32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[maratka]

I write a translation of quotes from a very famous watchmaker.

Rolex indeed ventured into the holy of holies - recalculating the escapement. If you can't do it, don't try! The pallet fork stones have become thinner, resulting in a shortened impulse plane to increase the power reserve, which has led to increased loads on the pallet surfaces and faster oil wear. Essentially, cleaning the escapement solves the problem temporarily. It is well known that the 32xx series lags in amplitude even behind the 3135. If the caliber gets up to 250 degrees, that's good, but it may not exceed 220 degrees overall, which is somewhat concerning. A one-day test does not show a drop below 200 degrees, and the accuracy deviation can be 2-5 seconds in position, with an amplitude spread of 20 degrees, indicating that the mechanism operates well at low amplitude. However, there is also a two-day test that is not commonly done. It's worth noting that Rolex isn't alone in this; another company that can be considered a manufacture with a significant share of its own parts, Seiko, also does not excel in mechanisms with high amplitude.

Regarding mainsprings, it's a global fiasco. Rolex wasn't the first to start; in fact, replacing the entire barrel assembly has almost become a standard among the Swiss. On one hand, such precision and power reserve requirements never existed before, with ETA making entry-level calibers with over 70 hours of power reserve and almost chronometer accuracy, taking mass-market watches to another level. On the other hand, the life of the mechanism will end when the barrels and other parts, which have become consumables, run out. Past experience shows this can happen quite quickly. Additionally, the cost of servicing watches has significantly increased over the past decade. Now, a whole list of rather expensive parts needs replacing, not to mention the cost of upgrading the watch, as was the case with Zenith Elite and El Primero. A rather shameful situation occurred, for example, with the instant calendar in El Primero. Initially, a fragile spring was replaced with a steel part resembling a rabbit's head with ears, and then they recommend not installing any parts at all, effectively turning the instant calendar into a non-instant one, even more crude than in the Valjoux 7750.

I think the caliber will face the fate of the 30th caliber, which also did not succeed and had several clearly unsuccessful aspects. They will either release a deep update of the 32nd caliber with changes to its basic characteristics, or they will introduce the 33rd caliber right away.

Costs for testing began to decrease as early as the 1990s with the introduction of warranty periods, shifting some responsibility for testing and identifying hidden defects onto the owner. However, there were still companies conducting serious tests, such as LeCoultre's 1000-hour tests.

Rolex also spent a long time developing calibers. Recall, for instance, the quartz caliber 52**, which was created, tested for many years, and then the project was terminated. I believe they also tried to extensively test the 32** calibers, but perhaps these times make it difficult to thoroughly and meticulously test a large number of watches over a long period.

I don't think the issue with the 32** series is universal; it's more well-known. Few remember, but there was also the caliber 3186 with a similarly well-known issue, which didn't become widespread but was indeed discussed. Rolex simply produces too many watches, which are bought by too many people, many of whom are active online, providing fodder for discussion even when there are only a few dozen incidents involving watches. It's likely that the 32** series was unfortunate to appear in the era of social media, where everything is visible. Hence, such negativity towards the caliber, although I believe that problematic watches during the warranty period are few percent, if not less. Usually, a decrease in amplitude does not lead to a loss of accuracy for this caliber, so the owner remains unaware of the internal processes of the watch, wearing it calmly until the scheduled service.

The caliber clearly has issues with amplitude. During initial authenticity checks, the average amplitude typically does not exceed 220-230 degrees in fairly new watches, and in some positions, it approaches psychologically low 200 degrees. As I mentioned, accuracy begins to suffer in a small percentage of watches, and low amplitude is a direct hallmark of this caliber. It's worth noting that accuracy is primarily determined by the balance itself, not the escapement. If the balance is isochronous, its accuracy will not depend on the amplitude. This has been the main goal of the past 200 years — to create a perfect isochronous balance independent of amplitude, a task that has only been tackled successfully in recent years. However, there are lubrication conditions where a dramatic decrease in amplitude can allow external factors to influence the balance and affect timekeeping accuracy.

I did not suggest that the escapement is incorrectly calculated; rather, I emphasized that it is a sacrosanct component that has seen minimal change since 1840, when anchor escapements began mass use. Experiments with escapements ended long ago, and for the past 100 years, the escapement proportions have remained consistent in all modern watches. No improvement in escapement has led to any advantages. In the past 200 years, no new escapement has gained acceptance except the quartz movement. Even the coaxial escapement can hardly be considered a true alternative; it does not outperform the anchor escapement in any position and often lags significantly behind in several cases.

