![]() |
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
View Poll Results: Does your 32xx movement seem to be 100% ok? | |||
Yes, no issues |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1,040 | 69.85% |
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 | 26.06% |
Voters: 1489. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#3541 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: West Chester PA
Posts: 399
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3542 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Georgia USA
Posts: 366
|
Dropped my 124060 off in NYC at the service center on Feb 1 for the same problem. I was originally quoted 4-6 weeks but when I got my confirmation email it said 9. A little disappointed in that turnaround time along with the fact I had to take my watch in on its 1 year anniversary. It ran slow out of the box from the AD and just got worse over the year.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3543 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: London
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
Same as the ones I had. Something very wrong with those. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3544 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,778
|
Rolex Instagram just made a post touting the 3235 movement… lol
It’s frustrating since the common client seems to be totally unaware
__________________
AP 15500ST (Silver) // ♛ Rolex 126334 (Blue Roman, Fluted, Jubilee) // Ω Moonswatch (Mission to Pluto) // G-Shock GA2100-1A1 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3545 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: London
Posts: 35
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3546 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Ireland
Posts: 327
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3547 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,821
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3548 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 332
|
I just commented on that post, but have zero hope that anything will happen.
I‘m quite convinced that the vast majority of Rolex owners have no idea of the problems with the 32xx movements and so there is no incentive for Rolex to fundamentally overhaul the movement. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3549 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2022
Location: Depends
Posts: 318
|
My cousin mentioned this to Paul Thorpe hoping he would raise awareness on the matter. Paul did respond to the comment on his YouTube channel but nothing has come of this.
If Paul is not prepared to speak up on the matter no one else will. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3550 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,821
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
I just posted this in another thread, I repeat to share with participants here.
Below are two different engravings on the 3235 movements. The left photo was published by Rolex SA yesterday, the right photo is from SearChart (aka Bas). ![]() I assume that the former "ADJ. 5 POS. + TEMP." represents a part of the COSC acceptance criteria while "SUPERLATIVE ADJ." is a more advanced adjustment procedure done by Rolex SA, i.e., the famous -2/+2 sec/day precision specification. Or does the new engraving come along with an improved 32xx movement which contains some visible component modifications to cure the 32xx issue(s)? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3551 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: London
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
Interesteing. Thanks for sharing. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3552 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Real Name: Tom
Location: Switzerland
Watch: too many
Posts: 1,149
|
Interesting thread.
I have the same problems with my Sub 126610, purchased in 2021. In the beginning, it was amazingly accurate, on the spot, a few seconds per month from atomic time. Then, after 12 months, it started to run slow, and I have the impression, it's getting worse and worse. Sorry I have no equipment to measure the correct values... Actually, the watch is at about -8 s/d, and although I can live with that, it starts to bother me to adjust the minute hand every 2 weeks... I have had many Rolexes in the past, and absolutely NONE of these had similar issues. With some background in physics and mechanical engineering, I can imagine that it is almost impossible to increase the power reserve from 48 hrs to 72 hours within the same volume available. If it was so easy, they had done this long time ago. This means, they had to make severe compromises and design many componants to its extreme. With the lube oils deteoriating over time, this might not have been the best choice...I suppose they have no permanent fix, unfortunately. Just my 2 cents. P.S. Unsure what to do with my Sub. Give it to service center? Or sell it? Really don't know. Tom |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3553 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Member 202♛
Posts: 1,811
|
Your experience mirrors many others here….
I’d have Rolex service it as it is still under warranty, then sell it; that is what I did with my 32xx movement watches. My watches are 31xx exclusively… -Sheldon
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3554 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Real Name: Tom
Location: Switzerland
Watch: too many
Posts: 1,149
|
Thanks.
