32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by Aerogph

But that is why Rolex in its lubrication guidance, suggests to lubricate the escapement club tooth insteas of the rubies (to my understanding). I'll double check today to confirm.

to Saxo3: before my trip to Rome the watch suddenly started losing time (first -0.5 s/d average, and then -4 s/d). Hadn't knocked the timepiece nor changed my wearing habits. It just started run erratic. I had the watch brought in to the Rolex certified watchmaker in Rome during my trip.

They first checked how the watch was performing (I'm sure they were very well aware of the issues as this was the first thing they asked), and then he proceeded regulating it.

Yesterday I asked my local watchmaker to put the watch on the timegrapher and this are the results (fully wound):



They have the same account of new factory watches coming with the issue. Still no clue as to why some develop it immediatly while others take more time. And still no clue as to where the issue lies. To be honest, could be that some of the parts might have been machined with the wrong tolerances and this brings the unusual wear.

Bas is probably the only one that can see the scale of this, and that can touch with hand the possible solution (when available)

Could someone please help me understand the left hand column. I assume the first 6 row headings relate to the 6 positions, however, X and D are unclear to me. Thank you!

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Mountain

Could someone please help me understand the left hand column. I assume the first 6 row headings relate to the 6 positions, however, X and D are unclear to me. Thank you!

Left collumn is the French abbreviation for the watch position:

CH = Cadran Haut = Dial Up
CB = Cadran Bas = Dial Down

9H = 9 Up, 6H = 6 Up, 3H = 3 Up, 12H = 12 Up

X = average value of all readings
D = delta, maximum difference of all readings

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Left collumn is the French abbreviation for the watch position:

CH = Cadran Haut = Dial Up
CB = Cadran Bas = Dial Down

9H = 9 Up, 6H = 6 Up, 3H = 3 Up, 12H = 12 Up

X = average value of all readings
D = delta, maximum difference of all readings

Many thanks, much appreciated!

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Mountain

Many thanks, much appreciated!

You are welcome.

Rolex movements are regulated in 5 positions except 12 Up, which is a very uncommon wrist position. COSC and Rolex SA do not measure in 12 Up.

Some other brands regulate their calibers in 6 positions.

[Tridor]

What brands regulate in 6 positions?

[Aerogph]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Hot ... you and the watchmaker looked at the Witschi screen or saw something else?

Timegrapher data before/after regulation would have been my way to look at it.

This is the data before the regulation. The one after is the one I posted today, as I didn't bring the watch to check with the timegraper



Yeah, I slipped an extra C on the degrees

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Tridor

What brands regulate in 6 positions?

Grand Seiko for one which is a consideration for wearing a watch on the right hand side instead of the usual left hand side

[pbubsy]

I had the misfortune of my SD43 running -10SPD when brand new in December of 2019. Within a few weeks, was running -30SPD. I had it serviced, under warranty, after one month of ownership. RSC took about a month to get it back to me. I received it back in late February of 2020. It's been running at a maximum rate of +1.5SPD since and when on wrist, will generally run about +.5SPD.

Even when I don't wear it, I keep it on the winder so that if something does wear prematurely, I can get it fixed within the warranty period. A little nervous. I've got a little over a year and a half left on warranty. Something tells me it'll take a crap on me just outside that period. Can't bring myself to sell it though. I love this watch. I'd have no problem paying for a service, but I prefer there to be a fix to it prior to going there.

[Mountain]

Well, after having my explorer repaired once after warranty (I received it back about a month ago), I decided to buy a timeographer (Weishi 1900).

From my reading of this thread, these amplitude results would appear perfectly normal, I believe. Am I interpreting this correctly?

The watch was fully wound and in practical terms has lost 10 seconds over the last month.

I would also like to thank everyone for their contributions to this thread: I’ve learned so much! Thank you!

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Mountain

Well, after having my explorer repaired once after warranty (I received it back about a month ago), I decided to buy a timeographer (Weishi 1900).

From my reading of this thread, these amplitude results would appear perfectly normal, I believe. Am I interpreting this correctly?

The watch was fully wound and in practical terms has lost 10 seconds over the last month.

I would also like to thank everyone for their contributions to this thread: I’ve learned so much! Thank you!

Congratulations, that looks very good.

I have a few (minor) comments:

- For your Weishi 1900 set the rate accuracy resolution to 0.1 s/d using the measurement range 99.9 s/d. Yours presently is set to 999 s/d; see chapter 6.6 in the timegrapher manual how to change the settings. Lift angle should be 53 degrees for 32xx.

- Do not measure the 12U position, calculate X and D for 5 positions.

- Repeat the measurements at t = 0 and t = 24 hours.

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Congratulations, that looks very good.

I have a few (minor) comments:

- For your Weishi 1900 set the rate accuracy resolution to 0.1 s/d using the measurement range 99.9 s/d. Yours presently is set to 999 s/d; see chapter 6.6 in the timegrapher manual how to change the settings. Lift angle should be 53 degrees for 32xx.

