32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Lol-x]

Doesn't the Witchi timing instrument automatically determine the correct lift angle for any given watch movement?

Purely as an interesting observation, I just noticed with a sedentary lifestyle after 1 day my 126715 requires 15 winds of the crown to restore full wind to the watch.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

Doesn't the Witchi timing instrument automatically determine the correct lift angle for any given watch movement?

Purely as an interesting observation, I just noticed with a sedentary lifestyle after 1 day my 126715 requires 15 winds of the crown to restore full wind to the watch.

Witschi has an exotic newer system that can optically measure amplitude, but for any of the traditional sound based timegraphers, from any brand, the user must enter the lift angle manually.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

[Andad]

Can I set my DJ42 lift angle at 54 and keep everyone happy?

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Jack T

But to me, you're mounting a poor defense when you say 10 seconds either way throws your entire schedule out of kilter, ruins your whole day. Better not to say anything.

Hey I can’t speak for hiboost but I’ll explain from my perspective why it’s bad. When the watch is running -10 at full wind what happens is when it gets to the 2nd half of the pr or goes minutes slow.

So one of the key reasons I went for the 70hr pr is so I can take it off Friday and pick it up Monday for work.

When the watch was new it would lose about 3-5 seconds over the weekend. Absolutely fine and during the week as it kept the wind up it would average out to -0.5 per day. Insanely good.

When I noticed the issue it was two mins behind. Chucked it on the timegrapher and it’s doing -10 dial up. -17 crown up. With the low amplitude arm movement really seems to slow it down more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by amanbra

For me the question is why did it change in official docs. (Assuming Bas is telling the truth and I’m inclined to believe him). A slow running watch is slow regardless of the lift angle.

You are right, a slow running watch is always slow, regardless of the lift angle.

Trying to understand why and when Rolex SA changed and communicated a lift angle modification is not very interesting for me since it does not touch the topic discussed here. There can be many variants of speculations what could have happened in the past. I focus on data and facts, but one possibility is that Rolex early identified 32xx issues, many people worked on it (!), changed the movement design from 55 to 53 degrees, did not repair (or modify) the early already assembled movements, and still uses these calibers as Version 1 (55 degrees) and Version 2 (53).

That makes this thread so interesting, to see if the released new models from 2020 still show the early reported movement issues.

I am pretty much convinced that the 3200 series issues are identified and solvable, depending on where you are.

My 2017 SD43 was repaired in 2019 and it is running very well since that date, see my review plot in post #466. Careful reading of this thread is key for better understanding.

Originally Posted by Andad

Can I set my DJ42 lift angle at 54 and keep everyone happy?

A good one, more truth behind that one may believe.

In fact, it makes no difference if you choose 51,52,53,54,55 degrees since the rate is not influenced by this choice. As you know and said in the past, relative changes are of interest, i.e. using the same instrument, environment, and settings is perfect for most standard applications.

Doing relative measurements, everybody can identify a movement issue rather easy and early by observing faster (than normal) decreasing amplitudes, the position dependent rates, and averaged accuracy, which can be still very good at low amplitude. I have data for a repaired 3235 caliber (see plot in post #466) which proofs that.

If somebody wants to measure absolute numbers then it becomes (very) difficult, instrument calibration and correct data analysis is mandatory. I think that is (far) beyond the scope and also not required on a forum level.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

Doesn't the Witchi timing instrument automatically determine the correct lift angle for any given watch movement? Purely as an interesting observation, I just noticed with a sedentary lifestyle after 1 day my 126715 requires 15 winds of the crown to restore full wind to the watch.

The Swiss Company Witschi delivers timegrapher instruments to Rolex SA, all programming is done by Rolex experts. Witschi's watchmakers don't know caliber details. The lift angle is a free input parameter for Rolex and all users.


The Witschi "Wisio Scope" measures the actual lift angle in real time, as well as an immediate determination of actual amplitudes, independent of lift angle. The only caveat using this instrument is the fact that one needs to open the caseback. Therefore, this device is not really suitable for private use (independent of price) if you require water tightness for diving (my situation).

