32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[SOG DIVER]

Originally Posted by maratka

**My humble opinion:** Unfortunately, I probably have to agree with you. Rolex is a very large company with surely competent engineers on board. If the problem hasn't been definitively solved in 6 years (or more?), it's likely that the solution somehow impacts the claims they've made (particularly regarding the power reserve). However, as we know, creating a movement with a 70-hour power reserve is not that difficult a task (considering we're talking about Rolex) and without losing accuracy. But I think the solution to this problem requires such a substantial change to the current design that most parts would need to be replaced, and it just wouldn't be the same anymore. Hence, I conclude that you are right, and there will either be a deep modernization or a new caliber (or they'll call this modernization a new caliber :) ). If we assume that fixing this defect involves replacing, say, 80% of the parts (I'm just making this up), then such an operation could likely only be done at the factory, which is essentially assembling new watches with a new mechanism that requires complex quality control and a lot of time. Currently, Rolex is focused on producing and selling rather than halting production to deal with millions of already released calibers. Therefore, I am almost certain that there will be no solution to this problem. They will continue with "quick" repairs that do not require large production capacities, which are much more needed for new watches. This conclusion makes me think that, unfortunately, the only options left are to either endure the problem and constantly take them to the service center, buy a 3135, or wait for the new generation.

I have been following this 32XX movement issue for awhile, and the 70-hour power reserve mentioned by MARATKA piqued interest and crossed a
separate research path that I am engaged in on the Blancpain 1315 caliber compared to recent Rolex calibers.
Keeping it VERY brief as this is/is not tangential to the 32xx caliber.
BUT the 1315 caliber is known to retain a 100+-hour power reserve while delivering startling accuracy over time.
It does invite a comparison of Rolex 3135 -32xx- and BP 1315 movements
as to their respective qualities, an activity that I am currently
engaged in. {Please excuse this insertion, in the interest of horological
research.} SD

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by SOG DIVER

I have been following this 32XX movement issue for awhile, and the 70-hour power reserve mentioned by MARATKA piqued interest and crossed a
separate research path that I am engaged in on the Blancpain 1315 caliber compared to recent Rolex calibers.
Keeping it VERY brief as this is/is not tangential to the 32xx caliber.
BUT the 1315 caliber is known to retain a 100+-hour power reserve while delivering startling accuracy over time.
It does invite a comparison of Rolex 3135 -32xx- and BP 1315 movements
as to their respective qualities, an activity that I am currently
engaged in. {Please excuse this insertion, in the interest of horological
research.} SD

Probably a topic for a separate thread, but the 1315 with 3 barrels brings the heat.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by SOG DIVER

I have been following this 32XX movement issue for awhile, and the 70-hour power reserve mentioned by MARATKA piqued interest and crossed a
separate research path that I am engaged in on the Blancpain 1315 caliber compared to recent Rolex calibers.
Keeping it VERY brief as this is/is not tangential to the 32xx caliber.
BUT the 1315 caliber is known to retain a 100+-hour power reserve while delivering startling accuracy over time.
It does invite a comparison of Rolex 3135 -32xx- and BP 1315 movements
as to their respective qualities, an activity that I am currently
engaged in. {Please excuse this insertion, in the interest of horological
research.} SD

The Blancpain caliber 1315 is a marvel compared to the Rolex 32xx calibers. The 120 h power reserve of the 1315, achieved with 3 barrels, beats by far the 31xx (44 h) and 32xx (70 h). Don't get me started on the 1315 accuracy.

[digiwatch]

One month old Submariner 124060. If the average is within Rolex specs, and each position individually is within COSC specs, that means it’s all good?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by digiwatch

One month old Submariner 124060. If the average is within Rolex specs, and each position individually is within COSC specs, that means it’s all good?

Your new 32xx watch looks perfect after full winding. What you call "Sigma" is normally the "Delta". You continue to measure along the power reserve?

PS: "perfect" because 4 of the 5 rates are positive and one position (3U) is negative. With such a caliber regulation you are able to compensate, either gain or loss during a day, by choosing an appropriate rest position overnight. In addition, the 2 horizontal and 3 vertical amplitudes are very similar, which is the result of a very good movement regulation, including a positive X (average rate).

[digiwatch]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Your new 32xx watch looks perfect after full winding. What you call "Sigma" is normally the "Delta". You continue to measure along the power reserve?

PS: "perfect" because 4 of the 5 rates are positive and one position (3U) is negative. With such a caliber regulation you are able to compensate, either gain or loss during a day, by choosing an appropriate rest position overnight. In addition, the 2 horizontal and 3 vertical amplitudes are very similar, which is the result of a very good movement regulation, including a positive X (average rate).

