32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[swexlin]

Originally Posted by corporalq

What was your turn around time? Your situation is literally identical to mine. I need to send for service.

My DSSD is at RSC NY now for same issue.-8-10 per day or more. The confirmation they sent me said about 4 weeks. But I'm expecting longer than that.

[JMGoodnight369]

Originally Posted by corporalq

What was your turn around time? Your situation is literally identical to mine. I need to send for service.

Dropped my 124060 off in NYC at the service center on Feb 1 for the same problem. I was originally quoted 4-6 weeks but when I got my confirmation email it said 9. A little disappointed in that turnaround time along with the fact I had to take my watch in on its 1 year anniversary. It ran slow out of the box from the AD and just got worse over the year.

[Toshk]

Originally Posted by JMGoodnight369

Dropped my 124060 off in NYC at the service center on Feb 1 for the same problem. I was originally quoted 4-6 weeks but when I got my confirmation email it said 9. A little disappointed in that turnaround time along with the fact I had to take my watch in on its 1 year anniversary. It ran slow out of the box from the AD and just got worse over the year.

Same as the ones I had. Something very wrong with those.

[Vince_76]

Rolex Instagram just made a post touting the 3235 movement… lol

It’s frustrating since the common client seems to be totally unaware

[Toshk]

Originally Posted by Vince_76

Rolex Instagram just made a post touting the 3235 movement… lol

It’s frustrating since the common client seems to be totally unaware

Precisely. None of the watch “journalists” are mentioning this either.

[Omarion07]

Originally Posted by Vince_76

Rolex Instagram just made a post touting the 3235 movement… lol

It’s frustrating since the common client seems to be totally unaware

Maybe because Rolex believes the issue is not permanent and can be/has been fixed?

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Vince_76

Rolex Instagram just made a post touting the 3235 movement… lol

On this Instagram video one can see the following new text engraved onto the 3235 caliber:

"SUPERLATIVE ADJ."

Before it was "ADJ. 5 POS. + TEMP."

[CedCraig]

I just commented on that post, but have zero hope that anything will happen.

I‘m quite convinced that the vast majority of Rolex owners have no idea of the problems with the 32xx movements and so there is no incentive for Rolex to fundamentally overhaul the movement.

[Seo]

My cousin mentioned this to Paul Thorpe hoping he would raise awareness on the matter. Paul did respond to the comment on his YouTube channel but nothing has come of this.

If Paul is not prepared to speak up on the matter no one else will.

[saxo3]

I just posted this in another thread, I repeat to share with participants here.

Below are two different engravings on the 3235 movements.

The left photo was published by Rolex SA yesterday, the right photo is from SearChart (aka Bas).



I assume that the former "ADJ. 5 POS. + TEMP." represents a part of the COSC acceptance criteria while "SUPERLATIVE ADJ." is a more advanced adjustment procedure done by Rolex SA, i.e., the famous -2/+2 sec/day precision specification.

Or does the new engraving come along with an improved 32xx movement which contains some visible component modifications to cure the 32xx issue(s)?

[Toshk]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I just posted this in another thread, I repeat to share with participants here.

Below are two different engravings on the 3235 movements.

The left photo was published by Rolex SA yesterday, the right photo is from SearChart (aka Bas).



I assume that the former "ADJ. 5 POS. + TEMP." represents a part of the COSC acceptance criteria while "SUPERLATIVE ADJ." is a more advanced adjustment procedure done by Rolex SA, i.e., the famous -2/+2 sec/day precision specification.

Or does the new engraving come along with an improved 32xx movement which contains some visible component modifications to cure the 32xx issue(s)?

Interesteing. Thanks for sharing.

[steubi1]

Interesting thread.

I have the same problems with my Sub 126610, purchased in 2021.

In the beginning, it was amazingly accurate, on the spot, a few seconds per month from atomic time.

Then, after 12 months, it started to run slow, and I have the impression, it's getting worse and worse. Sorry I have no equipment to measure the correct values...

Actually, the watch is at about -8 s/d, and although I can live with that, it starts to bother me to adjust the minute hand every 2 weeks...

I have had many Rolexes in the past, and absolutely NONE of these had similar issues.

With some background in physics and mechanical engineering, I can imagine that it is almost impossible to increase the power reserve from 48 hrs to 72 hours within the same volume available. If it was so easy, they had done this long time ago. This means, they had to make severe compromises and design many componants to its extreme. With the lube oils deteoriating over time, this might not have been the best choice...I suppose they have no permanent fix, unfortunately.

Just my 2 cents.

P.S. Unsure what to do with my Sub. Give it to service center? Or sell it? Really don't know.

Tom

[sheldonsmith]

Your experience mirrors many others here….

