New Sub 126040 - 3230 losing time

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by TickTockChuck

I totally agree. Rolex blows their horn about how accurate their watches are and should deliver. Folks pay big bucks for these time pieces and have certain expectations, especially when they are new and under warranty. Dismissing peoples concerns, especially considering how many there are for the 32XX, I don't think is fair. BTW I have a Seiko 5, which I think is fabulous value and well made, and it keeps very good time within COSC.

This totally. I'm not going to cut a seller of very expensive watches any slack when they make such a big deal about it and print it on every dial. Plenty of other luxury watches don't make such a big deal out of it or even publish accuracy expectations. For me, only accurate watches are interesting. Accurate mechanical watches are more interesting though since it's pretty astonishing that they can be. Some of the original marine chronometers were astonishingly accurate considering when they were made.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by rover26c

WIND the crown for 40 times and report back to us tomorrow

This first

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Peter

I accept that this frustrates you. That ultimate performance is not important to you. I understand why and that your priorities lie elsewhere (as they should)

But the sarcasm on this and every other related post is not needed.

We all have differing priorities for whatever reason. We all have different thresholds for what is acceptable to us. No one's priorities or thresholds are ultimately right or wrong. They are just different.

You have, what, about 20 years more time on this planet than I do, but if I can give you any advice it would be this.

Don't waste time with negative emotions over trivial matters. Don't waste it on anything at all of you can do that too. As you know, time is far too precious for that.

Probability of a change is < 0,00115741 % (1:86400)

[belutak]

Today is loosing 3.5 despite resting face up overnight.
It will go to RSC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[belutak]

Originally Posted by Easy E

This first

Fully wound, face up overnight

-3.5s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Number3]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Probability of a change is < 0,00115741 % (1:86400)

Good one.

[omar-rye]

You still have 4 years and 9 months remaining on your warranty. My advice is not to rush into sending it to RSC yet but rather to see how the watch settles over the next 6 months before revisiting the issue.

[Osmin]

I would wait until it gets worse. Otherwise you will wait every time 3-6 weeks for your watch to serviced

[Harry-57]

It wouldn't bother me. I tend to notice accuracy issues when the minute hand is off. However, it is outside maker's spec, which is a part of what you paid for. If it bugs you, get a RSC to look at it. With a new watch I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry for an error of this size. I'd give it six months since purchase and wear it daily if possible

[waterman1]

If marketed +2/-2 the watch should meet that standard, but the reality that I have seen is that it rarely stays that way for over 6 months. Also this is Rolex, so complaining will get you nowhere.
I think you live with 6 to 8 to maybe 10+ seconds off unless you want to be sending your watch back constantly.
And if you really see 32xx problems it will be much worse than 3.5 seconds per day.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by JMGoodnight369

Dude will you please chill on this? Like we all know your stance on the 86400 seconds and people getting upset that they paid 10k or more for a time piece that doesn’t do what it’s stated to do. At this point I think the number of times you’ve commented this rivals the number of members that posted on the 32xx issue thread

First my name is not dude, second I am entitled to post as much as I like on this subject. Now if you do not like it then don't read or reply to my posts, now you have a nice day.

Originally Posted by sgt10p

All.these opinions on how a mechanical watch should be. Well the manufacturer sold the watch with the statement that it is +/- 2 seconds a day. Period. Just like any other product sold with a declaration the purchaser should be entitled to rely on that statement. You can go out and buy a Seiko 5 for £200 which keeps 'good time' for a mechanical watch but no, we bought a £10,000 + Rolex!

So all this quoting of seconds in a day is irrelevant to the argument. Just a statement on what some people feel is a reasonable expectation from a mechanical watch.

No the statement is that they are tested to a precision of -2+2 seconds on a machine in a controlled environment this don't mean it will perform exactly the same each day as on the wrist there are many variables.

Position Of Watch seconds Per Day even this watch would pass the Rolex test.
Dial Up +2
Dial Down -1
6 o’clock +3
9 o’clock -4
3 o’clock +4

[Roddypeepa]

Thank you, I’m fully aware of how percentages work etc. being a fully grown, numerate adult.

