32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Andad]

Originally Posted by padi56

Sorry I would trust Bas a true Rolex watchmaker over any of your so called data analysis whoever they are.

I am sure that Bas is one of many Rolex technicians who also understand data Peter.

How else could they assemble and maintain Rolex watches?

There must be pages of data to enable them to do this.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by Andad

Hi Bas,

When I take it off on Friday I make sure it is fully wound. It only usually requires a top up.

On Monday morning it would only have been running for about 63 hours.

Should I expect -2/+2 after 63 hours?



Eddie.

It is designed to run accurately when the mainspring is fully wound or close to it. They will guarantee that -2 / +2 average for 24 hours, after that the watch will continue to lose amplitude and might become inaccurate.

I thought this thread was started to collect useful data about the known amplitude issue the 32 series tends to suffer from, to see how many in this small group of owners are affected.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by SearChart

It is designed to run accurately when the mainspring is fully wound or close to it. They will guarantee that -2 / +2 average for 24 hours, after that the watch will continue to lose amplitude and might become inaccurate.

I thought this thread was started to collect useful data about the known amplitude issue the 32 series tends to suffer from, to see how many in this small group of owners are affected.

Hi Bas
Good Morning
Yes I do see that the thread started out being about how many people are suffering from an unknown source of problem
Perhaps the thread has been “HiJacked” a little but the basic topic is the same.
Those that do have the perceived problem are not all fully comprehending the nuances of and how it manifests itself and as such perhaps are not realising the problem exists

There is also the not so small matter or PR and timekeeping
Who, other than a watchmaker, would have access to the fact that Rolex only count the first 24 hours of any test for timekeeping.
What I read from their website are two straight up comments on the same page that Rolex watches run for 70 hours and that timekeeping will be +/-2

The 70 hours has been proven to be correct in fact better than 70

The 2 seconds comment needs to be clarified a bit more. That’s my main “Gripe”.

I fully understand that the tests I have and am performing are bench tests. Wearing gives a completely different set of data which I have possibly shown and is in the charts that the timekeeping when wound, is as Rolex say, Superlative.

This whole disagreeing between watchmaker and layman etc is all a matter of how perception is seen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Andad

I expected to take my 41 off on Friday at 4:30 pm after work and wear it again on 7:30am Monday without having to adjust it but this is not the case.

I fully understand what you say.

End January 2021 your DJ 41 (Nov. 2019) was running very well (after full winding) until 48 hours, see your table below.

After 67 hours the situation was very different for rates and amplitudes.

But you also noted "... after 69 hours it was exactly on atomic time" (while resting in dial up position between results).

In your test the DJ41 was performing as you wish, perfect timekeeping over a long weekend, if you store it with dial up. I agree that the rates were very negative.

You also observed (after 67 hours) a jump to high amplitudes, which I find interesting.

Charles measured that too and I have demonstrated this effect with a very high sampling rate towards the end of the PR, see post #990.

I would appreciate if a competent person could suggest an explanation for such a large amplitude rise. Charles would probably also like to hear.

[lennywilkins]

Seeing as CharlesN and saxo3 have so much time on their hands, why not run the same test on the 'rock solid' 3135 movement? I assume we are going to see stunning timekeeping after 40 hours off the wrist?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by lennywilkins

Seeing as CharlesN and saxo3 have so much time on their hands

:-)))) That's called multi-tasking my friend.
31xx comparison is obvious!
You have some 32xx and/or 31xx data to share?

[lennywilkins]

Originally Posted by saxo3

:-)))) That's called multi-tasking my friend.
31xx comparison is obvious!
You have some 32xx and/or 31xx data to share?

Go on, enlighten us?

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by lennywilkins

Seeing as CharlesN and saxo3 have so much time on their hands, why not run the same test on the 'rock solid' 3135 movement? I assume we are going to see stunning timekeeping after 40 hours off the wrist?

Hi Lenny,

I started the last 3 day test on my 3235 movement last evening (9Pm UK time)
It will probablyy end 71 hours later when the PR runs out.

I have said before I will then do the exact same tests on my 3135 movement.

That should hopefully give us some more insight into the working and time keeping properties of the 32xx series.

Both watches are Sub dates. Both will be done on the same timegrapher. All the conditions will be the same.

This is not a quick thing to do.

5 positions on the 3235 at 3 days each .. 15 days
5 Positions on the 3135 at 2 days each .. 10 days
and thats only if the 3135 movenents start and finish at a convienient tome to start again straight away as i have done on the 3235 movements.

