32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by maxbelg

I want to thank you for all your valuable information, especially on the 32xx movement. It's great to hear from a watchmaker (Rolex qualified at that) instead of pure conjecture.

Your posts are a welcome break from the "incoming", "can I .....with my watch", "should I buy/swap.....", "My Rolex has a scratch under 20x magnification...."-type posts which are cluttering this site these days.

Originally Posted by goodolejr

Bas - I appreciate your posts and am glad you agree that this thread should continue. Thank you for your time and insight.

Originally Posted by Annan

Just another shout from the crowd, Bas. Thank you for all you contribute to TRF.

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

X about a million. Bas, besides being a gentleman I have had the honor of meeting in person, is a skilled, experienced and qualified Rolex watchmaker, his input on anything technical is invaluable here on TRF and recognized by the ownership (check out his avatar). It angers me when there are people SIGNIFICANTLY less qualified, (if at all) that belittle his contributions. I guess when posters have an agenda it makes them feel important to question and disagree with someone that is probably the most knowledgable person on Rolex tech on TRF.

Please stay and continue to post Bas, your input is a welcome respite from those with little or no technical knowledge, merely posting and arguing so they feel significant

Originally Posted by Dirt

Sorry Mate, but I wonder if you ought to take a leaf out of your own book.
I prescribe some Viagra for your eyes so that you may be able to take a good long hard look at yourself in the mirror

At the end of the day, your objective(along with Jeff's) has basically been achieved quite early on, in that we now know conclusively about the extent of the primary issue with the newer movements. That's not to say there hasn't been a learning curve on a number of levels. For that I thank you and Jeff for fascilitating that
Job done

Quite frankly it was apparent by studiously following Bas's contributions over the past years.
For those of us who were following along, we were merely waiting for Bas to inform us of a permanent fix to be implemented

Many thanks for compiling the data into easily read graphs so that even silly old dogs can understand the numbers and how it applies.
I fully acknowledge the time and effort it must take

Thanks guys

Originally Posted by Dirt

Thanks

But realistically, the moment Bas posts something regarding a permanent fix we'll all know about it.
After all, Bas has made a personal commitment to do so quite a long while back and I see no reason why he would not honour it when that happens

I will certainly keep TRF updated if there is a parts update/fix, as promised

Originally Posted by CharlesN

I am
Sure Bas will be only too happy to share information with us as soon as he has it. Unfortunately, as we all know, Rolex are a bit of a nightmare when it comes to giving out information. They just don’t do it.

It is even rumoured that not all RSC’s get the same level of information although I would have thought that was counter productive.

But, it could easily be true as some RSC’s are not owned or run by Rolex themselves and therefore the service levels will probably not be quite the same

I hasten to add that all of that is as yet unproven.

Now, please do not flame me ……. I know Bas is a watchmaker and as such I bow to him, but what brands is he fully qualified by the brands to work on ? We hear so much of the fact that for example Rolex is trying to get more and more of its retail and AD side in-house. I know two of My AD’s no longer have a watchmaker with a Rolex parts account. How, if at all, has this affected Bas ?

Rolex never communicates such information to customers, not even to AD personnel. But if there is a change or update in parts, it will be updated in the myrolexnetwork system.

I have first-hand experience with many brands, but I'm only Rolex certified. There's no concern that such event will affect me in any way.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by SearChart

I have first-hand experience with many brands, but I'm only Rolex certified.

Hi Bas,

As you know i have been measuring my watch on a timegrapher.

I have noticed that in the last week the Beat error has risen by more than it used to fluctuate.

What is the BE ? Why would it change ? My watch has had no bumps and scrapes at all.

I know you are not too happy about non-watchmakers using such equipment but it is a great way to get one's mind to start thinking and looking into the way a heartbeat (Tik Tok) behaves, Fascinating is a good descriptive word for how i am finding things..

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Hi Bas,

As you know i have been measuring my watch on a timegrapher.

I have noticed that in the last week the Beat error has risen by more than it used to fluctuate.

What is the BE ? Why would it change ? My watch has had no bumps and scrapes at all.

I know you are not too happy about non-watchmakers using such equipment but it is a great way to get one's mind to start thinking and looking into the way a heartbeat (Tik Tok) behaves, Fascinating is a good descriptive word for how i am finding things..