That is probably what I will do. It's a pity, but... Tom |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3555 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: US
Watch: sub
Posts: 2,371
|
Quote:
https://watchesbysjx.com/2021/05/rol...-analysis.html They also made the mainspring barrel thinner to accommodate either a longer or more efficient mainspring. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3556 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Real Name: Tom
Location: Switzerland
Watch: too many
Posts: 1,149
|
Quote:
I knew that they made some fundamental changes; unfortunately, the long term result is not good. Tom |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3557 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,821
|
Quote:
(a) sell this Submariner soon, either with or without RSC repair, since it still has warranty until 2026. The remaining long guarantee is quite attractive for a new owner. (b) get this watch repaired, keep it, and hope that Rolex will find a permanent fix in the coming years. This probably means more than 1 RSC repair to anticipate. I would choose option (a). |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3558 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 34
|
I've got a 2022 Yachtmaster and it is definitely running between +3-6/day fast and I'm thinking of sending it in for warranty servicing.
Out of interest for those that sent in their 32xx movements for this problem did you go through your AD or direct to RSC? Whichever method, what do you say to them; that I believe it is running out of spec whether greater than or lower than the advertised +/-2 sec per day? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3559 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Earth
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 52
|
Quote:
DU -2s 281 0.1ms DD 0s 272 0.0ms 9U 0s 240 0,2ms 3U -4s 232 0,2 ms 6U 0s 235 0.1ms 12h: DU -2s 278 0.1 ms DD 0s 267 0.0 ms 9U 0s 239 0.2 ms 3U -4s 230 0,2ms 6U 0s 232 0.1 ms 24h: DU -1s 263 0.0 ms DD 0s 253 0.0 ms 9U -1s 225 0.2 ms 3U -3s 220 0.1 ms 6U 0s 228 0.1ms 36h: DU 0s 248 0.0 ms DD +1s 241 0.0ms 9U -1s 212 0,3ms 3U 0s 205 0.2ms 6U 0s 214 0.1ms 48h: DU 0s 236 0.0ms DD +1s 231 0.0ms 9U -5s 193 0.3ms 3U +3s 193 0.2 ms 6U 0s 190 0.1 ms 60h: DU +3s 194 0.0ms DD +3s 190 0.0ms 9U -10s 165 0.3ms 3U +9s 161 0.3 ms 6U -1s 158 0.2ms |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3560 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The UK
Watch: I love them all.
Posts: 1,837
|
Wow. That’s a great set of figures
I am slowly going over them bit by bit to see how the watch behaves in different positions over time. Well done I wonder if Saxo3 will see these figures soon …… He is the master of graph and visual enabling of data sets.
__________________
Regards, CharlesN Member of the IWJG. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3561 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Apr 2019
Real Name: Brad
Location: Purdue
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 9,237
|
Quote:
Yes. Option A, clause (i): sell to someone who doesn't believe in checking accuracy of watch and/or existence of 32xx issues.
__________________
♛ ✠ Ω 2FA Active |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3562 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7
|
Hello all - longtime reader and lurker here. Many, many thanks to all for sharing their experience and insight. I'm here because I was considering a DJ36 with 3235. In reading through this extensive body of work I was struck by a comment from Dirt (post #3398): "Personally I think it's an obscure issue that's directly related to the escapement which i don't think Rolex understands." Along these lines, is there any chance this gremlin lives in the Parachrom hairspring? It sounds hellishly complicated to make according to a 2018 description posted in the Rolex newsroom, and requires no more than .2 microns deviation in 50 microns of thickness over 20 cm. length. Is it possible that some strange fatigue or memory develops in places slightly out of tolerance in it, or some other weirdness takes place? In other words, is the pursuit of 70 hrs just going beyond the limits of the material? Apologies if this is a stupid question (or discussed before) but I have only made it through about half the posts so far-
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3563 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,821
|
Quote:
![]() Your 126710BLNR (3285 caliber) is within the known Rolex acceptance criteria: All amplitudes are well above 200 degrees (24 hours after full winding). The average rate X = -1.2 s/d (after full winding) is inside COSC (-4/+6 sec/day) and also inside owner's expectation (-2/+2 sec/day). Comparisons with other watches: The measured amplitudes (after full winding) are about the maximum what one can expect from a 32xx caliber: 270-280 degrees in horizontal positions and 240 degrees in vertical positions, which is very good. The average rate X remains inside the -2/+2 sec/day regime (marked in light green) until 60 hours (!) after full winding. In my view this really is a stunning result, which I have never seen (until now) for a 32xx movement. Interesting that after 36 hours the caliber loses rate in 9U position, which is compensated in 3U position where the caliber gains in rate. I have observed that (for a 32xx movement) only once before. Conclusion: This new watch shows, compared to other 32xx watches, an outstanding performance (amplitudes and rates) along the power reserve, congratulations. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3564 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Earth