History has shown that changes to the anchor escapement are not sustainable, especially those affecting torque transmission. It is based on this observation that I doubted the success of Rolex's recalibration of the escapement, especially after seeing its condition in watches around a year old, which resembles that of watches with the standard classic escapement after five years. This was the first warning sign, and now there is feedback from other watchmakers indicating that the decision is highly controversial and clearly not in Rolex's typical style.

By the way, I will note that the 4130 movement is also undergoing significant upgrades. Watches now feature wheels with zero-play toothed gears, meaning the teeth are spring-loaded. However, the history of such teeth does not speak of their exceptional reliability. Considering this is the chronograph wheel, which experiences considerable stress during reset, I am patient and observe how this story develops.

Additionally, the Yacht-Master chronograph caliber has also become significantly more complex, adjusting one of Rolex's most important principles, serviceability. Initially, calibers were designed so that disassembly and inspection of individual components could be done without complete dismantling. The Yacht-Master chronograph clearly stands out from this list; the caliber is very difficult to service without appropriate documentation.

Rolex's policies are clearly changing, and I believe this is also linked to the fact that the mechanical watch market has significantly contracted. It is simply impossible now to operate under the old rules.

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by maratka

The problem is that to maintain accuracy and compensate for magnetic influences, the only solution when reducing the frequency of the watch movement is to use silicon. This is precisely what has enabled watches under a thousand euros to receive the COSC certification. Will the "larger" 32xx series movements use silicon? I think not, otherwise, any shock resistance would be out of the question. Blancpain - silicon. Omega... well, again silicon, but there they have the coaxial escapement, so it's somewhat different.

That's interesting! So are you saying that watches like Blancpain Bathyscaphe and Omega SMP/AT have poor shock resistance due to the use of silicon? Seems like Tudor, also, is using it (though higher frequency movement).

By the way, also read the translated quotes in your next post. Very, very enlightening for someone who's just getting up to speed on the exact nature of these issues!

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by maratka

I write a translation of quotes from a very famous watchmaker.

There is some interesting stuff in that. Would you mind sharing the name of the watch maker and when these comments were made? If the 31->32 redesign was, in this watchmaker’s opinion, suspect that is one thing. I am more interested to know if the issue has been corrected going forward.

[maratka]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

That's interesting! So are you saying that watches like Blancpain Bathyscaphe and Omega SMP/AT have poor shock resistance due to the use of silicon? Seems like Tudor, also, is using it (though higher frequency movement).

By the way, also read the translated quotes in your next post. Very, very enlightening for someone who's just getting up to speed on the exact nature of these issues!

He write:

Despite my love for Omega and dislike for Rolex, here it's definitely Rolex. Omega will bring joy for the first 8 years, but then it will turn into one big problem. A manufactured Omega will start to drain money over prolonged ownership. Even a simple crown on an Omega is a source of problems. Rolex has been making external threads for decades, while Omega generally opts for internal threads. If the crown on a Rolex wears out after 30 years, which is not a given, the problem could occur in an Omega within just 10 years. The coaxial escapement wears out and can only be replaced, and the GMT wheels in Omegas are also weak points. Over time, Omega will turn into an old Range Rover. It must be acknowledged that a manufactured Omega is very dependent on replacement parts, whereas a Rolex has a better chance of surviving just with servicing.

[maratka]

Originally Posted by Easy E

There is some interesting stuff in that. Would you mind sharing the name of the watch maker and when these comments were made? If the 31->32 redesign was, in this watchmaker’s opinion, suspect that is one thing. I am more interested to know if the issue has been corrected going forward.

His name is Andrey Babnin. He used to write articles about watch movements and is an expert on watches, including in legal cases. The material that exists is only available in Russian.

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by maratka

He write:

I'm curious what generations of movements he's comparing. The serviceability would seem to be an issue on 32xx Rolexes - systemic/design problems or not, the replacement parts thing certainly seems to have changed. These issues also don't necessarily seem to have anything to do with the use of lower frequencies/silicon springs, do they?

[PO.Victory]

Originally Posted by maratka

I write a translation of quotes from a very famous watchmaker.

Rolex tried to innovate an essentially perfected component to drive demand in a contracting industry and it has backfired to the point that they need to go back to drawing board with a significant update or completely new caliber?

