32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[saxo3]

Source: https://revolutionwatch.com/rolex-fi...al-escapement/

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Dirt

The 33xx will put things right with the mothership.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

There you go again.
Sending out those negative waves.

Let's face it.
Rolex has to do something given the current circumstances they find themselves in.
Not that most people really care about these things.

Until something changes, our house shall remain a 32xx movement free zone.

[Goatrope]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Source: https://revolutionwatch.com/rolex-fi...al-escapement/

Thanks for posting this!

Very interesting question posed within the article:

" Why pursue an alternative when the Chronergy escapement is already one of the most efficient and robust designs in industrial watchmaking, if not watchmaking?

The answer likely lies in its fundamental advantages. While Chronergy refines the lever escapement with optimised geometry and materials, it does not fundamentally change the way energy is transmitted. It enhances efficiency by improving impulse timing and reducing losses, but its issue is age-old – the need for lubrication on its impulse surfaces."

That's one possible answer. Is it more likely Rolex have hit a wall in fixing the issue we discuss here?

Full disclosure - non-32xx household by choice.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Source: https://revolutionwatch.com/rolex-fi...al-escapement/

"It is an intriguing development given the brand’s proven success with the Chronergy, which has yielded some of the most precise movements in the world" ....but not very accurate

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

"It is an intriguing development given the brand’s proven success with the Chronergy, which has yielded some of the most precise movements in the world" ....but not very accurate

100 points. You found the key sentence in this article. Here is the another one:

"The Chronergy escapement was a prime example: a deeply researched, finely optimised evolution of the Swiss lever escapement, designed as a new standard across its entire production."

[mato123]

I wouldn't hold my breath. Filing for a patent means nothing. As stated in the article:

"Rolex has filed countless patents over the years, including detent and constant force escapements, many of which never materialise in production..."

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by mato123

I wouldn't hold my breath. Filing for a patent means nothing.

100 % agreed. Wondering who has written the Rolex propaganda parts in this article, seems clear, though.

[TheVTCGuy]

Saxo, I would like to offer all my knowledge and expertise on the 32xx movement, natural escapement, mechanical timepieces, and data gathering to assist you.









That was all of it, any questions?

Great job keeping this thread going

[Didlux]

Hello, my brand-new GMT was brought to AD who confirmed my measures : low amplitude after 24 hours. It took 5 days to be back without any other explanation than "serviced"

I tested again in same conditions and as you can see, results are now completely different. The average amplitude after 24 hours is same than before service after full winding and the precision is really good. I really wonder what they did but obviously, they did not want to give any information.

I hope now I’ll be quiet for years with this watch.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Didlux

It took 5 days to be back without any other explanation than "serviced"

That was very quick.
New numbers look good: DU and DD amplitudes are (very) high. Thanks for your update.

[Easy E]

That was super quick. Did your AD do this in-house of send to RSC? As stated, the new numbers look really good.

[Didlux]

Originally Posted by Easy E

That was super quick. Did your AD do this in-house of send to RSC? As stated, the new numbers look really good.

This was done in-house.

[DusanUsan]

Hello, i would like to reopen the topic. My BLNR started to loose 5 seconds/day after 2 years. I called to RSC and asked if it is common and the reaction was: "5 seconds quiet ant then... ... this should not happen" :D

Anyway, is here anybody who had it fixed and now for year or two it works perfectly? Thanks

[saxo3]

You have nothing to "reopen" in your first post here; read the thread

[TheVTCGuy]

FWIW. I don’t have a time-graph report, in my AD the watchmaker just retired (they are looking for a replacement if any watchmaker wants to work in San Diego) but my two-year-old 126619LB I set and check once a month. In the last 30 days it has lost 35 seconds, so operating well in the +- 2 and I am very happy with the accuracy.

[saxo3]

187 reading a thread that started 4 years ago is a lot.

[Via reggio]

Serviced a lot of these and generally they are lower in amplitude even with a fresh service.
A lot of times just a good cleaning of the impulse jewel and the fork slot boosts the amplitude a lot.

What I’m curious about is that they slow a lot with the low amplitude before service. After service if you let the mainspring down to have the movement around the same amplitudes around 200 the slowing is gone. Any ideas what that could be?
New part number on the pallet fork since some months back.

[saxo3]

Thanks for your interesting post.

Originally Posted by Via reggio

Serviced a lot of these and generally they are lower in amplitude even with a fresh service.

Are you an AD or RSC watchmaker?

