The 3235 Movement and The Fix (2 years out)

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by DocOc

But their assertion that a company like Rolex has produced a movement based on a faulty design is simply ludicrous, for myriad reasons.

That's the problem though.
On paper the movement should be a winner but it commonly suffers from an issue which ordinarily shouldn't be an issue.

I suppose we could say that Thalidomide was a great idea back in its day too
Do they still prescribe that stuff?

[HiBoost]

Full timegrapher results recorded. To recap, brand new Sub, worn on and off for 2 weeks. Lift angle set to 53 degrees, Weishi 1000, 4 second period. Watch allowed to settle for 2 minutes after changing positions. Then monitored for another 3 minutes.

Full wind (75 winds)

DU: +2 to +3 s/d, 256-262 deg
CU: -3 to -6 s/d, 208-218 deg
DD: +2 to +4 s/d, 250-257 deg
CD: 0 to -2 s/d, 216-224 deg

For most of the full wind tests across all positions the beat error was 0.2ms.

24 hours later (not worn or moved)

DU: +1 to +3 s/d, 231-237 deg
CU: -5 to -9 s/d, 185-197 deg
DD: +1 to +4 s/d, 222-226 deg
CD: 0 to -9 s/d, 188-195 deg

For most of the 24 hour tests across all positions the beat error was 0.0ms.

So according to various internet sources, the movement has problems. I haven't seen anyone suggest that < 200 amplitude is good. And yet, after 3 days, worn and unworn, fully would and minimally wound, the watch is within 1 second of the atomic clock that I hacked it to. Hard to square that real world performance with the common interpretation of the numbers above. So again, do we actually know for sure what acceptable amplitudes are for this movement?

[Soultime]

Dong a poll in here asking everyone with the movement to submit an answer (problems / no problems) would give an idea of the scale of the issue.

But I think maybe most people with 'no problems' wouldn't vote and those with 'problems' would be more likely to read the thread and vote.

My DJ41 has just come back from RSC having succumbed after 18 months.

[DocOc]

Originally Posted by Dirt

That's the problem though.
On paper the movement should be a winner but it commonly suffers from an issue which ordinarily shouldn't be an issue.

I suppose we could say that Thalidomide was a great idea back in its day too
Do they still prescribe that stuff?

First, you’re arguing that Rolex only evaluated the movement on paper. I’d imagine that Rolex tested this movement exhaustively before deciding to put it in their watches (which were selling just just fine with a thirty year-old movement, mind you). And again, they don’t just test the prototypes. They test each one they manufacture to make sure it’s working as it should before selling it. Can’t think of too many products with that kind of quality control.

Your thalidomide comparison is a bad one for multiple reasons. Most importantly, if Rolex had noticed that their 3235 movement was inaccurate, they wouldn’t have released it to the public.

[waterman1]

I am not making the assertion that Rolex produced a watch with faulty design. Maybe this is my optimistic nature, but I am not angry. I believe I am unlucky to have had 2 watches with the same issue- probably a small probability. And now to have the same watch act up again. Well this is odd. But it happened so I’ll deal with it. I also believe Rolex will make this good in the end. I did get my 126600 within days of it first being offered so it was probably a very early production which could have something to do with it. Fingers are crossed this will be the last trip to RSC for the issue!

[Swiss Mad!]

I recently sent my GMT CHNR (3285 movement) back to RSC for a service, not due to time keeping inaccuracy but due to what I can only describe as an audible & tactile ‘grinding’ sensation when winding the watch.

It was just over 12 months old when I first experienced this issue, but in fairness it’s not a daily wearer, I keep it for ‘best’ & only wear it when going somewhere nice for meals/functions/celebrations etc. so it hadn’t had all that much use relatively speaking at the time it first developed.

I ignored the issue for a while at first as I thought it was just me being over critical, but I happened to be wearing it one day on a random trip to see my AD & asked them their opinion as to whether it felt right or not.

They agreed it didn’t & arranged for it to be sent back to RSC for a full movement service.

I was without the watch for around 3 weeks, but it came back totally as it should be & now winds with the buttery smoothness one would expect from a Rolex timepiece.

I tried to quiz my AD as to what the issue was, but was politely informed that Rolex don’t divulge that sort of information.

Fair enough, I was just glad to have my watch back working as it should so didn’t probe any further.