[Poodlopogus]

Digesting a bit more... Seems like one of the biggest shifts in philosophy is around serviceability and replacement vs. servicing of components.

Perhaps the math is working out to be more cost-effective to replace entire subsystems at service rather than disassemble them and only replace the individual pieces necessary.

That suggests that automation has made it cheaper to build those subsystems as units and replace them at every servicing rather than have a watchmaker tinker with them. In the case of Tudor, it sounds like sometimes that applies to the entire movement.

And perhaps part of that is by design - a desire to have better control over who's servicing Rolexes and has access to replacement components. Servicing a 31xx largely requires a competent watchmaker if all parts intact. Not so on the current 32xx.

[maratka]

Originally Posted by PO.Victory

Rolex tried to innovate an essentially perfected component to drive demand in a contracting industry and it has backfired to the point that they need to go back to drawing board with a significant update or completely new caliber?

Unfortunately, I cannot answer this question. In general, his comparison in the context is about 31 versus 32. And yes, he says that 32 is unsuccessful; however, he does not deny that the problem may eventually be solved through modernization.

[maratka]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

I'm curious what generations of movements he's comparing. The serviceability would seem to be an issue on 32xx Rolexes - systemic/design problems or not, the replacement parts thing certainly seems to have changed. These issues also don't necessarily seem to have anything to do with the use of lower frequencies/silicon springs, do they?

According to his statement, silicon is generally more of a curse than a blessing.

[maratka]

Originally Posted by Easy E

There is some interesting stuff in that. Would you mind sharing the name of the watch maker and when these comments were made? If the 31->32 redesign was, in this watchmaker’s opinion, suspect that is one thing. I am more interested to know if the issue has been corrected going forward.

The messages are dated late 2023. I spoke with him personally, and he says he has no doubt the problem will be resolved, either through modernization or a new mechanism, which will most likely be based on the 32 caliber. He identifies the main issue as the mechanism being created with too many "innovations."

[maratka]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

Digesting a bit more... Seems like one of the biggest shifts in philosophy is around serviceability and replacement vs. servicing of components.

Perhaps the math is working out to be more cost-effective to replace entire subsystems at service rather than disassemble them and only replace the individual pieces necessary.

That suggests that automation has made it cheaper to build those subsystems as units and replace them at every servicing rather than have a watchmaker tinker with them. In the case of Tudor, it sounds like sometimes that applies to the entire movement.

And perhaps part of that is by design - a desire to have better control over who's servicing Rolexes and has access to replacement components. Servicing a 31xx largely requires a competent watchmaker if all parts intact. Not so on the current 32xx.

Absolutely correct.

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by maratka

According to his statement, silicon is generally more of a curse than a blessing.

Do you think that's in the context of performance, reliability, or component longevity? In other words, does he largely look down on it because it's less serviceable and is replaced (which perhaps goes against watchmaking philosophy)?

Originally Posted by maratka

The messages are dated late 2023. I spoke with him personally, and he says he has no doubt the problem will be resolved, either through modernization or a new mechanism, which will most likely be based on the 32 caliber. He identifies the main issue as the mechanism being created with too many "innovations."

Seems like Rolex's biggest mistake was to try and modularize things enough to go down to two primary movement families - 22xx and 32xx. Had the 32xx been engineered for the 40mm+ models (even if YM 40 no longer viable and GMT had to go to 41mm) I wonder if it could have been executed with fewer compromises.

On the flip side, perhaps the 31xx could have gotten just enough more PR to match the 22xx and taken an approach similar to just about every other high-end watchmaker (highest performing calibres reserved for the largest pieces).

[hartsy]

I know this thread is more for issues, however I have had a great experience with this movement and it is the most accurate watch I have ever had. Daily wear for 6+ months and only roughly ~25 seconds fast. Its ridiculous

[maratka]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

Do you think that's in the context of performance, reliability, or component longevity? In other words, does he largely look down on it because it's less serviceable and is replaced (which perhaps goes against watchmaking philosophy)?

Because it is less serviceable and highly sensitive to external factors (shocks, vibrations).

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by maratka

Because it is less serviceable and highly sensitive to external factors (shocks, vibrations).

Got it. Is there any way to mitigate the vulnerability to shock? Asking because it seems odd that Tudor, Omega, and Blancpain would have all chosen the material for watches advertised as so robust (BB, PO, FF).

