![]() |
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
View Poll Results: Does your 32xx movement seem to be 100% ok? | |||
Yes, no issues |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1,039 | 69.83% |
No, amplitude is low (below 200) but timekeeping is still fine |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
61 | 4.10% |
No, amplitude is low (below 200) and timekeeping is off (>5 s/d) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
388 | 26.08% |
Voters: 1488. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#5041 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Your new 3285 also exhibits a poor isochronism. As a final measurement (after approximately 1-2 months), I recommend to perform again a series of measurements at 0, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 hours to ascertain whether the isochronism has undergone any changes. You probably already thought of that.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5042 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
As much as it goes against the grain and knowing what you know looking under the hood, i'm not so sure that i would pursue it any further and wait and see with it as a point of interest or curiosity until something changes with the timekeeping or something else. Having said that the pull of the 5 year warranty would be the most prudent course of action, especially as accidental damage to the watch can happen at any time which would negate warranty. The run in period has already happened before shipping the watch. They always used to say it was roughly a couple of weeks for them to settle in. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5043 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
Could that at least give a clue as to the problem's origin? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5044 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Quote:
Lubrication and epilames have been suspected, read this thread. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5045 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Does anyone have a watch with a caliber 4131, 7140, 9002?
It would be very interesting to test them (with a timegrapher) immediately after purchase. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5046 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
I also have seen the posts where it's been confirmed that certain parts are displaying visual wear where none should be, whatever the root cause may be. So, it would be reasonable to ask why changing the pallet fork worked: 1. Is it because it has in fact been modified quietly? 2. Is it because the systemic issue caused premature wear/deformity to the original (possibly difficult to see without magnification)? Another option (couldn't tell if it was already tried during service), is if it's unrelated to the fork itself, and simply the act of uninstalling and reinstalling it solving the problem (perhaps only temporarily)? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5047 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
From the reported facs that new 32xx watches (2023/24) as well as older (2018/19) but unworn + very little worn 32xx watches have the same type of issue (too low amplitudes after full winding) yields to the conclusion that wear is not the root cause of the 32xx problem. Three supporting posts I quote from a RSC watchmaker:
----- (1) I knew it was worse than we thought when 32xx's come in and have no wear at all, yet run terrible. Or when you serviced one and it's perfectly lubricated, yet it cannot even reach 200 degrees fully wound dial up... (2) Not specific to the 3230, I've unfortunately seen this on all types. Amplitude is checked before the date mechanism is assembled. The plan of action is to start with replacing the balance staff, then pallet fork, escape wheel, rest of the gear train. Pallet fork and balance staff replacement usually get me enough amplitude to barely reach tolerance... (3) Correct, parts that did not show any sign of wear/deterioration at all that are replaced out of desperation to reach a minimum amplitude off 200 degrees after 24hrs. A 24 hours test can be simulated by releasing a couple of ratchet wheel rotations. This problem runs so much deeper than just migration of lubricants and a pivot that occasionally wear out prematurely. ----- I stop here and will not continue with speculations. That is not the objective of this thread! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5048 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Apr 2019
Real Name: Brad
Location: Purdue
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 9,237
|
Quote:
I have a 4131. Most accurate and position-independent movement I've owned so far. I have zeroed out my 32xx collection finally. I would sell this Daytona too if it wasn't so accurate. I get +0.3 to +0.6 whether I wear it or leave it on the Orbita for a week. I realize that's not amplitude vs reserve time.
__________________
♛ ✠ Ω 2FA Active |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5049 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 4,774
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5050 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Apr 2019
Real Name: Brad
Location: Purdue
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 9,237
|
Quote:
The Daytona truly is pretty damn good. It's easily the best Rolex I've owned and I think I've owned them all except Day Date. I have soured on the brand and what to me feels like fake or overstated luxury. I have been enjoying my Omega 321 which is very legible, has a comically comfortable bracelet, great lume, beautiful movement, and my two remaining VCs. It's safe for now but I won't hold it through service. Once that time comes I'll negotiate that into the sale to a TS here and move on.
__________________
♛ ✠ Ω 2FA Active |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5051 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,519
|
Quote:
I think it's appropriate I'm posting this here because I was literally thinking "I must be insane to tolerate being treated like this just for the privilege of purchasing what may be a lemon watch". Anyway, rant over, back to regular 32xx programming... |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5052 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Quote:
For the many daily guests who read this thread without posting, 70 (!) just at this moment, I want to repeat the following important points: (1) Accuracy of any 32xx watch is NOT the criteria to decide if the caliber has the low amplitude issue or not. (2) The amplitudes, especially in the three vertical positions, are the main criteria. (3) This also applies to the new 2023 watches with 4131, 7140, and 9002 calibers, which all have the Rolex Chronergy escapement. EEpro, do you remember 4668 and 4669? Just kidding, could not resist ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5053 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Apr 2019
Real Name: Brad
Location: Purdue
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 9,237
|
Quote:
I posted that line to avoid the speech, but there it is.
__________________
♛ ✠ Ω 2FA Active |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5054 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2022
Real Name: Tom
Location: SRQ
Watch: 216570 Explorer II
Posts: 158
|
1 of 70, checking in.