A clarifiacation: the OP and myself are not at all on a "crusade" in this thread, which has been stupidly claimed, and we do not appreciate all permanently repeating content-free global statements about the "real world" as well as "loupes and the rest of today's toys can and often will be a Rolex owners worst enemy". We have to respect this personal and individual opinion of a forum moderator, but repeating it 50+ times does not add any value. Quality above quantity.

In that respect, a support and sign from you as owner of this forum would be very much appreciated! I will try to keep this thread running, together with the OP, based on data and facts only, with the aim to deliver objective information to all Rolex owners.

Last but not least, I feel the need to underline that I love Rolex watches. Otherwise I would not be here.

[Jack T]

Originally Posted by amanbra

Hey I can’t speak for hiboost but I’ll explain from my perspective why it’s bad. When the watch is running -10 at full wind what happens is when it gets to the 2nd half of the pr or goes minutes slow.

So one of the key reasons I went for the 70hr pr is so I can take it off Friday and pick it up Monday for work.

When the watch was new it would lose about 3-5 seconds over the weekend. Absolutely fine and during the week as it kept the wind up it would average out to -0.5 per day. Insanely good.

When I noticed the issue it was two mins behind. Chucked it on the timegrapher and it’s doing -10 dial up. -17 crown up. With the low amplitude arm movement really seems to slow it down more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don’t get me wrong, I think you all have a good case to make about the movement being out of spec.

We are spending a lot of money on these watches, some much more than others, and have every right to expect them to perform as, or close to advertised. And people have put a lot of effort in to measuring, calibrating and documenting the issues, which is what this forum is for.

Just saw a post from a fellow whose recently purchased DD40 is running slow by 10 seconds a day, RSC mangled the case on him, and this is a 60k platinum watch!! I wonder if he even knows what movement he’s got in there.

To reiterate, from the articles and reviews I’ve read about the 32xx series movement, there are potentially more significant longer term performance and service issues with this movement than the current timekeeping problems.

All I meant in my post was by saying your entire day is ruined because your watch is off by 10 seconds detracts from the more serious technical issues that have been raised.

[saxo3]

Thanks Jack.
I personally don't get you wrong.
Your feedback is well appreciated.
If you can deliver some data, even better.
Cheers.

[Jack T]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks Jack.
I personally don't get you wrong.
Your feedback is well appreciated.
If you can deliver some data, even better.
Cheers.

Here is the most informative article I’ve read on the matter, found posted here on TRF, perhaps you’ve seen it

http://bhi.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/...-the-Month.pdf

[77T]

That article mentioned something interesting. “Having trained on the 3235, I can say with all honesty that it is a beautiful piece of engineering. The finish is spectacular...”

But the remainder of that comment sparked the thought that an eye to RSC profitability may have been engineered into the design.

“...which makes this calibre a breeze to service, and you would be happy to repair them all day long. Yet again, Rolex has produced another watchmaker-friendly movement that will be loved the world over.”

Not meaning Rolex decided to make a movement requiring more service work - but that they wanted to reduce the labor cost associated with warranty work while also raising the GPM of billable bench time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jssans]

Went to the AD where I bought my 2019 40mm DJ. I told them it was running 20 sec slow. They looked at me with disbelief. The salesperson asked if it sits a lot or is worn daily. It was as if this was the 1st they had encountered this issue. They said they would put the watch on a machine in the back to verify. Salesperson walked back out & said the watch definitely needs service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Jack T

Just saw a post from a fellow whose recently purchased DD40 is running slow by 10 seconds a day, RSC mangled the case on him, and this is a 60k platinum watch!! I wonder if he even knows what movement he’s got in there.

To reiterate, from the articles and reviews I’ve read about the 32xx series movement, there are potentially more significant longer term performance and service issues with this movement than the current timekeeping problems.

Yeah, every time my watch is touched by someone it gets mangled.... RSC Omega, etc

From what I can tell the key part that is not very serviceable is the main spring?

Doesn't bother me if Rolex can't provide parts for this watch in to the future other comparable brands had no chance of doing the same for other parts.

