32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by FlyinHawaiian

Data for my GMT II 3285 movement.

Thanks for the data. You have a very nice watch with a unique dial.

As I said above in #5249, already after 48 hours (2/3 of the PR), your 3285 does not have enough power to maintain all 3 vertical amplitudes at a sufficient level to ensure reasonable timekeeping.

The good news is that your watch does not lose time in dial up position at rest. Your watch is not even 1 year old and still has 4 years of Rolex guarantee.

Personally, I would prefer the same watch with a 3185 movement.

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by saxo3

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

Oops. For some reason I thought the GMT came before the time-and-date version.

Originally Posted by saxo3

Never heard of this as a Rolex design criterion for the 32xx. They extended the power reserve (PR) from 44 hours (31xx) to 70 hours (32xx) by a completely new movement design. After about 3/4 of the PR, there is not enough power to keep the amplitudes high enough to ensure good timekeeping for all 32xx watches. One design decision was to stay with only 1 mainspring barrel, more wouldn't fit in these tractors?

I thought I'd read that they basically had to do this because amplitude was going to be sacrificed to meet the other criteria, and they thought they'd achieved it (indeed they did, but not long-term).

[FlyinHawaiian]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks for the data. You have a very nice watch with a unique dial.

As I said above in #5249, already after 48 hours (2/3 of the PR), your 3285 does not have enough power to maintain all 3 vertical amplitudes at a sufficient level to ensure reasonable timekeeping.

The good news is that your watch does not lose time in dial up position at rest. Your watch is not even 1 year old and still has 4 years of Rolex guarantee.

Personally, I would prefer the same watch with a 3185 movement.

My t=0 is spot on! Since when we are wearing our watch, the movement should be between t=0 and t=24 anyway right? So, well within COSC parameters.

[Poodlopogus]

Giving this a little more thought...

Here's a great question for the watchmakers that might help us better understand the relationship between more moving parts and worse performance: Are the parts replaced the same on all four 32xx calibres? Or are they frequently different, and do they all require replacements, or are some more just in need of regulation?

This also demonstrates the great conflict between R&D and marketing: Marketing dictates that the "flagship" be released first when a new something-or-other comes out. Hence, the 3255 in the DD first. But it would have been far more prudent, IMO, to release the least complicated version first to get more "field data" on.

The 3230 doesn't require any of the "rapid change" motions that come with a day or date wheel, nor does it need to exert the extra force to keep a fourth hand in motion.

[nikola0406]

https://watchesbysjx.com/2021/05/rol...-analysis.html


Nice read about 32xx movement