32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[CharlesN]

As many of you will know I have been taking readings on my Sub-Date 126610 with a TimeGrapher.

I have logged those results on a spreadsheet and saxo3 kindly converted them into a graph for me and all to see. Seeing the results displayed on a graph is so much more clear as to what is really happening.

Since taking the readings on a TimeGrapher I have also taken readings on an App on my iPhone called WatchTracker. This is done by tapping on the screen when the second hand of your watch reaches a certain point. it is super simple to do.

There are clear differences in the amount of data you can get but there are clear similarities also.
It is a very interesting way of comparing different methods of timing a watch.

On the TimeGrapher it showed the x to be +0.2spd when fully wound and x to be -0.4spd after 12 hours.

On the WatchTracker it showed an average loss of -0.4spd.

Of course my Sub-Date with a 3235 movement is self winding (aka automatic) but I am fairly static all day. I do go for daily walks with my dog but I dont swing my arms much.

I therefore can accept that my Sub-date is not fully wound most f the time and the loss of -0.4spd is probably correct on BOTH the more precise TimeGrapher and the app on my phone.

I thought that was very interesting.

I attach below the spreadsheet and WatchTracker report sheets.

I can thoroughly recommend BOTH methods as they have proved to be so similar.





Sent from my iPhone 12 using Tapatalk

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

As many of you will know I have been taking readings on my Sub-Date 126610 with a TimeGrapher.

I have logged those results on a spreadsheet and saxo3 kindly converted them into a graph for me and all to see. Seeing the results displayed on a graph is so much more clear as to what is really happening.

Since taking the readings on a TimeGrapher I have also taken readings on an App on my iPhone called WatchTracker. This is done by tapping on the screen when the second hand of your watch reaches a certain point. it is super simple to do.

There are clear differences in the amount of data you can get but there are clear similarities also.
It is a very interesting way of comparing different methods of timing a watch.

On the TimeGrapher it showed the x to be +0.2spd when fully wound and x to be -0.4spd after 12 hours.

On the WatchTracker it showed an average loss of -0.4spd.

Of course my Sub-Date with a 3235 movement is self winding (aka automatic) but I am fairly static all day. I do go for daily walks with my dog but I dont swing my arms much.

I therefore can accept that my Sub-date is not fully wound most f the time and the loss of -0.4spd is probably correct on BOTH the more precise TimeGrapher and the app on my phone.

I thought that was very interesting.

I attach below the spreadsheet and WatchTracker report sheets.

I can thoroughly recommend BOTH methods as they have proved to be so similar.





Sent from my iPhone 12 using Tapatalk

Very nice

Here's the status of some of mine that I track. My Daytona is fast! But since it is completely impervious to orientation I don't want to touch it and end up messing up the perfectly balanced microstella.

One tip for WatchTracker is don't take data too often since the error induced by your ability to click at the exact moment is a larger ratio for shorter intervals.

I estimate I can click within 100 ms of the correct displayed time (though sometimes that is difficult on watches with large indices or lume plots). So +\- 0.1 spd peak error if I take one data point per day (neglecting the error of the atomic clock which is many decimal places to the right). As the data points continue to accumulate the RMS error is even lower so this method can become more accurate than even a witschi in time.

[CharlesN]

It is important to remember that this thread is basically about the very detailed readings over time of the 32xx movements.

Only a TimeGrapher will give the data needed for this thread.

The WatchTracker app and its informatipn only show a crude set of data without the same level of detail that supports this research.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Come on guys,

Please ...



There really is no need for name calling or anything near what has just gone on.



We must all agree that it really is unacceptable even if the outrageous name calling that has thankfully been edited has been replaced with slightly less profane wording.

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Hi Peter,



Hey. That’s going a bit far I think.



Some of us, my self included, are not only learning from, but enjoying this thread and have had quite a bit of fun participating.



Why would you even consider ending a thread that is alive and well and thriving and educating.



I know you were a moderator, perhaps you still are, I don’t know, but it’s just plain and simply wrong to end something just for a momentary lapse in agreements.