Also there are soooooo many of these watches alternative solutions will be available. I feel this will also be a problem for my son after I'm long gone. My his children if he chooses to have them.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by Jack T

All I meant in my post was by saying your entire day is ruined because your watch is off by 10 seconds detracts from the more serious technical issues that have been raised.

Ok, I let it go the first time, but since you are repeating this sentiment again I'm going to push back. First, I never said my day was ruined, and of course nobody dies if I'm late. But I fail to see how what I have described is somehow implausible? I have 2 full time jobs, a family, and I regularly engage in 3 time consuming hobbies. Literally my entire life is defined by the premise of not having enough time to do everything I want and always having to juggle things and make compromises. Is it really so hard to understand that in a work-from-home environment (which I've done for 20 years now) a person would need to very precisely time their activities to pull off multitasking without appearing to be slacking from the perspective of co-workers? If I have 15 minutes before a conference call I will run out to the garage and make a few cuts on a piece of furniture I'm building. Or prep my bike and fill bottles to get ready for an after work bike ride. Or divide the dough to proof the loaves of bread I'm baking. Or whatever. I don't ever want to "waste" time, I try to fill it all. So yes, every day at least once but often several times I'm cutting things really close to get back to my desk and not look like a guy who is always late. Sorry, but I'm honestly a bit annoyed that this is being twisted into the assertion that I'm just making crap up as an excuse to claim I need an accurate watch.

Originally Posted by 77T

Not meaning Rolex decided to make a movement requiring more service work - but that they wanted to reduce the labor cost associated with warranty work while also raising the GPM of billable bench time.

This touches on something I've thought about recently after hearing a watch podcast where they talked about movement swapping. Apparently there is a trend where the customer-facing service centers just swap in entire new movements and then send your original movement overseas for full overhaul and eventual swapping back into somebody else's watch. They didn't name brands that were doing this, but said it was spreading to more and more companies as a way to reduce costs and also improve turnaround time on services. I certainly hope this practice never comes to Rolex as I feel many of us strongly prefer the idea of it being our watch along the journey. Swapping out a part here and there, sure, but if the entire movement was swapped that would feel like I'm not even getting my watch back anymore. Anyway, maybe having more plug-and-play components (like this throwaway barrel assembly) will allow Rolex to strike a balance between 12 week service times and complete movement swaps.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

This touches on something I've thought about recently after hearing a watch podcast where they talked about movement swapping. Apparently there is a trend where the customer-facing service centers just swap in entire new movements and then send your original movement overseas for full overhaul and eventual swapping back into somebody else's watch. They didn't name brands that were doing this, but said it was spreading to more and more companies as a way to reduce costs and also improve turnaround time on services. I certainly hope this practice never comes to Rolex as I feel many of us strongly prefer the idea of it being our watch along the journey. Swapping out a part here and there, sure, but if the entire movement was swapped that would feel like I'm not even getting my watch back anymore. Anyway, maybe having more plug-and-play components (like this throwaway barrel assembly) will allow Rolex to strike a balance between 12 week service times and complete movement swaps.

You know for my dj I actually would prefer a movement swap out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[goodolejr]

Originally Posted by amanbra

You know for my dj I actually would prefer a movement swap out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But wouldn't you just be getting another defective movement?

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by goodolejr

But wouldn't just be getting another defective movement?

I'm pretty sure they're not all defective... it's only a subset of people reporting issues...

Secondly there's a good chance they have actually fixed the fundamental issue.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by amanbra

I'm pretty sure they're not all defective... it's only a subset of people reporting issues...

Secondly there's a good chance they have actually fixed the fundamental issue.

Boy as a relatively new 3235 owner, I hope you’re right!

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by goodolejr

But wouldn't you just be getting another defective movement?

Assuming Rolex is indeed engaging in a movement exchange program.
They will give you whatever they deem acceptable regardless of your preference.
You effectively won't have a choice.

As to the reliability of of any movement you may end up with.
Rolex will put it right

[goodolejr]

Originally Posted by amanbra

I'm pretty sure they're not all defective... it's only a subset of people reporting issues...

