3235 Movement reliability and service cost

[Solo118]

Off topic, but can anybody point me in the right direction for the 3285 GMT movement thread? I thought I recalled one thread showing the "do-not's" of this movement, and I want to make sure I am not messing things up.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Solo118

Off topic, but can anybody point me in the right direction for the 3285 GMT movement thread? I thought I recalled one thread showing the "do-not's" of this movement, and I want to make sure I am not messing things up.

Ther's pretty much nothing one can do to mess things up with these movements as they are very user friendly
If in doubt, refer to the owners manual if it is to hand as it traditionally outlines the do's and don'ts.
Just remember to keep the screwdown crown snugged down

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

True. But still, let’s say that in the seven years the 32xx has been out, Rolex has produced an average of 250,000/year with it installed. That’s almost 2m out there. So while you’re right, and there’s evidence of an issue, the sample size is still small enough that we can’t eliminate the possibility that it’s a very self-selecting population convening in the internet in a small number of places to discuss an issue affecting a small number of watches.

Agreed
But it could be a larger amount of watches when one takes into consideration the multiple factors that come into play in the broader community.
I once commented on one individual's watch in passing during conversation. He was wearing a 16610 Sub and I said "How long have you had your Sub? It looks great".
At first he wasn't sure about what I was referring to, but made the connection pretty quickly after realising i was referring to his watch.
He replied, "It's not a Sub. It's a Rolex".
I think this illustrates (in some ways) just how diverse the ownership experience can be. We can theoretically factor all possibilities in, but can't account for all scenarios
Context is everything

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Driver8

Not sure I follow the deduction there I'm afraid. If you have a sample of over 1000 people who care enough to check the timekeeping of their watch, and circa 28% of those have the specific issue (as born out in the "32xx poll thread", I don't follow how that necessarily leads to the assumption that it's just the people here who have the issue. Yes I agree that these issues may not be reported far and wide, because of the reasons already stated elsewhere - some owners don't care, some owners won't notice, some watches are just sitting in safes, some watches are worn (for "flex" purposes) but never set, etc.

I think all we can probably say is that the sample here is more likely to be comprised of people who actually check and thus care about timekeeping. So in that sense the % reported here is likely to be higher than in the "real world", but that doesn't mean the issues aren't out there: they just aren't being reported as much. In actual fact, 1000 people is a pretty decent sample size in statistical sampling as most statisticians will say that the min sample size to get any kind of meaningful result is 100.

Unless of course much of that data stemmed from people who came to the forum after suspecting a problem with a watch and searching for info, for example. Now you have a self-selecting population.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

I follow your logic but don’t quite agree. There are 143 posts on this thread, many from repeat posters, and roughly one million Rolex per year - granted we don’t know the percentage of 32XX movements. Still, that’s a small number of reports relative to theoretical production. And while I’m sure a high percentage of Rolexes are purchased as investments I haven’t seen any data that leads me to believe that it’s most of them. I’m just saying that many of us, myself included, are making a lot of assumptions to suit our arguments.

Looking at the nature of the problem, it's repeatability and all the other key information, it may well be a higher percentage
We can't rule that out

[502 to Right]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Unless of course much of that data stemmed from people who came to the forum after suspecting a problem with a watch and searching for info, for example. Now you have a self-selecting population.

Similarly, some people were members of the forum long before they bought a watch with the 3235 movement (like me) and then searched the internet for information about issues with the 3235 movement after problems developed and they found that poll (also me).

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Unless of course much of that data stemmed from people who came to the forum after suspecting a problem with a watch and searching for info, for example. Now you have a self-selecting population.

True.
That's one of the reasons a statistician would have limited the time frame over which the poll was taken.
Ideally, I believe it would've ideally been a series of snapshots through short polls, rather than a continually running poll.
But the continually running poll still has some merit for our purposes of being able to try and ascertain whether a fix had been implemented.