As to having as you put it "So much time On My hands". I am retired. i do have a pretty busy lifestyle but as shown earlier in this thread i have a camera watching and recording the watch and timer.
That way I can easily gain the snapshots I need to add the data to the listing.

So Stand by please ...

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Peter,

Bas is a watchmaker and of course i trust him as well. He knows his stuff well.

But, You are missing my point.

On Rolex's website as well as published material they state that the newer movements run for 70 hours.
I agree they do indeed which is excellent. I presume we are all in agreement with that.
They also state the +2 /-2 timekeeping comment.
I have found and proved with the data i have produced that this is also true.
Again I think we are all in agreement on that.

What i have found from the data I have produced is that the two statements (70 hours and +/-2) should never appear together as they do.
It looks like the timekeeping of a new movement watch (32xx) is fabulous for the first approximately 36 hours. After that it goes"Off" a bit until the PR stops.

Therfore I think it was just a little misleading.

Trust me , I am NOT slamming Rolex, On the contrary, their level of timekeeping whilst the watch is worn and therefore fully wound is astoundingly good. In my case almost perfect.

I am however interested in the rest of the running hours of a 32xx movement.
the part of leaving your watch over the weekend whilst being at home and only putting it back on when it's Monday work time just seems to be a bit of a cheat somehow. the time can easily be significantly wrong,

Your expectations are totally unrealistic as to the timekeeping throughout the power reserve.
Physics prohibit it.
Even twin Spring barrels won't do it.

If one wants stellar timekeeping throughout the power reserve. One needs to have a reasonable quartz movement in a wristwatch.
Perhaps even one of those wizz bang Grand Seiko hybrid watchamacallit thingies which has that spinning thing inside continually running in one direction

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Your expectations are totally unrealistic as to the timekeeping throughout the power reserve.
Physics prohibit it.
Even twin Spring barrels won't do it.

If one wants stellar timekeeping throughout the power reserve. One needs to have a reasonable quartz movement in a wristwatch.
Perhaps even one of those wizz bang Grand Seiko hybrid watchamacallit thingies which has that spinning thing inside continually running in one direction

Have to agree mate it's all down to the law of Physics, but some cannot understand or not willing to understand. As this would happen to all mainsprings as they run right down out of stored energy no matter the movement or brand of watch

[ROLEX*]

One can treat 3235 an accurate 48 hours movement if it is erratic after 48 hour marks

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Your expectations are totally unrealistic as to the timekeeping throughout the power reserve.
One of those wizz bang Grand Seiko hybrid watchamacallit thingies which has that spinning thing inside continually running in one direction

I am not stupid enough to not realise that when a spring is unwound the power is no longer there.
But, I am NOT complaining about that.
I am not complaining. PERIOD.

I am making observations. I am comparinging the data I produce to the data that Rolex themselves publish.
Thats where I have a problem, and ONLY there.

My watch is very accurate in real life wearing situations as it is fully powered virtually all the time.

As to getting a Seiko Spring Drive, i dont need to get one. I already have one. It is extreemly accurate also.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by padi56

Have to agree mate it's all down to the law of Physics, but some cannot understand or not willing to understand. As this would happen to all mainsprings as they run right down out of stored energy no matter the movement or brand of watch

The laws of Physics (Please note the PLURAL there) are bnothing to do with what i am doing.
Yes I am measuring whilst a spring unwinds.
Yes I am making several observations.
and ...
Yes, Rolex have got stuff on their website that is misleading at the very least.

You clearly dont lioke me saying anything against rolex but a proven fact, is still a fact and your trying to belittle what i have said or posted will not alter a fact.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

The laws of Physics (Please note the PLURAL there) are bnothing to do with what i am doing.
Yes I am measuring whilst a spring unwinds.
Yes I am making several observations.
and ...
Yes, Rolex have got stuff on their website that is misleading at the very least.

You clearly dont lioke me saying anything against rolex but a proven fact, is still a fact and your trying to belittle what i have said or posted will not alter a fact.

Well perhaps misleading to yourself but not to many others.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

I am not stupid enough to not realise that when a spring is unwound the power is no longer there.
But, I am NOT complaining about that.
I am not complaining. PERIOD.

I am making observations. I am comparinging the data I produce to the data that Rolex themselves publish.
Thats where I have a problem, and ONLY there.

My watch is very accurate in real life wearing situations as it is fully powered virtually all the time.

As to getting a Seiko Spring Drive, i dont need to get one. I already have one. It is extreemly accurate also.

