ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
View Poll Results: Does your 32xx movement seem to be 100% ok? | |||
Yes, no issues | 1,046 | 69.83% | |
No, amplitude is low (below 200) but timekeeping is still fine | 62 | 4.14% | |
No, amplitude is low (below 200) and timekeeping is off (>5 s/d) | 390 | 26.03% | |
Voters: 1498. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Yesterday, 10:36 PM | #5251 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,860
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Thanks for the data. You have a very nice watch with a unique dial.
As I said above in #5249, already after 48 hours (2/3 of the PR), your 3285 does not have enough power to maintain all 3 vertical amplitudes at a sufficient level to ensure reasonable timekeeping. The good news is that your watch does not lose time in dial up position at rest. Your watch is not even 1 year old and still has 4 years of Rolex guarantee. Personally, I would prefer the same watch with a 3185 movement. |
Today, 01:32 AM | #5252 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 89
|
Oops. For some reason I thought the GMT came before the time-and-date version.
Quote:
|
|
Today, 01:35 AM | #5253 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: 🌏
Watch: This! 🍻
Posts: 169
|
Quote:
|
|
Today, 01:37 AM | #5254 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 89
|
Giving this a little more thought...
Here's a great question for the watchmakers that might help us better understand the relationship between more moving parts and worse performance: Are the parts replaced the same on all four 32xx calibres? Or are they frequently different, and do they all require replacements, or are some more just in need of regulation? This also demonstrates the great conflict between R&D and marketing: Marketing dictates that the "flagship" be released first when a new something-or-other comes out. Hence, the 3255 in the DD first. But it would have been far more prudent, IMO, to release the least complicated version first to get more "field data" on. The 3230 doesn't require any of the "rapid change" motions that come with a day or date wheel, nor does it need to exert the extra force to keep a fourth hand in motion. |
Today, 02:00 AM | #5255 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Serbia
Posts: 29
|
|
Today, 07:26 AM | #5256 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 8,010
|
Quote:
We need to be mindful of the fact that watch movements are literally a grab bag of compromises so at all times some criterior has got to be proritised over another and another. I think this thread has well demonstrated that Amplitude is probably more important in the grand scheme of these things than the mothership had ever appreciated as we know that the 32xx movements were never big on Amplitude. Perhaps the Chronergy escapement is another mistake in the history of horology? Also as has been mentioned in theses pages, a dual Spring barrel would be better utilised especially when pursuing much longer power reserves and may be a distinct advantage for a Chronergy escapement. |
|
Today, 08:18 AM | #5257 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2024
Location: Spain
Posts: 5
|
Quote:
Regards, Daniel |
|
Today, 08:52 AM | #5258 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 89
|
Quote:
1. Forget about gimmicks and just do a better finished version of the Tudor MT movement. The specs are awesome, and any reported systemic issues seem to have been ironed out long ago. They could have changed enough to avoid the perception they were the same. 2. Keep the 31xx for the 36mm pieces and do a proper long-PR movement for the 40mm+ pieces. The vast majority of manufactures do exactly that; look at VC, Chopard, Zenith, Omega, Blancpain, etc. The midsize pieces all have shorter PR than the largest. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 23 (0 members and 23 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.