I’d have Rolex service it as it is still under warranty, then sell it; that is what I did with my 32xx movement watches. My watches are 31xx exclusively…

-Sheldon

[steubi1]

Thanks.

That is probably what I will do. It's a pity, but...

Tom

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by steubi1

Interesting thread.

I have the same problems with my Sub 126610, purchased in 2021.

In the beginning, it was amazingly accurate, on the spot, a few seconds per month from atomic time.

Then, after 12 months, it started to run slow, and I have the impression, it's getting worse and worse. Sorry I have no equipment to measure the correct values...

Actually, the watch is at about -8 s/d, and although I can live with that, it starts to bother me to adjust the minute hand every 2 weeks...

I have had many Rolexes in the past, and absolutely NONE of these had similar issues.

With some background in physics and mechanical engineering, I can imagine that it is almost impossible to increase the power reserve from 48 hrs to 72 hours within the same volume available. If it was so easy, they had done this long time ago. This means, they had to make severe compromises and design many componants to its extreme. With the lube oils deteoriating over time, this might not have been the best choice...I suppose they have no permanent fix, unfortunately.

Just my 2 cents.

P.S. Unsure what to do with my Sub. Give it to service center? Or sell it? Really don't know.

Tom

They made a few non-trivial changes. You can read up on the new escapement here:

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

They also made the mainspring barrel thinner to accommodate either a longer or more efficient mainspring.

[steubi1]

Originally Posted by csaltphoto

They made a few non-trivial changes. You can read up on the new escapement here:

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

They also made the mainspring barrel thinner to accommodate either a longer or more efficient mainspring.

Thank you very much.

I knew that they made some fundamental changes; unfortunately, the long term result is not good.

Tom

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by steubi1

Interesting thread.

I have the same problems with my Sub 126610, purchased in 2021.

In the beginning, it was amazingly accurate, on the spot, a few seconds per month from atomic time.

Then, after 12 months, it started to run slow, and I have the impression, it's getting worse and worse. Sorry I have no equipment to measure the correct values...

Actually, the watch is at about -8 s/d, and although I can live with that, it starts to bother me to adjust the minute hand every 2 weeks...

I have had many Rolexes in the past, and absolutely NONE of these had similar issues.

With some background in physics and mechanical engineering, I can imagine that it is almost impossible to increase the power reserve from 48 hrs to 72 hours within the same volume available. If it was so easy, they had done this long time ago. This means, they had to make severe compromises and design many componants to its extreme. With the lube oils deteoriating over time, this might not have been the best choice...I suppose they have no permanent fix, unfortunately.

Just my 2 cents.

P.S. Unsure what to do with my Sub. Give it to service center? Or sell it? Really don't know.

Tom

You can consider two options:

(a) sell this Submariner soon, either with or without RSC repair, since it still has warranty until 2026. The remaining long guarantee is quite attractive for a new owner.

(b) get this watch repaired, keep it, and hope that Rolex will find a permanent fix in the coming years. This probably means more than 1 RSC repair to anticipate.

I would choose option (a).

[ElusiveOne]

I've got a 2022 Yachtmaster and it is definitely running between +3-6/day fast and I'm thinking of sending it in for warranty servicing.

Out of interest for those that sent in their 32xx movements for this problem did you go through your AD or direct to RSC? Whichever method, what do you say to them; that I believe it is running out of spec whether greater than or lower than the advertised +/-2 sec per day?

[EaglePilot]

Originally Posted by saxo3

You are welcome

These 126710BLNR data are very interesting.

This is the first time I've noticed a different behaviour for a 32xx watch.

Please repeat the test with more data points, for t = 0, 12, 24, 36, 48, 54, 60 hours.

Post all data as you measure them, even if you think something is weird.

0h:
DU -2s 281 0.1ms
DD 0s 272 0.0ms
9U 0s 240 0,2ms
3U -4s 232 0,2 ms
6U 0s 235 0.1ms

12h:
DU -2s 278 0.1 ms
DD 0s 267 0.0 ms
9U 0s 239 0.2 ms
3U -4s 230 0,2ms
6U 0s 232 0.1 ms

24h:
DU -1s 263 0.0 ms
DD 0s 253 0.0 ms
9U -1s 225 0.2 ms
3U -3s 220 0.1 ms
6U 0s 228 0.1ms

36h:
DU 0s 248 0.0 ms
DD +1s 241 0.0ms
9U -1s 212 0,3ms
3U 0s 205 0.2ms
6U 0s 214 0.1ms

48h:
DU 0s 236 0.0ms
DD +1s 231 0.0ms
9U -5s 193 0.3ms
3U +3s 193 0.2 ms
6U 0s 190 0.1 ms

60h:
DU +3s 194 0.0ms
DD +3s 190 0.0ms
9U -10s 165 0.3ms
3U +9s 161 0.3 ms
6U -1s 158 0.2ms

[CharlesN]

Wow. That’s a great set of figures
I am slowly going over them bit by bit to see how the watch behaves in different positions over time.