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

Got it. Is there any way to mitigate the vulnerability to shock? Asking because it seems odd that Tudor, Omega, and Blancpain would have all chosen the material for watches advertised as so robust (BB, PO, FF).

I don’t think that’s odd at all. These manufacturers know the vast majority of these watches are worn as jewelry now and won’t be subject to rough shocks.

[the dark knight]

Very interesting discussion.

The trend of the industry towards movements with parts that are meant to be replaced instead of serviced is disappointing.

Interestingly, I only recall 2 movements introduced in the last 5-10 years where the marketing info seemed to suggest they were designed to be serviced easily. And they are at extremely divergent price points - the Oris 400 and the Vacheron 5100 (Overseas movement). I'm obviously no watchmaker but having owned watches with both movements, they do seem fairly simple with large components so maybe it's true?

I'm increasingly thinking I should simplify my collection down to maybe a NOS 31xx Rolex, something really simple like a Sub or Explorer I. I'm in my 40s, I like the idea of having a watch that could last me the rest of my life with components that don't need to be replaced, that any competent watchmaker could service.

I do have a 116500LN that MAY fit that bill, but it appears from one of the watchmaker quotes above that the 4130 could also have some component issues, although admittedly I don't use the chronograph very often so maybe that can be mitigated. So maybe I should just ride out my Daytona and forget about new Rolexes (or most other new watches). It seems like even if the escapement issues with the 32xx are worked out, the trend towards replacement over serviceability is here to stay.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

It seems like even if the escapement issues with the 32xx are worked out, the trend towards replacement over serviceability is here to stay.

Agreed.
We need to get our heads around it and accept it as part of the new world order of things. Especially when these assemblies are manufactured at very large scale.

To my knowledge.
Seiko have at least chosen to have movement calibres that will retrofit into the same cases as older discontinued calibres.
The swap for a newer calibres may be possible going forward for entire movements with Rolex if they're smart about it. Sort of a hot swap scenario for an easy/quick and dirty upgrade path. It's not like they have anything to prove with regard to the thickness of their movements.
Tudor are generally recognised as having it as a somewhat open secret within the industry in going down the hot swap path with their MT movements.
It's something i am still coming to terms with personally since having a good look at what they're doing in recent times.

It brings to mind.
What is happening with the old movements?
Are they being re-manufactured somehow, somewhere with a view to be fitted into another case at service time?
Is it economically feasable for them given a general lack of watchmaking expertise/training and volumes required?
Or are they thrown in the scrap metal bin?
To that, what of a sustainability factor if any?
Also is Quartz watch technology more sustainable and or practical overall?

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Agreed.
We need to get our heads around it and accept it as part of the new world order of things. Especially when these assemblies are manufactured at very large scale.

To my knowledge.
Seiko have at least chosen to have movement calibres that will retrofit into the same cases as older discontinued calibres.
The swap for a newer calibres may be possible going forward for entire movements with Rolex if they're smart about it. Sort of a hot swap scenario for an easy/quick and dirty upgrade path. It's not like they have anything to prove with regard to the thickness of their movements.
Tudor are generally recognised as having it as a somewhat open secret within the industry in going down the hot swap path with their MT movements.
It's something i am still coming to terms with personally since having a good look at what they're doing in recent times.

It brings to mind.
What is happening with the old movements?
Are they being re-manufactured somehow, somewhere with a view to be fitted into another case at service time?
Is it economically feasable for them given a general lack of watchmaking expertise/training and volumes required?
Or are they thrown in the scrap metal bin?
To that, what of a sustainability factor if any?
Also is Quartz watch technology more sustainable and or practical overall?

You raise some really good questions and points. From a consumer watch lover standpoint, I'm guessing the most sustainable thing is to stick to preowned vintage-ish watches that can continue to be serviced, like a Rolex with a 31xx. Not even just from a movement standpoint, it appears from the watchmaker quoted above that a lot of the case components Rolex uses are also very durable (compared to Omega above) and will last a very long time.

I'm also starting to think this is why Rolex may not be expending much effort into finding out a permanent solution to the 32xx issues. Just lubricate as necessary as a temporary fix, and then maybe just completely hot swap in their new 33xx movement when it comes out.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by maratka

The problem is that to maintain accuracy and compensate for magnetic influences, the only solution when reducing the frequency of the watch movement is to use silicon. This is precisely what has enabled watches under a thousand euros to receive the COSC certification. Will the "larger" 32xx series movements use silicon? I think not, otherwise, any shock resistance would be out of the question. Blancpain - silicon. Omega... well, again silicon, but there they have the coaxial escapement, so it's somewhat different.

