32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Toshk]

Originally Posted by JeanGenie

It was 8 seconds over three weeks. Some days it gained 0 during that time.

The past 5 days have been a solid +1 spd, timed against time.gov.

+1 per day is much better. Ideal rate as far as I am concerned.

Against my own convictions I bought another Submariner last November. Didn’t expect it to work well at all and was already asking for quotes to sell it, but surprisingly it did stay in +. Just over 1 second per day fast.

It is currently + 46 seconds since last time I changed time zone 53 days ago. Worn pretty much 24/7.

[spoovy]

New Rolly owner here, Explorer 124270, bought new February 2025 from Oxford England. Looks healthy so far as you would hope!

0hr	DU	DD	3U	6U	9U	Ave	AveH	AveV	Delta
Rate	1	0	-1	3	0	-0.6	0.5	0.7	4
Amp	287	284	247	245	242	-261	286	245	45
Err	0	0	0.1	0.2	0.2	-0.1	0	0.2	0.2
									
24hr	DU	DD	3U	6U	9U	Ave	AveH	AveV	Delta
Rate	1	0	-1	1	0	-0.2	0.5	0.0	2
Amp	268	263	233	235	237	-247.2	265.5	235.0	35
Err	0	0	0.2	0.1	0.1	-0.08	0	0.1	0.2
									
48hr	DU	DD	3U	6U	9U	Ave	AveH	AveV	Delta
Rate	2	0	-2	-2	-1	0.6	1	-1.7	4
Amp	252	245	216	210	215	-227.6	248.5	213.7	42
Err	0	0	0.1	0.3	0.2	-0.12	0	0.2	0.3

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

So, here’s a question, kind of general for anyone’s input. Let’s say my 3235 comes back and continues to have issues, bad enough (as some TRFers have stated) that they no longer want a watch with the 32 movement and have moved on. Let’s bypass vintage for a moment, like the 3186 for example, and stick to current movement’s, which ones are “safe.” Is the SkyDweller? The DayDate? Heck we might even have an as yet undetected issue with the new movement in the Land Dweller. I guess my question is has there been results with other current movement’s that are also showing issues?

This is an opinion and only that. The 9001/9002 SkyDwellers are quite good, also a relatively high complication. Same goes for the 4130/4131 Daytonas. Day Dates are affected by the 32 issue. The new LandDwellers 71XX are a completely different architecture, may be the greatest thing in modern watchmaking, maybe not, Too new to tell - looks cool though.

[JeanGenie]

Originally Posted by Toshk

+1 per day is much better. Ideal rate as far as I am concerned.

Against my own convictions I bought another Submariner last November. Didn’t expect it to work well at all and was already asking for quotes to sell it, but surprisingly it did stay in +. Just over 1 second per day fast.

It is currently + 46 seconds since last time I changed time zone 53 days ago. Worn pretty much 24/7.

Did you get a date or no-date?

[Toshk]

Originally Posted by JeanGenie

Did you get a date or no-date?

No date

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by saxo3

No way, Paul!
What about buying a timegrapher, measuring and posting some data from your 32xx watch before and after the RSC repair? That would make an interesting contribution.

Good idea!

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Good idea!

Weishi 1900 … buy it just for fun. If your head explodes again, we will find a new one.

[spoovy]

Explorer 124270 (3230), bought Feb '25:

0hr	DU	DD	3U	6U	9U	Ave	AveH	AveV	Delta
Rate	1	0	-1	3	0	-0.6	0.5	0.7	4
Amp	287	284	247	245	242	-261	286	245	45
Err	0	0	0.1	0.2	0.2	-0.1	0	0.2	0.2
									
24hr	DU	DD	3U	6U	9U	Ave	AveH	AveV	Delta
Rate	1	0	-1	1	0	-0.2	0.5	0.0	2
Amp	268	263	233	235	237	-247.2	265.5	235.0	35
Err	0	0	0.2	0.1	0.1	-0.08	0	0.1	0.2
									
48hr	DU	DD	3U	6U	9U	Ave	AveH	AveV	Delta
Rate	2	0	-2	-2	-1	0.6	1	-1.7	4
Amp	252	245	216	210	215	-227.6	248.5	213.7	42
Err	0	0	0.1	0.3	0.2	-0.12	0	0.2	0.3

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Weishi 1900 … buy it just for fun. If your head explodes again, we will find a new one.