- Do not measure the 12U position, calculate X and D for 5 positions.

- Repeat the measurements at t = 0 and t = 24 hours.

Thanks very much. I did set the lift angle to 53’. I’ll run some more tests after changing the settings a little later.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Mountain

Thanks very much. I did set the lift angle to 53’. I’ll run some more tests after changing the settings a little later.

It would be interesting to measure the isochronism (3647) of your watch.

For that you need to do more measurements, e.g., every 12 hours after full winding, in order to get more data points: t = 0, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60 hours.

Avoid to measure from 23:00 - 01:00 and 05:00 - 08:00. These are periods with reduced 32xx amplitudes.
Example (below) two 3235 watches measured along the entire power reserve in DU position.

[Tridor]

Originally Posted by saxo3

It would be interesting to measure the isochronism (3647) of your watch.

For that you need to do more measurements, e.g., every 12 hours after full winding, in order to get more data points: t = 0, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60 hours.

Avoid to measure from 23:00 - 01:00 and 05:00 - 08:00. These are periods with reduced 32xx amplitudes.
Example (below) two 3235 watches measured along the entire power reserve in DU position.

Thank you for such an informative post (#3647). With respect to the BLRO measurement there, toward the lower portion of the measurement amplitude deviates downward significantly and quickly at one point, unlike the other pieces. Would you kindly share your insights as to why this occurs with the BLRO only? Is that simply an anomaly with respect to that particular watch? Thanks, again.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Tridor

Thank you for such an informative post (#3647). With respect to the BLRO measurement there, toward the lower portion of the measurement amplitude deviates downward significantly and quickly at one point, unlike the other pieces. Would you kindly share your insights as to why this occurs with the BLRO only? Is that simply an anomaly with respect to that particular watch? Thanks, again.

Good question, I understand what you mean.

The data point you mention for the GMT BLRO (after 60 hours) is at a VERY low X-amplitude.

At that time (BLRO, 60 hours) the power reserve of this caliber was already so low that a significant deviation from the isochronism linearity was the normal consequence, but the slope 'm' (as given inside the graph) was quite high until 48 hours during this measurement.

I measured my Sea-Dweller (yellow/red dots) more frequently, as can be seen in the graph, its isochronism linearity was kept until 62.7 hours, which is better than for the BLRO. Maybe, the BLRO would also have remained linear between 190 and 160 degrees, but no data points were taken between 48 and 60 hours. I tried to illustrate this in the modified graph below.

Note: I do NOT argue that this isochronism has to stay linear down to very low X-amplitudes!

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by saxo3

From an interesting TRF contribution by shofzr in 2014:

To me this is the most fascinating lubrication, as it seems to have two "personalities" the first is a grease that sticks where it is applied, the second, when pressure is applied to it from the escape wheel tooth striking the pallet stones is becomes a thin oil, after the pressure is gone it's back to grease state.

If the RL2 is applied incorrect to the pallet stones the watch will only run a few months before amplitude drops and timing becomes erratic.

Because as the escape wheel tooth passes through the RL2 a tiny amount gets pushed to the sides and eventually there is not enough where it needs to be.

You can see in this picture the "groove" in the RL2 from the escape wheel teeth passing through the bead applied to the pallet stone. This is only after a few hours of running, in a few months it will be all but dry.

Definitely interesting. The old post you referenced sounds like it originally had a picture, but unfortunately I don't see it anymore.

Originally Posted by Aerogph

before my trip to Rome the watch suddenly started losing time (first -0.5 s/d average, and then -4 s/d). Hadn't knocked the timepiece nor changed my wearing habits. It just started run erratic. I had the watch brought in to the Rolex certified watchmaker in Rome during my trip.

They first checked how the watch was performing (I'm sure they were very well aware of the issues as this was the first thing they asked), and then he proceeded regulating it.

Your amplitude values both before and after the regulation look really strong. So if there was actually something wrong with your watch it doesn't seem like it was the same issue we've been tracking here. In other words, it seems like a regulation was warranted in your case.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Definitely interesting. The old post you referenced sounds like it originally had a picture, but unfortunately I don't see it anymore.

Here is the text plus two photos in the sequence as he posted on 11.03.2014:

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by saxo3

It would be interesting to measure the isochronism (3647) of your watch.

For that you need to do more measurements, e.g., every 12 hours after full winding, in order to get more data points: t = 0, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60 hours.

Avoid to measure from 23:00 - 01:00 and 05:00 - 08:00. These are periods with reduced 32xx amplitudes.
Example (below) two 3235 watches measured along the entire power reserve in DU position.