That being said.
Interestingly, the earliest results of the poll were showing higher rates of problems. Taken in isolation, that in of itself may have been the TURF factor coming into play.
Over time, the percentage of reported problems levelled out from the initial spike to be more or less consistent.

Take from that what you will, but when pitted against other anecdotal evidence of movements from other manufacturers and lived historical accounts of Rolex movements, this 32xx movement business has a stink to it that Rolex can't seem to wash away.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by 502 to Right

Similarly, some people were members of the forum long before they bought a watch with the 3235 movement (like me) and then searched the internet for information about issues with the 3235 movement after problems developed and they found that poll (also me).

Agreed.
We can't dismiss the decades of shared experience with the earlier movements across members that have been playing in this space much longer than we care to really remember.
Those earlier movements were the foundation of an enviable reputation throughout the industry.
I believe that if we were seeing problems of a similar magnitude with movements from other manufacturers we would've heard about them as well such is the internet of things.
Let's face it, even my old dog could tell me about the ancient history of the Omega era of the Co-axial movement

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Agreed.
We can't dismiss the decades of shared experience with the earlier movements across members that have been playing in this space much longer than we care to really remember.
Those earlier movements were the foundation of an enviable reputation throughout the industry.
I believe that if we were seeing problems of a similar magnitude with movements from other manufacturers we would've heard about them as well such is the internet of things.
Let's face it, even my old dog could tell me about the ancient history of the Omega era of the Co-axial movement

Yeah, owning a watch with a 2500B Co-axial movement was one of the reasons I started researching the issues with the 32xx before buying the new Explorer. I inevitably went with a 2009 114270, instead, although the movement wasn’t the only reason.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Yeah, owning a watch with a 2500B Co-axial movement was one of the reasons I started researching the issues with the 32xx before buying the new Explorer. I inevitably went with a 2009 114270, instead, although the movement wasn’t the only reason.

Yeah I have to admit before getting my 8500 the known issue did cause me reservation. What did help was reports of the issue being acknowledged and managed. My 2013 8500 movement (unsure if it's a B C or D) has been faultless and at the 10 year service Omega put in a new escapement for me.

[Solo118]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Ther's pretty much nothing one can do to mess things up with these movements as they are very user friendly
If in doubt, refer to the owners manual if it is to hand as it traditionally outlines the do's and don'ts.
Just remember to keep the screwdown crown snugged down

Thanks- I am just asking as i recall something about not setting the date at a certain time, or something along those lines. Everything else is pretty easy to me as a long time consumer of non GMT Rolex products

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Solo118

Thanks- I am just asking as i recall something about not setting the date at a certain time, or something along those lines. Everything else is pretty easy to me as a long time consumer of non GMT Rolex products

Rolex are the exception to this from what I understand. Something about the date mechanisms being cam operated...

Also with an GMT specifically the point of the movement is to be able to set the hour hand anytime you want and need as you travel. You can flick the date forward or backwards with the hour hand at anytime.

[DavidUK]

Having owned various Rolex watches since the 90's, and a DJ41 (with 3235 movement) from 2017 to 2019, I'm currently waiting for another DJ41 this year and happened to spot one of the "3235 problem" threads yesterday and so Googled "Rolex 3235 problem" where I saw many more.

Owners complaining they'd sent theirs back to the RSC several times and "had to sell it" before the 5 year warranty was up. Really? It's a Rolex, it wasn't designed to be accurate, or was it...?

The real issue of course is Rolex claiming that accuracy of +2/-2 seconds a day. So naturally you expect it to perform, in the same way as you expect your Porsche to do 0-60 in x seconds and your Tesla to do 350 miles, or whatever they claim. Hello... its not going to happen!

So Rolex have perhaps dug a hole for themselves insofar as having wooed the burgeoning crowd (as if they needed to) with the 2 second claim and then seeing 3235 models come back in because they're losing 3 seconds a day. Clever marketing and a bullish claim, but stupid at the same time when they had no need to boast COSC certification, really, now did they?

