32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[77T]

Originally Posted by Dirt

I think it's hard to say these days.
After all how much break in occurs that would have a noticeable effect to the end user after a watch movement has been tested for about 2 weeks by COSC, then a further test period by Rolex when it's cased up in a completed watch to verify it runs to the Superlative standard.

I agree it is hard to say.

For the benefit of our newer members, I’d like to update everyone on the actual “certification” after Rolex set their higher standard. Here is the exact wording in the certification PDF in their newsroom.

https://newsroom-content.rolex.com/-...glish_2023.pdf



So this is why I posted that on any given day (note the 24 hours) it will perform to -2/+2 spd.

I agree with Peter that this whole COSC vs Rolex -2/-+2 is very, very academic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by 77T

I agree it is hard to say.

For the benefit of our newer members, I’d like to update everyone on the actual “certification” after Rolex set their higher standard. Here is the exact wording in the certification PDF in their newsroom.

https://newsroom-content.rolex.com/-...glish_2023.pdf



So this is why I posted that on any given day (note the 24 hours) it will perform to -2/+2 spd.

I agree with Peter that this whole COSC vs Rolex -2/-+2 is very, very academic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I wonder how many of the hundreds of thousands of red-tagged watches that got switched to green tags in-store around the world in July 2015 (as per Rolex HQ instructions) got sent back for not being -2/+2.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by 77T

I agree it is hard to say.

For the benefit of our newer members, I’d like to update everyone on the actual “certification” after Rolex set their higher standard. Here is the exact wording in the certification PDF in their newsroom.

https://newsroom-content.rolex.com/-...glish_2023.pdf



So this is why I posted that on any given day (note the 24 hours) it will perform to -2/+2 spd.

I agree with Peter that this whole COSC vs Rolex -2/-+2 is very, very academic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I don't know about very very academic.
It was a big deal at Basel when announced and remains so in light of METAS.
Especially if the customer is paying a premium on that basis.
After all, Rolex goes to the trouble of testing each and every watch to ensure conformity. That was their own initiative and as I said before it's the standard they work to at the RSCs.
Not COSC.
It's measurable and it feeds directly into a critical improvement in timekeeping.
To be dismissive of their initiative is to diminish their efforts and by extention dismissive of the transition era to COSC across the board from movements which were only deemed to be precise.
These things are ground breaking and at this level of accuracy it's surely incremental, but they aren't insignificant or merely academic on any level regardless if the consumer fully or partially appreciates it or not.
I suppose in light of the Spring Drive or Quartz technology it's insignificant but in the realm of purely mechanical movements it's possibly in the realms of the development of the tourbilon in it's intent.
It's about bringing better performance in one way or another to the consumer and being able to market it in such a manner as to extract more $s from the consumer.

But we are digressing again and getting into the realms of the accuracy vs precision argument.
It still holds true that without precision one can't feasibly pursue accuracy regardless of how it's measured.

[77T]

By academic I meant no slight on Rolex - it’s simply notional.

What this means is at worst -2/+2, in any given day, the accuracy is 0.999976851851852

At the worst COSC, the accuracy is 0.999930555555556

How much that illusory difference matters in the 86,400 seconds in any given day is in the eye of the beholder.

For me it is not significant…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[77T]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

I wonder how many of the hundreds of thousands of red-tagged watches that got switched to green tags in-store around the world in July 2015 (as per Rolex HQ instructions) got sent back for not being -2/+2.

Point well made.

After all, I expect those buyers were more happy about the longer warranty than a second or two per day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by 77T

Point well made.

After all, I expect those buyers were more happy about the longer warranty than a second or two per day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You forgot the longer power reserve and the 10 year service interval

Sadly for myself.
The accuracy/precision thing is all that mattered in any tangible way. Lol.
See, we all have our own things that matter and priorities will vary

[77T]

Agree - for me in some modes, accuracy to the second is paramount. For those weekends, the Rolex, Omega, Patek, stay home. It is the Apple Ultra watch that lasts all weekend and never loses a second in a year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

I wonder how many of the hundreds of thousands of red-tagged watches that got switched to green tags in-store around the world in July 2015 (as per Rolex HQ instructions) got sent back for not being -2/+2.