Hey, back it up a little.
Nobody is saying you are complaining.

What i was trying to communicate, is simply that your expectations around your Rolex are unrealistic on a number of levels.

It's good to hear you are enjoying your Grand Seiko Spring Drive. Just don't use it as a yardstick in any way when assessing the capability of most Rolex watches or it will poison your mind.
May I suggest you also strictly limit your observations of the Rolex to the first 24 hours of its power reserve to gain a more accurate perspective of its performance.
Also remember it's not just about positional variations.
I think the Superlative Chronometer specification covers the 3 different and specific temperatures that need to be taken into consideration
Temperature plays a big roll as well which people deeply engaged in this thread aren't factoring in

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by padi56

Have to agree mate it's all down to the law of Physics, but some cannot understand or not willing to understand. As this would happen to all mainsprings as they run right down out of stored energy no matter the movement or brand of watch

Reflecting on the data which is coming to light in the thread.
I wonder if it's typical for things to get a little wonky on these 32xx movements around the middle of the power reserve due to the specification of the single Mainspring.
If the movement had two barrels it may be even a better timekeeper

It's that physics thing again

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by ROLEX*

One can treat 3235 an accurate 48 hours movement if it is erratic after 48 hour marks

Of course, the 70 hour power reserve is just that and nothing else.
It simply means that it will still very likely be running on Monday morning after one has taken it off late on Friday evening.
There's no other guarantees other than that.

Anyway, to my mind there's no need to take the watch off.
Why not keep wearing it right throughout the week unless on desires changing it for another watch over a limited number of hours for a different occasion/style.
To that, personally I have rarely had an issue with a 48 hour power reserve anyway as long as the watch is properly serviced and mechanically sound

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well perhaps misleading to yourself but not to many others.

Then please tell me how Rolex get away with misleading people including you.
Rolex on their website show specifications with NO mention of only the first 24, 36 or any other number of hours as a get out clause.
This is copied from Rolex’s website and to the layman with no prior experience is darn close to a downright lie




Sent from my iPhone 12 using Tapatalk

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by Dirt

I think the Superlative Chronometer specification covers the 3 different and specific temperatures that need to be taken into consideration
Temperature plays a big roll as well which people deeply engaged in this thread aren't factoring in

Now you have done it !

You have given me a great idea.

I have access a facility that can easily create any temperature from sub Zero to literally melting point of some metals.

I have not looked up what the specifications are for these 3 tenperatures for the "Superlative" tests.

Hopefully an expert (padi56/Peter) can advise me on the required temperatures.
Ps .. I have found the temperatures .........
To achieve certification as an official chronometer from the COSC, a movement has to pass tests in five positions at three different temperatures, 8°,23° and 38° Celsius, over a 15-day period.

The temperature I have done all of my tests at is a steady 21 Celsius.

Just think of the amount of data that I will be adding to this thread.
In all honesty, i won't be doiung that I assure you. We would all go nuts.

This thread started out as a discussion on the possibility of there being something strange in the running of the 32xx movement.

I, and others, have shown that we can not create this problem in a test situation, but we have thrown other points up whilst doing these tests.

There is clearly some opposition to these tests and reports being made, but, they are made and they have been reported on.

There is no expectation for a watch to run with perfect timekeeping until it stops. That would in my opinion be somewhat a daft hope, but the point that Rolex dont make any comment on the findings which they do know as do we all is what i am a little unhappy about. Thats all, simple as that. Its just a little misleading and would possibly "Fool" a non enlightened novice watch purchaser.

Very happily, I do not fall into that category.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by lennywilkins

Go on, enlighten us?

Did you read the thread?
You will find several comparisons between the 32xx and 31xx.
Bonne lecture

[padi56]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Then please tell me how Rolex get away with misleading people including you.
Rolex on their website show specifications with NO mention of only the first 24, 36 or any other number of hours as a get out clause.
This is copied from Rolex’s website and to the layman with no prior experience is darn close to a downright lie




Sent from my iPhone 12 using Tapatalk

First the precision -2+2 what does this mean well it was tested in a controlled environment with mainspring fully wound and at time of testing movement met the precision -2+2 average spec test.As for the power reserve well thats exactly what they say on a full wind it would last approx 70 hours.And as anyone should know, any mechanical movement will always be more consistently accurate, when its power from the mainspring is kept around its peak max power.

[CharlesN]

Yes BOTH of the Rolex statements are correct
There is no argument about that

But both statements when used TOGETHER is plain and simply misleading.