Neither my DJ36 or Sub Date (pre-ceramic) were particularly accurate and you get used to that as a Rolex owner. It's a mechanical device swung around on your arm so it's not going to be that accurate. But I never minded having to reset the time on the odd occasion I noticed it was slightly out. I never minded that brief fiddle with the crown instead of the more distant relationship I have with my Casio Edifice where we almost never get intimate unless I'm changing the battery every three to four years.

My first DJ41 3235 was unbelievably accurate. I recall for the first year it was +/- 0 seconds, yes spot on. I think it lost that accuracy after the first year, perhaps to my relief as I then didn't want to check it was still exactly in sync with timeis.com every other day. It had at last become a normal Rolex, it had reached maturity. Phew!

But having seen all the (alleged) outraged 3235 owners yesterday I did some due diligence today. Not being able to contact my usual, most trusted, AD from whom I bought the 2017 DJ41 and my wife's DJ31 I phoned another AD I'd dealt with previously. He's been a Rolex dealer for 30 years. I asked him about the 3235 debacle and he had no idea there was one. If he was lying to help Rolex in the "cover up" and to keep his AD status then he is a very convincing liar. Sure they get some 3235 movement models going back to Rolex as they do with every model, every movement, but there's nothing exceptional about the 3235's reliability compared to others. I believe him.

Next, a call to the RSC at St. James. Again, no knowledge of any special issues affecting this particular movement. I believe her.

The naysayers will now be shouting "that's what we said they would say, you idiot" but I'm purely reporting back what I heard and what I believe.

Then my own AD calls me back at last. As established firm over 125 years ago, I'm speaking to my contact, a director, who has another director and the owner in the same room. He asks the others if they've had 3235 models with timekeeping issues coming back under warranty. I hear the others say "no." I continue the discussion whilst my AD is tapping away, Googling "Rolex 3235 problems." He sees the forum threads and reads a few, chuckling.
Chuckling? Yes, because he knows it's nonsense. I throw into the mix that perhaps it's just ONE Rolex buyer with multiple forum names who's trying to put everyone else off 3235 models so he can move up the list! Anyhow, my own trusted AD who I know very well and trust implicitly is telling me it's really not an issue, don't worry. And he's put my mind at rest.

This won't put your mind at rest if you really expect a Rolex to keep +2/-2 seconds a day, as promised.
It won't, or it won't for long.
Then as it fades into 5 secs per day, 15 secs per day, 100 secs per day, you have to decide at what point you feel aggrieved enough to send it for service. Under 5 years? In year 8? Year 17? Yes, it WILL need servicing at some points, either for timekeeping or some other issue. It's a mechanical device, like your car is too. And like a car it WILL cost you money. Like an exotic car it will cost you MORE money than a run of the mill brand.

But that's what we all want isn't it? An exclusive, sorry I mean elusive, status symbol watch which everyone recognises for it's quality and value... and quirky inexact timekeeping.
For that you have to pay, and keep on paying, and put up with crown fiddling ever more frequently the older you both together grow.

This is my experience and opinion as a long term Rolex owner of 30+ years.

[Pablito]

Despite all trustworthy ADs assessments, my 126610 has one year of ownership, and is running -15sec a day as we speak. Each one can decide at what point things can be acceptable or not, but from my experience, losing 2 minutes a week is a bit far from "Precision at every level". After 2 years waiting list for such a highly sought after piece blablabla.. We will see if warranty fixes it for real. If not, I guess everyone should ask for a movement replacement before the end ..

[JRell]

All of my 12s - 32 versions, over 10 including my 126610LN works like a digital watch. Perfect. Some do get lemons I guess but that happens with anything you buy.

[Gwai]

Originally Posted by DavidUK

Having owned various Rolex watches since the 90's, and a DJ41 (with 3235 movement) from 2017 to 2019, I'm currently waiting for another DJ41 this year and happened to spot one of the "3235 problem" threads yesterday and so Googled "Rolex 3235 problem" where I saw many more.