I’d be willing to bet not many

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

I’d be willing to bet not many

Me too, and certainly not all these 86400 s internet guys

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Easy E

So then why is it so wrong to expect the -/+2 advertised performance from a $10k or greater piece?

Its nor wrong. Or it shouldn't be.

Just as its not wrong to expect your [insert motor vehicle of choice] to perform as advertised - power output, acceleration, top speed.

PS. Before anyone mentions fuel consumption/economy, that is considerably different and not a reasonable analogy.

[Vince_76]

Wore my 3235 for 13 days straight on holiday. Lost 22 seconds so ~-1.7s/day

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Vince_76

Wore my 3235 for 13 days straight on holiday. Lost 22 seconds so ~-1.7s/day

You tried to compensate overnight or wore it 24/7?

[Vince_76]

Originally Posted by saxo3

You tried to compensate overnight or wore it 24/7?

Nope, face up every night ~8hrs

[Easy E]

126619LB Post Service
Most definitely different, seems strong

[georgew]

wore my 124060 for 5 days recently - and it lost 15 seconds over that time period. For comparison, my 116622 YM gained 6 seconds over the last 2 days I wore it.

edited to add that it stays on my wrist 24/7 unless I am in the shower.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Easy E

126619LB Post Service
Most definitely different, seems strong

Thanks for sharing.
It's easier to see the relationship between low amplitude and slower timekeeping.

As these Chronergy escapement movements start out with lower amplitudes than is historically generally accepted to be ideal. They start out at a fundamental disadvantage with little room for some natural degradation.
Unless this is addressed by the mothership I can't see the
historical timekeeping record being particularly stellar which must be problematic against the backdrop of the much lauded 10 year service intervals and the "Superlative Chronometer" standard

[TheVTCGuy]

So… Stupid question:

Chronometer = COSC -4+6

Superlative Chronometer = +- 2 ?

[TheVTCGuy]

Sorry, double post

[padi56]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

So… Stupid question:

Chronometer = COSC -4+6

Superlative Chronometer = +- 2 ?

COSC tested to a AVERAGE of -4+6 seconds at time of testing met said spec.

The new superlative test to precision -2+2 seconds at time of testing met said spec.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

126619LB Post Service
Most definitely different, seems strong

Good to see some more data.

Here my comparison between July and September 2023.

- After Repair:
- All amplitudes are very good (high) after full winding and within specs after 24 hours.

- The 5-position average rate (X) is within -2/+2 s/d even 48 hours after full winding, which is excellent.

[Easy E]

Thanks for the graph. That really demonstrates the before v after service changes.

[georgew]

Originally Posted by georgew

wore my 124060 for 5 days recently - and it lost 15 seconds over that time period. For comparison, my 116622 YM gained 6 seconds over the last 2 days I wore it.

edited to add that it stays on my wrist 24/7 unless I am in the shower.

I need to correct this post, as it should read wore for 15 days (and it lost 15 secs)

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by padi56

COSC tested to a AVERAGE of -4+6 seconds at time of testing met said spec.

The new superlative test to precision -2+2 seconds at time of testing met said spec.

Thanks PADI

So, serious question, maybe I am not understanding it correctly (heck I am SURE I am not understanding it correctly) but could there be a bias in the measuring because of the new standard? I know I’m not explaining this correctly but if the time accuracy requirement is an average, and it has to meet those standards over a certain number of days… If you take a measurement for a minute or whatever on a machine, does that accurately express the accuracy of the mechanism over the average of several days? Is it possible that measuring it one day the watch is showing particularly off-rate, but over the span of several days it would average out to be within the +-2 standard?

I am sure I am not explaining this very well, I think I just confused myself more then when I started the paragraph.

Nothing to see here, carry on.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by padi56

COSC tested to a AVERAGE of -4+6 seconds at time of testing met said spec.