Thanks saxo3! I'll repeat the test after 24 hours.

So 12U is not regulated by Rolex, right? Because the rate in that position was -5.5 s/d, amp was 234 deg and beat error was 0.2 ms.

Out of curiosity I also did the measurements for our almost 2 years old OP34 (2232) and our 1 year old DJ31 (2236):

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by digiwatch

One month old Submariner 124060. If the average is within Rolex specs, and each position individually is within COSC specs, that means it’s all good?

Rolex does not mention COSC in their timing tolerances for the basic (32xx) movement.

The paper copy below was posted 2 years ago in this thread. Look at the 1st criterion for the rate.

The maximum Delta is 9 s/d, for COSC this would be 10 s/d.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by digiwatch

Thanks saxo3! I'll repeat the test after 24 hours.

Good, you should not move the watch in-between (you certainly know). Keep it in DU position. You could continue taking measurements after 12,24,36,48,60 hours to get an idea about the amplitudes along the power reserve, as others have done before in this thread.

Originally Posted by digiwatch

So 12U is not regulated by Rolex, right? Because the rate in that position was -5.5 s/d, amp was 234 deg and beat error was 0.2 ms.

Correct, look above, this are the instructions given by Rolex SA: Test positions for the watch (or movement)

Originally Posted by digiwatch

Out of curiosity I also did the measurements for our almost 2 years old OP34 (2232) and our 1 year old DJ31 (2236):

Both caliber data sets look very good.
Sigma = Delta

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by digiwatch

Thanks saxo3! I'll repeat the test after 24 hours.

Do you intend to post an update on your measurements?

[Easy E]

Ok, boiys and girls. What we have today is a 3285 caliber piece, purchased from a TS about 2 weeks ago in stated unworn condition, warranty card dated 3/24. For today we are just going to call this Watch X. It appears that at 24hrs the vertical amplitudes are out of spec and the max delta (I think that's the correct term) is 9.6, also slightly out of spec. I post, you decide.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Ok, boiys and girls. What we have today is a 3285 caliber piece, purchased from a TS about 2 weeks ago in stated unworn condition, warranty card dated 3/24. For today we are just going to call this Watch X. It appears that at 24hrs the vertical amplitudes are out of spec and the max delta (I think that's the correct term) is 9.6, also slightly out of spec. I post, you decide.

Holy sh%t
This is a NEW 32xx watch from March 2024!
Thanks for this interesting data along the PR.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Ok, boiys and girls. What we have today is a 3285 caliber piece, purchased from a TS about 2 weeks ago in stated unworn condition, warranty card dated 3/24. For today we are just going to call this Watch X. It appears that at 24hrs the vertical amplitudes are out of spec and the max delta (I think that's the correct term) is 9.6, also slightly out of spec. I post, you decide.

Those amp numbers even at full wind look quite low

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by Easy E

I post, you decide.

I have decided …

Your watch, even being from March 2024 has definitely got what has been termed here a number of times as “The Bug”

Of course there are those here who still will or can not bring themselves to admit that Rolex have got a problem and they just will not own up to it.

How much more proof does Rolex or the unbelievers need ?

[enjoythemusic]

Well, there's nearly always a flip-side to any movement. For all the yeses, there will be nos.

Plus, does it really matter about the non-believers if their destiny is still certain? What will happen, will, all in good time.

[Via reggio]

Low amplitude on a watch today, I started to only change the palettfork and the n the amplitude went up from 215 up to 260 - 270 in horizontal
Also passed 24h 200 amp tolerance

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Ok, boiys and girls. What we have today is a 3285 caliber piece, purchased from a TS about 2 weeks ago in stated unworn condition, warranty card dated 3/24. For today we are just going to call this Watch X. It appears that at 24hrs the vertical amplitudes are out of spec and the max delta (I think that's the correct term) is 9.6, also slightly out of spec. I post, you decide.

BTW, is this watch the DJ41 in your handle? The reason I ask is because it's not unheard of for ADs to hang on to some more "popular" models to try to bundle them or entice people to buy more watches before making them available. So a 3/24 warranty date could be a watch that was manufactured quite a while ago. But I don't think this would be the case for a DJ41.

Anyway, I was getting optimistic because of Bas's post a while ago about not seeing nearly as many 32xx watches coming in for warranty services, but this would throw a damper on those hopes.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

BTW, is this watch the DJ41 in your handle? The reason I ask is because it's not unheard of for ADs to hang on to some more "popular" models to try to bundle them or entice people to buy more watches before making them available. So a 3/24 warranty date could be a watch that was manufactured quite a while ago. But I don't think this would be the case for a DJ41.