I agree that Rolex make a rod for their own backs by advertising plus/ minus 2. However, is it really so difficult to understand that this is an AVERAGE of the positions and therefore that how the watch is wound, rested, worn, how hot and cold the movement is, how all come in to play.

If the watch has lost a significant amount overnight eg 3 seconds in 8 h then yeah, 100 per cent take it in.

If it’s lost 3 seconds over 24h then he can take it in, they’ll look at it. They may adjust it. They may well not. And because they are so damn secretive he will never know.

It is likely in my opinion that this is the issue rearing oneself with the 32 series but I don’t think anytime has enough info to draw any worthwhile conclusions and sending it on the basis of this is overkill. Watch it for a few days, test the positions, maybe see if they can get hold of a timegrapher?

Surely the reason people post like that is for reassurance or advice. Surely everyone, you and I included are trying to do that. We don’t have to agree but that’s what makes the forum so interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk hi

[travisb]

Wouldn't bother me one bit. But it's your watch.

[sgt10p]

]
No the statement is that they are tested to a precision of -2+2 seconds on a machine in a controlled environment this don't mean it will perform exactly the same each day as on the wrist there are many variables.

]

Yes I'm aware of the small print and taken to the letter Rolex cannot be held accountable for timekeeping once the watch is put to its intended purpose.

So tell me, why to they undertake free servicing when customers complain of poor timekeeping? I suggest there is a balance here and that the implication of + - 2 seconds is precisely the marketing that is aimed at implying that accuracy in the real world and thus those who spend on Rolex can quite rightly feel aggrieved.

Just my opinion of course ;)

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by sgt10p

]
No the statement is that they are tested to a precision of -2+2 seconds on a machine in a controlled environment this don't mean it will perform exactly the same each day as on the wrist there are many variables.

]

Yes I'm aware of the small print and taken to the letter Rolex cannot be held accountable for timekeeping once the watch is put to its intended purpose.

So tell me, why to they undertake free servicing when customers complain of poor timekeeping? I suggest there is a balance here and that the implication of + - 2 seconds is precisely the marketing that is aimed at implying that accuracy in the real world and thus those who spend on Rolex can quite rightly feel aggrieved.

Just my opinion of course ;)

There is no small print on either each references webpage or the downloadable brochure.

[Roddypeepa]

Originally Posted by sgt10p

]
No the statement is that they are tested to a precision of -2+2 seconds on a machine in a controlled environment this don't mean it will perform exactly the same each day as on the wrist there are many variables.

]

Yes I'm aware of the small print and taken to the letter Rolex cannot be held accountable for timekeeping once the watch is put to its intended purpose.

So tell me, why to they undertake free servicing when customers complain of poor timekeeping? I suggest there is a balance here and that the implication of + - 2 seconds is precisely the marketing that is aimed at implying that accuracy in the real world and thus those who spend on Rolex can quite rightly feel aggrieved.

Just my opinion of course ;)

I guess that’s because the law says they have to as it is warrantied. Doesn’t mean they even open the case in all cases does it?

First of all the AD will try and put you off, reassure you unless it is way out.

If it goes in to service I bet it goes straight to the on a timegrapher and if it averages plus minus 2 it comes back with a sticker on the case back but no actual work being done.

And consumer law will be different in different countries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[forcinitijp]

The time you lose is nothing... now if you can't live with a delay of 1 and a half minutes a month... that you probably don't even realize... you should consider a Quartz watch, mechanical watches come with a thousand factors that can alter a few seconds ... according to cosc the variation is -4 to + 6 seconds a day according to Rolex -2 + 2 a day ... so you are within an acceptable range.

Enjoy the watch... it's not an atomic...

There are very beautiful quartz watches... even the Apple Watch can satisfy more your needs of not losing a second of your life!

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by belutak

Today is loosing 3.5 despite resting face up overnight.
It will go to RSC.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wait till summer. The rise in temperature might have a positive effect. The wearing pattern might also be more active, thus keeping the watch closer to fully wound up.

