![]() |
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 |
![]() |
#5011 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2019
Real Name: LtCol R
Location: Mtns-NM-MT
Watch: 1680Red-551214060M
Posts: 251
|
Quote:
separate research path that I am engaged in on the Blancpain 1315 caliber compared to recent Rolex calibers. Keeping it VERY brief as this is/is not tangential to the 32xx caliber. BUT the 1315 caliber is known to retain a 100+-hour power reserve while delivering startling accuracy over time. It does invite a comparison of Rolex 3135 -32xx- and BP 1315 movements as to their respective qualities, an activity that I am currently engaged in. {Please excuse this insertion, in the interest of horological research.} SD |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5012 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 4,779
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5013 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5014 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 12
|
One month old Submariner 124060. If the average is within Rolex specs, and each position individually is within COSC specs, that means its all good?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5015 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Quote:
![]() PS: "perfect" because 4 of the 5 rates are positive and one position (3U) is negative. With such a caliber regulation you are able to compensate, either gain or loss during a day, by choosing an appropriate rest position overnight. In addition, the 2 horizontal and 3 vertical amplitudes are very similar, which is the result of a very good movement regulation, including a positive X (average rate). |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5016 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 12
|
Quote:
So 12U is not regulated by Rolex, right? Because the rate in that position was -5.5 s/d, amp was 234 deg and beat error was 0.2 ms. Out of curiosity I also did the measurements for our almost 2 years old OP34 (2232) and our 1 year old DJ31 (2236): |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5017 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Quote:
The paper copy below was posted 2 years ago in this thread. Look at the 1st criterion for the rate. The maximum Delta is 9 s/d, for COSC this would be 10 s/d. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5018 | ||
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Good, you should not move the watch in-between (you certainly know). Keep it in DU position. You could continue taking measurements after 12,24,36,48,60 hours to get an idea about the amplitudes along the power reserve, as others have done before in this thread.
Quote:
Quote:
Sigma = Delta ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5019 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5020 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 4,779
|
Ok, boiys and girls. What we have today is a 3285 caliber piece, purchased from a TS about 2 weeks ago in stated unworn condition, warranty card dated 3/24. For today we are just going to call this Watch X. It appears that at 24hrs the vertical amplitudes are out of spec and the max delta (I think that's the correct term) is 9.6, also slightly out of spec. I post, you decide.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5021 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Quote:
![]() This is a NEW 32xx watch from March 2024! Thanks for this interesting data along the PR. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5022 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,519
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5023 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The UK
Watch: I love them all.
Posts: 1,837
|
I have decided
Your watch, even being from March 2024 has definitely got what has been termed here a number of times as The Bug Of course there are those here who still will or can not bring themselves to admit that Rolex have got a problem and they just will not own up to it. How much more proof does Rolex or the unbelievers need ?
__________________
Regards, CharlesN Member of the IWJG. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5024 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Real Name: Steven
Location: Glocal
Posts: 20,311
|
Well, there's nearly always a flip-side to any movement. For all the yeses, there will be nos.
Plus, does it really matter about the non-believers if their destiny is still certain? What will happen, will, all in good time.
__________________
__________________ Love timepieces and want to become a Watchmaker? Rolex has a sensational school. www.RolexWatchmakingTrainingCenter.com/ Sent from my Etch A Sketch using String Theory. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5025 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2024
Location: North
Posts: 11
|
Low amplitude on a watch today, I started to only change the palettfork and the n the amplitude went up from 215 up to 260 - 270 in horizontal
Also passed 24h 200 amp tolerance |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5026 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,519
|
Quote:
Anyway, I was getting optimistic because of Bas's post a while ago about not seeing nearly as many 32xx watches coming in for warranty services, but this would throw a damper on those hopes. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5027 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 4,779
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5028 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 4,779
|
So then to me, the next most obvious question is what is the difference between the pallet forks?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5029 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2024
Location: North
Posts: 11
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5030 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2024
Location: North
Posts: 11
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5031 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: United Kingdom
Watch: Rollie
Posts: 770
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5032 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2024
Location: North
Posts: 11
|
Could a difference in weight affect the amplitude?