Head or timegrapher?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by spoovy

Explorer 124270 (3230), bought Feb '25

Rates and amplitudes are good.
Err 0? (does not exist)

Originally Posted by Easy E

Head or timegrapher?

Timegrapher first.

[spoovy]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Rates and amplitudes are good.
Err 0? (does not exist)

Yes error was zero in those cases. I actually got the formulas slightly wrong somehow so the averages are showing negatives instead of positives, but I can't seem to edit my post to correct it.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by spoovy

Yes error was zero in those cases.

No, what you call 'Error = 0' is probably the fact that the number on your timegrapher display did not change during the measurement. This would be the case if you were using a Weishi 1000. However, this does not mean that the precision of your rate numbers is ±0 s/d.

[spoovy]

Originally Posted by saxo3

No, what you call 'Error = 0' is probably the fact that the number on your timegrapher display did not change during the measurement. This would be the case if you were using a Weishi 1000. However, this does not mean that the precision of your rate numbers is ±0 s/d.

Beat error.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by spoovy

Beat error.

Which timegrapher did you use?

[Opifex]

Originally Posted by SearChart

These are healthy looking numbers

Full wind:

DU: +1.5 s/d 273 degrees 0.0ms
DD: +1.3 s/d 271 degrees 0.0ms
6U: -3.0 s/d 232 degrees 0.0ms
9U: -2.9 s/d 234 degrees 0.1ms
3U: -4.2 s/d 234 degrees 0.2ms

t = 24

DU: +1.8 s/d 276 degrees 0.0ms
DD: +1.4 s/d 267 degrees 0.0ms
6U: -2.4 s/d 236 degrees 0.0ms
9U: -2.6 s/d 235 degrees 0.1ms
3U: -4.0 s/d 233 degreees 0.2ms

Conditions:

Measurements taken using a Weishi 1900 timegrapher with an ambient temperature of 70F/21C for all measurements.

Observations:

While amplitude remains roughly the same compared to measurements taken six months ago the movement has lost a few more seconds per day.

[spoovy]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Which timegrapher did you use?

Weishi 1000

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Opifex

Full wind:

DU: +1.5 s/d 273 degrees 0.0ms
DD: +1.3 s/d 271 degrees 0.0ms
6U: -3.0 s/d 232 degrees 0.0ms
9U: -2.9 s/d 234 degrees 0.1ms
3U: -4.2 s/d 234 degrees 0.2ms

t = 24

DU: +1.8 s/d 276 degrees 0.0ms
DD: +1.4 s/d 267 degrees 0.0ms
6U: -2.4 s/d 236 degrees 0.0ms
9U: -2.6 s/d 235 degrees 0.1ms
3U: -4.0 s/d 233 degreees 0.2ms

Very unusual that (within the precision of your measuremts = not given) there is no difference in amplitudes (and rates) between t = 0 and t = 24. Are you sure about these figures?

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

He means me

lol. if you don't mind me asking Paul and if memory serves you also had a black sub 126610LN that had the same problem right? So 2 out of 2 with a 32xx series cal which means 100% failure rate so far?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by FTX I

lol. if you don't mind me asking Paul and if memory serves you also had a black sub 126610LN that had the same problem right? So 2 out of 2 with a 32xx series cal which means 100% failure rate so far?

You checked all his 96 posts in this thread?
Indeed … #2189

[spoovy]

(deleted; mistaken)

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by saxo3

You checked all his 96 posts in this thread?
Indeed … #2189

Nope lol. I remember when our buddy Paul made fun of this thread in the past but now I think he's a believer.