Well done

I wonder if Saxo3 will see these figures soon …… He is the master of graph and visual enabling of data sets.

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by saxo3

You can consider two options:

(a) sell this Submariner soon, either with or without RSC repair, since it still has warranty until 2026. The remaining long guarantee is quite attractive for a new owner.

(b) get this watch repaired, keep it, and hope that Rolex will find a permanent fix in the coming years. This probably means more than 1 RSC repair to anticipate.

I would choose option (a).

Yes. Option A, clause (i): sell to someone who doesn't believe in checking accuracy of watch and/or existence of 32xx issues.

[BadgerDave]

Hello all - longtime reader and lurker here. Many, many thanks to all for sharing their experience and insight. I'm here because I was considering a DJ36 with 3235. In reading through this extensive body of work I was struck by a comment from Dirt (post #3398): "Personally I think it's an obscure issue that's directly related to the escapement which i don't think Rolex understands." Along these lines, is there any chance this gremlin lives in the Parachrom hairspring? It sounds hellishly complicated to make according to a 2018 description posted in the Rolex newsroom, and requires no more than .2 microns deviation in 50 microns of thickness over 20 cm. length. Is it possible that some strange fatigue or memory develops in places slightly out of tolerance in it, or some other weirdness takes place? In other words, is the pursuit of 70 hrs just going beyond the limits of the material? Apologies if this is a stupid question (or discussed before) but I have only made it through about half the posts so far-

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by EaglePilot

0h:
DU -2s 281 0.1ms
DD 0s 272 0.0ms
9U 0s 240 0,2ms
3U -4s 232 0,2 ms
6U 0s 235 0.1ms

12h:
DU -2s 278 0.1 ms
DD 0s 267 0.0 ms
9U 0s 239 0.2 ms
3U -4s 230 0,2ms
6U 0s 232 0.1 ms

24h:
DU -1s 263 0.0 ms
DD 0s 253 0.0 ms
9U -1s 225 0.2 ms
3U -3s 220 0.1 ms
6U 0s 228 0.1ms

36h:
DU 0s 248 0.0 ms
DD +1s 241 0.0ms
9U -1s 212 0,3ms
3U 0s 205 0.2ms
6U 0s 214 0.1ms

48h:
DU 0s 236 0.0ms
DD +1s 231 0.0ms
9U -5s 193 0.3ms
3U +3s 193 0.2 ms
6U 0s 190 0.1 ms

60h:
DU +3s 194 0.0ms
DD +3s 190 0.0ms
9U -10s 165 0.3ms
3U +9s 161 0.3 ms
6U -1s 158 0.2ms

Your 126710BLNR (3285 caliber) is within the known Rolex acceptance criteria:

All amplitudes are well above 200 degrees (24 hours after full winding).

The average rate X = -1.2 s/d (after full winding) is inside COSC (-4/+6 sec/day) and also inside owner's expectation (-2/+2 sec/day).

Comparisons with other watches:
The measured amplitudes (after full winding) are about the maximum what one can expect from a 32xx caliber: 270-280 degrees in horizontal positions and 240 degrees in vertical positions, which is very good.

The average rate X remains inside the -2/+2 sec/day regime (marked in light green) until 60 hours (!) after full winding. In my view this really is a stunning result, which I have never seen (until now) for a 32xx movement.

Interesting that after 36 hours the caliber loses rate in 9U position, which is compensated in 3U position where the caliber gains in rate. I have observed that (for a 32xx movement) only once before.

Conclusion:
This new watch shows, compared to other 32xx watches, an outstanding performance (amplitudes and rates) along the power reserve, congratulations.

[EaglePilot]

Hi Saxo,
Thanks for the graphs.
I own other 3 rolexes, older movements (2009 116713 GMT master II 3186 movement, 2011 116733 Datejust II 3136 movment and a 2008 116520 Daytona 4130 movement).
All gain time (within COSC).
But this new GMT BLNR 3285 movement SEEMS ( I didnt use on the wrist yet) to work on the "other band" loosing time. Now that I have collect all this data before using it, I will start to use it and see what happens in real life use.
Another thing is, the full winding max amplitude was about 280 on this new GMT 3285. But on my other rolexes, the 3186 GMT II for example the full winding max amplitude is 298-300, the Daytona is 308-310 (the daytona was almost never used,
stays in the box)

[EaglePilot]

Full winding max amplitude about 282 in this 3285.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by EaglePilot

Hi Saxo,
Thanks for the graphs.
…..
But this new GMT BLNR 3285 movement SEEMS ( I didnt use on the wrist yet) to work on the "other band" loosing time. Now that I have collect all this data before using it, I will start to use it and see what happens in real life use.