Owners complaining they'd sent theirs back to the RSC several times and "had to sell it" before the 5 year warranty was up. Really? It's a Rolex, it wasn't designed to be accurate, or was it...?

The real issue of course is Rolex claiming that accuracy of +2/-2 seconds a day. So naturally you expect it to perform, in the same way as you expect your Porsche to do 0-60 in x seconds and your Tesla to do 350 miles, or whatever they claim. Hello... its not going to happen!

So Rolex have perhaps dug a hole for themselves insofar as having wooed the burgeoning crowd (as if they needed to) with the 2 second claim and then seeing 3235 models come back in because they're losing 3 seconds a day. Clever marketing and a bullish claim, but stupid at the same time when they had no need to boast COSC certification, really, now did they?

Neither my DJ36 or Sub Date (pre-ceramic) were particularly accurate and you get used to that as a Rolex owner. It's a mechanical device swung around on your arm so it's not going to be that accurate. But I never minded having to reset the time on the odd occasion I noticed it was slightly out. I never minded that brief fiddle with the crown instead of the more distant relationship I have with my Casio Edifice where we almost never get intimate unless I'm changing the battery every three to four years.

My first DJ41 3235 was unbelievably accurate. I recall for the first year it was +/- 0 seconds, yes spot on. I think it lost that accuracy after the first year, perhaps to my relief as I then didn't want to check it was still exactly in sync with timeis.com every other day. It had at last become a normal Rolex, it had reached maturity. Phew!

But having seen all the (alleged) outraged 3235 owners yesterday I did some due diligence today. Not being able to contact my usual, most trusted, AD from whom I bought the 2017 DJ41 and my wife's DJ31 I phoned another AD I'd dealt with previously. He's been a Rolex dealer for 30 years. I asked him about the 3235 debacle and he had no idea there was one. If he was lying to help Rolex in the "cover up" and to keep his AD status then he is a very convincing liar. Sure they get some 3235 movement models going back to Rolex as they do with every model, every movement, but there's nothing exceptional about the 3235's reliability compared to others. I believe him.

Next, a call to the RSC at St. James. Again, no knowledge of any special issues affecting this particular movement. I believe her.

The naysayers will now be shouting "that's what we said they would say, you idiot" but I'm purely reporting back what I heard and what I believe.

Then my own AD calls me back at last. As established firm over 125 years ago, I'm speaking to my contact, a director, who has another director and the owner in the same room. He asks the others if they've had 3235 models with timekeeping issues coming back under warranty. I hear the others say "no." I continue the discussion whilst my AD is tapping away, Googling "Rolex 3235 problems." He sees the forum threads and reads a few, chuckling.
Chuckling? Yes, because he knows it's nonsense. I throw into the mix that perhaps it's just ONE Rolex buyer with multiple forum names who's trying to put everyone else off 3235 models so he can move up the list! Anyhow, my own trusted AD who I know very well and trust implicitly is telling me it's really not an issue, don't worry. And he's put my mind at rest.

This won't put your mind at rest if you really expect a Rolex to keep +2/-2 seconds a day, as promised.
It won't, or it won't for long.
Then as it fades into 5 secs per day, 15 secs per day, 100 secs per day, you have to decide at what point you feel aggrieved enough to send it for service. Under 5 years? In year 8? Year 17? Yes, it WILL need servicing at some points, either for timekeeping or some other issue. It's a mechanical device, like your car is too. And like a car it WILL cost you money. Like an exotic car it will cost you MORE money than a run of the mill brand.

But that's what we all want isn't it? An exclusive, sorry I mean elusive, status symbol watch which everyone recognises for it's quality and value... and quirky inexact timekeeping.
For that you have to pay, and keep on paying, and put up with crown fiddling ever more frequently the older you both together grow.

This is my experience and opinion as a long term Rolex owner of 30+ years.

A pleasure reading this.
Cheers
Marc

[East of Eden]

Originally Posted by DavidUK

Having owned various Rolex watches since the 90's, and a DJ41 (with 3235 movement) from 2017 to 2019, I'm currently waiting for another DJ41 this year and happened to spot one of the "3235 problem" threads yesterday and so Googled "Rolex 3235 problem" where I saw many more.