Thanks for the suggestion. I’ve read the #3647; looks an interesting experiment, which I will certainly do, however, I’ll need to wait a few weeks as I’ll be travelling rather a lot.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Here is the text plus two photos in the sequence as he posted on 11.03.2014:

Thanks! Looks like the pics only display in tapatalk which I don't use anymore. Digging through the html of the original post the images are hosted on a tapatalk server and referenced with an http url which chrome doesn't load due to cert errors.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Here is the text plus two photos in the sequence as he posted on 11.03.2014:

All awesome stuff
Thanks for taking the time to bring this back to our viewing pleasure.
The lubricating properties of the lube are particularly interesting.

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Congratulations, that looks very good.

I have a few (minor) comments:

- For your Weishi 1900 set the rate accuracy resolution to 0.1 s/d using the measurement range 99.9 s/d. Yours presently is set to 999 s/d; see chapter 6.6 in the timegrapher manual how to change the settings. Lift angle should be 53 degrees for 32xx.

- Do not measure the 12U position, calculate X and D for 5 positions.

- Repeat the measurements at t = 0 and t = 24 hours.

I re-ran some of the tests, with the rate accuracy resolution set as above. Lift angle was 53’ as before. Tests were done this afternoon after a very active day, so likely fully wound.

Amplitude only: DU 328, DD 278, 6U 271, 9U 259, 3U 256.

These seem somewhat higher than I might have expected. Presumably they’re at the upper end of expectations?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Mountain

I re-ran some of the tests, with the rate accuracy resolution set as above. Lift angle was 53’ as before. Tests were done this afternoon after a very active day, so likely fully wound.

Amplitude only: DU 328, DD 278, 6U 271, 9U 259, 3U 256.

These seem somewhat higher than I might have expected. Presumably they’re at the upper end of expectations?

Based on my own 32xx measurements and what I saw from others:

DU: 328° -> not ok (too high)
DD: 278° -> ok
6U: 271° -> not ok (too high)
9U: 259° -> ok
3U: 256° -> ok
X = 278° -> not ok (too high)

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Based on my own 32xx measurements and what I saw from others:

DU: 328° -> not ok (too high)
DD: 278° -> ok
6U: 271° -> not ok (too high)
9U: 259° -> ok
3U: 256° -> ok
X = 278° -> not ok (too high)

Thanks, but what’s the concern with amplitude being too high?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Mountain

Thanks, but what’s the concern with amplitude being too high?

Simple, I think these values are not correct for a 32xx movement, IMO.

DU 328° is certainly wrong, 300°-310° max for a 31xx.

6U 271° is more for a horizontal than a vertical position of a 32xx caliber.

Repeat with the 'standard' procedure that was described many times in this thread.

After full winding wait 15 min with the watch at rest in DU position on the timegrapher, then measure for 2 min.

When you change the to the next watch position wait 1-2 min for stabilisation.

All mentioned times depend a bit on whom you ask

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by Mountain

Thanks, but what’s the concern with amplitude being too high?

When amplitude gets too high a problem called knocking occurs where the escapement can actually spin so far that it crashes into its own backside. I think the first question is whether you are actually hitting those numbers or if this is some misconfiguration of the timegrapher.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

When amplitude gets too high a problem called knocking occurs where the escapement can actually spin so far that it crashes into its own backside. I think the first question is whether you are actually hitting those numbers or if this is some misconfiguration of the timegrapher.

Yes, it's also known as Overbanking and not good.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

When amplitude gets too high a problem called knocking occurs where the escapement can actually spin so far that it crashes into its own backside. I think the first question is whether you are actually hitting those numbers or if this is some misconfiguration of the timegrapher.

Yes, unclear what the real cause is.

A knocking (or rebanking) of the balance wheel would be visible on his timegrapher display and the movement sound could be audible.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Yes, unclear what the real cause is.

A knocking (or rebanking) of the balance wheel would be visible on his timegrapher display and the movement sound could be audible.

Does Witschi have a typo there? I'm assuming they mean ">330" not "<330"?

[saxo3]

It should read (+330°)

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Simple, I think these values are not correct for a 32xx movement, IMO.

DU 328° is certainly wrong, 300°-310° max for a 31xx.

6U 271° is more for a horizontal than a vertical position of a 32xx caliber.

Repeat with the 'standard' procedure that was described many times in this thread.

After full winding wait 15 min with the watch at rest in DU position on the timegrapher, then measure for 2 min.

When you change the to the next watch position wait 1-2 min for stabilisation.

All mentioned times depend a bit on whom you ask

Repeated the tests with 15 minute wait with watch at rest, 3 minutes between tests and 2 minutes for each test. Obviously I also set the lift angle to 53’ and rate accuracy to 99.9s/d.

All measurements were within the expected range. Putting the timeographer away now and will just enjoy my watch!

Thanks for the help

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Mountain

Repeated the tests with 15 minute wait with watch at rest, 3 minutes between tests and 2 minutes for each test. Obviously I also set the lift angle to 53’ and rate accuracy to 99.9s/d.

All measurements were within the expected range. Putting the timeographer away now and will just enjoy my watch!

Thanks for the help

You are welcome.
What went wrong with the previous measurement?
Do you mind sharing the newest data?