You are welcome. No need to worry, start to wear this GMT.

I recommend using the Watch Tracker app to log the timekeeping: one data point in the morning (before you put the watch onto your wrist) plus one data point in the evening (when you place the watch at rest) is completely sufficient. In the app (under comments) note what rest position you choose. Please come back in a few days or weeks with the results.

How to achieve best timekeeping results you can find here:
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...4&postcount=23

Originally Posted by EaglePilot

Another thing is, the full winding max amplitude was about 280 on this new GMT 3285. But on my other rolexes, the 3186 GMT II for example the full winding max amplitude is 298-300, the Daytona is 308-310 (the daytona was almost never used, stays in the box)

Your observation is normal: the 3186 and 4130 are very good movements, they deliver higher amplitudes after full winding than the 32xx series.

[saxo3]

Power reserve rates & amplitudes for Rolex 3285 and 3235 calibers.

Here is a comparison of several power reserve measurements for 3285 and 3235 movements.

The BLNR from EaglePilot is remarkable because the average rate Xr (in sec/day) stays (more or less) constant and even slightly increases with time.

Until now I have not seen such a rise for a 32xx movement, neither for a new nor a repaired 32xx watch.

Hence, the isochronism is slightly different for this specific 3285 caliber: a first measurable sign for an improvement?

The graph for the average amplitudes Xa summarizes what I expect for a (very) good 3285 and 3235 movement.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by EaglePilot

Full winding max amplitude about 282 in this 3285.

I only have a very small screen available to me at the moment ……. My phone ……. But it looks like your watch is on the holder the wrong way around. The crown should be touching the microphone. The moving section should be beside the 9.

[EaglePilot]

Hi CharlesN,

you are right, I put the watch in the opposite way considering what you said about the correct position. When I read the owner manual of this Weishi timegrapher (I suppose these Weishi timegraphers are a chinese thing, the owner manual is horrible) I didnt understand the word they used there ("leader") referring to a watch part (?!?).
English is not my natural language despite I can read and write in english, but I am not so proficient.
The interesting thing is a lot of youtube channels
and videos show the people (including some watchmakers) using this exact same timegrapher and putting the crown of the watch in the plastic slotted part of the timegrapher sensor, like the youtube channel printed picture that I attached in this post ( from the youtube channel "wrist watch revival", very cool watch channel for who like watches).
Do you guys think the results will be different changing the watch position on the sensor? I just made a brief test now here changing the watch positions and I am getting the exact same results for rate, amplitude in both positions of the watch in the sensor.
Anyway, I was planning to start using the watch on this weekend, but I can redo the test run.

"wrist watch revival" youtube video link from where I print the second picture:
https://youtu.be/la2ztR5askE

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by EaglePilot

Hi CharlesN,

you are right, I put the watch in the opposite way considering what you said about the correct position. When I read the owner manual of this Weishi timegrapher (I suppose these Weishi timegraphers are a chinese thing, the owner manual is horrible) I didnt understand the word they used there ("leader") referring to a watch part (?!?).
English is not my natural language despite I can read and write in english, but I am not so proficient.
The interesting thing is a lot of youtube channels
and videos show the people (including some watchmakers) using this exact same timegrapher and putting the crown of the watch in the plastic slotted part of the timegrapher sensor, like the youtube channel printed picture that I attached in this post ( from the youtube channel "wrist watch revival", very cool watch channel for who like watches).
Do you guys think the results will be different changing the watch position on the sensor? I just made a brief test now here changing the watch positions and I am getting the exact same results for rate, amplitude in both positions of the watch in the sensor.
Anyway, I was planning to start using the watch on this weekend, but I can redo the test run.

Better forget internet and youtube nonsense.

There is a physics reason why it's better that the watch crown is in contact with the microphone and not the case.

The crown is the only watch part which is in direct mechanical contact with the movement, the case is not.

Basically, the timegrapher microphone listens to the beat noise of the Swiss lever escapement directly via the crown.

When the case touches the microphone this can lead to some signal reflections, between the movement and the case, which one should avoid.

Often one does not measure a significant difference, but I always place the watch crown towards the timegrapher microphone.

Any scratch avoiding microphone protection, e.g., the green tape you used, may lead to unwished signal damping, which will depend on material properties and thickness. Better avoid it or use something very thin.