![]() |
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
View Poll Results: Does your 32xx movement seem to be 100% ok? | |||
Yes, no issues |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1,039 | 69.83% |
No, amplitude is low (below 200) but timekeeping is still fine |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
61 | 4.10% |
No, amplitude is low (below 200) and timekeeping is off (>5 s/d) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
388 | 26.08% |
Voters: 1488. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#3301 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
It is not a question of the Rolex model but the movement. The Day-Date 40 (caliber 3255) was released at Basel 2015.
The photo below indicates that the caliber is regulated in 5 (not 6) positions and COSC certified under specific conditions at temperatures of 8 °C, 23 °C, and 38 °C. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3302 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 4,774
|
I'm quite new at this whole movement measurement / evaluation business and have a couple questions (more later). First up, what is the Beat Error? Like, what is that measuring and how does that, if at all, relate to spd and amplitude, or even beat rate? With all of the measurements I have taken over the last week or two the BE has been consistent - average of about .12 across all measured watches. How is it, or what is the relation of amp:be:beat:spd? How can the beat be 28800 and a super consistent BE, yet the amplitude and spd are all over the board? That indicates to me that BE and Beat are linked but I have seen low amplitude with ok -spd, but for sure when spd drops out the amp is way down. Am I thinking about this wrong?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3303 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Answers to your questions about beat error, amplitude, and rates you might find here:
https://wahawatches.com/watch-talk-w...or-of-a-watch/ https://wahawatches.com/watch-talk-w...de-of-a-watch/ https://wahawatches.com/watch-talk-w...te-of-a-watch/ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3304 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: US
Watch: 124270
Posts: 56
|
A video that I watched on youtube suggested that a possible reason for the low amplitude and poor timekeeping is the balance staff. Apparently the balance staff in the 32XX movements (which connects the balance spring to the bridge) is attached differently than in the 31XX. The new attachment method for the staff is more susceptible to loosening over time, which would impact the amplitude.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3305 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Member 202♛
Posts: 1,811
|
Quote:
This article describes how the balance staff is different: https://www.precisionhorology.com/post/ljbhl (Download the .pdf) It states: <snip> Balance Assembly The balance in the 3235 is fairly similar to that of the 3135. It’s fitted with a Parachrom balance spring and Paraflex shock absorbers. This is the same set-up as a modern 3135 fitted into a Datejust II, so no real change there. However, the 3235 does come fitted with a new take on an old classic: a friction-fit balance staff. No more riveting balance staffs to the balances, making sure you aren’t hammering them out of flat, no checking to see whether the rivet actually holds (however, you should always check your work). Rolex claims makes is that the balance will not need poising every time, and that is a claim that I can verify, having changed many of these balance staffs, and only around half needed poising. I have to say, this is a great feature, and fun to play around with. It is a part that can still be hand-turned if required and will ensure a greater life-span to a balance. There is no risk of cutting too far when turning off the rivet in the lathe or hammering out the existing rivet. This is a great modern feature that will serve the industry well. It won’t be the last friction-fit balance staff we see. <snip>
__________________
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3306 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: US
Watch: 124270
Posts: 56
|
Quote:
Edit: around the 3:30 mark is when the watchmaker begins to discuss the balance staff. Last edited by Lunaen; 24 December 2022 at 10:33 AM.. Reason: Timestamp |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3307 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 123
|
Quote:
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3308 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3309 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Member 202♛
Posts: 1,811
|
Yes, that would have me… 126600 was fine [for 6 months] until it wasn’t… There is no way to change a vote in the poll once submitted…
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3310 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3311 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Quote:
![]() As for the interpretation of the poll: There are 4 times more poll voters than different contributors to the thread (see post #2972). That means the majority voted but did not post in this thread. Therefore, nobody knows why they voted no issues (or issues). Very long before the expiration of Rolex's 5-year warranty, all my 32xx watches significantly degraded in maximum amplitude values (after full winding) and eventually showed unacceptable timekeeping rates. Other members with several 32xx watches had the same problems, e.g. amanbra, CharlesN, Easy E ...) I have NOT even seen 1 (one) contribution on TRF where a member has shown that his 32xx watch keeps (or kept) high movement amplitudes (after full winding) together with good timekeeping over a period of several years. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3312 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The UK
Watch: I love them all.
Posts: 1,837
|
May I suggest that the reason you have not seen a Rolex 32xx equipped watch that keeps High Amplitudes after prolonged periods is because they quite simply don’t.
__________________
Regards, CharlesN Member of the IWJG. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3313 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3314 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 4,774
|
Quote:
Currently I’m tracking 5 for 5 on crap amplitude over time and all run slow. (Saxo, data will follow next week). |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3315 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Member 202♛
Posts: 1,811
|
Quote:
On the first part, I suppose I misunderstood the question ![]()
__________________
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3316 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Quote:
![]() Sea-Dweller Ref. 126600 (3235) after full winding In general, the watch accuracy on your wrist strongly depends on your wearing pattern and how the movement was regulated. You can compensate (either gain or lose) overnight by placing your watch in different rest positions. An example (my SD43) how one can obtain excellent timekeeping over a period of (at least) 2 months you can find here: https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...4&postcount=23 There was no particular reason to stop after 64 days except that I wanted to wear another watch. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3317 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Quote:
Is that correct or you still own the 126600? ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3318 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Member 202♛
Posts: 1,811
|
Yes correct… both are gone. Now I have a 3135 and 3130
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3319 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
As with all things and watch movements are no exception, it may have been a compromise situation where Rolex chose to live with the consequences of characteristicaly low amplitude compared with accepted industry norms. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3320 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3321 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Quote:
I have NOT even seen 1 (one) contribution on TRF where a member has shown that his 32xx watch keeps (or kept) high movement amplitudes (after full winding) together with good timekeeping over a period of several (4-5) years, i.e., starting from the date of purchase and without any RSC repair or regulation of the 32xx movement. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3322 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Once there is a “fix” perhaps we’ll finally know whether the movement was designed to run accurately for prolonged periods at low amplitude, and for some reason wasn’t doing that, or if the low amplitude itself is in fact a result of the main, still unsolved, problem. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3323 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3324 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Quote:
Only in a few posts you reported about your Explorer 124270 (caliber 3230) bought in May 2021. The timekeeping seemed to be stable and then started to degrade a bit. In April 2022 the timekeeping of your 3230 was -5 s/d and the amplitude "lowish 241" (your post 2385) https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=2385 From May 2021 to April 2022 the movement had degraded significantly. What happened to your 3230 watch since April? ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3325 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3326 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3327 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3328 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Understood.
It would be interesting to get some more technical information about this first watch (bought in May 2021) because 3230 issue reports are rare. Did it further degrade in rates and amplitudes? You have some numbers? Did you sell this watch before or after RSC repair? You own a timegrapher now or consider to buy one for the 3230 watch you have since 5 months? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3329 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 4,774
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3330 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 4,774
|
Quote:
Also, from one of the articles you sent: "It’s inversely proportional to the amplitude. That means that a decline in amplitude will cause the rate to increase." I think this makes sense to me. Yet, in each of my cases so far I see exactly the opposite. Amplitude drops and spd drops accordingly. This is also what I have been able to gather from this thread. Low = low. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 33 (1 members and 32 guests) | |
bigmcmuffins |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.