32XX Movement Problems
 

There is a long thread documenting the issues people are having with the 32XX movements. I have a 2019 GMT II with a 3285 Caliber movement that was losing close to a minute/day (-60 spd) and more as it lost power. I just heard back from the AD after brining it in for warranty service and they shared it will be covered and said they will be "servicing" and calibrating. Anybody know what the issues are with this movement? I do not have an issue being without the watch for 90+ days but I am hoping it gets fixed for good.

Look for Bas (SearChart) posts on this very subforum. Basically, there's a design problem that generates premature wear on a pivot if my memory serves.

Yes. As I understand it there is a movement design issue that causes premature wear on a pivot resulting in gradual slowing. The first "fix" was to lubricate this area (supposedly not done/skipped at the factory) but it was only temporary. Rolex has not, and will not, acknowledge there is a problem. Rather, if there is indeed an issue Rolex will quietly address it internally but we, the end users, will never know what might have been done. Since the 32XX movements came out in 2016 or so there has been plenty of time for any issues to have been sorted out. Some think that the current best approach is to buy models that have been produced after 2020 or so. But......there is no way to know for sure when a 32XX movement might have been produced. For me, the ultimate answer is to have a Rolex certified watchmaker disassemble a movement and determine if any changes have been made.

32XX Movement Problems
 

I don't believe that this was (or this still) the only 32xx problem, which the company could not solve since 2015. Remember, the introduction dates of 32xx series were as follows.

2015: 3255
2016: 3235
2017: -
2018: 3285
2019: -
2020: 3230

Btw, the long "32xx movement problem poll and data thread" does NOT document the issues but collects 32xx movement data.

Por lo que tengo entendido, se produce una pérdida de amplitud, y hace que atrase, en todos los calibres de Rolex no se aceita el eje de la rueda de segundos, y en el 32, después de ver que se producía un desgaste prematuro en la rueda de segundos decidieron si aceitarla.

I am really curious because I purchased two GMT's with the 3285 movement over the past three years - one in 2019 and another last year, 2021. The 2019 is in the shop and the word from the AD has been vague. Hoping that the movement in the 2021 is good.

There were discussions re a possible issue with no oil on a bearing.
I haven’t heard about replacing the second wheel and oiling the pivot but this may have been part of the fix.

Bas might give us an update?:cheers:

I have had no issues so far with my ‘19 DJ 41 but then it’s not my everyday watch.

English, please.

My OP and 41 Sub both with 32xx run slow.
Of course, they are both COSC.
My question is .. was only the 32XX design prototype COSC certified and not my individual OP and 41sub? Read tons of stories about the slow 32XX. Therefore, I suspect each individual watch manufactured is not COSC tested. If each watch is tested on the line, what does that say about rolex QC?

Slow without numbers? What is the timekeping of your two 32xx watches and how did you measure it?

COSC: "One of the criteria for « chronometer » certification is the average daily rate on the first 10 days of testing: from -4 sec to +6 sec., or up to 10 seconds per day. A tolerance which, as such, may appear high, but which, in reality, is the result of an extraordinary requirement."

The issue also doesn't seem to present immediately. Watch could run perfectly during testing, and the first few months on the wrist, then experience problems 6-18mos later.

You know what's odd? literally no one on youtube have mentioned this... they're probably too scared to... some big attention on this would be great...

You very rarely if ever find those who’s job it is to report on watches and review them ever criticise. Sometimes that’s because they don’t have the watches long enough to fully test them other times and more often or not those individuals lack even the basic understanding of how a watch actually works and know very little technical information so they just report the blurb or “This watch has a massive power reserve of 72hrs, 28,000 BPH, screwed balance etc… without even knowing what the hell any of that actually means.

Very few of them actually have the technical know how to critically evaluate watches. It’s safer therefore for them to talk only about aesthetics (that anyone can talk about) plus the heritage. The actual mechanics never really get mentioned beyond the specs.

Realized I should have posted this hear, rather than in the data thread on main forum, but..

I have a new theory here. It may seem outlandish, and there may be reasons any watchmaker could tell me that immediately disprove it. But here it is: Magnetism.

Yes, I realize that the movements' key components are as antimagnetic as they've ever been. But I think that may be part of the problem: Magnetism only affects the minor components, and therefore goes unnoticed for much, much longer. In other words, a lesser/older movement would show signs of erratic behavior long before parts have actually worn out.

It would certainly explain why some movements are impacted and others not so much - some get magnetized and some don't. But what I hadn't known until recently is what can happen when minor components (and only those components) are magnetized. The strain on them becomes greater and watches can slow down, as opposed to when it happens with springs and the watch speeds up.

Thoughts?

When a movement is magnetized the components that is typically effected the most (and has the most prominent effect on the watch's ability to tell time) is the hairspring. Basically a magnetized hairspring cannot unwind fully and this causes the balance to oscillate quicker than it would otherwise. As a result, a magnetized watch generally tends to run faster and not slower.

True. However, the hairspring on a modern Rolex is very unlikely to magnetize. According to a watchmaker I spoke with, only some of the minor parts within the movement are made of metals that can be magnetized. When that happens, the results 1) will be less pronounced and 2) gain or loss of time.

What's interesting, that I read elsewhere, is that this causes additional strain on these parts, as they're fighting the magnetic field created. That's where I started to wonder whether that was responsible for the premature ware on the seconds wheel pivot that one of our resident watchmakers showed us in another thread.