I have read various reports of potential issues relating to lubrication, or lack of it, with the 32xx series movements, but not sure if that was the case with mine or not.

Glad to say, all is still well with it & I haven’t experienced the same issue since.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DocOc]

Originally Posted by waterman1

I am not making the assertion that Rolex produced a watch with faulty design. Maybe this is my optimistic nature, but I am not angry. I believe I am unlucky to have had 2 watches with the same issue- probably a small probability. And now to have the same watch act up again. Well this is odd. But it happened so I’ll deal with it. I also believe Rolex will make this good in the end. I did get my 126600 within days of it first being offered so it was probably a very early production which could have something to do with it. Fingers are crossed this will be the last trip to RSC for the issue!

Heck... I’d be fuming mad. When you drop that kind of money on a watch that isn’t worth half what you paid for it (we are all in that same boat) and tolerate the BS that goes along with buying a Rolex (waiting for months, and the dealer must remove the stickers now??), you become much less tolerant of manufacturing defects. And rightfully so. Quite frankly, I think Rolex should replace your watch.

[Megalobyte]

What I’ve read is that the 32xx movements using the more efficient escapement don’t need typical amplitude levels. However, if after 24 hours of unwinding the amplitude drops below 200 in any position there’s an issue. This sure does not seem to be normal isolated events. There seems to be a common cause. I’m sure Rolex is aware of the issue.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by DocOc

First, you’re arguing that Rolex only evaluated the movement on paper. I’d imagine that Rolex tested this movement exhaustively before deciding to put it in their watches (which were selling just just fine with a thirty year-old movement, mind you). And again, they don’t just test the prototypes. They test each one they manufacture to make sure it’s working as it should before selling it. Can’t think of too many products with that kind of quality control.

Your thalidomide comparison is a bad one for multiple reasons. Most importantly, if Rolex had noticed that their 3235 movement was inaccurate, they wouldn’t have released it to the public.

there's no accuracy issues with Thalidomide.
You're not getting it.

No one is saying that Rolex didn't do any durability testing. If that's what you are referring to.

The real issue is, that had Rolex done "enough" durability testing before releasing onto the market, they would've been able to see signs of premature wear on the problem components.
The situation is compounded by the fact that this has been the very same issue which is ongoing for at least THREE YEARS now(cutting Rolex a bit of most generous slack).
Extrapolate that and apply it to the medical field and see if there isn't a class action on a global scale.

Fortunately Rolex only make being things that people like wear on their wrist. Sometimes they're not even set to anything like the correct time or date.
In the case of the 32xx movements they're routinely likely be running behind time whilst grinding themselves to dust.
And in case you're not aware, that's probably the very worst thing a movement can do to itself.
With no permanent solution in sight.

I reckon a cheap Chinese knock off would do better, only it wouldn't be supported by an extensive global service network.
Further, I believe just about all of our 31xx movements which have been produced over the same period, would likely be going strong without to much ado long after your latest and greatest have been back to Rolex 2 times in the same period.
As well as being rock stable in terms of accuracy whilst displaying equivalent accuracy.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

What I’ve read is that the 32xx movements using the more efficient escapement don’t need typical amplitude levels. However, if after 24 hours of unwinding the amplitude drops below 200 in any position there’s an issue. This sure does not seem to be normal isolated events. There seems to be a common cause. I’m sure Rolex is aware of the issue.

Of course Rolex is aware.
After all it's Rolex that first identified the amplitude issue which is symptomatic of the underlying problem with the pinion that grinds itself to dust.

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by DocOc

First, you’re arguing that Rolex only evaluated the movement on paper. I’d imagine that Rolex tested this movement exhaustively before deciding to put it in their watches (which were selling just just fine with a thirty year-old movement, mind you). And again, they don’t just test the prototypes. They test each one they manufacture to make sure it’s working as it should before selling it. Can’t think of too many products with that kind of quality control.



Your thalidomide comparison is a bad one for multiple reasons. Most importantly, if Rolex had noticed that their 3235 movement was inaccurate, they wouldn’t have released it to the public.

The problem I noticed with mine is it was very accurate at the beginning, it's only after 3 years that it started to show a significant decrease in accuracy. Others have also reported sudden drops after a year or so. How is Rolex going to catch this problem in their tests if it doesn't manifest at the beginning but only after some time?

