32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

The hot swap with refurbished Kenissi movements has been confirmed in some threads on TRF as far back as 2019 and 2022. WUS also had some threads. In addition, both the podcast The Grey NATO (one host works for Hodinkee and both hosts know a Tudor employee) and at least one article in Hodinkee have confirmed this. The idea is that service times can be reduced, but I don’t know that in practice that’s the case.

Those old hot swap threads remind me a bit of 32xx threads. People simply would not believe that Tudor would do such a thing. Maybe some of them were bummed that their Tudor now had someone else’s old movement running it. Other people didn’t seem to care.

Good point about keeping the IP close to home, so most likely the Kenissi side of the Tudor building has a refurbishing center.

I ask because I was reading one of the WUS threads and some guy recently (as in this summer) said he actually called Tudor and asked this question. Would have to double check but I seem to recall the answers being that, no, you cannot ask to have your movement repaired (and they are often replaced), but also in no circumstances are reconditioned parts used.

Maybe they're melted down and remanufactured? That would make more sense maybe?

I can absolutely see how swapping would reduce service times, but only if doing so for a new movement, the production of which can be largely automated.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

I ask because I was reading one of the WUS threads and some guy recently (as in this summer) said he actually called Tudor and asked this question. Would have to double check but I seem to recall the answers being that, no, you cannot ask to have your movement repaired (and they are often replaced), but also in no circumstances are reconditioned parts used.

Maybe they're melted down and remanufactured? That would make more sense maybe?

I can absolutely see how swapping would reduce service times, but only if doing so for a new movement, the production of which can be largely automated.

This makes sense to me as well. Repairing a movement to make it ready to be put in a watch would still require a decent amount of human labor, at which point it makes you wonder why they wouldn't just service the movement. Especially considering they probably aren't outsourcing this work to other countries due to IP issues as someone mentioned above.

Probably also why Kenissi is sticking to fairly simple time only type movements, I think a GMT is the most complicated movement they manufacturer.

This "hot swap" model is probably also attractive to the companies that are buying these movements to put in their own watches (Tag Heuer, Breitling, Chanel, etc). With an ETA or Sellita movement, there's a good chance these companies never see the watch again as people just find a local watchmaker that can service the watch easily. But now with movements that have parts that need to be replaced and no watchmakers with parts accounts, owners are required to send the watch back to the manufacturer. At which point they just pop in another Kenissi movement, overcharge the customer, and make a tidy little profit from that as well.

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

This makes sense to me as well. Repairing a movement to make it ready to be put in a watch would still require a decent amount of human labor, at which point it makes you wonder why they wouldn't just service the movement. Especially considering they probably aren't outsourcing this work to other countries due to IP issues as someone mentioned above.

Probably also why Kenissi is sticking to fairly simple time only type movements, I think a GMT is the most complicated movement they manufacturer.

This "hot swap" model is probably also attractive to the companies that are buying these movements to put in their own watches (Tag Heuer, Breitling, Chanel, etc). With an ETA or Sellita movement, there's a good chance these companies never see the watch again as people just find a local watchmaker that can service the watch easily. But now with movements that have parts that need to be replaced and no watchmakers with parts accounts, owners are required to send the watch back to the manufacturer. At which point they just pop in another Kenissi movement, overcharge the customer, and make a tidy little profit from that as well.

Ok, found it:

https://www.watchuseek.com/threads/t...5568696/page-2

Last post. I have no idea what they actually said (or if the call actually happened, for that matter), but taken at face value, seems to be new-for-new swap, not refurb.

Curious what made the others mentioned above so certain that the swap-ins were refurbished, not new (unless everyone was operating off different definitions of the term "hot swap" here. I never listened to the interview mentioned, nor do I know which Tudor employee it supposedly came from.

[CedCraig]

So, the excerpts below are actual messages in a private group chat. I’ve deleted the names since it’s not publicly available on the web. I highlighted some sections for easier reading. This is current information, like this week.

Reading these comments I stand by my assertion that Tudor swaps in refurbished Kenissi movements.