Anyway, I was getting optimistic because of Bas's post a while ago about not seeing nearly as many 32xx watches coming in for warranty services, but this would throw a damper on those hopes.

You have a good point, re: hold backs. This is a GMT

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by Via reggio

Low amplitude on a watch today, I started to only change the palettfork and the n the amplitude went up from 215 up to 260 - 270 in horizontal
Also passed 24h 200 amp tolerance

So then to me, the next most obvious question is what is the difference between the pallet forks?

[Via reggio]

Originally Posted by Easy E

So then to me, the next most obvious question is what is the difference between the pallet forks?

Dont really know, they look the same

[Via reggio]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Ok, boiys and girls. What we have today is a 3285 caliber piece, purchased from a TS about 2 weeks ago in stated unworn condition, warranty card dated 3/24. For today we are just going to call this Watch X. It appears that at 24hrs the vertical amplitudes are out of spec and the max delta (I think that's the correct term) is 9.6, also slightly out of spec. I post, you decide.

What happens if you turn the crown/wind really slow so you can feel a slight resistance and observe the amp at the same time?

[S.Explorer]

Originally Posted by Easy E

So then to me, the next most obvious question is what is the difference between the pallet forks?

Originally Posted by Via reggio

Dont really know, they look the same

Could a difference in weight affect the amplitude?

[Via reggio]

Could a difference in weight affect the amplitude?

Theoretically but the part number is the same, usually they get a suffix like -1 if there is a change. But one of the train wheels (picture in my earlier post) did not get a suffix but is changed in design. I’m not sure a change is made but it solved the amplitude issue of this watch.

The movement feels differently and that its not much torque going through the wheeltrain, but it spins for a long time on a small turn of the winding crown, also the escapement seems really sensitive on 32.
It’s really a low powered movement, never get higher amplitudes like other movements, but what is strange is that it can loose a lot of time when the amplitude goes down a lot even on a full wind. Normally a movement can keep good time around 200 amplitude also. Like this repair: amplitude around 200 on full wind and slowing a lot, then I change palletfork and it gets 260-270 amplitude and good timekeeping, then 220 when letting down mainspring 3,5 turns to simulate 24 hours. Timekeeping still good

[saxo3]

Different view of EasyE's 3285 timegrapher numbers from post #5020 – 2 graphs for his 3285 'Watch X'



What everybody can see:
• The 3 vertical amplitudes are too low after full winding (204°,214°,213°) and below Rolex specs (min. 200°) after 24 hours (190°,192°,199°).

• The 3 vertical rates are all negative along the entire power reserve, measured up to 60 hours, while the 2 horizontal rates are always positive. Consequently, the average rate, X, remains quite good, even within -2/+2 s/d until 24 hours.

The facts:
• The 3200 movement series was introduced in 2015 (3235, 3255), followed by the 3285 (2018) and the 3230 (2020).

• This Rolex watch (3285) was sold in 06/2024, i.e., about 9 years after introduction of the 32xx series.

Unknown:
• What is the age of this 3285 caliber?

• Did Rolex find a solution, or a temporay fix, for the long standing 32xx caliber issue? I leave the answer (only Rolex knows) to the reader.

• Is the post (by Bas) about "less 32xx watches incoming for repair" at his RSC, observed and reported from one single RSC watchmaker representative for the world-wide situation? I don't think so. It appears as a tiny light of hope in the watch galaxy where the main part of the horizon is like a 32xx black hole. Anyhow, I leave the interpretation of his post to the reader.

Conclusion:
• This 2024 Rolex GMT 3285 is a gold-plated example why many 32xx watch owners, who look (at best) at the timekeeping on their wrists, do not and can not see that their 32xx has the low amplitude virus. You do need a timegrapher to identify at an early stage, later the accuracy will deteriorate significantly, also for this watch.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Different view of EasyE's 3285 timegrapher numbers from post #5020 – 2 graphs for his 3285 'Watch X'



What everybody can see:
• The 3 vertical amplitudes are too low after full winding (204°,214°,213°) and below Rolex specs (min. 200°) after 24 hours (190°,192°,199°).

• The 3 vertical rates are all negative along the entire power reserve, measured up to 60 hours, while the 2 horizontal rates are always positive. Consequently, the average rate, X, remains quite good, even within -2/+2 s/d until 24 hours.

The facts:
• The 3200 movement series was introduced in 2015 (3235, 3255), followed by the 3285 (2018) and the 3230 (2020).

