32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Andad

Measuring the variation in amplitude based on lift angle changes on your Timegrapher is not very accurate.

How do you want to know that? I have given the precision value for each data point and explained it in my post.

Originally Posted by Andad

Why not just calculate the difference?

Of course I did that, my measurements and simple calculation fit very well.

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

I really doubt Rolex tests for this. „Hey, our watches work REALLY well when worn all the time, but suck if not. Don‘t let your Rolex become a low amplitude safe queen! Wear your ROLEX proudly.“

I doubt they measure it too. I was being more rhetorical. Why would they measure it? It's never been a factor. But it might be a factor now.

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by Saint_Tail

How long did you stop wearing it?

And I was wondering, if the watch is beginning to loose precision, would wearing it again daily for some period of time (i.e one week, one month) will bring the precision back?

I stopped wearing it for about 10 days while on a diving holiday. A couple of weeks after returning, I noticed the time was off relative to our clocks. I dropped it off at the AD I bought it from, who is also a Rolex service centre. After about a week they sent me an email which included the following:

“ …our watchmakers have advised that the watch is performing out of tolerance. At its 0 hour, the amplitude is far below where it needs to be so the watch needs to corrected under service….”

This is what prompted me to investigate online further … and of course it lead me straight to this forum and this thread in particular.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

This time of year is pretty chaotic for me at work. I had to travel last week, with nearly zero notice. I was only able to get 0,12,24hr readings. For now that's all I have. Thanks again for you assistance.

Here is the comparison I promised.

WG SUB (126619B) caliber 3235

Your timegrapher data taken in 01/2023 (left) compared to 07/2023 (right).

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

How do you want to know that? I have given the precision value for each data point and explained it in my post.


Of course I did that, my measurements and simple calculation fit very well.

I believe this has been fairly well addressed at various points throughout this thread and the correlation is well established

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by saxo3

(...)
It may be interesting to measure the power reserve of the Sub41.

Just got the power reserve readings from the watches, pretty good in both cases:

- "sick" SD43: 71 1/2 hours
- "healthy" Sub41: 73 hours 5 minutes

I didn't expect that TBH. Even the low amplitude SD43 has an excellent PR, above the 70h spec. Go figure.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

Just got the power reserve readings from the watches, pretty good in both cases:

- "sick" SD43: 71 1/2 hours
- "healthy" Sub41: 73 hours 5 minutes

I didn't expect that TBH. Even the low amplitude SD43 has an excellent PR, above the 70h spec. Go figure.

Thanks for your reply, I am not surprised at all.

Nominal power reserve does NOT mean your 32xx is healthy.

Fact is that two of my sick 32xx movements show very low amplitudes and negative rates but still have a power reserve of 71:40 and 71:33. Rolex acceptance criteria is 69 hours.

Below are my timegrapher data for one of my sick 3285 watch movements; the second caliber is like the shown one.

What people do not want to accept (or understand) is the fact that good timekeeping and nominal power reserve are NOT a major criterion to identify the widely spread 32xx caliber issue, which is in my view >25%.

If a watch with a specified power reserve of approx. 70 hours already runs with an average rate of -40 s/d after 48 hours at rest, then such a watch movement (younger than 5 years) is …. judge yourself.

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks for your reply, I am not surprised at all.

Nominal power reserve does NOT mean your 32xx is healthy.

Fact is that two of my sick 32xx movements show very low amplitudes and negative rates but still have a power reserve of 71:40 and 71:33. Rolex acceptance criteria is 69 hours.

Below are my timegrapher data for one of my sick 3285 watch movements; the second caliber is like the shown one.

What people do not want to accept (or understand) is the fact that good timekeeping and nominal power reserve are NOT a major criterion to identify the widely spread 32xx caliber issue, which is in my view >25%.

If a watch with a specified power reserve of approx. 70 hours already runs with an average rate of -40 s/d after 48 hours at rest, then such a watch movement (younger than 5 years) is …. judge yourself.

Indeed, the good power reserve is not indicative of a healthy movement in this case.

The fall in accuracy after 48h is something I also noticed early with the 32xx when collecting accuracy data over the past 7 years with my SD43. I must have mentioned it at some point in this thread or elsewhere in the forum. You're basically trading off accuracy for power reserve. If someone really values that third extra day of PR and doesn't care so much about accuracy, then I guess it's less of a problem, so long as the slowing down doesnt get too bad.

In this test I did 3 days ago with my timegrapher (see graphs below), I noticed my SD43 now starts dropping after 24h, kind of "off a cliff", when in the past it used to happen after 48h.

It's worth mentioning that this kind of pattern would go undected if the watch was worn daily or on rotation with other watches (with more than 3 days passed before wearing it again). Basically, if you don't use the PR, you won't notice the movement slowing down, unless it's gone really bad. The drop would have to happen well before 24h for people to notice.

So it's no surprise we don't have more people coming forward about this problem with their 32xx watches. Hard to spot until it goes terribly bad. That's where I find the amplitude analysis handy, combined with time tracking. It's the canary in the coal mine.

[jakjakman]

My 126710BLNR is exhibiting symptoms of this defect. It now runs -30 seconds a day.

How do I go about getting it in for repair? I got it from a grey dealer 3 years ago and it's still within its warranty window. We only have one AD within our state... do I take it to them first and ask about service? Or do I contact a service center by phone first?

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by jakjakman

My 126710BLNR is exhibiting symptoms of this defect. It now runs -30 seconds a day.

How do I go about getting it in for repair? I got it from a grey dealer 3 years ago and it's still within its warranty window. We only have one AD within our state... do I take it to them first and ask about service? Or do I contact a service center by phone first?

Call the RSC direct. I believe 32xx warranty claims in the US all go to NY.

[MikeyV]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Call the RSC direct. I believe 32xx warranty claims in the US all go to NY.

Mine went to Dallas under warranty (from CA) but yeah. You can send it in yourself, no need to go to an AD. Although the AD will help you if you take it there.

[fsprow]

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

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

[CedCraig]

Originally Posted by fsprow

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

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

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

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

[T3rmina1]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marast-66]

Originally Posted by T3rmina1

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


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



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

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[T3rmina1]

Originally Posted by Marast-66

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

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

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by T3rmina1

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

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

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

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

[alphadweller]

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

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

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

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

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

RSC's use Witschi timegraphers.
Weishi timegraphers are fine to detect the low amplitude problem.

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by saxo3

RSC's use Witschi timegraphers.

I think what CedCraig is saying is the Weishi is good enough to determine a low amplitude, even if not as accurate as the Witschi used by the RSC. RSC has not rejected low amp watches scanned by the owners' Weishi's.

Edit: I just saw you edited your response,

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by fsprow

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

I had a Weishi 1900.

I "Graduated" to a Witschi Chronoscope S1.

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

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

[saxo3]

Timegrapher data for NEW WATCHES

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

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

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

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

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

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Timegrapher data for NEW WATCHES

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Easy E]

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

[Murdoc370]

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

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

Kind regards
Dennis

[Murdoc370]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Timegrapher data for NEW WATCHES

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

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

Happy to oblige:

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

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

Kind regards

Dennis

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

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

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

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

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Murdoc370

Happy to oblige:

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

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

Kind regards

Dennis

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

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

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

All 3 verticals were pretty much the same.

[Murdoc370]

Originally Posted by saxo3

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

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

Any suggestions (besides a screenshot)?