Owners complaining they'd sent theirs back to the RSC several times and "had to sell it" before the 5 year warranty was up. Really? It's a Rolex, it wasn't designed to be accurate, or was it...?

The real issue of course is Rolex claiming that accuracy of +2/-2 seconds a day. So naturally you expect it to perform, in the same way as you expect your Porsche to do 0-60 in x seconds and your Tesla to do 350 miles, or whatever they claim. Hello... its not going to happen!

So Rolex have perhaps dug a hole for themselves insofar as having wooed the burgeoning crowd (as if they needed to) with the 2 second claim and then seeing 3235 models come back in because they're losing 3 seconds a day. Clever marketing and a bullish claim, but stupid at the same time when they had no need to boast COSC certification, really, now did they?

Neither my DJ36 or Sub Date (pre-ceramic) were particularly accurate and you get used to that as a Rolex owner. It's a mechanical device swung around on your arm so it's not going to be that accurate. But I never minded having to reset the time on the odd occasion I noticed it was slightly out. I never minded that brief fiddle with the crown instead of the more distant relationship I have with my Casio Edifice where we almost never get intimate unless I'm changing the battery every three to four years.

My first DJ41 3235 was unbelievably accurate. I recall for the first year it was +/- 0 seconds, yes spot on. I think it lost that accuracy after the first year, perhaps to my relief as I then didn't want to check it was still exactly in sync with timeis.com every other day. It had at last become a normal Rolex, it had reached maturity. Phew!

But having seen all the (alleged) outraged 3235 owners yesterday I did some due diligence today. Not being able to contact my usual, most trusted, AD from whom I bought the 2017 DJ41 and my wife's DJ31 I phoned another AD I'd dealt with previously. He's been a Rolex dealer for 30 years. I asked him about the 3235 debacle and he had no idea there was one. If he was lying to help Rolex in the "cover up" and to keep his AD status then he is a very convincing liar. Sure they get some 3235 movement models going back to Rolex as they do with every model, every movement, but there's nothing exceptional about the 3235's reliability compared to others. I believe him.

Next, a call to the RSC at St. James. Again, no knowledge of any special issues affecting this particular movement. I believe her.

The naysayers will now be shouting "that's what we said they would say, you idiot" but I'm purely reporting back what I heard and what I believe.

Then my own AD calls me back at last. As established firm over 125 years ago, I'm speaking to my contact, a director, who has another director and the owner in the same room. He asks the others if they've had 3235 models with timekeeping issues coming back under warranty. I hear the others say "no." I continue the discussion whilst my AD is tapping away, Googling "Rolex 3235 problems." He sees the forum threads and reads a few, chuckling.
Chuckling? Yes, because he knows it's nonsense. I throw into the mix that perhaps it's just ONE Rolex buyer with multiple forum names who's trying to put everyone else off 3235 models so he can move up the list! Anyhow, my own trusted AD who I know very well and trust implicitly is telling me it's really not an issue, don't worry. And he's put my mind at rest.

This won't put your mind at rest if you really expect a Rolex to keep +2/-2 seconds a day, as promised.
It won't, or it won't for long.
Then as it fades into 5 secs per day, 15 secs per day, 100 secs per day, you have to decide at what point you feel aggrieved enough to send it for service. Under 5 years? In year 8? Year 17? Yes, it WILL need servicing at some points, either for timekeeping or some other issue. It's a mechanical device, like your car is too. And like a car it WILL cost you money. Like an exotic car it will cost you MORE money than a run of the mill brand.

But that's what we all want isn't it? An exclusive, sorry I mean elusive, status symbol watch which everyone recognises for it's quality and value... and quirky inexact timekeeping.
For that you have to pay, and keep on paying, and put up with crown fiddling ever more frequently the older you both together grow.

This is my experience and opinion as a long term Rolex owner of 30+ years.