Originally Posted by Driver8

Completely agree Charles. This is, by far, THE most informative thread running on here at the moment, so I can't remotely see why it should be ended prematurely. People don't have to read it, or participate in it, but those who do should be able to continue to do so.

Originally Posted by EEpro

It's the only technical one we have. I appreciate all the data you guys are collecting and as an engineer I find Saxo's pedantry to be an endearing quality.

Originally Posted by Omarion07

I agree with Charles as well. It's not fair on other members that this thread gets completely shut down. All that happened is a misunderstanding between two valued members of TRF that contributed a lot to TRF.

Originally Posted by Omarion07

Probably the only thread that I check on daily basis.

Dear Charles, Brad, Driver8, Omarion07, 





Many thanks for your positive feedback about this thread and encouragement to continue. 





I don't know yet if I will carry on ... as posts got modified or deleted. 





Screenshots and unfriendly 'messages' remain as both memories and screenshots.





Anyhow, I stopped laughing. (See TRF rule no. 1)





Today, 3 days later, no apology for the wording, no private message of regret, in fact no nothing!





That's life on the Internet, one meets many intelligent people but also not the brightest sparks.



Manners maketh Man.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Dear Charles, Brad, Driver8, Omarion07, 





Many thanks for your positive feedback about this thread and encouragement to continue. 





I don't know yet if I will carry on ... as posts got modified or deleted. 





Screenshots and unfriendly 'messages' remain as both memories and screenshots.





Anyhow, I stopped laughing. (See TRF rule no. 1)





Today, 3 days later, no apology for the wording, no private message of regret, in fact no nothing!





That's life on the Internet, one meets many intelligent people but also not the brightest sparks.



Manners maketh Man.

I said I went too far, and that is all you're going to get.

In fact, I haven't seen any apology for your unkind comments in other threads, you were particularly nasty towards member ''Chewbacca''. So pot calling the kettle black.

I answer your questions, take pictures of data as requested, and still you act like that... I am not against this thread, I am not against you, I am not denying the fact that there is a problem with the 32xx. We're on the same side, yet when I say something and cannot immediately back it up with hard data my post either gets ignored or belittled.
Then acting offended and shocked after I lost my temper over such arrogant behaviour Very intelligent man, you are

But please continue with the thread, it shouldn't have to close over this, nor should informative posts be edited.

[maxbelg]

Originally Posted by SearChart

.............I answer your questions, take pictures of data as requested, .......

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.

[goodolejr]

Originally Posted by SearChart

I said I went too far, and that is all you're going to get.

In fact, I haven't seen any apology for your unkind comments in other threads, you were particularly nasty towards member ''Chewbacca''. So pot calling the kettle black.

I answer your questions, take pictures of data as requested, and still you act like that... I am not against this thread, I am not against you, I am not denying the fact that there is a problem with the 32xx. We're on the same side, yet when I say something and cannot immediately back it up with hard data my post either gets ignored or belittled.
Then acting offended and shocked after I lost my temper over such arrogant behaviour Very intelligent man, you are

But please continue with the thread, it shouldn't have to close over this, nor should informative posts be edited.

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

[BNA/LION]

Originally Posted by SearChart

I said I went too far, and that is all you're going to get...

Bas, Thank You for all you contribute to the watch collecting community. Your knowledge and real world experience are greatly appreciated by many. All the best to you my friend! Larry

[Annan]

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

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Annan

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

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

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Driver8

People don't have to read it, or participate in it, but those who do should be able to continue to do so.

Honestly Jeff I am in two minds about this thread and various aspects of it.
Regarding participation, I have noted that it is conditional upon the requirement of having a certain piece of equipment that's probably best left in the hands of professionals.
To that it's exclusive and not necessarily inclusive, unless one has been given approval of a self appointed moderator or two

These internet forum things are fine as long as people exercise a degree of tolerance and make a genuine attempt to be inclusive and tolerant. This has not necessarily been the case in this thread.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your council earlier in this thread via a PM as I was surprised that there were a number of un-disclosed individuals who were allegedly forming a lynch mob in the background to have someone (eliminated somehow) because their performance was not up to some sort of undefined and acceptable levels by modern standards.