[DocOc]

Originally Posted by Dirt

there's no accuracy issues with Thalidomide.
You're not getting it.

No one is saying that Rolex didn't do any durability testing. If that's what you are referring to.

The real issue is, that had Rolex done "enough" durability testing before releasing onto the market, they would've been able to see signs of premature wear on the problem components.
The situation is compounded by the fact that this has been the very same issue which is ongoing for at least THREE YEARS now(cutting Rolex a bit of most generous slack).
Extrapolate that and apply it to the medical field and see if there isn't a class action on a global scale.

Fortunately Rolex only make being things that people like wear on their wrist. Sometimes they're not even set to anything like the correct time or date.
In the case of the 32xx movements they're routinely likely be running behind time whilst grinding themselves to dust.
And in case you're not aware, that's probably the very worst thing a movement can do to itself.
With no permanent solution in sight.

I reckon a cheap Chinese knock off would do better, only it wouldn't be supported by an extensive global service network.
Further, I believe just about all of our 31xx movements which have been produced over the same period, would likely be going strong without to much ado long after your latest and greatest have been back to Rolex 2 times in the same period.
As well as being rock stable in terms of accuracy whilst displaying equivalent accuracy.

Did Hans Wilsdorf himself poop in your cornflakes or something?

You are clearly bitter - I get that. But are you listening to yourself?

You have a problem with your Rolex with the 3235 movement. You are failing to acknowledge the fact that the overwhelming majority of people purchasing watches with the 3235 calibre are not having any problems. Maybe there are a few bad technicians assembling some of the units. Maybe they made a bad batch of lubricant. Or something else. Who knows.

Once again: the 3235 movements with issues are the rare exception and not the norm. That means that, in order to identify the problem, you need to look a bit further down the ‘production line’.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by DocOc

Did Hans Wilsdorf himself poop in your cornflakes or something?

You are clearly bitter - I get that. But are you listening to yourself?

You have a problem with your Rolex with the 3235 movement. You are failing to acknowledge the fact that the overwhelming majority of people purchasing watches with the 3235 calibre are not having any problems. Maybe there are a few bad technicians assembling some of the units. Maybe they made a bad batch of lubricant. Or something else. Who knows.

Once again: the 3235 movements with issues are the rare exception and not the norm. That means that, in order to identify the problem, you need to look a bit further down the ‘production line’.

The problem is.
You're not listening to anybody but yourself.
I hope you haven't got that Koolaid being administered by IV

Let me be clear.
I never have had a 32xx movement and choose to stick with my 31xx movements for sound practical reasons in perpetuity as they are proven, more than capable and utterly reliable when serviced in a timely manner.

The lubrication schedule isn't the issue at all and ordinarily it shouldn't be in this case.
As to the technician scenario.
Don't you think Rolex would have more than enough traceability/QC built into their systems be able to trace which tech/techs are making mistakes year in year out.
Your hypothesis suggests that Rolex can't identify the individuals by stracing the serial number of the movement.
What you are saying suggests that Rolex is so routinely incompetent that it beggars belief.

It would make more sense to me if you said there is the equivalent of a fifth column working away within the mothership and working on a roster basis so as to diffuse suspicion, somehow sabotaging the movements at the same point of the mechanism.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Dirt

The problem is.
You're not listening to anybody but yourself.
I hope you haven't got that Koolaid being administered by IV

Let me be clear.
I never have had a 32xx movement and choose to stick with my 31xx movements for sound practical reasons in perpetuity as they are proven, more than capable and utterly reliable when serviced in a timely manner.

The

Uhm... yeah, right.

Docs point was if your statement is correct, there would be 10s of thousands of watches returned, maybe 100,000. I don’t deny there is a problem, but I am sure the problem is the 3235 is more susceptible to slowing, not that every single movement WILL do this... what did you call it? Oh yeah, “grind itself in to dust”

[PekWatchGuy]

Just canceled my order of 126600. I am not interested until this fault has resolved for good.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by PekWatchGuy

Just canceled my order of 126600. I am not interested until this fault has resolved for good.

What will you get instead? Older version or another model with a different movement? Just MHO, but I think it may be a while before the 3235 has the same reliability confidence as the 3185.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Uhm... yeah, right.