👍
The 33xx movements will almost certainly have a Silicone Hair spring.
Rolex will be the first Swiss manufacturer to implement a hot swap for an newer/upgraded movement series. But the customer will pay handsomely for that service option/privelige.
Out with the old dud and in with the latest and greatest.
Another Rolex watchmaking innovation.

[Toshk]

I said it here first. They will disguise the new calibre in silicon.

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Agreed.
We need to get our heads around it and accept it as part of the new world order of things. Especially when these assemblies are manufactured at very large scale.

To my knowledge.
Seiko have at least chosen to have movement calibres that will retrofit into the same cases as older discontinued calibres.
The swap for a newer calibres may be possible going forward for entire movements with Rolex if they're smart about it. Sort of a hot swap scenario for an easy/quick and dirty upgrade path. It's not like they have anything to prove with regard to the thickness of their movements.
Tudor are generally recognised as having it as a somewhat open secret within the industry in going down the hot swap path with their MT movements.
It's something i am still coming to terms with personally since having a good look at what they're doing in recent times.

It brings to mind.
What is happening with the old movements?
Are they being re-manufactured somehow, somewhere with a view to be fitted into another case at service time?
Is it economically feasable for them given a general lack of watchmaking expertise/training and volumes required?
Or are they thrown in the scrap metal bin?
To that, what of a sustainability factor if any?
Also is Quartz watch technology more sustainable and or practical overall?

Originally Posted by Dirt

👍
The 33xx movements will almost certainly have a Silicone Hair spring.
Rolex will be the first Swiss manufacturer to implement a hot swap for an newer/upgraded movement series. But the customer will pay handsomely for that service option/privelige.
Out with the old dud and in with the latest and greatest.
Another Rolex watchmaking innovation.

I'm guessing that they're probably discarded. The replicability angle really only makes economical sense if it's more economical to let the automated assembly systems build a new movement than to have a watchmaker rebuild an existing one. Refurbishing parts would require a different level of human involvement.

If Rolex adopts the hot swap for a new calibre, I doubt it'll cost any more than a standard overhaul for two reasons:

1. As stated above, it's likely cheaper to manufacture new than rebuild old.

2. Rolex will want to do this quietly and therefore won't want to draw attention to it by way of customers complaining (loudly and openly) about the size of the bill.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

I'm guessing that they're probably discarded. The replicability angle really only makes economical sense if it's more economical to let the automated assembly systems build a new movement than to have a watchmaker rebuild an existing one. Refurbishing parts would require a different level of human involvement.

If Rolex adopts the hot swap for a new calibre, I doubt it'll cost any more than a standard overhaul for two reasons:

1. As stated above, it's likely cheaper to manufacture new than rebuild old.

2. Rolex will want to do this quietly and therefore won't want to draw attention to it by way of customers complaining (loudly and openly) about the size of the bill.

Yes you make all valid points, but the customer will have been primed for it and then conditioned to the new and exciting way forward.
"The Rowlex way".
As i've said in these pages before. It probably won't be a compulsory upgrade. It will be an optional upgrade and as with all these things, it will incur a premium in accordance with the finest traditions of "The Rowlex Way" and have the full support and world wide backing of the most fantasmorgorical service network on the planet. Probably with a 5 year service warranty on the watch.
Aditionally, the watch may even be returned to you as a re-certified "Superlative Chronometer".
Naturally, the 5 year service warranty will only be second to the new 7 year warranty which is graciously provided by the Mothership with every new watch.
Heralded by the introduction of the new Royal blue Chronometer hang tags.
But all on one condition.
This special service option will only be available to the original purchaser of the eligable watch with all the appropriate documentation including full RSC service history.

I put it to you.
What truly loyal customer could refuse such a gracious and most generous offer to help them continue their relationship with their watch and the brand, who is going the extra mile to partner with them on their life journey?


Anyway.
Back to normal programming.