As Saxo mentioned, there is no need for concern about your readings. Your watch is not showing any 'malfunctions'.

As for the beat error, it measures the time between two ticking noises, from when the pallet fork body hits the two 'limiters' (English isn't my first language), at 0.0 it is running perfectly in sinc and there's no difference between two ticks.

A significant knock can bend the hair spring, which causes it to be out of beat.
But measuring inside a case can also give wrong beat errors, due to sound resonance inside the case. Ideally you'd want to check the movement outside of the case on a timegrapher, and the timegrapher microphone itself should be in a sound isolation box (Witschi has these for the chronoscope), to eliminate any measuring errors.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by SearChart

As Saxo mentioned, there is no need for concern about your readings. Your watch is not showing any 'malfunctions'.

As for the beat error, it measures the time between two ticking noises, from when the pallet fork body hits the two 'limiters' (English isn't my first language), at 0.0 it is running perfectly in sinc and there's no difference between two ticks.

A significant knock can bend the hair spring, which causes it to be out of beat.
But measuring inside a case can also give wrong beat errors, due to sound resonance inside the case. Ideally you'd want to check the movement outside of the case on a timegrapher, and the timegrapher microphone itself should be in a sound isolation box (Witschi has these for the chronoscope), to eliminate any measuring errors.

Amazing. Thanks Bas

I am learning every day and really enjoying it.

I know English is not your first language but you’d is very good anyway so no need to worry at all
If I could speak Dutch as well as your English it would be amazing ……. I do not know even one word in Dutch !

Thanks for your help.


Sent from my iPhone 12 using Tapatalk

[CharlesN]

As mentioned a little earlier (post no 1336) I may have finally found one of the 3235 movement equipped watches that has “The Problem”.

I have below shown a small graph made by an iPhone App called WatchTracker. You can clearly see a sudden drop in the graph which I can only presume refers to some sort of problem.

I have also enclosed a record of how the watch was behaving a month ago - Please see the first set of figures on the spreadsheet.

And, to add, I have attached 2 logs done yesterday which quite clearly show that there is a loss in Power reserve and also a new Beat error. - Please see the bottom two sections on the spreadsheet.

I will monitor this watch now daily to see if the fault remains or if it was (hopefully) a little temporary glitch I will do the monitoring on a fully wound daily basis.






Sorry about the smudge on the spreadsheet.


Sent from my iPhone 12 using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

As mentioned a little earlier (post no 1336) I may have finally found one of the 3235 movement equipped watches that has “The Problem”.

I looked at the average values (X) of your data table for the 126610 Submariner:

Date: Rate - Amplitude - Beat Error

08 April: +0.6 s/d – 246 degrees – 0.08 ms
16 April (a): -0.2 s/d – 248 degrees – 0.36 ms
16 April (b): -0.4 s/d – 240 degrees – 0.34 ms
16 April (c): +0.4 s/d – 249 degrees – 0.38 ms

Rates: If you would have to put an error bar on your rate measurements, then your results become identical (within the errors). In absolute terms, the measured rates are very good.

Amplitudes: very close results, nearly identical, I see no indication for any degradation.

Beat Errors: Only there I see a slight increase by a factor of about 4-5.

The origin of that I don't know and prefer not to speculate.

I don't see that your watch has any problem.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I looked at the average values (X) of your data table for the 126610 Submariner:

Date: Rate/Amplitude/Beat Error

08 April: +0.6 s/d – 246 degrees – 0.08 ms
16 April (a): -0.2 s/d – 248 degrees – 0.36 ms
16 April (b): -0.4 s/d – 240 degrees – 0.34 ms
16 April (c): +0.4 s/d – 249 degrees – 0.38 ms

Beat Errors: Only there I see a slight increase by a factor of about 4-5.

The origin of that I don't know and prefer not to speculate.

I don't see that your watch has any problem.

Thanks for that.

There are 2 great things that I am getting from this forum and especially this thread ..

1) I am learming so much about measurement taking and mathematiccal things that I never learnt at school. I am of the older generation and these things were not what we did at school.