Docs point was if your statement is correct, there would be 10s of thousands of watches returned, maybe 100,000. I don’t deny there is a problem, but I am sure the problem is the 3235 is more susceptible to slowing, not that every single movement WILL do this... what did you call it? Oh yeah, “grind itself in to dust”

The pictures are in evidence.
The evidence is irrefutable and patently demonstrate what is the exact opposite of what should be happening within any watch movement that is supposed to be in good working order.
It inevitably manifests in cases where the issue is not rectified in a timely manner.
The evidence is clear on that.

I will reiterate, to date there is no known fix for the issue which is a mystery to all including Rolex.
How many years down the track are we now? Consider that

As to how many units are affected.
We will never know as Rolex don't and never will publish that for obvious reasons. So that is not in evidence.

Playing devils advocate.
I ask that you would kindly point us in the direction where we may all find evidence of a number(any number will do) where we find the same types of issues or have ever found the same issues reported with the 31xx movements as those in evidence with the 32xx movements.
Let's exclude the silly business with the 3185 movement for more clarity shall we?
Except to say we can all agree, it was resolved in a far quicker time frame.

[PekWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

What will you get instead? Older version or another model with a different movement? Just MHO, but I think it may be a while before the 3235 has the same reliability confidence as the 3185.

i'm not in a hurry.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

but I think it may be a while before the 3235 has the same reliability confidence as the 3185.

You're likely absolutely correct about that.
5 years and counting unless we cut Rolex some serious slack on the basis they didn't do sufficient durability testing in the first instance.

It not like Rolex ran out of time or anything either.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Dirt

The pictures are in evidence.
The evidence is irrefutable and patently demonstrate what is the exact opposite of what should be happening within any watch movement that is supposed to be in good working order.
It inevitably manifests in cases where the issue is not rectified in a timely manner.
The evidence is clear on that.

I will reiterate, to date there no known fix for the issue which is a mystery to all including Rolex.
How many years down the track are we now? Consider that

As to how many units are affected.
We will never know as Rolex don't and never will publish that for obvious reasons. So that is not in evidence.

Playing devils advocate.
I ask that you would kindly point us in the direction where we may all find evidence of a number(any number will do) where we find the same issue or have ever found the same issues reported with the 31xx movements.
Let's exclude the silly business with the 3185 movement for more clarity shall we?
Except to say we can all agree, it was resolved in a far quicker time frame.

I have no idea what issue you are talking about with the 3185, to my knowledge (which I admit may be limited) the 3185 is a very reliable movement, if it had any issues they must have been quickly solved. I just won’t believe that a company like Rolex, would continue to produce a movement that was destined to fail 100%. Is there a flaw that makes it more susceptible to a problem? I am sure there is, but Rolex didn’t get to be Rolex by producing products immanent to failure. I am not a watchmaker, neither are you, until Bas tells me I’m wrong, I can’t accept Rolex is producing a movement that is destined to “grind itself in to dust”

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by PekWatchGuy

i'm not in a hurry.

That's good, because you'll need plenty of patience with ownership of a 32xx if you get one.

Sorry I posted something before totally out of context and I was called away.
Kindly ignore it

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I have no idea what issue you are talking about with the 3185, to my knowledge (which I admit may be limited) the 3185 is a very reliable movement, if it had any issues they must have been quickly solved. I just won’t believe that a company like Rolex, would continue to produce a movement that was destined to fail 100%. Is there a flaw that makes it more susceptible to a problem? I am sure there is, but Rolex didn’t get to be Rolex by producing products immanent to failure. I am not a watchmaker, neither are you, until Bas tells me I’m wrong, I can’t accept Rolex is producing a movement that is destined to “grind itself in to dust”

It's the pics put up on this forum by our celebrity Rolex watchmaker himself that show what is happening.
Dust and all.
It's your choice as to what you believe.
I choose to deal with the facts without the Koolaid

If you're not up to speed on the issue, why are you commenting and wasting everybody's time???

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Dirt

It's the pics put up on this forum by our celebrity Rolex watchmaker himself that show what is happening.
Dust and all.

If you're not up to speed on the issue, why are you commenting and wasting everybody's time???