My 2020 TT Sub41 runs at -3 s/d when worn, despite hitting +2/-2 on the timegrapher and showing a good amplitude. However, in ny case it self-regulates to -1 s/d at night, dial up. I've also noticed that the more I wear it, the better it gets,

Is it really worth taking it to the RSC so early for -3.5 s/d, and risk a service induced problem, plus the 6 weeks wait? Up to you.

[belutak]

Originally Posted by forcinitijp

The time you lose is nothing... now if you can't live with a delay of 1 and a half minutes a month... that you probably don't even realize... you should consider a Quartz watch, mechanical watches come with a thousand factors that can alter a few seconds ... according to cosc the variation is -4 to + 6 seconds a day according to Rolex -2 + 2 a day ... so you are within an acceptable range.

Enjoy the watch... it's not an atomic...

There are very beautiful quartz watches... even the Apple Watch can satisfy more your needs of not losing a second of your life!

You are completely missing the point: the sudden change of performance of the brand new watch going out of spec within a few days only raises the question about the QC and the reliability. This is not about the movement sheer accuracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by padi56

First my name is not dude, second I am entitled to post as much as I like on this subject. Now if you do not like it then don't read or reply to my posts, now you have a nice day.



No the statement is that they are tested to a precision of -2+2 seconds on a machine in a controlled environment this don't mean it will perform exactly the same each day as on the wrist there are many variables.

Position Of Watch seconds Per Day even this watch would pass the Rolex test.
Dial Up +2
Dial Down -1
6 o’clock +3
9 o’clock -4
3 o’clock +4

Peter,

Please direct us to the statement as you have written in your post here.

There is nothing on the individual references web pages on the Rolex Website.

There is nothing in the linked reference brochure

There is nothing in the user manual.

The statement made is +/- 2 spd after casing. There is no asterisk directing the reader to the small print

What is being missed here is that how Rolex test is irrelevant. The factors impacting timekeeping are irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant is what is clearly stated by Rolex. That is what the consumer is entitled to rely on.

And the fact is that Rolex movements are more than capable of performing 24/7 in any environment within those advertised specs.

I agree that -3spd does not signify a problem, but it it outside of advertised specification. That is an irrefutable fact. There can be no argument about that.

What is open to debate is what an individual owner considers acceptable to them. And them alone

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by forcinitijp

The time you lose is nothing... now if you can't live with a delay of 1 and a half minutes a month... that you probably don't even realize... you should consider a Quartz watch, mechanical watches come with a thousand factors that can alter a few seconds ... according to cosc the variation is -4 to + 6 seconds a day according to Rolex -2 + 2 a day ... so you are within an acceptable range.

Enjoy the watch... it's not an atomic...

There are very beautiful quartz watches... even the Apple Watch can satisfy more your needs of not losing a second of your life!

Acceptable to you.

[brandrea]

It’s out of spec we all (well most of us) agree

I’d have to think the watch techs will still have a good laugh at this one coming in for a tune up so soon and what amounts to 1.5 seconds out of spec. But it is what it is.

The OP has the right to express his displeasure and has every right to send it in to RSC for a tune up.

I hope you get the watch back and it runs smoothly. If not, ditch it as many others advocate, and buy another brand or another movement within Rolex.

[1William]

I have found that a full wind and an extended testing period work best. Typically, I will check, but not reset, over a span of a couple of weeks. Sometimes with the longer averaging the watch is not as it appears for accuracy. As far as the issue with the watch being out of advertised accuracy that is one that falls to each individual. For a variation of a few seconds I would not send the watch in as I do not want to be without it nor do I want it opened. There is a point though that I would send it in but that is an individual thing and a case by case evaluation. The OP has already stated he is sending it in so that decision is made. I hope it works out well and that he will report back to us as that process progresses.

[forcinitijp]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Acceptable to you.

No, it's what Rolex and COSC preach as acceptable... I have some Mechanical watches and only one I keep it in a Winder because it makes me thin to change the date every time it stops... the others if they lose 1, 2 or 6 seconds it's irrelevant because I must put them on time every time I use them...

The one with the Winder, the truth is that I don't realize if he loses or not.. if I see that he is ever late, I'll put it on time.

Someday I'll buy an instrument that measures how many seconds my watches lose a day... maybe when I retire and count every second that passes.