Originally Posted by Via reggio

A lot of times just a good cleaning of the impulse jewel and the fork slot boosts the amplitude a lot.

Can you show us some photos before and after the cleaning?

Originally Posted by Via reggio

What I’m curious about is that they slow a lot with the low amplitude before service.

Yes, obviously and shown (with data) very often in this thread.

Originally Posted by Via reggio

After service if you let the mainspring down to have the movement around the same amplitudes around 200 the slowing is gone.

I don't understand what you mean. Can you describe better and in more detail, please?

Originally Posted by Via reggio

New part number on the pallet fork since some months back.

Now do you know the difference between pallet forks? Alread asked in June 2024, #5028.
What are the old and new part numbers?

There has been a lot of talk about the 32xx pallet fork in the past, but nothing really substantial to understand the issue.

[Omarion07]

After watching the Rolex teaser trailer “Building tomorrow, here and now”, which is showing some sort of a new movement with a Syloxi hair spring. Could we see the 33XX unveiled on Tuesday?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by Omarion07

After watching the Rolex teaser trailer “Building tomorrow, here and now”, which is showing some sort of a new movement with a Syloxi hair spring. Could we see the 33XX unveiled on Tuesday?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If a 33xx is indeed unveiled I'm contacting TDs asap to unload my last 32xx watch. That would indeed be the confirmation I'm looking for that these movements are duds.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

If a 33xx is indeed unveiled I'm contacting TDs asap to unload my last 32xx watch. That would indeed be the confirmation I'm looking for that these movements are duds.

You need the announcement of a 33xx to confirm that 32xx movements are 'duds'? Why one would have confidence in 33xx? Asking for a friend.

[Goatrope]

Originally Posted by saxo3

You need the announcement of a 33xx to confirm that 32xx movements are 'duds'? Why one would have confidence in 33xx? Asking for a friend.

If only they would announce the return of the 31xx, THAT would be something.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Goatrope

If only they would announce the return of the 31xx, THAT would be something.

My friend requested 3

[PO.Victory]

Originally Posted by Goatrope

If only they would announce the return of the 31xx, THAT would be something.

Could you imagine?!?!?! 32xx, Rolex’s New Coke!

[cascadez71]

Originally Posted by Goatrope

If only they would announce the return of the 31xx, THAT would be something.

Would be smart. Reliable, classic, durable movement. But of course would never happen.

Many of the new Tudor MT movements seem solid...and this new escapement movement in the Land Dweller? Future of all Rolex movements?

I got rid of a 3235 for a 3135. Family members not 'upgrading' due to movement issues, rather they just all sent for service instead...

[Seo]

the new calibre is 7135. Hope it proves to be more reliable than the 32xx.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by cascadez71

Would be smart. Reliable, classic, durable movement. But of course would never happen.

Many of the new Tudor MT movements seem solid...and this new escapement movement in the Land Dweller? Future of all Rolex movements?

I got rid of a 3235 for a 3135. Family members not 'upgrading' due to movement issues, rather they just all sent for service instead...

Potential issue with the Tudor movements is they’re essentially non-repairable. Tudor simply movement swaps refurbished movements at service time, and they don’t supply parts to third parties. Searchart was even saying they don’t have service manuals at the RSC. Considering Rolex won’t even service my ‘70s Tudor watches now, that’s a concern, since third parties may not be able to fix the new movements in the future.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Potential issue with the Tudor movements is they’re essentially non-repairable. Tudor simply movement swaps refurbished movements at service time, and they don’t supply parts to third parties. Searchart was even saying they don’t have service manuals at the RSC. Considering Rolex won’t even service my ‘70s Tudor watches now, that’s a concern, since third parties may not be able to fix the new movements in the future.

From that time frame Tudor used mainly ETA movements so movement parts easily available to any watchmaker,but parts for case, dial, bracelet, etc Rolex only.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Seo

the new calibre is 7135. Hope it proves to be more reliable than the 32xx.

A new "Land-Dweller" is rumoured to be powered by a 7135 movement, some people say it looks similar to the 7140 caliber used in the 1908. I don't know.

If true, a 7135 will not replace the 32xx as its functionality is limited to day and time, so it can not become a replacement caliber for the GMT's (3285).

As for the name, whether one likes it or not, Rolex registered the Land-Dweller trademark back in 08/2023.

Conclusion, one day before W&W 2025: the Rolex hype and marketing works perfectly, but the 32xx issues will probably continue to entertain us here.