32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Russm535il]

I purchased a Tudor Pelagos with the in house movement ( A Great accurate timepiece) and blue dial instead of a Sub a few years ago
because of the problems with the 3200 movement. Has Rolex addressed the problem at all ? Has the issue been fixed with new Rolex’’s purchased in 2024 ? What movement and years was the previous movement produced perhaps I will look for a preowned Sub .A slow running movement would really bother me and I am shocked that Rolex has let the issue go on so long . My 1984 Rolex Datejust ( purchased new in 1984 ) is amazing only running fast about 20-30 seconds a month �� Thank you all ! Russ

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

2021 YG 126618LB. Timekeeping is still ok, but rate and amplitude have slipped a little since last measurement in July 23. Not bad to the point of service (yet?), but still down from last POM. Verticals definitely below spec.

Thanks for the interesting update.
Do you continue with 36, 48, 60 hours?
It would be interesting to do an isochronism check, 2 data points (0, 24) are not enough for this.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Russm535il

Has Rolex addressed the problem at all ?

100% yes.

Originally Posted by Russm535il

Has the issue been fixed with new Rolex’’s purchased in 2024 ?

With a bit of thinking you can answer this question yourself, see today's date.

Originally Posted by Russm535il

I will look for a preowned Sub.

Good plan.

[saxo3]

Time for a Review

Thread statistics after exactly 3 years (today)



Since 3 years the quantity of 32xx watch owners that observe and report issues with their movements did not decrease over time but remained rather constant at a level of about 26-30 %.

There are still about 4 times more poll voters than different contributors to the thread.
As before, the majority voted but did not post in this thread.

These are the facts.

[saxo3]

Another interesting fact is that this threads is visited (or viewed) very often, close to 400.000 times in 3 years.

[Dirt]

Thanks for the status update

Goodness gracious me.
Just have a look at that trend line

It's most interesting that after the mods moved the thread away from the mainstream action of the forum, the trend regained momentum to nearly match the initial flourish of reporting and even looks like it accelerated to nearly match the first 180 days or so.
Then to compare the ratio between the rate of reporting and negative results.
The percentages have remained relatively steady and certainly provides good enough long term figures to hang ones hat on. This is definately the sort of thing people don't like to openly talk about at garden parties

It appears as though there are more people than ever previously speculated that actually pay attention to the timekeeping of their watch

Now all we need is to see the trend reverse.
Maybe after the 33xx movement comes out?
I wonder if Rolex is watching?
After all, there is no centralised collection of data anywhere else in the world like this that Rolex can access or possibly even match.
They would know full well they have a problem, but it would be impossible for them to quantify in plausible terms.

[Commander C.]

"Has Rolex addressed the problem at all ?
100% yes."

Are you saying that the 32xx issue has been resolved?

[Mountain66]

My Explorer has unfortunately contracted the disease once more.

By way of background, it’s a 124270, bought in autumn 2021. It kept pretty much perfect time until January 2023 when it started losing time significantly. I had it fixed under warranty, got it back in March, and tested on the timegrapher (Weishi 1900) in April. At that time, all seemed well.

Over the last (almost) year the watch has kept excellent time, until a week or so ago, when it slowed dramatically and has behaving rather erratically. I did a fully wound timegrapher test again last night, and the results below speak for themselves.

Very disappointing. I’ll take it in for another warranty service. I don’t recall reading any definitive solution having been found to the problem, so my expectation is pretty low at this point!

[Mountain66]

Originally Posted by Commander C.

"Has Rolex addressed the problem at all ?
100% yes."

Are you saying that the 32xx issue has been resolved?

I’m hoping so! But, not as of January 2023, as seen in my message above!

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Commander C.

"Has Rolex addressed the problem at all ?
100% yes."
Are you saying that the 32xx issue has been resolved?

No. "100% yes" means that they have "addressed" (identified the main issue) and and try to find a permanent fix (whatever permanent means), since years.

Originally Posted by Mountain66

I’m hoping so! But, not as of January 2023, as seen in my message above!

Do you know how old the movement in your watch is?

[Mountain66]

Originally Posted by saxo3

No. "100% yes" means that they have "addressed" (identified the main issue) and and try to find a permanent fix (whatever permanent means), since years.