Theoretically but the part number is the same, usually they get a suffix like -1 if there is a change. But one of the train wheels (picture in my earlier post) did not get a suffix but is changed in design. Im not sure a change is made but it solved the amplitude issue of this watch. The movement feels differently and that its not much torque going through the wheeltrain, but it spins for a long time on a small turn of the winding crown, also the escapement seems really sensitive on 32. Its really a low powered movement, never get higher amplitudes like other movements, but what is strange is that it can loose a lot of time when the amplitude goes down a lot even on a full wind. Normally a movement can keep good time around 200 amplitude also. Like this repair: amplitude around 200 on full wind and slowing a lot, then I change palletfork and it gets 260-270 amplitude and good timekeeping, then 220 when letting down mainspring 3,5 turns to simulate 24 hours. Timekeeping still good |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5033 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Different view of EasyE's 3285 timegrapher numbers from post #5020 2 graphs for his 3285 'Watch X'
![]() What everybody can see: The 3 vertical amplitudes are too low after full winding (204°,214°,213°) and below Rolex specs (min. 200°) after 24 hours (190°,192°,199°). The 3 vertical rates are all negative along the entire power reserve, measured up to 60 hours, while the 2 horizontal rates are always positive. Consequently, the average rate, X, remains quite good, even within -2/+2 s/d until 24 hours. The facts: The 3200 movement series was introduced in 2015 (3235, 3255), followed by the 3285 (2018) and the 3230 (2020). This Rolex watch (3285) was sold in 06/2024, i.e., about 9 years after introduction of the 32xx series. Unknown: What is the age of this 3285 caliber? Did Rolex find a solution, or a temporay fix, for the long standing 32xx caliber issue? I leave the answer (only Rolex knows) to the reader. Is the post (by Bas) about "less 32xx watches incoming for repair" at his RSC, observed and reported from one single RSC watchmaker representative for the world-wide situation? I don't think so. It appears as a tiny light of hope in the watch galaxy where the main part of the horizon is like a 32xx black hole. Anyhow, I leave the interpretation of his post to the reader. Conclusion: This 2024 Rolex GMT 3285 is a gold-plated example why many 32xx watch owners, who look (at best) at the timekeeping on their wrists, do not and can not see that their 32xx has the low amplitude virus. You do need a timegrapher to identify at an early stage, later the accuracy will deteriorate significantly, also for this watch. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5034 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 4,779
|
Quote:
Thanks for the graphs. Those are a fair bit easier to look at than my tables. On the wrist this watch appears to run fine, as described above, you probably wouldn't notice. On one hand that is really the point of the watch. On the other, when you look under the hood there is a different story. I do have a question regarding "break in." Pretty sure I know the answer, but here goes. I have read many times about giving a watch a break in period (duration varies). By winding, wearing, letting run all the out and repeating, what if anything will that procedure do to "loosen" this watch up? As for date of production, that is a question I have had for a little while now. I realize no one on this forum will know that for sure. If you told me this movement was produced a year ago, i would believe that easily. Who knows? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5035 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5036 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 4,779
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5037 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Yes.
The so-called "break-in" or "running-in" is simply friction between parts moving against each other, which improves the fit over time. This may slightly affect accuracy, but the amplitudes? Nobody knows how long it takes or how much the effect will be. Most arguments are just guesses. Mechanical movements are not like brand new motors in new cars. 32xx calibers were already running for a while during testing at COSC, followed by more testing in Rolex labs. I don't think you'll see much improvement in all three vertical amplitudes, to be determined. I propose an experiment: wear this watch for 1-2 months, measure once per week after full winding and 24 hours later. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5038 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 4,779
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5039 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5040 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Real Name: Eddie
Location: Australia
Watch: A few.
Posts: 37,231
|
Quote:
__________________
E |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 32 (0 members and 32 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.