I'm not convinced by your post, Rolex won't admit to this problem, how long do you think an AD would remain one if they were telling people about a real problem? If you go to a Ford dealer and ask if the Ford Escape is reliable what do you think they will tell you? You seem to imply people on this forum are making it up, to what end? I don't see other Rolex movements with these issues. And yes, I get any watch will eventually stop keeping good time, but it is inexcusable for a watch costing five figures to do so months after acquistion. I think it rather more likely your AD friends are lying than that TRF members with this issue are. You may have 30 years of Rolex experience, but any of that time prior to this problem movement is irrelevant.

I don't have any experience with this issue but the one new Rolex I've bought, a DJ31 for my wife, had to be sent back after repeatedly stopping the next morning after being worn, which I suppose is not relevant to this issue, other than that new Rolex watches can be defective. Personally, with the problem movement I'd be too worried about the possible shoe about to drop to enjoy the watch, YMMV.

[sevykor]

Anyone with the statement: “I own x amount of 32xx watches and haven’t had issues” may want to consider finishing the sentence with “yet.” If the cause of the problem is related to the engineering/design of the movement and assuming Rolex is consistent in the assembly, every watch with the 32xx will have an issue. The greatest variable in this entire equation is related to time and habits of the wearer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[amh]

Originally Posted by sevykor

Anyone with the statement: “I own x amount of 32xx watches and haven’t had issues” may want to consider finishing the sentence with “yet.” If the cause of the problem is related to the engineering/design of the movement and assuming Rolex is consistent in the assembly, every watch with the 32xx will have an issue. The greatest variable in this entire equation is related to time and habits of the wearer.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

But that would be an incorrect assumption.

Rolex, the biggest watch brand by far. What would you?
- Ignore a known problem
- Fix it quietly

Occam's Razor, people. Engineering problems get fixed.

[njlam]

Originally Posted by DavidUK

Having owned various Rolex watches since the 90's, and a DJ41 (with 3235 movement) from 2017 to 2019, I'm currently waiting for another DJ41 this year and happened to spot one of the "3235 problem" threads yesterday and so Googled "Rolex 3235 problem" where I saw many more.

Owners complaining they'd sent theirs back to the RSC several times and "had to sell it" before the 5 year warranty was up. Really? It's a Rolex, it wasn't designed to be accurate, or was it...?

The real issue of course is Rolex claiming that accuracy of +2/-2 seconds a day. So naturally you expect it to perform, in the same way as you expect your Porsche to do 0-60 in x seconds and your Tesla to do 350 miles, or whatever they claim. Hello... its not going to happen!

So Rolex have perhaps dug a hole for themselves insofar as having wooed the burgeoning crowd (as if they needed to) with the 2 second claim and then seeing 3235 models come back in because they're losing 3 seconds a day. Clever marketing and a bullish claim, but stupid at the same time when they had no need to boast COSC certification, really, now did they?

Neither my DJ36 or Sub Date (pre-ceramic) were particularly accurate and you get used to that as a Rolex owner. It's a mechanical device swung around on your arm so it's not going to be that accurate. But I never minded having to reset the time on the odd occasion I noticed it was slightly out. I never minded that brief fiddle with the crown instead of the more distant relationship I have with my Casio Edifice where we almost never get intimate unless I'm changing the battery every three to four years.

My first DJ41 3235 was unbelievably accurate. I recall for the first year it was +/- 0 seconds, yes spot on. I think it lost that accuracy after the first year, perhaps to my relief as I then didn't want to check it was still exactly in sync with timeis.com every other day. It had at last become a normal Rolex, it had reached maturity. Phew!

But having seen all the (alleged) outraged 3235 owners yesterday I did some due diligence today. Not being able to contact my usual, most trusted, AD from whom I bought the 2017 DJ41 and my wife's DJ31 I phoned another AD I'd dealt with previously. He's been a Rolex dealer for 30 years. I asked him about the 3235 debacle and he had no idea there was one. If he was lying to help Rolex in the "cover up" and to keep his AD status then he is a very convincing liar. Sure they get some 3235 movement models going back to Rolex as they do with every model, every movement, but there's nothing exceptional about the 3235's reliability compared to others. I believe him.