![]() This is pretty much the only thread I read on this forum. I think it was over a year ago I decided to pick up a 216570 instead of a 226570 based on what Ive learned here, and I'm happy I did. If I got "the call" today, I'd decline any 32xx model. I don't typically post comments here because I don't have any factual content to add, only my opinions, and I greatly appreciate those experts who have provided facts and data. 1 of 70, back to lurking. ![]()
__________________
Life is short - Buy the watch! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5055 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Quote:
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5056 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5057 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
Hi all,
I'd like to add my own experience to this thread as a datapoint. I have an early 2022 126711CHNR. It kept near-perfect time for roughly the first year of ownership. Around that time I began to notice a variance of maybe 30 seconds a week. Didn't think much of it as I was unaware of the 3258 issues. Fast forward to the last couple months, I noticed a more significant -15s /day issue. Then it increased to losing minutes a day. Fortunately, I have a great AD with watchmakers on staff. I took it in and was told it's reading < 120º amplitude DD and -3m /day. Sent off to RSC and will report back with what I hear. Watch is worn very regularly, but not worn in a way that would subject it to unusual stress. Never had a bad knock or drop. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5058 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: London
Posts: 35
|
Superlative Chonometers eh
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5059 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, nothing rare. Your 3285 was running perfectly when new in early 2022. The caliber issue became visible (for you, without instrumentation) after about a year. After 2.5 years it is -3 min/day with < 120° amplitude in DD. It's interesting to hear, but not in the way most people would think, that your watch was worn regularly. After the repair, you won't hear anything useful from RSC, except something like "movement control". Did your AD acknowledge to know about the 32xx issues? The only interesting part for us in this thread would be to measure the amplitudes and rates in all 5 positions, after the RSC repair. Why is that interesting? It would show us what RSC can do these days (mid-2024) when they try to fix a defect 3285 caliber watch, not the rates but the amplitudes! If you read the thread, you'll see that timekeeping is NOT the primary observable for 32xx calibers. I'm mostly interested in the amplitudes after full winding (t = 0) and after 24 hours (t = 24) at rest in dial If you read the thread you will know that timekeeping is not the primary observable for 32xx calibers but amplitudes after full winding (t =0) and after 24 hours (t = 24) at rest in dial up. We have a procedure how to do such measurements, for example summarized (in much detail) in post #5002. Good luck, please let us know if you will buy a timegrapher to participate with 2024 repair data (or not). |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5060 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: planet earth
Watch: Variety
Posts: 343
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Brand new Sub losing 4sec / day update after second RSC visit within 4 weeks:
This time I took it to RSC in Melbourne. Here are their measurements before and after tuning. No parts were replaced. ![]() ![]() Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5061 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 4,774
|
I’m not really qualified to say, but looking at your pre v post amplitude values against rate I would guess this watch just had a regulation adjustment.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5062 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
Apologies if this is the wrong thread for this question, but I'm curious: What's the relationship, if any, between amplitude and frequency?
Something interesting I've noticed: Aside from Tudor, just about every watch smaller than 40mm but with a PR over 60hr, has a reduced frequency. Omega is 3.5hz, Blancpain is 3, Tissot Powermatic is 3hz, and so on. Seems like there is a frequency-for-PR tradeoff (though for some, no sacrifice in precision). So the question is: What would have happened, theoretically, had Rolex reduced the frequency of the 32xx to 3hz ro 3.5? Would that have had any effect on the "issue" this thread pertains to? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5063 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 12
|
Yes, I do. Sorry about the delay, spent the last 2 weeks hiking The Mighty 5 in Utah :)
Here are the measurements for the Submariner until 72 hours after the full wind. And as a bonus the first measurements of the new Tudor Black Bay with the METAS movement. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5064 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
Only Rolex can possibly answer your question if they have explored that possibility when developing the Chronergy escapement. It's interesting to note that Omega originally set up the Co-axial to run at 4 hz but it worked out to be problematic, so they ended up slowing it down to 3.5 hz which is the frequency that Daniels had worked out as the best originally and designed it to operate like that. Yes, there is indeed a relationship between power reserve and frequency. A lower frequency may not be as accurate as gravity and inertia are more influential on the Balance but the movement may also last longer in terms of lifespan and go longer between services, but higher frequencies typically yield better accuracy. There are a good many competing factors that come into play which have to be juggled in pursuit of watch timekeeping improvements ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5065 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
However, with the likes of Blancpain and Omega opting for lower frequency, yet achieving outstanding accuracy, one must wonder if frequency is as indicative of accuracy as it once was. The observation about the original Co-Axial is also interesting, since it was based on a stock ETA that already had 4hz frequency. Besides demonstrating that different technologies may be best paired with different frequencies, it also suggests, at least anecdotally, that it's not a good idea to try and slap a new escapement onto an existing movement, and that they should be designed from the ground up (which Tudor did). I would hope that this was part of Rolex's calculation (and deemed irrelevant) because the vanity metric of hertz (more of which do not, in fact, add inches to one's... well, you know...) would be a silly one to sacrifice reliability for. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5066 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Quote:
It is noticeable that the three vertical (9U, 6U, 3U) anplitude numbers are almost identical for each data set (t = 0,12,24,36,48,60’hours). How long did you measure in each individual position and which timegrapher do you use? ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5067 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 12
|
Quote:
The timegrapher settings:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5068 |
Facilitator
Join Date: Nov 2005
Real Name: Steve
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 33,346
|
Amplitude only needs to be 190 degrees for automatic watches!! Anything more is a bonus!!
__________________
Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be. ~Abraham Lincoln Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy ROLEXploitation - yeah I'm a victim ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5069 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Real Name: Eddie
Location: Australia
Watch: A few.
Posts: 37,231
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
E |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5070 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2024
Location: Belgien
Posts: 49
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 29 (0 members and 29 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.