You indicate that you now "know" this, what is the source if I may ask? I will give an off the cuff rebuttal, not being a watchmaker. Magnetism, as an enemy to mechanical watches, typically comes in the form of a magnetized hairspring. Being that this is such a fine part it can be impacted rather profoundly by such forces. I have never heard of other parts in a modern movement (solid steel mainsprings in old watches were susceptible as well) being impacted by magnetism. For one, many are made of non-magnetic materials such as the brass gears. For two, the force of magnetism relative to the part mass would need to be significant. And to your hypothesis that the fields are so strong that wear is occurring, that would seem very extreme.

Yes, perhaps two rare earth magnets attract one another tightly enough that if I were to rub them back and forth over and over I might expect some wear. But to imagine two parts which are not magnets being this magnetized? The pictures Bas posted of the wear showed a worn pivot (axle) which had spun inside of another part with too much friction. But how would you magnetize, even deliberately, two concentric parts to increase the force with which they push into one another? If they were opposite charged such that the inner shaft was attracted to the outer shaft, would it not hold itself in suspension being that it is surrounded in 360 degrees? That's beyond my knowledge of magnetic fields for sure.

Another direction of thought experiment would be if this really was related to magnetic fields, then that would be related to the habits of the owner. So how would we explain somebody with a 20 watch collection that only experiences this issue with their 32xx powered watches? Each day at work as they eat lunch with Magneto on the other side of the cube wall, I would expect any watch they happen to be wearing to succumb to the fields.

So again, I'd like to see whatever information you have seen that makes you "know" that this is real thing.

For reference, the actual damage in question:

https://www.rolexforums.com/attachme...0&d=1611191896

Well, after three months at the Rolex Service Center, my watch is back and working fine. It was covered under warranty and no indication what was repaired. Let's hope the service holds.

The post for the calendar driving wheel is another big issue, its always worn and looks rusted up, from dried up lubrication.

We get several 32XXs in each week, they are usually 2-3 years old. I'm avoiding this movement until we get some official word from Rolex what the issues are, cause it does have many issues.

32XX Movement Problems
 

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

You are the first person (watchmaker?) supporting my claim that the 32xx caliber have much more than one single issue.

I will never buy again a 32xx watch, I had a 100% failure rate for 3 watches (1 x 3235, 2 x 3285). They all were a mechanical 'disaster'.

Let me clarify: I have it on good authority that magnetization of minor components (not sure which) of modern Rolexes are subject to magnetization, but no conclusive proof that this is the cause of the 32xx issues, that is an hypothesis.

This is coming form a Rolex-trained/certified watchmaker at an AD. He explained that magnetized springs were common in older watches, but not today given the use of magnetic-resistant materials. However, what he said he does see in modern Rolexes are some movement components made of "regular" metals becoming magnetized. This is the type of magnetism that, in his experience, causes watches to slow a small amount, due to the additional friction created by the magnetization.

Now, I do not "know" whether the pivot pictured is one of those parts. No idea. But this would explain why extensive testing didn't produce this issue but the real world does, and why it could be user-dependent.

As to why earlier movements didn't experience this, I can't say. Perhaps the design had more forgiving tolerances, different materials touching each other, or something else. Or, previous movements that became magnetized were diagnosed much, much earlier because they behaved more erratically (due to fewer magnetic-resistant parts).

My theory is neither perfect nor proven, just worthy of investigation, IMO.

Curious the distribution of exact calibers (30/35/55/85) and whether there are any patterns other than age, like the 36 vs 40/41mm versions of any particular watch?

I have a 2019 DJ. Ran perfect upon receipt, ran up to 7-8 sec slow a day by 6-8 months in. Went to Rolex, came back running perfect. Went to running slow (up to -9 sec per day) again after 6 months or so. After another 6 months it ALL OF A SUDDEN started running perfectly. Ran as such for nearly a year. Now it's running 2-4 seconds slow again.

Explain that.

some part is just out of tolerance and as it moves around a tad the watch behavior changes? who knows... but that watchmaker saying there are other known issues is scary...

32XX Movement Problems
 

Hi Mike , here in a few graphs your data between Jan 2019 and June 2021; as shown in the 32xx data thread.

You have collected the largest number of individual data points, which I have seen, for a single 32xx watch. That is impressively systematic.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...1f0c6ab6a4.png

To chime in a year later in the discussion my 14060m (with the 3130) started running a little faster +6 s/d than the usual +2 s/d. It had been recently serviced. The change happened overnight. It was a noticeable deviation in all positions as confirmed in a timegrapher. No changes in amplitude and beat error. After demagnitizing the watch for 10 secs I tested it with the same timegrapher and came down to 0-+2 s/d.

I get it, it’s a subtle deviation in the rate, so what happened here, was some part of the movement not necessarily the hairspring magnetized? Or is the Weishi timegrapher not so reliable to be able to reach any conclusions?

I wear most of my watches around my laptop 8-10 hours a day. My 2021 Deepsea SD is at RSC now for the slow running issue - which literally happened over night, after about 15 months of running in spec. The watchs I don't wear around my computer as much (for instance, my 2021 DJ, 2 years now) are running very well.

Curiously....my 2022 Tudor 925, which always ran +1 or 2, recently started running -6? WTF? I give up.

NO changes to the wearing habits, not bumped dropped etc.

Everyone told me I was nuts for suggesting magnetism as a potential culprit for this issue. How much do you wear your DJ or 925 compared to the DSSD overall?

If Milgauss gets a 32** movement we will be able to check the magnetization theory. That watch is an answer to so many things.

DJ not much. 925 and Deepsea quite a bit - and while working my job, which is around my laptop and two monitors.