It seems some people have no problem with kicking an old dog in the guts when and as it suits them for the greater good (as it were)

I wonder if these individuals ought to start their own forum to impose their own strictly held performance levels.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Dear Charles, Brad, Driver8, Omarion07, 





Many thanks for your positive feedback about this thread and encouragement to continue. 





I don't know yet if I will carry on ... as posts got modified or deleted. 





Screenshots and unfriendly 'messages' remain as both memories and screenshots.





Anyhow, I stopped laughing. (See TRF rule no. 1)





Today, 3 days later, no apology for the wording, no private message of regret, in fact no nothing!





That's life on the Internet, one meets many intelligent people but also not the brightest sparks.



Manners maketh Man.

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

[Dirt]

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

Totally agreed
But I think Bas was referring to this specific thread

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

It is important to remember that this thread is basically about the very detailed readings over time of the 32xx movements.

Only a TimeGrapher will give the data needed for this thread.

The WatchTracker app and its informatipn only show a crude set of data without the same level of detail that supports this research.

Perhaps it would be best if the owners of the forum were to feel inclined to create a subforum dedicated to this timeographer stuff.
Maybe even attached(somehow) to the watchmaking forum

I am confident that may very well fulfill the broadest requirements of the main forum

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Totally agreed
But I think Bas was referring to this specific thread

Ahhh, gotcha

Looking forward to your next posts Bas.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Perhaps it would be best if the owners of the forum were to feel inclined to create a subforum:

This was suggested before to the owner of these forums and he decided it was just fine where it is.

I don’t see what is wrong with having it here except for the superfluous comments that seem to have erupted in the last few days, especially in the last few hours.

Perhaps some normality will now return

Incidentally, It looks as if, finally, we have a watch available for tests that is beginning to show the symptoms as mentioned at the beginning of this thread. This obviously will have to be confirmed and the only, and best, way of doing this is with a timegrapher and careful observations.
I can tell you that it is a late 2020 watch with a 32xx movement.

A little time will tell if we have a problematic watch or not.


Sent from my iPhone 12 using Tapatalk

[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

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by Dirt

I have noted that it is conditional upon the requirement of having a certain piece of equipment that's probably best left in the hands of professionals.

I really do not agree with you
Whilst a timegrapher is a really good tool to monitor the healthy working of an owners watch it is not a requirement for posting in this thread.

A timegrapher is perfectly safe in the hands of a mere mortal (I am one) who is not a watchmaker.
It is simple to use and gives quickly and easily a good indication of a watch’s “Health”

I do understand that not many folks have a timegrapher although they are readily available at the well known Amazon sites around the world. Luckily they are not expensive either and can give endless hours of enjoyment.

I am hoping that what has gone on in this thread in the last few days can now end immediately and that we can get back to what this forum does well which is allow us to “Talk” about watches and this thread in which we are discussing the possibility of problems in the 32xx Rolex movements

[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 ?

[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

[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

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Perhaps it would be best if the owners of the forum were to feel inclined to create a subforum dedicated to this timeographer stuff.
Maybe even attached(somehow) to the watchmaking forum

I am confident that may very well fulfill the broadest requirements of the main forum

Or could some posters on this thread with no real agenda other than to sink it find another thread to badger and complain about?

As for the language that Bas used and for those who condoned it there is no excuse but he has apologised.

Many have been given the flick for less.

Can we now continue with the data collection and see where the results take us without the personal attacks.

[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

[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.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Andad

Or could some posters on this thread with no real agenda other than to sink it find another thread to badger and complain about?

As for the language that Bas used and for those who condoned it there is no excuse but he has apologised.

Many have been given the flick for less.

Can we now continue with the data collection and see where the results take us without the personal attacks.

Seeing as you mentioned agendas and personal attacks.
May I suggest you also have a good long hard in the mirror Old Mate.

To be clear, I don't appreciate being pursued around the forum with you casting aspersions about my motives and snide remarks.
I have no intention of extending on this communication with you sir, and would appreciate it if in future you refrain from engaging with me on any level.
Please feel free to completely ignore me from this point onward

[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]

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