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 52
|
Hi Saxo,
Thanks for the graphs. I own other 3 rolexes, older movements (2009 116713 GMT master II 3186 movement, 2011 116733 Datejust II 3136 movment and a 2008 116520 Daytona 4130 movement). All gain time (within COSC). But this new GMT BLNR 3285 movement SEEMS ( I didnt use on the wrist yet) to work on the "other band" loosing time. Now that I have collect all this data before using it, I will start to use it and see what happens in real life use. Another thing is, the full winding max amplitude was about 280 on this new GMT 3285. But on my other rolexes, the 3186 GMT II for example the full winding max amplitude is 298-300, the Daytona is 308-310 (the daytona was almost never used, stays in the box) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3565 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Earth
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 52
|
Full winding max amplitude about 282 in this 3285.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3566 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,821
|
Quote:
I recommend using the Watch Tracker app to log the timekeeping: one data point in the morning (before you put the watch onto your wrist) plus one data point in the evening (when you place the watch at rest) is completely sufficient. In the app (under comments) note what rest position you choose. Please come back in a few days or weeks with the results. How to achieve best timekeeping results you can find here: https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...4&postcount=23 Your observation is normal: the 3186 and 4130 are very good movements, they deliver higher amplitudes after full winding than the 32xx series. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3567 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,821
|
Power reserve rates & amplitudes for Rolex 3285 and 3235 calibers.
Here is a comparison of several power reserve measurements for 3285 and 3235 movements. The BLNR from EaglePilot is remarkable because the average rate Xr (in sec/day) stays (more or less) constant and even slightly increases with time. Until now I have not seen such a rise for a 32xx movement, neither for a new nor a repaired 32xx watch. Hence, the isochronism is slightly different for this specific 3285 caliber: a first measurable sign for an improvement? The graph for the average amplitudes Xa summarizes what I expect for a (very) good 3285 and 3235 movement. ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3568 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The UK
Watch: I love them all.
Posts: 1,837
|
I only have a very small screen available to me at the moment ……. My phone ……. But it looks like your watch is on the holder the wrong way around. The crown should be touching the microphone. The moving section should be beside the 9.
__________________
Regards, CharlesN Member of the IWJG. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3569 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Earth
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 52
|
Hi CharlesN,
you are right, I put the watch in the opposite way considering what you said about the correct position. When I read the owner manual of this Weishi timegrapher (I suppose these Weishi timegraphers are a chinese thing, the owner manual is horrible) I didnt understand the word they used there ("leader") referring to a watch part (?!?). English is not my natural language despite I can read and write in english, but I am not so proficient. The interesting thing is a lot of youtube channels and videos show the people (including some watchmakers) using this exact same timegrapher and putting the crown of the watch in the plastic slotted part of the timegrapher sensor, like the youtube channel printed picture that I attached in this post ( from the youtube channel "wrist watch revival", very cool watch channel for who like watches). Do you guys think the results will be different changing the watch position on the sensor? I just made a brief test now here changing the watch positions and I am getting the exact same results for rate, amplitude in both positions of the watch in the sensor. Anyway, I was planning to start using the watch on this weekend, but I can redo the test run. "wrist watch revival" youtube video link from where I print the second picture: https://youtu.be/la2ztR5askE |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3570 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,821
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Quote:
There is a physics reason why it's better that the watch crown is in contact with the microphone and not the case. The crown is the only watch part which is in direct mechanical contact with the movement, the case is not. Basically, the timegrapher microphone listens to the beat noise of the Swiss lever escapement directly via the crown. When the case touches the microphone this can lead to some signal reflections, between the movement and the case, which one should avoid. Often one does not measure a significant difference, but I always place the watch crown towards the timegrapher microphone. Any scratch avoiding microphone protection, e.g., the green tape you used, may lead to unwished signal damping, which will depend on material properties and thickness. Better avoid it or use something very thin. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 24 (0 members and 24 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.