Next, a call to the RSC at St. James. Again, no knowledge of any special issues affecting this particular movement. I believe her.

The naysayers will now be shouting "that's what we said they would say, you idiot" but I'm purely reporting back what I heard and what I believe.

Then my own AD calls me back at last. As established firm over 125 years ago, I'm speaking to my contact, a director, who has another director and the owner in the same room. He asks the others if they've had 3235 models with timekeeping issues coming back under warranty. I hear the others say "no." I continue the discussion whilst my AD is tapping away, Googling "Rolex 3235 problems." He sees the forum threads and reads a few, chuckling.
Chuckling? Yes, because he knows it's nonsense. I throw into the mix that perhaps it's just ONE Rolex buyer with multiple forum names who's trying to put everyone else off 3235 models so he can move up the list! Anyhow, my own trusted AD who I know very well and trust implicitly is telling me it's really not an issue, don't worry. And he's put my mind at rest.

This won't put your mind at rest if you really expect a Rolex to keep +2/-2 seconds a day, as promised.
It won't, or it won't for long.
Then as it fades into 5 secs per day, 15 secs per day, 100 secs per day, you have to decide at what point you feel aggrieved enough to send it for service. Under 5 years? In year 8? Year 17? Yes, it WILL need servicing at some points, either for timekeeping or some other issue. It's a mechanical device, like your car is too. And like a car it WILL cost you money. Like an exotic car it will cost you MORE money than a run of the mill brand.

But that's what we all want isn't it? An exclusive, sorry I mean elusive, status symbol watch which everyone recognises for it's quality and value... and quirky inexact timekeeping.
For that you have to pay, and keep on paying, and put up with crown fiddling ever more frequently the older you both together grow.

This is my experience and opinion as a long term Rolex owner of 30+ years.

Sounds a little like a rationalization to me.

I don't think anyone officially connected to Rolex would dare to speak honestly about this issue for fear of retribution.

People need to think independently and realize given the demand for Rolex where they are able to sell everything they make, if the 32xx has a long-term problem, or just that the 31xx is more reliable this is something people need to decide for themselves. I hold my purchases of high end/expensive items to a higher standard than "they all have problems"

My DD and DJ are 31xx and I have not had any problems with them. I have wanted a GMT Batman for quite some time and have been on AD waiting lists for a new one (126710).

However reading all of the issues surrounding the 32xx movements , I began wishing for a NOS 11 series instead of the 12 series.

I recently found a NOS 116710 (still stickered, in a safe) from a seller I trust and while i hate paying a premium to MSRP, I bought it, primarily to avoid potential 32xx issues, but also because I have decided that waiting on ADs is something I can no longer afford.

The peace of mind of having the more reliable movement AND finally going grey and not playing the AD game anymore is a great way to ring in the new year.

[uansari1]

I have had four watches with 31xx movements. My 116710, 114270 and 16570 have been trouble free, but my 16610 with the 3135 had to be serviced twice in four years. Why? Because the rotor axle wore/broke. Not sure why that particular watch went through two axles so quickly (I’m sure the rotor is the same mass across all of these movements)…but in any case, I got it serviced the second time through RSC and sold it (along with the 114270). I now have two watches with 32xx movements…so let’s see. Have only had them for two months and one month respectively. As long as they’re no less reliable than my old Sub, I’ll be satisfied.

[Andy81]

I’ve got a 2021 Datejust which until a couple of months ago kept time fantastically, only deviating enough to reset every 3-6 months. Over the past 2-3 months, it’s been losing time, around 6-10 seconds a day.

I searched a few days ago for the expected time keeping standards and found out about this ‘issue’. Happy to take it with a big pinch of salt, but inclined to take mine to an AD in January to get it looked at.