Yes, I have read the subject, and I know Bas personally, I hope your comment about celebrity was not in sarcasm as he is my friend. To answer your question (don’t know why I bother talking about wasting time) I acknowledge there is an issue, read my posts before commenting why don’t you. I just refuse to believe there will not be a fix, or that the movement is destined to fail 100%, I don’t believe a company like Rolex would put out a product if that was the case (the issue was defective 100% of the time or there was no fix in sight). If you want to continue preaching the sky is falling and EVERY SINGLE 3235 movement watch will be a paperweight within six months, go ahead. I’m done wasting my time reading your posts.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by PekWatchGuy

Just canceled my order of 126600. I am not interested until this fault has resolved for good.

It's a wise move indeed.
Life's much too short to be burdened with expensive nooses around one's neck

[1lastone]

Originally Posted by Dirt

That's the problem though.
On paper the movement should be a winner but it commonly suffers from an issue which ordinarily shouldn't be an issue.

I suppose we could say that Thalidomide was a great idea back in its day too
Do they still prescribe that stuff?

Yes they still prescribe the optical isomer for it and it still remains a good treatment for leprosy

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Yes, I have read the subject, and I know Bas personally, I hope your comment about celebrity was not in sarcasm as he is my friend. To answer your question (don’t know why I bother talking about wasting time) I acknowledge there is an issue, read my posts before commenting why don’t you. I just refuse to believe there will not be a fix, or that the movement is destined to fail 100%, I don’t believe a company like Rolex would put out a product if that was the case (the issue was defective 100% of the time or there was no fix in sight). If you want to continue preaching the sky is falling and EVERY SINGLE 3235 movement watch will be a paperweight within six months, go ahead. I’m done wasting my time reading your posts.

Fair enough.
I'm clearly not as heavily invested emotionally in the brand as your good self. You're obviously triggered somehow.

To be clear, my reference to the celebrity watchmaker is an acknowledgement of the man's status. It's just that I don't feel the need to keep invoking the man or engage in name dropping. It's totally unhelpful as far as I'm concerned and superfluous for the purposes of reasoned and intelligent discussion.
I would urge you to do the same.
Good for you he's a personal friend.
You are indeed blessed as the only watchmakers I have exposure to are mostly retired.
One has long since passed away who I was particularly close to as a teacher and mentor. We even fished together on a few occassions
One was the president of the Horological society when it was in existence(so he must know a thing or two).
The others are not anywhere near the same level as he who shall remain nameless(now I know why I prefer to refer to him as the celebrity watchmaker I'm sure it sounds nicer and more respectable).

Let's try to keep the emotion out of it shall we
That way we'll all get along much better

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by 1lastone

Yes they still prescribe the optical isomer for it and it still remains a good treatment for leprosy

That's terrible.

[peterskinner]

I’m still waiting for genuine evidence that there is a problem. A self-selecting sample on a forum is just that.....a self selecting sample. What about all the other owners who say nothing?
Rolex will have made millions of these movements over the last few years. Even a one % failure would be a lot of watches.
You have to believe Rolex is incompetent (and foolish) to knowingly make a faulty design. I doubt that a forum, which incorporates a tiny percentage of owners, is the last word on the ‘facts.’
I’ve had one ‘slow’ movement and five which are fine. Proving what?

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Yes, I have read the subject, and I know Bas personally, I hope your comment about celebrity was not in sarcasm as he is my friend. To answer your question (don’t know why I bother talking about wasting time) I acknowledge there is an issue, read my posts before commenting why don’t you. I just refuse to believe there will not be a fix, or that the movement is destined to fail 100%, I don’t believe a company like Rolex would put out a product if that was the case (the issue was defective 100% of the time or there was no fix in sight). If you want to continue preaching the sky is falling and EVERY SINGLE 3235 movement watch will be a paperweight within six months, go ahead. I’m done wasting my time reading your posts.

I also think there will be a permanent fix at some point, problem is how long it will take them to find it. I have 15 months left on the warranty of my SD43. I don't want to run out of warranty and pay 800 euros everytime I visit the RSC to get a temporary fix. Rolex had 5 years to work on a permanent solution. How many more lustrums do they need?

[PekWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

I also think there will be a permanent fix at some point, problem is how long it will take them to find it. I have 15 months left on the warranty of my SD43. I don't want to run out of warranty and pay 800 euros everytime I visit the RSC to get a temporary fix. Rolex had 5 years to work on a permanent solution. How many more lustrums do they need?