Look at it another way ........ If you had NO knowledge of watches and you saw those statements you would rightly expect the watch to run for 70 hours at that precision.

Please forget what you know. Look at it as a novice.


Sent from my iPhone 12 using Tapatalk

[padi56]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Yes BOTH of the Rolex statements are correct
There is no argument about that

But both statements when used TOGETHER is plain and simply misleading.

Look at it another way ........ If you had NO knowledge of watches and you saw those statements you would rightly expect the watch to run for 70 hours at that precision.

Please forget what you know. Look at it as a novice.


Sent from my iPhone 12 using Tapatalk

Afraid we shall have to agree to disagree .

[CharlesN]

Peter. Yes


Sent from my iPhone 12 using Tapatalk

[Omarion07]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Yes BOTH of the Rolex statements are correct
There is no argument about that

But both statements when used TOGETHER is plain and simply misleading.

Look at it another way ........ If you had NO knowledge of watches and you saw those statements you would rightly expect the watch to run for 70 hours at that precision.

Please forget what you know. Look at it as a novice.


Sent from my iPhone 12 using Tapatalk

Charles, do other mechanical watches from other brands that have cosc certification and a similar power reserve have the same issue of losing accuracy after 48 hours?

If we take the 9900 calibre from Omega as an example, which has a precision of 0/+5 spd and PR of 60 hourse. Does this calibre behave in a similar manner to the 32xx calibres? Bear in mind this calibre has a twin barrel.

[Gab27]

Originally Posted by SearChart

It is designed to run accurately when the mainspring is fully wound or close to it. They will guarantee that -2 / +2 average for 24 hours, after that the watch will continue to lose amplitude and might become inaccurate.

I thought this thread was started to collect useful data about the known amplitude issue the 32 series tends to suffer from, to see how many in this small group of owners are affected.

Bas, could I trouble you to ask about the relationship between amplitude and temperature? From what I am observing, amplitude is higher when the watch is warmer and lower when the watch is colder.

When my 3130 comes off of my wrist when I've been wearing a sweater that covers it and it is very warm, its DU amplitude is generally 305-315 degrees (but less when I am wearing say a t-shirt). Once the watch reaches ambient temp (about 22 degrees), it is more on the order of around 290-295 degrees. If I put it in the fridge and then measure amplitude, it is substantially lower and then progressively increases as the watch comes to room temp.

For the sake of my own curiosity, I wish to know what the cause is here? Is the viscosity of the lubricant used on the balance wheel pivot increasing in colder temps, resulting in greater resistance and not quite as strong of a 'swing'? (and the opposite when warmer?) Does it have to do with expansion/contraction of the materials in different temperatures, such as the hairspring itself? (I would assume this is not the case given the Parachrom Bleu's design to be extremely resistant to temperature variations?)

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by Omarion07

Charles, do other mechanical watches from other brands that have cosc certification and a similar power reserve have the same issue of losing accuracy after 48 hours?

If we take the 9900 calibre from Omega as an example, which has a precision of 0/+5 spd and PR of 60 hourse. Does this calibre behave in a similar manner to the 32xx calibres? Bear in mind this calibre has a twin barrel.

Looks like I am going to have to test loads of watches from different brands.

Reserved for next is a quick test on a Patek Philippe, That will take just 2 days and then a 31xx Rolex movement.
After that it coud be an Omega.

[Onequik135i]

My new Sub date has gained 17 seconds since the day I had picked it up from my local AD 2 Fridays ago. Excellent time keeping overall & I did notice the lower amplitude I have read about on here judging from my ace Timegrapher, but that was set at 52 Lift angle dial up. I realize that the proper setting should be 53 Lift angle.

[saxo3]

With regard to global statements about precision for a fully wound mainspring but without concrete data or figures.

For my Sea-Dweller Ref. 126600, I measured a precision of -0.2/+0.2 sec/day, starting exactly 43 hours after full 3235 movement winding, data logged with a high sampling rate (every 30 s) over a period of 5 hours (very long) until 66% of the 72 hours power reserve was gone.

Therefore, precision is not only good for a fully wound mainspring. I demonstrated that it can be even a factor of 10 better (than specified) after 48 hours. In addition, this precision was not only measured for a short period of time but over 5 hours, see post # 958.

With regard to comments about physics and understanding …. that reminded me a famous quote from Albert Einstein:

"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

[CharlesN]

Hands up who who is 6 years old or older and understands the nuances.

I will start ......


Sent from my iPhone 12 using Tapatalk