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Yes you make all valid points, but the customer will have been primed for it and then conditioned to the new and exciting way forward.
"The Rowlex way".
As i've said in these pages before. It probably won't be a compulsory upgrade. It will be an optional upgrade and as with all these things, it will incur a premium in accordance with the finest traditions of "The Rowlex Way" and have the full support and world wide backing of the most fantasmorgorical service network on the planet. Probably with a 5 year service warranty on the watch.
Aditionally, the watch may even be returned to you as a re-certified "Superlative Chronometer".
Naturally, the 5 year service warranty will only be second to the new 7 year warranty which is graciously provided by the Mothership with every new watch.
Heralded by the introduction of the new Royal blue Chronometer hang tags.
But all on one condition.
This special service option will only be available to the original purchaser of the eligable watch with all the appropriate documentation including full RSC service history.

I put it to you.
What truly loyal customer could refuse such a gracious and most generous offer to help them continue their relationship with their watch and the brand, who is going the extra mile to partner with them on their life journey?


Anyway.
Back to normal programming.

I'm not sure - from a PR standpoint - how Rolex will choose to handle: An optional "upgrade" or a quiet "swap" under the guise of a generic "service movement" listed on the paperwork.

What Rolex could likely determine is that a new movement is cheaper than the continued servicing of a 32xx (which could easily require attention multiple times within the five-year warranty, and conceivably within the two-year service warranty period.

[77T]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

What Rolex could likely determine is that a new movement is cheaper than the continued servicing of a 32xx (which could easily require attention multiple times within the five-year warranty, and conceivably within the two-year service warranty period.

Until they eliminate the root cause in a modified fashion, it's unlikely a new movement with the same old design would be cheaper. That's because it has the same risk of requiring attention multiple times anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by 77T

Until they eliminate the root cause in a modified fashion, it's unlikely a new movement with the same old design would be cheaper. That's because it has the same risk of requiring attention multiple times anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Agree. What's unclear (to any of us) is whether any theoretical new movement has been in the works for a month, a year, or five years. But I doubt anything will be released (whether used as a replacement or not) until a root cause has been determined and rectified.

I also doubt that Rolex will take to hot swapping just for the sake of expedience since they've gone to the trouble of certifying so many AD watchmakers as "Authorized Service Centers" (to avoid draining its own capacity).

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

Agree. What's unclear (to any of us) is whether any theoretical new movement has been in the works for a month, a year, or five years. But I doubt anything will be released (whether used as a replacement or not) until a root cause has been determined and rectified.

I also doubt that Rolex will take to hot swapping just for the sake of expedience since they've gone to the trouble of certifying so many AD watchmakers as "Authorized Service Centers" (to avoid draining its own capacity).

Wouldn't this actually argue in favor of the hot swapping? An AD would just need a watchmaker skilled enough to open up the watch, swap in a movement, replace some other parts if needed, case up the watch, and check timing/WR. Would be much easier to staff such a person at most ADs for in-house "servicing", while freeing up actual service centers for more complicated repair work (primarily of older watches) which they will charge more and more for. My opinion is this is a reason why Rolex decided to get into CPOs, including (for me anyways) a surprising amount of fairly older vintage models. It's not just the initial sale, but I suspect they want to eventually service these watches as well for a good chunk of $$$.

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Wouldn't this actually argue in favor of the hot swapping? An AD would just need a watchmaker skilled enough to open up the watch, swap in a movement, replace some other parts if needed, case up the watch, and check timing/WR. Would be much easier to staff such a person at most ADs for in-house "servicing", while freeing up actual service centers for more complicated repair work (primarily of older watches) which they will charge more and more for. My opinion is this is a reason why Rolex decided to get into CPOs, including (for me anyways) a surprising amount of fairly older vintage models. It's not just the initial sale, but I suspect they want to eventually service these watches as well for a good chunk of $$$.

On the one hand, you are correct. On the other hand, I think Rolex is way, way too paranoid about distributing out whole uncased movements.

[maratka]

My personal opinion, and also after talking to the aforementioned master: I am almost certain that the actual number of people who claim under warranty is negligible, possibly those who write here are only 0.000001% of all owners. The service costs for Rolex? Negligibly small. Will they solve the problem? Most likely yes, but it's also possible that they will simply wave it off, and this tiny percentage (that is, us) will have to claim within the 5-year warranty period. So what? Some will fall under the 2-year post-service warranty. These are not expenses, they are crumbs on the table.

I believe that a new movement will be released taking into account the experience of the 32xx caliber, and I want to believe that our caliber will not be abandoned. Will it be possible to upgrade to the new caliber? I am sure not. I am confident that they will never bring this issue up for discussion.