The new superlative test to precision -2+2 seconds at time of testing met said spec.

We need to be mindful that COSC is the movement alone.
Superlative is for the accuracy of the watch with the movement cased up, which is significantly more problematic.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Dirt

We need to be mindful that COSC is the movement alone.
Superlative is for the accuracy of the watch with the movement cased up, which is significantly more problematic.

Why is that significantly more problematic?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Andad

Why is that significantly more problematic?

Have to agree Eddie the bare uncased movements are still tested at the Swiss COSC to get the Swiss chronometer certification. Rolex then retests with movement it its case considering the amount of watches they sell each year. Plus the amount movements they test annually at the COSC they must have some sort of machine like they got at the COSC to test them in the case. Otherwise would take ages to manually adjust and test each and every movement. As according to some when they send watches in for regulation it often takes weeks to do. And cannot see why it would be more problematic in the case or not as long as its been regulated and passed test at time of testing. .

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Thanks PADI

So, serious question, maybe I am not understanding it correctly (heck I am SURE I am not understanding it correctly) but could there be a bias in the measuring because of the new standard? I know I’m not explaining this correctly but if the time accuracy requirement is an average, and it has to meet those standards over a certain number of days… If you take a measurement for a minute or whatever on a machine, does that accurately express the accuracy of the mechanism over the average of several days? Is it possible that measuring it one day the watch is showing particularly off-rate, but over the span of several days it would average out to be within the +-2 standard?

I am sure I am not explaining this very well, I think I just confused myself more then when I started the paragraph.

I would think that absolutely there would be a variance, but that variance would likely only be tenths of a second at most. A couple of issues: To test, or factory certify the movement it would have to be fully wound, wait 24hrs, fully wind wait 24hrs, and so on. How many data points would be needed to get the average? IDK, but seems like too many to be worth the effort. Also, as in the case of my pre-serviced WG sub at the 3 up position to get the average back to base line the next 24 hr reading would have to be +12. I seem to recall reading somewhere that there is a maximum delta between any measurement in any position. I would also think temperature would have an impact on the results. So how many different temps at what extremes would you have to test to get the average?

[Easy E]

As a side note, I have it my head that JLC does testing for each movement in their Master Control line for one month.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Easy E

I would think that absolutely there would be a variance, but that variance would likely only be tenths of a second at most. A couple of issues: To test, or factory certify the movement it would have to be fully wound, wait 24hrs, fully wind wait 24hrs, and so on. How many data points would be needed to get the average? IDK, but seems like too many to be worth the effort. Also, as in the case of my pre-serviced WG sub at the 3 up position to get the average back to base line the next 24 hr reading would have to be +12. I seem to recall reading somewhere that there is a maximum delta between any measurement in any position. I would also think temperature would have an impact on the results. So how many different temps at what extremes would you have to test to get the average?

Thank you Easy


Like every other bit of technical discussion on this thread that went right over my head. I was just wondering if the issue was not so much the new movement but rather the new standard, and the testing for such a strict and limited tolerance. Remembering back to my college physics days (which was around the time the pyramids were being built) there was some law about the more strict the tolerance, the more bias there is in the testing procedure towards failure; or something like that.

I have no idea if it has anything to do with this situation but I guess anything is possible.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Thank you Easy


Like every other bit of technical discussion on this thread that went right over my head. I was just wondering if the issue was not so much the new movement but rather the new standard, and the testing for such a strict and limited tolerance. Remembering back to my college physics days (which was around the time the pyramids were being built) there was some law about the more strict the tolerance, the more bias there is in the testing procedure towards failure; or something like that.

I have no idea if it has anything to do with this situation but I guess anything is possible.

Yeah, no problem. This did get me thinking, out of shear curiosity I am going to try a multi-day 24hr test. Hopefully start of next week. I’m curious to see what the variance, if any, looks like. Again, my bet is not more than a couple of tenths, but willing to see it to believe it…..you know….for science.