“Forgive me if anyone’s touched on this yet. “. . . @[industry insider who knows things] mentions the challenge with in-house movement post warranty. I actually just experienced that on a Pelagos 42 that was running well, but it had some other issues. I was required by RSC to do a service - I noticed on my invoice that they didn’t actually work on the movement. They swapped it out for a refurbished movement and sent the original movement back to Switzerland… it sure made me think hard about sticking to watches with Valjoux, eta, etc that I can service myself”

@[industry insider who knows things]: “I believe that is SOP for Tudor since going in house, it allows them a faster turn around on repairs.”

@[industry insider who knows things]: “So they keep stock of prepped movements, then swap them in and fix the original to use for a future repair. I think it’s clever and apparently it cuts down on waste.”

@[original commenter]: “I sent in a 2019 model and they not only swapped. They wouldn’t let me decline service even though it was running at -1spd, 300 degrees and 0ms beat error. I was sending it in for a bezel that was not covered under warranty - that being said the cost of service was very cheap! $500cad is practically free in US Dollars”. This person attached a photo of the bill, which said “Replace Movement: movement MT5612 a1 white reconditioned - x1”

If Tudor moves to a new movement swap service model, that’s no better in my mind. Then the MT movements are just a disposable, but more expensive, movement, like a Swatch Sistem51: just chuck out the old movement whenever there’s an issue.

Hard for me to believe a (the?) major industry player, Foundation Wilsdorf, is just throwing out watch movements, when the watch industry, like many other companies especially in Europe, are trying to “go green.” Marketing a fine Swiss timepiece as something that will outlast you and is fit to pass down to subsequent generations rings hollow when you just discard the most important part of a watch whenever it’s sent in for service.

Calling Tudor staff to ask if they use refurbished movements when repairing Kenissi powered watches is about the same as asking Rolex staff about 32xx problems: nobody will cop to anything negative about their products, the ‘ol move along now, there’s nothing to see here game.

I can’t find that Hodinkee article that confirmed the Kenissi refurbished movement service model, but if I eventually stumble on it, I’ll post again.

Since Tudor has historically had the freedom to try out new things, while Rolex moves ever so slowly, I think it’s worth keeping up on the Tudor service model. With the lack of qualified watchmakers only getting more pronounced and Rolex already moving to modular movement parts that are trashed instead of repaired, I think it’s only a matter of time before Rolex looks for a more efficient way to repair their watches. And we know that many of the current movements do indeed need repair (or replacement).

[saxo3]

A gentle reminder to all members what we are trying in this thread:



@Poodlopogus @CedCraig @the dark knight and others:

In this thread we are neither discussing nor speculating about Tudor or any other brands.

Please stop doing this here and create your own thread in one of the other subforums. Thank you!

[belutak]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

Curious, when a 32xx gets "sick" how long does it take for it to go from "slightly outside spec" (like -3 to -8) to wayyyy outside spec (like >-30)?

A month or so ago, mine went from averaging around +1 to averaging about -4.8. Happened pretty quickly. However something interesting I've noticed: looking at the graphs on the timekeeping app, this is by far the most consistent the watch has been day over day since the first six months of ownership.

My Sub 2024 is experiencing similar behaviour. Only 4 months old but already been to RSC twice. Each time kept +1 for two weeks then suddenly lost 3-4 sec overnight with the dial up (!). Interesting that the sudden loss of time happens after the watch is worn for a few days and then rested for one full day, implying the mid point in the power reserve. I take it that 32## has a major issue with the power reserve nonlinearity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by belutak

My Sub 2024 is experiencing similar behaviour. Only 4 months old but already been to RSC twice. Each time kept +1 for two weeks then suddenly lost 3-4 sec overnight with the dial up (!). Interesting that the sudden loss of time happens after the watch is worn for a few days and then rested for one full day, implying the mid point in the power reserve. I take it that 32## has a major issue with the power reserve nonlinearity.

As said already many times, timegrapher measurements (5 positions) after full winding and, at least, after 24 hours at rest would clarify (a lot) the status of your 32xx watch. It would be interesting as it is a new 03/2024 watch!

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by belutak

My Sub 2024 is experiencing similar behaviour. Only 4 months old but already been to RSC twice. Each time kept +1 for two weeks then suddenly lost 3-4 sec overnight with the dial up (!). Interesting that the sudden loss of time happens after the watch is worn for a few days and then rested for one full day, implying the mid point in the power reserve. I take it that 32## has a major issue with the power reserve nonlinearity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since not everyone is rushing out to get a timegrapher, I'm curious if you tested any of the following:

-Wind the watch manually, leave it dial up, then check timekeeping at various intervals.

-Re-wind the watch (manually) after the observed scenario (3-4sec loss) to see if it keeps losing.

-Picking up as normal after the 3-4 sec loss and wearing daily, to see if it keeps losing time at that rate.

Part of my curiosity is that four months seems to be not only a short time for a real problem to occur, but also implies very rapid turnaround times for RSC if any real work was done (as opposed to them winding it up, testing it, and saying: "well, looks fine now," then sending it back).

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

So, the excerpts below are actual messages in a private group chat. I’ve deleted the names since it’s not publicly available on the web. I highlighted some sections for easier reading. This is current information, like this week.

Reading these comments I stand by my assertion that Tudor swaps in refurbished Kenissi movements.

“Forgive me if anyone’s touched on this yet. “. . . @[industry insider who knows things] mentions the challenge with in-house movement post warranty. I actually just experienced that on a Pelagos 42 that was running well, but it had some other issues. I was required by RSC to do a service - I noticed on my invoice that they didn’t actually work on the movement. They swapped it out for a refurbished movement and sent the original movement back to Switzerland… it sure made me think hard about sticking to watches with Valjoux, eta, etc that I can service myself”

@[industry insider who knows things]: “I believe that is SOP for Tudor since going in house, it allows them a faster turn around on repairs.”

@[industry insider who knows things]: “So they keep stock of prepped movements, then swap them in and fix the original to use for a future repair. I think it’s clever and apparently it cuts down on waste.”

@[original commenter]: “I sent in a 2019 model and they not only swapped. They wouldn’t let me decline service even though it was running at -1spd, 300 degrees and 0ms beat error. I was sending it in for a bezel that was not covered under warranty - that being said the cost of service was very cheap! $500cad is practically free in US Dollars”. This person attached a photo of the bill, which said “Replace Movement: movement MT5612 a1 white reconditioned - x1”

If Tudor moves to a new movement swap service model, that’s no better in my mind. Then the MT movements are just a disposable, but more expensive, movement, like a Swatch Sistem51: just chuck out the old movement whenever there’s an issue.

Hard for me to believe a (the?) major industry player, Foundation Wilsdorf, is just throwing out watch movements, when the watch industry, like many other companies especially in Europe, are trying to “go green.” Marketing a fine Swiss timepiece as something that will outlast you and is fit to pass down to subsequent generations rings hollow when you just discard the most important part of a watch whenever it’s sent in for service.

Calling Tudor staff to ask if they use refurbished movements when repairing Kenissi powered watches is about the same as asking Rolex staff about 32xx problems: nobody will cop to anything negative about their products, the ‘ol move along now, there’s nothing to see here game.

I can’t find that Hodinkee article that confirmed the Kenissi refurbished movement service model, but if I eventually stumble on it, I’ll post again.

Since Tudor has historically had the freedom to try out new things, while Rolex moves ever so slowly, I think it’s worth keeping up on the Tudor service model. With the lack of qualified watchmakers only getting more pronounced and Rolex already moving to modular movement parts that are trashed instead of repaired, I think it’s only a matter of time before Rolex looks for a more efficient way to repair their watches. And we know that many of the current movements do indeed need repair (or replacement).

Very, very interesting.

When I read that, it makes me wonder: Did early 5612 movements have some systemic issue, like the GMT movement did with its date window, that Tudor would want to repair whether or not it was apparent in that particular watch?

That would at least explain the insistence on servicing (because there was some issue that was since solved and Tudor didn't want to let a watch leave the service centre without addressing on that watch).

The overall scenario seems a little different than sending a watch for routine movement servicing, but still contradicts the claim that "no refurbs" are used.

[belutak]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

Since not everyone is rushing out to get a timegrapher, I'm curious if you tested any of the following:

-Wind the watch manually, leave it dial up, then check timekeeping at various intervals.

-Re-wind the watch (manually) after the observed scenario (3-4sec loss) to see if it keeps losing.

-Picking up as normal after the 3-4 sec loss and wearing daily, to see if it keeps losing time at that rate.

Part of my curiosity is that four months seems to be not only a short time for a real problem to occur, but also implies very rapid turnaround times for RSC if any real work was done (as opposed to them winding it up, testing it, and saying: "well, looks fine now," then sending it back).

Rapid turnaround due to tuning only, no parts were replaced first two times they had the watch. This third time I am pretty sure they will test it more extensively. I spoke with their technician in person in detail and was confident that he would get to the bottom of the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CaptT]

I still find it interesting that there are folks on this forum that deny the issue with the 32xx movement, or downplay its significance, or excuse the issue altogether.

I bought my dad a 126610LN (Feb 2021), his first Rolex, and unfortunately it has had to go in twice (2022, 2024) for repair related to slowing (and presumably low amplitude though I wasn't able to test it). Kind of a sh!tty first experience with the brand. And I've sent 3 of my 32xx movement watches in for service, one of which has gone in twice.

The fact that that many 32xx watches have gone in to repair this issue a second time suggests that for at least a good portion of the past 7+ years there really hasn't been a solid, reliable fix for the issue. At least with Tudor's GMT date jumping issue, that was typically fixed once and then fully resolved, not to be an issue for the quite some time now as Tudor figured out and addressed the issue fairly quickly.

Just doesn't seem to be the case with the 32xx movements, though perhaps there are some positive indicators of late?

Anyway, thanks to all y'all producing and analyzing data here, and for your interest in the mechanical aspects of these movements.

[digiwatch]

I got my 1-year old Yachtmaster back from Rolex HQ. The AD said that they had to change some parts, but couldn't specify which one. She made a hand motion that looked like it might be the balance wheel, but I'm not certain that's what she meant.

Anyways, seems like its now inline with my new-ish Submariner with even better delta.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by digiwatch

I got my 1-year old Yachtmaster back from Rolex HQ. The AD said that they had to change some parts, but couldn't specify which one. She made a hand motion that looked like it might be the balance wheel, but I'm not certain that's what she meant.

I'm pretty sure Rolex HQ won't tell any AD what they've done or changed on a 32xx watch. Did you receive any documents from Rolex HQ?

[digiwatch]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I'm pretty sure Rolex HQ won't tell any AD what they've done or changed on a 32xx watch. Did you receive any documents from Rolex HQ?

The document I got only says “full service under warranty”, but the woman at the service area of the AD was very confident when she said that parts were changed. I’ll try to get more info next time.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by digiwatch

The document I got only says “full service under warranty”, but the woman at the service area of the AD was very confident when she said that parts were changed. I’ll try to get more info next time.

Is this document from Rolex HQ or from your AD?
Do you have any proof that your watch was sent to Rolex HQ and was serviced there?

[digiwatch]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Is this document from Rolex HQ or from your AD?
Do you have any proof that your watch was sent to Rolex HQ and was serviced there?

The “work sheet” doesn’t mention the name of my AD or Rolex, just information about my watch, what was done (full service) and how much it costs me (0 CHF). I suspect the document is from the AD.

About proof: when they tested the watch my sales rep told me that their service department can’t fix it, they have to send it to Rolex, and it will take 4-5 weeks. It did take 5 weeks. My AD is in Zurich.

[Dr. Robert]

No more updates? Did Rolex fix the problem?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Toshk]

Originally Posted by Dr. Robert

No more updates? Did Rolex fix the problem?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They must have

[belutak]

Originally Posted by belutak

Rapid turnaround due to tuning only, no parts were replaced first two times they had the watch. This third time I am pretty sure they will test it more extensively. I spoke with their technician in person in detail and was confident that he would get to the bottom of the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Service No3 completed. Here is what RSC did:

1. Found excessive lubrication (Note: on a brand new watch)
2. Replaced plate
3. Replaced escapement

Watch now runs +/-0 daytime +1 overnight dial up.
Fingers crossed!

I was confident that RSC Melbourne will do a good job after I spoke with their tech staff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HiBoost]

I finally sent my 126613LB in for service. Quick recap, this watch was purchased new December 2020. It was pulled out of the coffin in front of me and had never been running in the AD's case. From the beginning the amplitude was weak but the timekeeping was initially perfect. You can refer back to post #1 in this thread for exact numbers but the summary was at full wind, even dial up, the most it would do was 262 degrees but in most measurements it was maxing out in the mid 250s. 24 hours later it was already out of spec and in the 180s for vertical positions. Over the next couple of years the amplitude kept dropping until eventually it was under 200 degrees even at full wind. Timekeeping finally started to suffer as well and it was losing 10 s/d or more. Total usage was (guessing) 20 days? 30 at most? It mainly sat in the box (not on a winder).

I sent it to RSC Dallas and had it back after only 10 days (they said warranty work jumps to the front of the line). The paperwork given to me said only "movement check" but when I spoke with the representative on the phone they were able to pull up more detailed notes. They said "the movement was out of alignment and this was causing the power reserve to be lower than it should be. No new parts were needed but the movement was re-aligned and then it went through a thorough timing test to confirm everything was correct." No mention of amplitude whatsoever.

New numbers:

Full wind/+0 hours
DU +2 to +3 s/d, 271-273 deg
CD 0 s/d, 233-237 deg

+24 hours
DU +2 to +3 s/d, 255-258
CD -1 to +0 s/d, 210-214

+48 hours
DU +1 to +2, 218-221
CD -2 to +0, 180-188

+72 hours
Still running (and time is correct) but timegrapher not reading stats…
Stopped after 72 hours and 15 minutes

Clearly things are running better now than ever before. If this was truly achieved with no new parts that is encouraging.

In my absence I've continued to track down people who may have knowledge about this topic. A recent conversation with an RSC watchmaker yielded the following (if some of this has been mentioned already, apologies, I'm lacking the time to catch up on all posts here)

1) The date wheel post on the 32xx is steel and the inside of the date wheel is steel. Historically these were beryllium bronze or brass. Steel on steel wears more and causes more friction.

2) The epilame procedure on the 32xx is significantly more involved than on the 31xx. Nearly half of the parts require epilame, including many parts which never needed it on previous movement families.

3) The date wheel spring is very strong. The advantage of this is that the 32xx has a much quicker "snap" of the date change. But the downside is the extra pressure/friction this creates. And combined with steel on steel, not ideal for limiting wear...


That's all I know at this point, hopefully it is of some value. Also, to my old friends in this thread, please don't throw poop at me and I won't throw any back at you. I'm confident we can coexist the 1 day a year I'm on this forum. Life is too short to argue with people on forums so I will quickly depart if this devolves into more nonsense.

[Seo]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I finally sent my 126613LB in for service. Quick recap, this watch was purchased new December 2020. It was pulled out of the coffin in front of me and had never been running in the AD's case. From the beginning the amplitude was weak but the timekeeping was initially perfect. You can refer back to post #1 in this thread for exact numbers but the summary was at full wind, even dial up, the most it would do was 262 degrees but in most measurements it was maxing out in the mid 250s. 24 hours later it was already out of spec and in the 180s for vertical positions. Over the next couple of years the amplitude kept dropping until eventually it was under 200 degrees even at full wind. Timekeeping finally started to suffer as well and it was losing 10 s/d or more. Total usage was (guessing) 20 days? 30 at most? It mainly sat in the box (not on a winder).

I sent it to RSC Dallas and had it back after only 10 days (they said warranty work jumps to the front of the line). The paperwork given to me said only "movement check" but when I spoke with the representative on the phone they were able to pull up more detailed notes. They said "the movement was out of alignment and this was causing the power reserve to be lower than it should be. No new parts were needed but the movement was re-aligned and then it went through a thorough timing test to confirm everything was correct." No mention of amplitude whatsoever.

New numbers:

Full wind/+0 hours
DU +2 to +3 s/d, 271-273 deg
CD 0 s/d, 233-237 deg

+24 hours
DU +2 to +3 s/d, 255-258
CD -1 to +0 s/d, 210-214

+48 hours
DU +1 to +2, 218-221
CD -2 to +0, 180-188

+72 hours
Still running (and time is correct) but timegrapher not reading stats…
Stopped after 72 hours and 15 minutes

Clearly things are running better now than ever before. If this was truly achieved with no new parts that is encouraging.

In my absence I've continued to track down people who may have knowledge about this topic. A recent conversation with an RSC watchmaker yielded the following (if some of this has been mentioned already, apologies, I'm lacking the time to catch up on all posts here)

1) The date wheel post on the 32xx is steel and the inside of the date wheel is steel. Historically these were beryllium bronze or brass. Steel on steel wears more and causes more friction.

2) The epilame procedure on the 32xx is significantly more involved than on the 31xx. Nearly half of the parts require epilame, including many parts which never needed it on previous movement families.

3) The date wheel spring is very strong. The advantage of this is that the 32xx has a much quicker "snap" of the date change. But the downside is the extra pressure/friction this creates. And combined with steel on steel, not ideal for limiting wear...


That's all I know at this point, hopefully it is of some value. Also, to my old friends in this thread, please don't throw poop at me and I won't throw any back at you. I'm confident we can coexist the 1 day a year I'm on this forum. Life is too short to argue with people on forums so I will quickly depart if this devolves into more nonsense.

Super interesting, it has been noted that the no date was showing fewer issues, though some still show issues.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by belutak

Service No3 completed. Here is what RSC did:

1. Found excessive lubrication (Note: on a brand new watch)
2. Replaced plate
3. Replaced escapement

Watch now runs +/-0 daytime +1 overnight dial up.
Fingers crossed!

I was confident that RSC Melbourne will do a good job after I spoke with their tech staff.

How do you know what RSC found and replaced?
You have received an invoice, what is written on this document?

Normally they list "movement control" (or similar) and provide no details.

[belutak]

Originally Posted by saxo3

How do you know what RSC found and replaced?
You have received an invoice, what is written on this document?

Normally they list "movement control" (or similar) and provide no details.

I spoke with them in person


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by belutak

I spoke with them in person

Nonsense.
What is written on your invoice? Post it.

[nikola0406]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Nonsense.
What is written on your invoice? Post it.

I wonder why are you so pushy all the time mate :) It is contra productive

[nikola0406]

These are measurement of 2024 Rolex Explorer I 40mm, it was sitting CD for 24H, I wanted to check that scenario

[belutak]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Nonsense.
What is written on your invoice? Post it.

Sorry but Nonsense is your comment only
This is Australia, Rolex Sc in Melbourne is the reputable business and in person meeting with their staff can be trusted, absolutely


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by belutak

Sorry but Nonsense is your comment only
This is Australia, Rolex Sc in Melbourne is the reputable business and in person meeting with their staff can be trusted, absolutely

Nonsense was not targeted on you

Wherever the RSC is located, I won't believe what your contact told you, for a brand-new 32xx watch:
1. Found excessive lubrication
2. Replaced plate
3. Replaced escapement

I would like to hear from Bas if he also found all these 3 points (as listed above) when repairing NEW 32xx calibers.

Anyhow, again, what is written on your invoice?

[belutak]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Nonsense was not targeted on you

Wherever the RSC is located, I won't believe what your contact told you, for a brand-new 32xx watch:
1. Found excessive lubrication
2. Replaced plate
3. Replaced escapement

I would like to hear from Bas if he also found all these 3 points (as listed above) when repairing NEW 32xx calibers.

Anyhow, again, what is written on your invoice?

There is no invoice, watch is under warranty
What I told you was written on their service report which I read off their computer screen. They let me inside.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by belutak

There is no invoice, watch is under warranty
What I told you was written on their service report which I read off their computer screen. They let me inside.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the clarification. I'm very surprised that RSC Melbourne are disclosing 32xx repair details!

I asked you for the invoice for your watch as I have always received an invoice for each of my 32xx watches that have required RSC repairs during the warranty period. Of course it was always free of charge. All my 32xx RSC invoices only state "Movement control". Some additionally state "Check for leaks".