2) I am learning so much about what to look at in figures and how to spot things that may indicate a problem (or may not)

Using averages and graphs are certainly a far better way of seeing things .. much better simpler and faster to understand.

I have already started to do more measurements on my 3235 movement that could possibly have a slight problem, Only daily watching and analysis will tell us. I will now be doing the averages on each set of figures so things get so much simpler to see.

[CharlesN]

Perhaps the hand drawn lines show the averages a little better and clearly for the change in timekeeping …..



The Blue and Red average lines show far more information than the Green average line. Things just become clearer.


Sent from my iPhone 12 using Tapatalk

[GreatScott]

Do you think it has anything to do with the mainspring being attached now, does that play tricks while unwinding at specific intervals?

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by GreatScott

Do you think it has anything to do with the mainspring being attached now, does that play tricks while unwinding at specific intervals?

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

GreatScott
It looks like your question got overlooked by us all and that in my mind is unacceptable and therefore I apologise. It is not normal around here I assure you.

I am not a watchmaker so can not personally give you a definitive answer and speculation is not a healthy thing to do in a technical discussion I will however offer my own personal, totally unproven thoughts which are probably wrong anyway.

My own theory is based upon lubrication and a therefore pivot wearing causing friction and wear. BUT please note this is ONLY my opinion based upon no serious knowledge of a watches workings. This is just based on simple engineering. experiences for 50 years of work experience.
I have so far resisted opening my watch up and I hope I have the self control to ensure that things stay that way.

Probably the best person to ask on this forum is our “Resident” Rolex watchmaker …… Searchart. If you send him a direct message here in this thread I am sure he will answer it with a far more knowledgeable response.

[saxo3]

Sound resonances and reflections inside the case are an important point.

If I remember correctly, Charles always measures with the microphone attached to the opposite side (9 AM) of the crown.

That's not optimal since one has a better sound transmission - with less reflections and attenuations (signal damping) - on the crown side.

Charles, I would do a simple test and rotate the watch position by 180 degrees and compare the results.

But, since you always tested in the same position and with the same instrument this would probably not explain the measured small increase of the beat error.

For my S1 (G2) it looks like that, the microphone is in very good mechanical (sound) contact with the crown.




Cheers Proost

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Sound resonances and reflections inside the case are an important point.

If I remember correctly, Charles always measures with the microphone attached to the opposite side (9 AM) of the crown.

That's not optimal since one has a better sound transmission - with less reflections and attenuations (signal damping) - on the crown side.

Charles, I would do a simple test and rotate the watch position by 180 degrees and compare the results.

But, since you always tested in the same position and with the same instrument this would probably not explain the measured small increase of the beat error.

For my S1 (G2) it looks like that, the microphone is in very good mechanical (sound) contact with the crown.



Cheers Proost

You are correct, the way shown in your pic is the best you can do when the movement is inside the case.

And it does indeed not explain the beat error change in Charles' readings. Like you said, any 'explanation' would be speculating.

Keep an eye on it and hopefully it will not further increase.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by SearChart

You are correct, the way shown in your pic is the best you can do when the movement is inside the case.

And it does indeed not explain the beat error change in Charles' readings. Like you said, any 'explanation' would be speculating.

Keep an eye on it and hopefully it will not further increase.

Hi again Bas,

I know its better that way but i am using a Timegrapher that is NOT a Witschi S1 G2 at the moment.

I am using one from that amazing shop ... Amazon ... The Model 1900.

The microphone bracket does NOT like having a heavy watch like a Sub-date as it falls out sometimes from the Dial Down position so i have to adapt somehow. So I have the watch in reverse on the bracket and all is good.

I have tried to see if there is a difference between crown fitting on the screen ... I could not detect a difference.

I will try harder to solve the problem.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Hi again Bas,

I know its better that way but i am using a Timegrapher that is NOT a Witschi S1 G2 at the moment.

I am using one from that amazing shop ... Amazon ... The Model 1900.

The microphone bracket does NOT like having a heavy watch like a Sub-date as it falls out sometimes from the Dial Down position so i have to adapt somehow. So I have the watch in reverse on the bracket and all is good.

I have tried to see if there is a difference between crown fitting on the screen ... I could not detect a difference.

I will try harder to solve the problem.

Understood, you're doing the best you can with that you got
Your Amazon timegrapher is fine for measurements, a timegrapher is not rocket science, and Witschi is incredibly expensive for what is essentially a sensitive microphone with with some light hardware and software attached to it.

Not worth dropping your watch for a slightly better measuring position.

[SearChart]

And Saxo, I hereby sincerely apologize for using a highly offensive word.
I must've misinterpreted your writings as 'hostile' towards myself, not read it carefully enough and let emotions get the better of me.

I suspect we are both not native English speakers, which could have fortified my misinterpretation even further.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by SearChart

And Saxo, I hereby sincerely apologize for using a highly offensive word.
I must've misinterpreted your writings as 'hostile' towards myself, not read it carefully enough and let emotions get the better of me.

I suspect we are both not native English speakers, which could have fortified my misinterpretation even further.

Thank you, accepted.
I am also not a native English speaker.
Hope for a good collaboration for the future.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thank you, accepted.
I am also not a native English speaker.
Hope for a good collaboration for the future.

[TheVTCGuy]

Someone has got to ask this question, mine as well be me.

First, to all of you that are so painstakingly taking measurements, proposing theories, buying expensive equipment to investigate your Rolex, I must say I really don’t understand why. BUT, if this measuring and discussion and interest of yours is a passion you enjoy, more power to you! I am sure a lot of people don’t understand some of my passions and hobbies, to each their own, but here is the question.

Doesn’t all this investigating and searching for a problem with your 32XX movement distract from your enjoyment of the watch?

I akin this to using a loop to find every little nick and scratch on your Rolex and agonizing over it. Some of you, have spent a GREAT deal of time and effort (and perhaps money) on analyzing and critiquing every little tick of your Rolex, (I guess) searching for a fault. Now if your watch is not keeping accurate time, certainly I understand not being satisfied and wanting something done, but from what I have read it seems that a great many are not having any issues, even those that are taking copious measurements. I guess my question is:

Instead of seeking so hard to find fault with your Rolex, if it is keeping decent time, can’t you just wear and enjoy it? Why the concentrated effort to prove something wrong?

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Doesn’t all this investigating and searching for a problem with your 32XX movement distract from your enjoyment of the watch

For me the measuring, calculating and watching my watch has only enhanced my enjoyment

I am learning more and more how marvellous it really is

My measuring takes about 1/2 an hour daily which is not too long in reality


Sent from my iPhone 12 using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Someone has got to ask this question, mine as well be me.

First, to all of you that are so painstakingly taking measurements, proposing theories, buying expensive equipment to investigate your Rolex, I must say I really don’t understand why. BUT, if this measuring and discussion and interest of yours is a passion you enjoy, more power to you! I am sure a lot of people don’t understand some of my passions and hobbies, to each their own, but here is the question.

Doesn’t all this investigating and searching for a problem with your 32XX movement distract from your enjoyment of the watch?

I akin this to using a loop to find every little nick and scratch on your Rolex and agonizing over it. Some of you, have spent a GREAT deal of time and effort (and perhaps money) on analyzing and critiquing every little tick of your Rolex, (I guess) searching for a fault. Now if your watch is not keeping accurate time, certainly I understand not being satisfied and wanting something done, but from what I have read it seems that a great many are not having any issues, even those that are taking copious measurements. I guess my question is:

Instead of seeking so hard to find fault with your Rolex, if it is keeping decent time, can’t you just wear and enjoy it? Why the concentrated effort to prove something wrong?

Thanks for your contribution with several questions. I take the time to answer in detail because I believe you have a completely wrong picture from what is called here 'saxo3'.

I bought a timegrapher long time before I purchased my first 32xx watch, the SD43 (126600) which I reported several times in this thread.

I'm a Rolex vintage fan and enjoy several of them, even more so as all their 15xx movements run very nicely. I measure them every 4 to 6 months only. I don't care if accuracy for these vintages is off by a few (5-10) seconds per day, but prefer they run consistently fast and not slow. I find a timegrapher is useful to determine when my vintages should get a movement revision from Rolex.

I didn't seek hard to find the 32xx faults, but was very disappointed when I first saw and measured that all my 32xx watches were running much worse than all my 15xx watches.

At that time, I was not a member of any watch forum. For my 3235 I found a correlation between low amplitudes and (very) negative caliber rates. That triggered my interest and made me curious to search for the reason. I found out all by myself.

I don't want to proof that something is wrong, because I know that all my 2017/18 watches have a mechanical problem, the SD43 seems to be fixed. I am also here to see what the experiences of other owners with their newer 32xx calibers (from 2019-2021) is and I try to help other by sharing my experiences and own data.

I like fine and reliable instruments as well as taking, analysing, and displaying data. That's a bit of a passion too. Graphs certainly show more than 1000 words or long data tables, ask e.g. Charles.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks for your contribution with several questions. I take the time to answer in detail because I believe you have a completely wrong picture from what is called here 'saxo3'.

I bought a timegrapher long time before I purchased my first 32xx watch, the SD43 (126600) which I reported several times in this thread.

I'm a Rolex vintage fan and enjoy several of them, even more so as all their 15xx movements run very nicely. I measure them every 4 to 6 months only. I don't care if accuracy for these vintages is off by a few (5-10) seconds per day, but prefer they run consistently fast and not slow. I find a timegrapher is useful to determine when my vintages should get a movement revision from Rolex.

I didn't seek hard to find the 32xx faults, but was very disappointed when I first saw and measured that all my 32xx watches were running much worse than all my 15xx watches.

At that time, I was not a member of any watch forum. For my 3235 I found a correlation between low amplitudes and (very) negative caliber rates. That triggered my interest and made me curious to search for the reason. I found out all by myself.

I don't want to proof that something is wrong, because I know that all my 2017/18 watches have a mechanical problem, the SD43 seems to be fixed. I am also here to see what the experiences of other owners with their newer 32xx calibers (from 2019-2021) is and I try to help other by sharing my experiences and own data.

I like fine and reliable instruments as well as taking, analysing, and displaying data. That's a bit of a passion too. Graphs certainly show more than 1000 words or long data tables, ask e.g. Charles.

All excellent explanations, but I still do not understand some general points. Maybe it is because English is not your first language, or maybe it’s just I am not smart enough. Let me put a couple questions a different way; (and by the way, I have zero experience or knowledge about watch movements, testing, I couldn’t even tell you what amplitude is so I can not dispute your findings in any manner and that is not my intention).

You say your 15XX movements, well I think you are saying you are very happy with your 15xx movements running off by 5 to 10 seconds per day (but you prefer them running fast rather then slow, completely understandable). I am ignorant on these movements, are they rated to COSC? +4 -6? If so, then 5 or 10 seconds is not a bad deviation, especially for an old movement. You stated that your 32XX movements were running “much worse” then your 15XX. Now, is that in comparison to 5 or 10 seconds a day? Or is it in comparison to the advertised accuracy of these movements of + - 2 ? Is the problem you are expecting much better accuracy and not getting it? Or that your 32XX is much WORSE then the 5 or 10 seconds a day of your 15xx? I am probably not stating this very clear but are you not happy with the 32xx because it should be to a much higher standard then the 15xx? Or because it is just keeping much worse time over-all. I.e. An accuracy that caused the watch to be off by MORE then 5 or 10 seconds a day? As an example, if your 32XX was off by, oh, 4 or 6 seconds a day would that be acceptable to you? Or are you more demanding of this movement because of the higher accuracy claims? I hope I am getting some of this across clearly for you to understand but I don’t blame you if it is confusing. And please don’t say I can just look at the graphs, I tried to understand them but my head exploded.

My second question, and probably the most important point I was trying to make, deals with the final result. If you enjoy taking measurements and graphing the numbers and comparing with others their results then more power to you. However to what end? Let’s say the findings represent a world-over accuracy of worse then +- 2 seconds per day. I am just using a hypothetical situation but imagine your 32XX comes out to an average similar to your 15xx, 10 seconds a day for example. Does that mean you enjoy it any less? Will that make you return it to Rolex for an adjustment? And another, until it gets to +-2? And then will you keep re-checking and again send it in when it is 10 seconds a day slow? Do you understand my point? I am not accusing you of this, but it seems that some people and posters are so concerned with obtaining the advertised accuracy and SEEKING a problem the watch becomes more of a source of obsession, not enjoyment. If the watch is way-off of course I understand wanting it to be addressed, but if your 32XX movement ends up being 10 seconds fast/slow per day, and you can live with your 15xx movement having that accuracy, then why is that an issue?