Secondly there's a good chance they have actually fixed the fundamental issue.

A small subset of people reporting does not necessarily mean only a small subset are affected. Some might not notice. Other might notice but not care.

On your second point, there are TRF members here who have sent their watch back 2, sometimes 3, times for the same issue. I don't believe there is any reason to believe they have fixed the fundamental issue at this point in time.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by goodolejr

A small subset of people reporting does not necessarily mean only a small subset are affected. Some might not notice. Other might notice but not care.

On your second point, there are TRF members here who have sent their watch back 2, sometimes 3, times for the same issue. I don't believe there is any reason to believe they have fixed the fundamental issue at this point in time.

Yes the whole point of this thread was to gauge the extent but this data set is very selective. It's far more likely this is an over reporting vs under if you how statistics work and what this forum subset is like.

I'm in the group of RSC "fixing" my 3235 and it developing issues again so changing the movement would be great for me.

My YM40 which is over a year old now show no issues so far. There are plenty of people not showing issues.

Rolex wouldn't keep launching new watches esp the sub with problem movements unless they want to completely wreck their reputation.

Finally, BAS reported a tech doc update of the lift angle changing. For me it's signs they're working on stuff.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by saxo3

My 2017 SD43 was repaired in 2019 and it is running very well since that date, see my review plot in post #466. Careful reading of this thread is key for better understanding.

Mine range great after returning from RSC but in the last month or so starting to see the decline again. This is about 4 months after RSC. Keep an eye on it. At the moment you can't conclude if it's a perma fix or not.

Maybe you got a movement swap out to v2? I'd certainly want that if that's the case.

[77T]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

This touches on something I've thought about recently after hearing a watch podcast where they talked about movement swapping. Apparently there is a trend where the customer-facing service centers just swap in entire new movements and then send your original movement overseas for full overhaul and eventual swapping back into somebody else's watch. They didn't name brands that were doing this, but said it was spreading to more and more companies as a way to reduce costs and also improve turnaround time on services. I certainly hope this practice never comes to Rolex as I feel many of us strongly prefer the idea of it being our watch along the journey. Swapping out a part here and there, sure, but if the entire movement was swapped that would feel like I'm not even getting my watch back anymore. Anyway, maybe having more plug-and-play components (like this throwaway barrel assembly) will allow Rolex to strike a balance between 12 week service times and complete movement swaps.

It’s been reported in some other threads on TRF that Tudor has done swaps. As for sending “overseas” - at least in Americas, Pacific & UK - that could also mean Switzerland. Regardless, if a warranty return was the reason for sending to RSC, I would support a “like for like” swap. Especially if it was an early 3235 with the offending symptom of a design flaw that was subsequently corrected.

I respect your POV about having the watch “all original”. I’d offer this thought: an all original timepiece with a defective designed movement (if a subsequent Rolex admission occurs) would actually devalue your watch.

Thus far no public database exists that contains “matching numbers” case/movement info for Rolex. Of course, that’s different for other brands like Patek who provide extracts from the archives.

I wish the situation was clearly addressed by Geneva but hold no hope in the short run. Perhaps Rolex is still working on whether a movement “recall” (at no cost) will come if an owner’s problem came from some design flaw.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by 77T

It’s been reported in some other threads on TRF that Tudor has done swaps. As for sending “overseas” - at least in Americas, Pacific & UK - that could also mean Switzerland. Regardless, if a warranty return was the reason for sending to RSC, I would support a “like for like” swap. Especially if it was an early 3235 with the offending symptom of a design flaw that was subsequently corrected.

I respect your POV about having the watch “all original”. I’d offer this thought: an all original timepiece with a defective designed movement (if a subsequent Rolex admission occurs) would actually devalue your watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Agreed, just like with my car, if the transmission is known to be defective i want it replaced. I'd rather the fixed reliable version in my watch which I'll wear for a very long time.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by amanbra

Agreed, just like with my car, if the transmission is known to be defective i want it replaced. I'd rather the fixed reliable version in my watch which I'll wear for a very long time.

