32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

I have considered this already. Very well may just do that.

Your new 3285 also exhibits a poor isochronism. As a final measurement (after approximately 1-2 months), I recommend to perform again a series of measurements at 0, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 hours to ascertain whether the isochronism has undergone any changes. You probably already thought of that.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Easy E

On the wrist this watch appears to run fine, as described above, you probably wouldn't notice. On one hand that is really the point of the watch. On the other, when you look under the hood there is a different story. I do have a question regarding "break in." Pretty sure I know the answer, but here goes. I have read many times about giving a watch a break in period (duration varies). By winding, wearing, letting run all the out and repeating, what if anything will that procedure do to "loosen" this watch up?

A most interesting cunundrum with respect to the on the wrist performance vs looking under the hood.
As much as it goes against the grain and knowing what you know looking under the hood, i'm not so sure that i would pursue it any further and wait and see with it as a point of interest or curiosity until something changes with the timekeeping or something else.
Having said that the pull of the 5 year warranty would be the most prudent course of action, especially as accidental damage to the watch can happen at any time which would negate warranty.

The run in period has already happened before shipping the watch. They always used to say it was roughly a couple of weeks for them to settle in.

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by Easy E

So then to me, the next most obvious question is what is the difference between the pallet forks?

Originally Posted by Via reggio

Dont really know, they look the same

Thought about this a bit more and wonder if we should be asking a different question: What was wrong with the original fork that was fixed by a replacement?Rather than assuming a design change to the fork itself, what if somehow, through normal wear, the original became deformed somehow?

Could that at least give a clue as to the problem's origin?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

Thought about this a bit more and wonder if we should be asking a different question: What was wrong with the original fork that was fixed by a replacement?Rather than assuming a design change to the fork itself, what if somehow, through normal wear, the original became deformed somehow?

Could that at least give a clue as to the problem's origin?

Short answer: no.
Lubrication and epilames have been suspected, read this thread.

[saxo3]

Does anyone have a watch with a caliber 4131, 7140, 9002?

It would be very interesting to test them (with a timegrapher) immediately after purchase.

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Short answer: no.
Lubrication and epilames have been suspected, read this thread.

Ok, sure, the key word being "suspected" here. I've skimmed the thread (though it's a bit lengthy...) and realize that there have been numerous hypotheses. And I'm no watchmaker, but it seems that whatever the issue is, it's systemic.

I also have seen the posts where it's been confirmed that certain parts are displaying visual wear where none should be, whatever the root cause may be. So, it would be reasonable to ask why changing the pallet fork worked:

1. Is it because it has in fact been modified quietly?
2. Is it because the systemic issue caused premature wear/deformity to the original (possibly difficult to see without magnification)?


Another option (couldn't tell if it was already tried during service), is if it's unrelated to the fork itself, and simply the act of uninstalling and reinstalling it solving the problem (perhaps only temporarily)?

[saxo3]

From the reported facs that new 32xx watches (2023/24) as well as older (2018/19) but unworn + very little worn 32xx watches have the same type of issue (too low amplitudes after full winding) yields to the conclusion that wear is not the root cause of the 32xx problem. Three supporting posts I quote from a RSC watchmaker:

-----
(1) I knew it was worse than we thought when 32xx's come in and have no wear at all, yet run terrible. Or when you serviced one and it's perfectly lubricated, yet it cannot even reach 200 degrees fully wound dial up...

(2) Not specific to the 3230, I've unfortunately seen this on all types. Amplitude is checked before the date mechanism is assembled. The plan of action is to start with replacing the balance staff, then pallet fork, escape wheel, rest of the gear train. Pallet fork and balance staff replacement usually get me enough amplitude to barely reach tolerance...

(3) Correct, parts that did not show any sign of wear/deterioration at all that are replaced out of desperation to reach a minimum amplitude off 200 degrees after 24hrs.
A 24 hours test can be simulated by releasing a couple of ratchet wheel rotations. This problem runs so much deeper than just migration of lubricants and a pivot that occasionally wear out prematurely.
-----

I stop here and will not continue with speculations. That is not the objective of this thread!

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Does anyone have a watch with a caliber 4131, 7140, 9002?

It would be very interesting to test them (with a timegrapher) immediately after purchase.

I have a 4131. Most accurate and position-independent movement I've owned so far.

I have zeroed out my 32xx collection finally. I would sell this Daytona too if it wasn't so accurate. I get +0.3 to +0.6 whether I wear it or leave it on the Orbita for a week. I realize that's not amplitude vs reserve time.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by EEpro

I have a 4131. Most accurate and position-independent movement I've owned so far.

I have zeroed out my 32xx collection finally. I would sell this Daytona too if it wasn't so accurate. I get +0.3 to +0.6 whether I wear it or leave it on the Orbita for a week. I realize that's not amplitude vs reserve time.

If you don’t mind me asking, what is it about your current Daytona that you consider punting that one?

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by Easy E

If you don’t mind me asking, what is it about your current Daytona that you consider punting that one?

The Daytona truly is pretty damn good. It's easily the best Rolex I've owned and I think I've owned them all except Day Date. I have soured on the brand and what to me feels like fake or overstated luxury.

I have been enjoying my Omega 321 which is very legible, has a comically comfortable bracelet, great lume, beautiful movement, and my two remaining VCs.

It's safe for now but I won't hold it through service. Once that time comes I'll negotiate that into the sale to a TS here and move on.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by EEpro

The Daytona truly is pretty damn good. It's easily the best Rolex I've owned and I think I've owned them all except Day Date. I have soured on the brand and what to me feels like fake or overstated luxury.

I have been enjoying my Omega 321 which is very legible, has a comically comfortable bracelet, great lume, beautiful movement, and my two remaining VCs.

It's safe for now but I won't hold it through service. Once that time comes I'll negotiate that into the sale to a TS here and move on.

Interesting timing on this post as I've seriously soured on the brand recently as well. The market has definitely softened so I thought the AD experience would get better, but strangely it's gotten worse. I've had used car dealers treat me better. It had already gotten to the point where I've reduced my visits to Rolex ADs, and I had a really nasty visit today that was so bad it's gotten me contemplating actually selling the two I have left and moving on from the brand altogether.

I think it's appropriate I'm posting this here because I was literally thinking "I must be insane to tolerate being treated like this just for the privilege of purchasing what may be a lemon watch".

Anyway, rant over, back to regular 32xx programming...

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by EEpro

I have a 4131. Most accurate and position-independent movement I've owned so far.

I have zeroed out my 32xx collection finally. I would sell this Daytona too if it wasn't so accurate. I get +0.3 to +0.6 whether I wear it or leave it on the Orbita for a week. I realize that's not amplitude vs reserve time.

Thanks, we both understand what accuracy alone means.

For the many daily guests who read this thread without posting, 70 (!) just at this moment, I want to repeat the following important points:

(1) Accuracy of any 32xx watch is NOT the criteria to decide if the caliber has the low amplitude issue or not.
(2) The amplitudes, especially in the three vertical positions, are the main criteria.
(3) This also applies to the new 2023 watches with 4131, 7140, and 9002 calibers, which all have the Rolex Chronergy escapement.


EEpro, do you remember 4668 and 4669? Just kidding, could not resist