• This Rolex watch (3285) was sold in 06/2024, i.e., about 9 years after introduction of the 32xx series.

Unknown:
• What is the age of this 3285 caliber?

• Did Rolex find a solution, or a temporay fix, for the long standing 32xx caliber issue? I leave the answer (only Rolex knows) to the reader.

• Is the post (by Bas) about "less 32xx watches incoming for repair" at his RSC, observed and reported from one single RSC watchmaker representative for the world-wide situation? I don't think so. It appears as a tiny light of hope in the watch galaxy where the main part of the horizon is like a 32xx black hole. Anyhow, I leave the interpretation of his post to the reader.

Conclusion:
• This 2024 Rolex GMT 3285 is a gold-plated example why many 32xx watch owners, who look (at best) at the timekeeping on their wrists, do not and can not see that their 32xx has the low amplitude virus. You do need a timegrapher to identify at an early stage, later the accuracy will deteriorate significantly, also for this watch.

Thanks for the graphs. Those are a fair bit easier to look at than my tables.

On the wrist this watch appears to run fine, as described above, you probably wouldn't notice. On one hand that is really the point of the watch. On the other, when you look under the hood there is a different story. I do have a question regarding "break in." Pretty sure I know the answer, but here goes. I have read many times about giving a watch a break in period (duration varies). By winding, wearing, letting run all the out and repeating, what if anything will that procedure do to "loosen" this watch up?

As for date of production, that is a question I have had for a little while now. I realize no one on this forum will know that for sure. If you told me this movement was produced a year ago, i would believe that easily. Who knows?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

I do have a question regarding "break in." Pretty sure I know the answer, but here goes. I have read many times about giving a watch a break in period (duration varies). By winding, wearing, letting run all the out and repeating, what if anything will that procedure do to "loosen" this watch up?

What is your answer?

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

What is your answer?

Little to no discernible impact.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Little to no discernible impact.

Yes.

The so-called "break-in" or "running-in" is simply friction between parts moving against each other, which improves the fit over time. This may slightly affect accuracy, but the amplitudes? Nobody knows how long it takes or how much the effect will be. Most arguments are just guesses.

Mechanical movements are not like brand new motors in new cars. 32xx calibers were already running for a while during testing at COSC, followed by more testing in Rolex labs. I don't think you'll see much improvement in all three vertical amplitudes, to be determined.

I propose an experiment: wear this watch for 1-2 months, measure once per week after full winding and 24 hours later.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Yes.

The so-called "break-in" or "running-in" is simply friction between parts moving against each other, which improves the fit over time. This may slightly affect accuracy, but the amplitudes? Nobody knows how long it takes or how much the effect will be. Most arguments are just guesses.

Mechanical movements are not like brand new motors in new cars. 32xx calibers were already running for a while during testing at COSC, followed by more testing in Rolex labs. I don't think you'll see much improvement in all three vertical amplitudes, to be determined.

I propose an experiment: wear this watch for 1-2 months, measure once per week after full winding and 24 hours later.

I have considered this already. Very well may just do that.

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by Via reggio

Could a difference in weight affect the amplitude?

Theoretically but the part number is the same, usually they get a suffix like -1 if there is a change. But one of the train wheels (picture in my earlier post) did not get a suffix but is changed in design. I’m not sure a change is made but it solved the amplitude issue of this watch.

The movement feels differently and that its not much torque going through the wheeltrain, but it spins for a long time on a small turn of the winding crown, also the escapement seems really sensitive on 32.
It’s really a low powered movement, never get higher amplitudes like other movements, but what is strange is that it can loose a lot of time when the amplitude goes down a lot even on a full wind. Normally a movement can keep good time around 200 amplitude also. Like this repair: amplitude around 200 on full wind and slowing a lot, then I change palletfork and it gets 260-270 amplitude and good timekeeping, then 220 when letting down mainspring 3,5 turns to simulate 24 hours. Timekeeping still good

With regards to both parts: It makes sense that the part number remains the same. If Rolex changed it, the obvious question is: "Why the change?" Yet Rolex SA seems to have decided not to acknowledge the problem even to its own watchmakers (at least those working in its service centers). That makes the answer to the aforementioned question quite inconvenient.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Ok, boiys and girls. What we have today is a 3285 caliber piece, purchased from a TS about 2 weeks ago in stated unworn condition, warranty card dated 3/24. For today we are just going to call this Watch X. It appears that at 24hrs the vertical amplitudes are out of spec and the max delta (I think that's the correct term) is 9.6, also slightly out of spec. I post, you decide.

Those results, at full wind positions 3, 6 and 9 , tells me that this movement is not going to meet any Rolex spec.