thought i'd report back regarding my DJ 36......i noticed this week that it was running behind about 35 mins. (at the tail end of the 70 hr. power reserve.) i figure it may have about an hour or 2 remaining.

Is this normal for the precision to drop off drastically around the end of pr, or is this a potential 3235 movt. problem? (i don't have the timing device, so can't say for sure.)

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Mountain

I’ve just completed the isocronism experiment on my explorer, measuring from fully wound at 0 to 60 hours left in the dial up position. All measurements taken dial up.

I’m very happy with the results, so following the service about a month ago, all seems well with my watch.

These numbers look very good for DU position alone.

[CedCraig]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks for the clarification!

OK for the "two weeks between the videos" part.

I find it very surprising that a so-called "watch insider" hears about this problem for the first time. This thread alone reports about the 32xx issues since January 2021, so more than 2 years.

I suspect it’s pretty common knowledge in the industry by now, but it’s one of those things, like Voldemort, that shall not be named. A quote from Casablanca comes to mind: “I'm shocked, shocked, to find that gambling is going on in here." That could be paraphrased as “I’m shocked, shocked, to hear a Rolex movement isn’t working perfectly.”

A recent post in the main forum had the OP at an AD and he asked if they’d heard about issues with 32xx movements. They expressed surprise, they didn’t know about that! But when he followed up with there’s a long thread on TRF, watchmakers have confirmed issues, etc, he suddenly got the cold shoulder and felt he was longer treated well.

So if the AD staff really did not know, they wouldn’t have gotten testy, rather they might have expressed some interest.

[saxo3]

The Internet does not forget L O L

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

A recent post in the main forum had the OP at an AD and he asked if they’d heard about issues with 32xx movements. They expressed surprise, they didn’t know about that! But when he followed up with there’s a long thread on TRF, watchmakers have confirmed issues, etc, he suddenly got the cold shoulder and felt he was longer treated well.
I saw that thread.
So if the AD staff really did not know, they wouldn’t have gotten testy, rather they might have expressed some interest.
Yes.

[Tridor]

Originally Posted by Omarion07

I understand where you're coming from. If it weren't for the 32xx amplitude issues, no one would doubt these claims. But to me, the default is to take Rolex's word with this movement until "proven faulty".

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

At this point, why would anyone take the word of Rolex? Rolex still refuses to admit to a continuing problem with the 32xx after 8 years. Until the 7140 is proven to be reliable, I'll approach it with a fair amount of skepticism.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by saxo3

The Internet does not forget L O L

Priceless

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by Tridor

At this point, why would anyone take the word of Rolex? Rolex still refuses to admit to a continuing problem with the 32xx after 8 years. Until the 7140 is proven to be reliable, I'll approach it with a fair amount of skepticism.

Being skeptical is fine.
Personally I'm not worried about the 7140 and 4131 at all, I will only get worried if those start rolling in for warranty repairs.

[Mountain]

Came across this on YouTube. Referenced this thread. I’m sure more will follow …

https://youtu.be/Lzqh2kroYIw

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Mountain

Came across this on YouTube. Referenced this thread. I’m sure more will follow …
https://youtu.be/Lzqh2kroYIw

At the end of his video he said "I maybe even getting a timegrapher so I can monitor the amplitude over time".

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by sski

thought i'd report back regarding my DJ 36......i noticed this week that it was running behind about 35 mins. (at the tail end of the 70 hr. power reserve.) i figure it may have about an hour or 2 remaining.

Is this normal for the precision to drop off drastically around the end of pr, or is this a potential 3235 movt. problem? (i don't have the timing device, so can't say for sure.)

I'm not 100% clear on what you are describing. But if the watch lost 35 minutes (and was still running) that is quite bad. When I have monitored mine all the way to the end of the PR the timekeeping does fall off a lot more near the very end, but there isn't enough time spent in this condition for the net time error to add up to that much.

For example... lets say in the final hour of power reserve the watch is losing 30 seconds per day (this is the worst I have seen)... well in that final hour of running, a rate of -30 s/d amounts to a total of 1.25 seconds being lost compared to the atomic clock. In order to accumulate 35 MINUTES of error you would have to be running really, really slowly which even at low power reserve would be abnormal.

I suggest getting some kind of measuring device or taking it in to a watchmaker. Based on the little info you have given, something does not seem right.