I wonder if an exchange movement will carry the original serial number
Regardless, it will be a first for Rolex SOP
Perhaps it will herald in a new era for Rolex with routine exchange assemblies?

[goodolejr]

Originally Posted by amanbra

Yes the whole point of this thread was to gauge the extent but this data set is very selective. It's far more likely this is an over reporting vs under if you how statistics work and what this forum subset is like.

I'm in the group of RSC "fixing" my 3235 and it developing issues again so changing the movement would be great for me.

My YM40 which is over a year old now show no issues so far. There are plenty of people not showing issues.

Rolex wouldn't keep launching new watches esp the sub with problem movements unless they want to completely wreck their reputation.

Finally, BAS reported a tech doc update of the lift angle changing. For me it's signs they're working on stuff.

I hope you're right, but with how well their entire range is selling these days, indifference to the movement's issues could be a reality.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by amanbra

Agreed, just like with my car, if the transmission is known to be defective i want it replaced. I'd rather the fixed reliable version in my watch which I'll wear for a very long time.

To clarify my position, if there is some "architectural" issue, then sure, give me the new movement vs me having to fight the lemon for perpetuity. I'm just saying I don't want to lose "my" movement every time an internal part wears out simply because their service model shows it is more efficient to swap the whole thing. The car analogy would be if we know the factory had a batch of improperly cast cylinder blocks, then yes, I want a whole new motor. But if I've got one bad fuel injector I'd rather just replace it than have a used/rebuilt motor that came from some other guy's car swapped into mine. To my knowledge, the companies that are doing movement swaps for common repairs are not swapping in truly new movements, but rather rebuilt ones. That changes the picture in my mind from getting an actual new movement.

In any case, I'm probably a bit off topic at this point, but it is an interesting discussion.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

[Tritto]

I seem to remember Tudor was swapping out movements after they introduced their in-house movements a few years ago. Faster turnaround and possibly to address a lack of watchmakers in various countries that had been trained to service the new movements.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by 77T

It’s been reported in some other threads on TRF that Tudor has done swaps. As for sending “overseas” - at least in Americas, Pacific & UK - that could also mean Switzerland. Regardless, if a warranty return was the reason for sending to RSC, I would support a “like for like” swap. Especially if it was an early 3235 with the offending symptom of a design flaw that was subsequently corrected.

I respect your POV about having the watch “all original”. I’d offer this thought: an all original timepiece with a defective designed movement (if a subsequent Rolex admission occurs) would actually devalue your watch.

Thus far no public database exists that contains “matching numbers” case/movement info for Rolex. Of course, that’s different for other brands like Patek who provide extracts from the archives.

I wish the situation was clearly addressed by Geneva but hold no hope in the short run. Perhaps Rolex is still working on whether a movement “recall” (at no cost) will come if an owner’s problem came from some design flaw.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I've come across a few AP's for sale that come with service paperwork that seem to indicate their movement was swapped / upgraded wholesale. I wonder if they had an issue. Rolex could follow that model.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by EEpro

I've come across a few AP's for sale that come with service paperwork that seem to indicate their movement was swapped / upgraded wholesale. I wonder if they had an issue. Rolex could follow that model.

Okay interesting, if one of the trinity do it that's pretty good then.

[77T]

Originally Posted by EEpro

I've come across a few AP's for sale that come with service paperwork that seem to indicate their movement was swapped / upgraded wholesale. I wonder if they had an issue. Rolex could follow that model.

At RSC, if a movement is replaced, it is clearly noted on the service paperwork. It is also registered in the extranet to associate it with the watch case serial number.

AP Clearwater may not be as clear in their paperwork but I would expect a new movement would be registered against the watch case.

While rare, it does happen in the case of a movement that is beyond repair.

In the case of Tudor, it was reported as a wholesale process of swapping during service by an RSC watchmaker. However, policies come and policies go. IIRC, it was the ETA movements at the time. Maybe it could have been part of the Swatch agreement with Rolex for replacing a movement that was too far gone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro