![]() |
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 |
![]() |
#5071 | |||||
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2024
Location: Belgien
Posts: 49
|
I write a translation of quotes from a very famous watchmaker.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5072 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
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! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5073 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 4,774
|
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5074 | ||
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2024
Location: Belgien
Posts: 49
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5075 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2024
Location: Belgien
Posts: 49
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5076 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
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?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5077 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: ND
Posts: 27
|
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?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5078 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5079 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2024
Location: Belgien
Posts: 49
|
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5080 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2024
Location: Belgien
Posts: 49
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5081 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2024
Location: Belgien
Posts: 49
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5082 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2024
Location: Belgien
Posts: 49
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5083 | ||
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
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). |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5084 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: CO
Watch: Explorer 1 224270
Posts: 69
|
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
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5085 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2024
Location: Belgien
Posts: 49
|
Because it is less serviceable and highly sensitive to external factors (shocks, vibrations).
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5086 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
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).
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5087 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,519
|
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5088 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,519
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5089 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
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? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5090 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,519
|
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5091 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5092 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: London
Posts: 35
|
I said it here first. They will disguise the new calibre in silicon.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5093 | ||
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5094 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
"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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5095 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5096 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Real Name: PaulG
Location: Georgia
Posts: 41,429
|
Quote:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
__________________
Does anyone really know what time it is? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5097 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
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). |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5098 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,519
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5099 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5100 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2024
Location: Belgien
Posts: 49
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 24 (0 members and 24 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.