"Distance and time are not absolute, but depend on the observer."

[racerx]

Originally Posted by belutak

Today is loosing 3.5 despite resting face up overnight.
It will go to RSC.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"losing"

[forcinitijp]

Originally Posted by belutak

You are completely missing the point: the sudden change of performance of the brand new watch going out of spec within a few days only raises the question about the QC and the reliability. This is not about the movement sheer accuracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And how do you know that I read Timegrapher works well or is poorly calibrated?

It also influences the elevation range, the amount of time monitored, if the clock is fully charged... there are many factors.

But the watch is in warranty... so you have the possibility to go to the technical service and have it checked and calibrated if necessary...

It is not necessarily quality control, it can be a misuse of the Timegrapher.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Roddypeepa

I agree that Rolex make a rod for their own backs by advertising plus/ minus 2. However, is it really so difficult to understand that this is an AVERAGE of the positions and therefore that how the watch is wound, rested, worn, how hot and cold the movement is, how all come in to play.

Yes, it is for most people who have no interest in the testing procedure.

But again, that's not what Rolex state. They don't caveat the +/- 2 spd. They don't state "as an average of the positions"

I've had a good look around Rolex.com as presented in my location. There is nothing about the +/- 2spd being an average.

The Rolex newsroom website mentions Superlative many times but there is no mention of average.

Average may well be what COSC involves as is I believe how Master Chronometer is tested but there is no mention of average regarding Superlative.

Which leads to the question, why are you and others so adamant that Rolex doesn't actually mean "+/- 2 seconds per day after casing", but actually means +/- 2 seconds per day, being the performance when averaged out over various positions and time in laboratory conditions.

How can we be so certain that the +/- 2spd is the average and not actually the maximum permitted deviation? Serious question.

My old SD43 was well within the +/- 2spd regardless of any variable other than PR.

Originally Posted by Roddypeepa

Surely the reason people post like that is for reassurance or advice. Surely everyone, you and I included are trying to do that. We don’t have to agree but that’s what makes the forum so interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk hi

Absolutely, but no advice is better than wrong (or perhaps better stated as unclear) advice.

The OPs watch is out of advertised spec.

[Roddypeepa]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Yes, it is for most people who have no interest in the testing procedure.

But again, that's not what Rolex state. They don't caveat the +/- 2 spd. They don't state "as an average of the positions"

I've had a good look around Rolex.com as presented in my location. There is nothing about the +/- 2spd being an average.

The Rolex newsroom website mentions Superlative many times but there is no mention of average.

Average may well be what COSC involves as is I believe how Master Chronometer is tested but there is no mention of average regarding Superlative.

Which leads to the question, why are you and others so adamant that Rolex doesn't actually mean "+/- 2 seconds per day after casing", but actually means +/- 2 seconds per day, being the performance when averaged out over various positions and time in laboratory conditions.

How can we be so certain that the +/- 2spd is the average and not actually the maximum permitted deviation?

Serious question.

My old SD43 was well within the +/- 2spd regardless of any variable other than PR.



Absolutely, but no advice is better than wrong (or perhaps better stated as unclear) advice.

The OPs watch is out of advertised spec.

Because I don’t think I am wrong. And clearly neither do you. So we will have to agree to disagree. That’s fine.

Cheers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by forcinitijp

No, it's what Rolex and COSC preach as acceptable... I have some Mechanical watches and only one I keep it in a Winder because it makes me thin to change the date every time it stops... the others if they lose 1, 2 or 6 seconds it's irrelevant because I must put them on time every time I use them...

The one with the Winder, the truth is that I don't realize if he loses or not.. if I see that he is ever late, I'll put it on time.

Someday I'll buy an instrument that measures how many seconds my watches lose a day... maybe when I retire and count every second that passes.

"Distance and time are not absolute, but depend on the observer."

If my watch started losing 3 seconds per day I wouldn't need a timographer to know. It would be pretty easy to see.

[forcinitijp]

Originally Posted by Devildog

If my watch started losing 3 seconds per day I wouldn't need a timographer to know. It would be pretty easy to see.

You must be a very meticulous person! That is admirable …