I have probably done a lousy job of explaining and asking these two points, but I bring up my example of the guy with the loop, looking for scratches. Sure, if your watch has a MAJOR scratch visible in an obvious place I can understand wanting it addressed, but if you have to put on a loop and look and look and look some more to find scratches, first, you will definitely find some, second, SEEKING a problem detracts from the over-all enjoyment of a fine timepiece. If it is not a big problem, a large discrepancy in accuracy, then why do an exhaustive search to find one? Why not just wear the watch and enjoy it?

I hope that makes sense.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

And please don’t say I can just look at the graphs, I tried to understand them but my head exploded.

Be careful my friend.

That can end unexpectedly ... Adiós

[ROLEX*]

If I could interject and pardon me if I miss out the tiny details, is there any permanent solutions for the 32xx issue?

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by ROLEX*

If I could interject and pardon me if I miss out the tiny details, is there any permanent solutions for the 32xx issue?

As yet we do not know

Rolex never reveal anything they have done in the way of movement improvements. All that remains very secretive and only the RSCs around the globe and authorised Rolex trained watchmakers get any of that sort of information

That’s why a very few of us are constantly measuring watches to check on their performance.

We think so far late 2020 and 2021 watches with a 32xx movement are OK but only time will tell ……. probably, another 6 months yet, as the faults take some time to manifest themselves.

[ROLEX*]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

As yet we do not know

Rolex never reveal anything they have done in the way of movement improvements. All that remains very secretive and only the RSCs around the globe and authorised Rolex trained watchmakers get any of that sort of information

That’s why a very few of us are constantly measuring watches to check on their performance.

We think so far late 2020 and 2021 watches with a 32xx movement are OK but only time will tell ……. probably, another 6 months yet, as the faults take some time to manifest themselves.

What does it mean by OK in Accuracy and Precision numbers?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by ROLEX*

What does it mean by OK in Accuracy and Precision numbers?

Rolex SA specifies the movement precision, not the accuracy.

I have done some measurements, which are summarized in post #1232:
Amplitudes, Rates, Precision of 32xx and 31xx calibers

A simple explanation (w/o math. formulas) of the difference between accuracy and precision you can find in my post #1258.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by ROLEX*

What does it mean by OK in Accuracy and Precision numbers?

There is a difference, but a graph would surely illustrate better than explanations.

I try to keep it simple in my mind.
So I just accept that it's easier to fine tune the accuracy of a watch in real world terms if it's actually precise.
If it's not precise then it's a bit like trying to catch a greasy weasel.

Interestingly, came across a little something about a particular caliber and related series of calibers of movement by a totally different manufacturer.
The article stated that the particular caliber i was interested in is adjusted for 6 positions to be within their -3 to +5 tolerance, which is widely stated and accepted.
Here's where it gets interesting, in that the article goes on to state that the manufacturer expects and accepts the above numbers above to equate to the same movement running at between -1 and +10 when worn on the wrist.

Interesting and noteworthy as it is. I can't devote any more energy into it all other than noting how accurate a watch is as it is worn on the wrist. Other than that how accurate it is at various resting positions when attempting a bit of self regulation.

The rest of it, I will leave entirely to the trained professionals and their expertise as they have never let me down

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Interesting and noteworthy as it is. I can't devote any more energy into it all other than noting how accurate a watch is as it is worn on the wrist. Other than that how accurate it is at various resting positions when attempting a bit of self regulation.

The rest of it, I will leave entirely to the trained professionals and their expertise as they have never let me down

Very well said. I wear my watch pretty much 24/7, and it is consistently- 1.5 seconds per day. That’s very acceptable to me and all I need to know.

[saxo3]

Ufff, a lot of questions
I need a bit of time to answer.
I'll be back

Quid pro quo: And you explain me what a "Dorkelhead Tosser" is?

[Andad]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Ufff, a lot of questions
I need a bit of time to answer.
I'll be back

Quid pro quo: And you explain me what a "Dorkelhead Tosser" is?