![]() |
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 |
![]() |
#4831 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2024
Location: USA
Posts: 12
|
I’m surprised I don’t see many YouTube influencers covering this. If this is widely known, this bring down the waitlist drastically and force Rolex to act more urgently.
Let’s all try to get YouTubers to cover this issue more. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4832 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 167
|
So my 126610 that was running 4 seconds slow a day was regulated 10 days ago. Now it’s going between 4 and 5 seconds fast a day. Should I bring it back for adjustment ?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4833 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Real Name: Bob
Location: U.S.A.
Watch: 1655
Posts: 62,885
|
Quote:
Better fast than slow Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Founder & Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4834 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 167
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4835 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2024
Location: Belgien
Posts: 49
|
I wonder if I should buy an old 31xx in like new condition or a new 32xx, funny thing is both are probably best taken straight to service.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4836 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Real Name: Bob
Location: U.S.A.
Watch: 1655
Posts: 62,885
|
Quote:
Four or five seconds fast is ok If it was running very fast then a visit to the watchmaker would be in order Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Founder & Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4837 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 167
|
Perfect. Thanks ! I will track how it goes
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4838 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 4,777
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4839 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 4,777
|
My understanding of the 32 issue is that it can’t really be regulated out. It is my opinion that the regulation you had done was really just a hack and if your watch does have the 32 issue it will come back. Of course, without any real data to go off of, this is just speculation of my part. I would take the watch to your AD or RCS and ask to have a timegraph test run.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4840 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
The key to success is precision. One needs a movement that's showing precision before it becomes a reasonable proposition to pursue accuracy. To answer your question. Yes, it would appear to be out of spec. I don't know if I would send it in under the circumstances as it may be a bit fast for my liking, but if it's precise I may well let it slide given they start running slow when they've gone bad ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4841 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
You have around a 75% chance that you will get a good one with a 32xx movement. But closer to a 100% chance with a 31xx movement. It's your money. How much do you value the cost of your money? And how much do you value a 70 hour power reserve ? Can you realistically use it? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4842 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Quote:
Why it is not 90% or 50% or 10% or less? Don't refer to the poll results... It may help to look back at my post 3860 from April 2023. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4843 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
As most people are drawn to this thread and the thread title spells out its intent, I believe it's entirely reasonable to refer to it or draw conclusions based on the figures. I never said the numbers were absolutes and have always based my replies on approximations. As has been discussed in this thread and others that relate to the issue, nobody can possibly know what the actual figure is as the only ones in a position to determine and ascribe a final figure aren't going to tell let alone admit anything. Anyway, the around 75% figure I put forward was a comparatively number just as the number I put forward for the 31xx movement was. It's simply a matter of perspective ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4844 | ||
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Yes, but I draw different conclusions than you and others.
Quote:
Quote:
About the poll numbers: in my view these numbers are totally misleading since many of the "no-problem voters" did not participate with one single post in this thread and also never proofed that their 32xx watches have NO problem with loo low amplitudes. It's easy to vote "no problem" and move on without any contribution and without any data input. Therefore, I believe that the defect rate is MUCH higher than the 29.6 % taken from the poll as of today. Let's take your approximate 75 % of "good" 32xx movements and about 25 % of "bad" 32xx movements. Now have a look at my post 3860 and explain how one member (Easy_E) can own 6 (out of 8*) watches with the well-known 32xx low amplitude issue. Explain that to me, with numbers, assuming that the defect rate only is about 25%. *6 out of 8 was in April 2023. As of today, Easy_E had owned 7 defective 32xx watches (out of 9 in total so far), see his post #43 in another thread. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4845 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
I actually agree with your analysis and if you go way back in this, you may well find that I was the very first on the forum to put that possibility forward. I was the first to attribute dog status to the 32xx movement. I was also the first to put forward that only a 33xx movement could provide some kind of salvation, and that was assuming The Mothership could get their house in order. It's just that 25% is an incredibly high number for a failure rate to start with in any ones language, that if it were cars, electric kettles, microwaves or hammers that had the handles breaking off it would normally spell the end of the brand. With the reality being that Rolex is literally too big now to fail as far as the industry and general public are concerned. Except that with just about every report in the media about shady people, crime syndicates or big international drug busts and the name Rolex always being mentioned along with very flash cars and illegal weapons, one may think Rolex invented Teflon and perfected protection rackets around the brand. There certainly are willing influential conspirators that have more sway by their silence than a few faceless people shoved aside and into a cupboard within an obscure corner of the internet. I think those of us who have had a good many Rolex watches with movements dating back a number of decades and have grown to admire and respect how reliable they can be would probably find any number north of 5% utterly incredulous for any consumer goods let alone 25% or potentially more. Probably way more as you and i suggest, as EasyE is a prime example of an unimaginable worst case scenario that it's difficult to fully comprehend and I have communicated with another from the forum with equally disastrous experiences as EasyE. It's not good either way ![]() For me, communicating with a member who is potentially a bit on the fence, I had determined that 25% was a good number to put out there that would make an ordinary person truly take stock and motivate them to move in a direction which is in their best interests. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4846 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Quote:
Your mentioned 75% and 25% are just some unverified numbers used (by you) to highlight the overall situation for this 32xx caliber series because one can consider that 25% failure rate is already extremely high. I get your point. If we want to be consistent with the present poll result in this thread, the "source" of your numbers, one can probably say that, based on a TRF poll statistic with 1433 votes collected between January 2021 and April 2024, at least 30 % of 32xx movements have developed the low amplitude issue during the 5-year warranty period. Back to probabilities to buy several watches which develop the well known issues: with an assumed 32xx caliber failure rate of 30% the probability that I bought my 3 different 32xx watches, which in fact all developed the low amplitude issue, was 2.7 %. So EasyE was extremely unlucky for his 6 (out of 8) 32xx watches? The probability for him was 0.07%. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4847 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
I'm a little out of date with the roughly 25%. Last time I looked at it the number was below 30% and now it's creeping up a bit you say. It's no good, and no good can come from no good. It lends more credence to the proposition that one is likely to derive more satisfaction from a 31xx movement over a 32xx. That fix can't come soon enough it would seem, or bring on that 33xx movement so the whole disasterous saga can be put to rest. I'll wager the 33xx will be able to be retrofitted into the same hole for an entire movement swap so that Rolex can claim that with each Rolex watch, comes an upgrade path for new and improved technology movements for the life of the watch which will only apply to the original owner should they chose to take up the offer. There you go folks. You heard it here first ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4848 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
@Dirt, congratulations ... you just made it to 293 contributions (in this thread) without having owned a single 32xx watch and without any caliber data point.
![]() An achievement which either merits a TRF Bronze Medal or the TRF Ig Nobel Prize. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4849 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Real Name: PaulG
Location: Georgia
Posts: 41,433
|
As long as we are peering into the future...
And... The current 32xx discussion aside. If a "Rolex Recharge" line of hybrid smartwatch comes to market, I think a 33xx would be the right place to start. Maybe in a Tudor branded model? Special solar recharge dials, GPS clocking, and a 33xx with micromotor - Ronda and Rolex could do a colab to improve the state of the art. Perfect intro for all... In a hybrid smartwatch, the micromotors drive hands independently and could do so for bidirectionally time adjustment (think of GMT set/reset on the fly). The current state of the horology resolution is 1°, i.e. 360 steps per revolution. If they got that down to .6° it would make a center seconds hand so smooth that no pair of eyes could see the sweep as incremental movement. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
__________________
Does anyone really know what time it is? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4850 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 4,777
|
Quote:
May it be so. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4851 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 4,777
|
Quote:
Remarkably small odds. Thanks that assessment. Either the problem is, in fact, much higher, or every time I buy a watch someone in Geneva stabs an Easy E voodoo doll. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4852 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
Only Bronze? Dirt, must do better, must do better, must do better. Dirt is a baaad boy. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4853 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
Besides data can be manipulated like statistics. Regardless, I feel your pain and empathise with you. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4854 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: L'Ecosse
Posts: 54
|
Quote:
I fully wound the movement at outset (70-80 turns of the crown) and the watch was dial up for the whole time. FYI - my BLRO was returned after its return visit to Rolex Kings Hill (4 months initial visit followed by 3 months 2nd visit, where this took me to 6 months outside my 5yr warranty, but FOC as originally submitted in time) and the movement readings were now in line with Rolex requirements - and they remain fine (1 month later). My SDc amplitude has dropped in recent months, now below 200 after 24 hours, so I will be returning this just before its 5th birthday in December. My LVc (3 years old this June) is showing no issues as yet. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4855 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2024
Location: North
Posts: 11
|
Double post
Last edited by Via reggio; 1 May 2024 at 06:11 PM.. Reason: Double post |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4856 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2024
Location: North
Posts: 11
|
There is a change in one of the trainwheels, the part number is the same but there is an undercut on the axis for example.
How do I upload pictures? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4857 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2024
Location: USA
Posts: 12
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4858 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Real Name: Eddie
Location: Australia
Watch: A few.
Posts: 37,231
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
E |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4859 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4860 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2024
Location: North
Posts: 11
|
wheel in watch vs sparepart
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 35 (2 members and 33 guests) | |
Diodon525 , searas |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.