TBH this persistent issue never addressed by Rolex made me lose a lot of respect for the brand.

[Opifex]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Very unusual that (within the precision of your measuremts = not given) there is no difference in amplitudes (and rates) between t = 0 and t = 24. Are you sure about these figures?

I’m going to run them again and repost 😊

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

You checked all his 96 posts in this thread?
Indeed … #2189

I remember quite well and thought it a little amusing with regard to the latest revelations.
I only hope that Paul has made the appropriate conribution to the poll.
Maybe we need another review poll to help keep things on the up and up for the unfortunates that have watches which have succumbed the the 32xx lurgy?
Thinking of poor Easy

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by FTX I

lol. if you don't mind me asking Paul and if memory serves you also had a black sub 126610LN that had the same problem right? So 2 out of 2 with a 32xx series cal which means 100% failure rate so far?

Oh no
I never thought of it like that.
Maybe it's all just a rumour spread around the internet.
It can't be real.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by FTX I

lol. if you don't mind me asking Paul and if memory serves you also had a black sub 126610LN that had the same problem right? So 2 out of 2 with a 32xx series cal which means 100% failure rate so far?

No, not true. I did have the stainless sub, brand new when it first came out, but I never had problems with it. Now, I owned that sub less then a year, my White Gold sub is at the two year point, which I believe is when problems generally start showing(?)

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by saxo3

You checked all his 96 posts in this thread?
Indeed … #2189

By golly you’re right! I forgot about that taco stand replacing the battery.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

No, not true. I did have the stainless sub, brand new when it first came out, but I never had problems with it.

??? The 126610LN (with 3235) was introduced in 2020. You posted problems wirh a 126610LN in 12/2021. Was that your second 126610LN?

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

By golly you’re right! I forgot about that taco stand replacing the battery.

Paul, did you forget some detail after one of your head explosions? On 29.12.2021 you posted the following battery joke as well as RSC work!



For 32xx movements, you bought 2 of 2 watches (or more?) and I bought 3 of 3 watches that all 5 developed the well know caliber issues, i.e., we both have 100 % failure rates. Welcome to the club.

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

……Now, I owned that sub less then a year, my White Gold sub is at the two year point, which I believe is when problems generally start showing(?)

No, there isn't a specific time. There are timegrapher data reports in this thread showing the 32xx issue from the very beginning (new 2024 watches).
Again, buy a cheap machine (Weishi 1900) and test this white gold Submariner both (!) before and after RSC work. That serves you as a quality check but also as a new reference data set for the future, in case the watch shows issues again (after RSC repair).

[TheVTCGuy]

I am wondering if your 32 thread is indicative of an over-all decrease in quality in Rolex… well… Rolex. I have had several watches returned for “overhaul” over the last 20 years.


Ok, so editing this because I wanted to think which ones had to be sent back. Here is the list

2009 - 116520
2013- 216570
2017 - 126334
2022 - 126610
2025 - 126619

If I’m not mistaken, three of those five were 32X. I am not a flipper but tend to get a new watch and replace every couple years so many of the ones I purchased I did not keep for the full five year service warranty, of the ones that did, I think only the SkyDweller is the one that made it without having to be sent in for overhaul. Interesting.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

…Ok, so editing this because I wanted to think which ones had to be sent back. Here is the list

2009 - 116520
2013- 216570
2017 - 126334
2022 - 126610
2025 - 126619

If I’m not mistaken, three of those five were 32X.

Yes, thanks for the clarification. I understand that all three of your 32xx watches (Refs. 126334, 126610, 126619) developed issues during the warranty period.

As you like simple calculations: with an assumed 32xx defect rate of extremely high 70 % your chances of buying three defective watches were 0.7 x 0.7 x 0.7 = 0.343 = 34.3 %

As of today, the poll in this thread suggests that about 30% of the 32xx watches reported here have issues, with 70% having no issues. I don't believe these numbers!

In your case, a 30% defect rate would result in a probability of 0.3^3 = 2.7 %

[FTX I]