Do you know how old the movement in your watch is?

No, I don’t know how old the movement is, but given I bought the watch in autumn 2021, I would assume 2021.

I may have missed it: when did they find the permanent fix? And, specifically, what was the problem?

My understanding up to this point was it was likely a combination of factors, rather than some specific known cause.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by Mountain66

No, I don’t know how old the movement is, but given I bought the watch in autumn 2021, I would assume 2021.

I may have missed it: when did they find the permanent fix? And, specifically, what was the problem?

My understanding up to this point was it was likely a combination of factors, rather than some specific known cause.

You haven’t missed anything

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Commander C.

"Has Rolex addressed the problem at all ?
100% yes."

Are you saying that the 32xx issue has been resolved?

Rolex have addressed the problem by servicing it under warranty. After warranty. Who knows?

Resolved?
No. At least not as far as anyone knows

[TBS]

Originally Posted by Russm535il

I purchased a Tudor Pelagos with the in house movement ( A Great accurate timepiece) and blue dial instead of a Sub a few years ago
because of the problems with the 3200 movement. Has Rolex addressed the problem at all ? Has the issue been fixed with new Rolex’’s purchased in 2024 ? What movement and years was the previous movement produced perhaps I will look for a preowned Sub .A slow running movement would really bother me and I am shocked that Rolex has let the issue go on so long . My 1984 Rolex Datejust ( purchased new in 1984 ) is amazing only running fast about 20-30 seconds a month �� Thank you all ! Russ

You will be happy with your Pelagos.
Good luck with it. Mine was spot on everyday desk diving.
It was my daily wear until I picked up an SD43 which is taking most of the wrist time.

Sent from my tablet using Tapatalk

[Mountain66]

Originally Posted by Easy E

You haven’t missed anything

Thanks. That’s a shame!

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Mountain66

I may have missed it: when did they find the permanent fix?

Rolex SA follows a silent repair approach that I described in 2541, 2545, 2579

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks for the interesting update.
Do you continue with 36, 48, 60 hours?
It would be interesting to do an isochronism check, 2 data points (0, 24) are not enough for this.

Here you go. Full disclosure, the 36 hrs readings are more like 33 hrs, and the 60 hrs was more like 57 - best I do on this round. I, maybe mistakenly, don't think that really move the needle a significant amount. Overall it seems to me this one runs better through the PR than several others that I have owned.

[Mountain66]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Rolex SA follows a silent repair approach that I described in 2541, 2545, 2579

Unfortunately that didn’t work for my watch last time! Let’s hope this attempt will be more successful.

[EaglePilot]

Well, nowadays it is impossible to know the year the rolex watches were produced looking at serial numbers (randomic).
But I think some improvments in new rolex watches references can give some idea at least from what year ithe watch was produced, like for example the new AR coating under the crystal. (signaled in the laser etched crown on the crystal).
Knowing when this new feature was introduced by rolex
can give an idea from what year was the watch production.
I read in some post here in TRF this new AR coat under the crystal was introduced in new GMT rolexes about 2022 (first in VTNR?) if I am not wrong....
I bought my BLNR brand new at AD in december 2022 (and it has this new AR coat under the crystal) and post timegrapher results here since first use!
Now, after 1 year using it almost every day, seems the amplitudes were significantly lower!

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by EaglePilot

I bought my BLNR brand new at AD in december 2022 (and it has this new AR coat under the crystal) and post timegrapher results here since first use! Now, after 1 year using it almost every day, seems the amplitudes were significantly lower!

A daily use did not stop it from "catching the virus"? That is very interesting.

In March 2023 your watch had excellent amplitude and rate values.

Do you have a set of timegarpher data as it is now? For comparison.

[MikeyV]

Daily wear never saved me. My DJ41 is my only watch - worn 16 hours per day.
After two warranty repairs, it's holding time well after six months.

I don't have much hope it's permanently fixed. Time will tell.

Next repair is on me! Unless it craps out before two years.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Here you go. Full disclosure, the 36 hrs readings are more like 33 hrs, and the 60 hrs was more like 57 - best I do on this round. I, maybe mistakenly, don't think that really move the needle a significant amount. Overall it seems to me this one runs better through the PR than several others that I have owned.

Comparison between 01/2024 and 07/2023.
According to the average rate X the watch should be accurate. A simple analysis shows that the isochronism of this 3235 is less good now.

[EaglePilot]

Yes, what I mean is I suspect the 32xx issue was not silent solved by rolex yet, because as I said , my watch was probably produced in 2022 and seems it is affected by this issue (I didn't measured the 12,24,36,48 hours in timegrapher yet, after 1 year of use - I travel a lot and need to be at home 3 consecutive days to do that again), but is clear to me that amplitude numbers are significantly lower compared when it was brand new 1 year ago! Full wind watch now for example I rarely see numbers like 260 degrees (or above) dial up at 0 hour (when brand new It was about 270-280 DU easily).
I know one of the key for the diagnosys for the issue are amplitudes lower then 200 degrees on vertical positions (9U, 3U) at 24 hours, so soon I will redo (after 1 year) the timegrapher new measurements
At least, I didnt notice the watch slow (yet).

[saxo3]

Your 3285 caliber is one of the best I have seen. Look at the average rate X along the power reserve. For 60 (!) hours the X remains in the range of -2/+2 s/d. Rates in 3U and 9U compensate very well. I find an excellent isochronism by plotting Xampl. vs Xrate.

[rnothog]

It'll be interesting to see what affected owners who chose to keep their watches are charged for the necessary repairs once the warranty expires. A sufficient time since the series introduction seems to have passed...forgive me if that has already been addressed.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by rnothog

It'll be interesting to see what affected owners who chose to keep their watches are charged for the necessary repairs once the warranty expires. A sufficient time since the series introduction seems to have passed...forgive me if that has already been addressed.

When the warranty is expired the service comes out of your own pocket.

[JC316]

Originally Posted by SearChart

When the warranty is expired the service comes out of your own pocket.

Correct!

[saxo3]

@EasyE

I have analyzed the here published timegrapher data for your present four 32xx watches.

From these measurements I derived the isochronism of the calibers using the method, which I had described before in this thread.

The following watches I analyzed:

(1) GMT-Master II, Ref. 126710BLNR, purchase date: 07/2019, timegrapher test: 07/2023

(2) WG Submariner, Ref. 126619B, purchase date: 05/2021, timegrapher test: 09/2023 after RSC repair

(3) YG Submariner, Ref. 126618, purchase date: 09/2021, timegrapher test: 01/2024

(4) DD40, Ref. 228238, purchase date: 12/2020, timegrapher test: 03/2023, after RSC repair

As can be seen in the graph below, all watches show a good 5-position average rate along the power reserve. Until 48 hours after full winding all movements remain within an accuracy of -4/+6 s/d and three watches are even within -2/+2 s/d, which are very good results.



After full winding (and watch remaining at rest position) the amplitudes of the movements continuously decrease over time, which is normal and happens for all manual watches.

The quality of the caliber can be derived from its isochronism behaviour: one only needs to measure amplitudes and rates, but at frequent time intervals, along the power reserve. I always suggested as many data points (0,12,24,36,48,60) as possible.

Afterwards, the analysis is simple: I calculated the average rate Xrate and average amplitude Xamplitude and plotted the result for each watch. Any healthy movement will show a linear correlation between Xr and Xa, fitting the data results in a slope value "m".

The higher this value "m" is the better the caliber isochronism is. In other words: with naturally decreasing caliber amplitudes the caliber rates change very little. A manual watch, which shows such a behaviour has a good isochronism and is healthy.

This method has been applied to your above described 4 watches. The best isochronism was found for your GMT, followed by the two SUBs, the DD40 is the worst of the compared watches.



(1) GMT-Master II, m = 125 °/s/d

(2) WG SUB (serviced 4 months ago), m = 67 °/s/d

(3) YG SUB, m = 32 °/s/d

(4) DD40 (serviced 10 months ago), m = 14 °/s/d

I think it would be very interesting to update (now) the timegrapher measurements for the DD40 and the GMT.

