ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
View Poll Results: Does your 32xx movement seem to be 100% ok? | |||
Yes, no issues | 1,054 | 69.76% | |
No, amplitude is low (below 200) but timekeeping is still fine | 62 | 4.10% | |
No, amplitude is low (below 200) and timekeeping is off (>5 s/d) | 395 | 26.14% | |
Voters: 1511. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
17 October 2024, 05:16 AM | #5371 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The UK
Watch: I love them all.
Posts: 1,856
|
Quote:
You should try again to post a picture here of your results. Then you can get some analasis
__________________
Regards, CharlesN Member of the IWJG. |
|
17 October 2024, 06:56 AM | #5372 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2024
Location: Paris
Posts: 12
|
Exactly ;)
Here are my results. I indicated to the machine the settings indicated by SwissSteph: Lift Angle: 53°, Period: 60s and Rate Range +-99.9s/d. I then alternated every twelve hours for the first 60 hours, then more closely up to 71 hours the DU / 6U / 9U / 3U / DD positions. The watch remained on the Weishi support in the DD position between two measurements. It stopped almost immediately after 75h15 of running. My watch is a DateJust 126200 purchased in July 2024. I will try to make the same beautiful curves as presented by the other people before me but I am not very good at Excel. What do you think of these results? |
17 October 2024, 08:49 AM | #5373 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,896
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
A few things I observe:
(1) all rates along the complete power reserve are negative. This new 3235 is not well regulated (t = 0). (2) the amplitudes look fine except that there is a large difference between DU and DD. (3) the beat errors are quite high. (4) I am astonished that you were able to measure after 65, 67, and 71 hours and that your 32xx watch ran until 75 hours. I haven't seen such a combination (1-4) of data for any 32xx caliber. |
17 October 2024, 01:19 PM | #5374 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: PNW
Posts: 83
|
Quote:
Had access to some family watches this weekend including a 10 year old non-serviced 3135 (daily driver) running about -1spd on wrist. Timeographer numbers fully wound +0 were fine; amplitude was a little low for 31xx 260s dial up. Another watch (DJ 31 from ~2012) was fantastic on timeographer but had just been serviced 1 year ago. |
|
20 October 2024, 11:53 AM | #5375 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: PNW
Posts: 83
|
I am having trouble finding detailed information on the "new" small movements. Have done a little googling but watchbase and watch wiki aren't particularly helpful for my questions. I did a search and obviously these being smaller, "ladies" watches, there is substantially less discussion about them.
1. Is there a large technical difference between 2230/2235 and 2232/2236? Clearly power reserve was bumped to 55 hours. Is the new 2232/2236 simply upgrades of the 'old school' small movements or major changes like going from 3130/3135 to 3230/3235? I found this link: https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=904616 Which suggests they are very similar to 2230/2235...which is a good thing in my book. 2. The real question is has anyone had similar 32xx sickness on the 2232/2236 or heard of issues? @atxwatch How did your repair go? Any issues since you originally posted about your OP? |
21 October 2024, 06:06 AM | #5376 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: United Kingdom
Watch: Rollie
Posts: 786
|
Not sure about Q1, but for Q2 I don't think the 22xx movements utilise the chronergy escapement found in the 32xx movements so that is a positive if you are concerned about the issues reported on the 32xx.
|
Yesterday, 05:29 AM | #5377 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: PNW
Posts: 83
|
Quote:
Some interesting comments in the thread about silicon usage, seems like many lower and higher horology movements are shifting to this material. A few comments on shock-resistance as well. On a positive note, my watch was received at RSC Dallas and a service "Confirmation" was issued within one business day. Standard RSC verbiage many are familiar with listed. I had noted amplitude but not mentioned on confirmation sheet. Watch runs slow certainly seems to be the common terminology used Customer requests: "Watch runs slow". Necessary works and optional works approved: "Check movement". Due date: "Approximately 2 weeks" Another data point for future readers. My service reference number was 315XXX_003. My reference number for "Debris on date wheel" warranty claim in Aug 2021 was 66XXX_002. |
|
Today, 07:22 AM | #5378 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: UK
Posts: 26
|
|
Today, 10:35 AM | #5379 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: PNW
Posts: 83
|
Quote:
Just a (potentially) meaningless data point. Figured most of us in here are numbers nerds. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 150 (0 members and 150 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.