The key message is as follows: even for healthy 32xx movements, i.e., high amplitudes and good rates, one finds significant differences in the caliber isochronism. After weeks, months, or years of first ownership, any 32xx caliber can suddenly show the well known 32xx issue(s). BUT the watch has shown the first symptoms already a long time before when it started to change its isochronism although amplitudes were still high, rates were still good, and timekeeping was still very good, even within the famous -2/+2 s/d.

A significant change (over time) of the slope "m" is a very strong indication (or even a proof) that a 32xx watch has the issue(s). I hope that helps you and other 32xx watch owners who are interested in the technical part of 32xx caliber analysis.

[Toshk]

Originally Posted by saxo3

@EasyE

I have analyzed the here published timegrapher data for your present four 32xx watches.

From these measurements I derived the isochronism of the calibers using the method, which I had described before in this thread.

The following watches I analyzed:

(1) GMT-Master II, Ref. 126710BLNR, purchase date: 07/2019, timegrapher test: 07/2023

(2) WG Submariner, Ref. 126619B, purchase date: 05/2021, timegrapher test: 09/2023 after RSC repair

(3) YG Submariner, Ref. 126618, purchase date: 09/2021, timegrapher test: 01/2024

(4) DD40, Ref. 228238, purchase date: 12/2020, timegrapher test: 03/2023, after RSC repair

As can be seen in the graph below, all watches show a good 5-position average rate along the power reserve. Until 48 hours after full winding all movements remain within an accuracy of -4/+6 s/d and three watches are even within -2/+2 s/d, which are very good results.



After full winding (and watch remaining at rest position) the amplitudes of the movements continuously decrease over time, which is normal and happens for all manual watches.

The quality of the caliber can be derived from its isochronism behaviour: one only needs to measure amplitudes and rates, but at frequent time intervals, along the power reserve. I always suggested as many data points (0,12,24,36,48,60) as possible.

Afterwards, the analysis is simple: I calculated the average rate Xrate and average amplitude Xamplitude and plotted the result for each watch. Any healthy movement will show a linear correlation between Xr and Xa, fitting the data results in a slope value "m".

The higher this value "m" is the better the caliber isochronism is. In other words: with naturally decreasing caliber amplitudes the caliber rates change very little. A manual watch, which shows such a behaviour has a good isochronism and is healthy.

This method has been applied to your above described 4 watches. The best isochronism was found for your GMT, followed by the two SUBs, the DD40 is the worst of the compared watches.



(1) GMT-Master II, m = 125 °/s/d

(2) WG SUB (serviced 4 months ago), m = 67 °/s/d

(3) YG SUB, m = 32 °/s/d

(4) DD40 (serviced 10 months ago), m = 14 °/s/d

I think it would be very interesting to update (now) the timegrapher measurements for the DD40 and the GMT.

The key message is as follows: even for healthy 32xx movements, i.e., high amplitudes and good rates, one finds significant differences in the caliber isochronism. After weeks, months, or years of first ownership, any 32xx caliber can suddenly show the well known 32xx issue(s). BUT the watch has shown the first symptoms already a long time before when it started to change its isochronism although amplitudes were still high, rates were still good, and timekeeping was still very good, even within the famous -2/+2 s/d.

A significant change (over time) of the slope "m" is a very strong indication (or even a proof) that a 32xx watch has the issue(s). I hope that helps you and other 32xx watch owners who are interested in the technical part of 32xx caliber analysis.

Excellent as always. Thank you

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Toshk

Excellent as always. Thank you

Thanks a lot for your interest.

Addendum: The GMT-Master II, Ref. 126710BLNR, purchase date: 07/2019, has been measured twice with a timegrapher, both data sets were taken from t = 0 to 60 hours.

In the graph below I have now added the first data set, taken in 12/2022, which one can compare directly to the newer measurements from 07/2023. There is a clear change, but I do not understand its origin.

The newer data from 07/2023 are much more difficult to fit. For a reasonably good linear fit I had to neglect the data point at 169°. Consequently, the slope increased VERY much, to m= 125 °/s/d, which is an extremely high number compared to m = 16 °/s/d observed for the 12/2022 data.

I think the last measurement should be repeated to assess the isochronism of the BLNR caliber again.

Remark: it is normal that, at low 5-position averaged amplitudes, the isochronism often deviates from linearity. It is not the first time I observed that.