32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[JoseR]

Originally Posted by Andad

Best post so far......

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by WastedYears

I did some measurements over a couple days to compare the Rolex watches in my collection.

I think it's pretty obvious that there's an issue with my BLRO. The question I now ask myself is, do I bring it in to the AD (which re-opened again today after being in lockdown) have them re-adjust/repair it, only to have the same issue possibly pop up again somewhere down the line? Or do I wait until Rolex maybe present a more long-term solution to this.

Oooo yeah that BLRO is showing the exact symptoms =(...

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

In my opinion, all forms of written communication completely suck at conveying tone. I try to avoid emojis since they always seem to have an alternative interpretation. "Is this guy really giving me a thumbs up or is that a sarcastic 'nice job loser' jab?!" I don't think we need this thread to become hostile. I am genuinely happy to hear you (or anybody) have had such good luck with multiple 32xx watches.

It's really weird how some people take this as an attack on them, their watches and or Rolex as opposed to us trying to work out what's going on.

[francis]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Great news and best post

True dat

[francis]

Originally Posted by amanbra

It's really weird how some people take this as an attack on them, their watches and or Rolex as opposed to us trying to work out what's going on.

It’s stunning actually. If they had a watch that had the issue they would be singing a different tune.

[Fuzzyme]

It takes 37.2 turns of the crown until fully wound.
I saw many people trying to guess what full wind for this watch actually is.

Every watch has a crown logo on the crown.

Start with the logo facing the dial side and make sure it goes around once, and count the turns as you go.

Pretty simple????

[Andad]

This has been done.

Read some posts.

[Fuzzyme]

People were still guessing at how many turns it takes.

[saxo3]

Hello WastedTimes,

in your post #684 I saw that your Submariner 124060 and Sea-Dweller 116600 timegrapher amplitudes are identical for 0, 12, 24, 36 hours.

You confirm that the correct amplitude values for the SD4k are 296, 285, 269, 230 degrees?

Cheers.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by Fuzzyme

It takes 37.2 turns of the crown until fully wound.
I saw many people trying to guess what full wind for this watch actually is.

Every watch has a crown logo on the crown.

Start with the logo facing the dial side and make sure it goes around once, and count the turns as you go.

Pretty simple????

The ".2" aspect still makes this feel like trolling. Not 37 turns, not 37 and a quarter, but 37.2 specifically. Of course, I normally prefer to discuss crown windings in units of radians, but I suppose for "internet purposes" we can get by with mere revolutions. Thank you for the contribution.

[ofelas]

saxo3 & HiBoost - some fine investigative reporting going on here - keep up the data inflow

[Fuzzyme]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

The ".2" aspect still makes this feel like trolling. Not 37 turns, not 37 and a quarter, but 37.2 specifically. Of course, I normally prefer to discuss crown windings in units of radians, but I suppose for "internet purposes" we can get by with mere revolutions. Thank you for the contribution.

Glad I made you happy?
Radians of the crown............have never ever heard that.

[saxo3]

Caliber data comparison 3132, 3135, 3230, 3235, 3285

New data:
- Submariner 124060 (caliber 3230) - October 2020
- GMT Master II 126710BLRO (caliber 3285) - September 2018
- Explorer 214270 (caliber 3132) - July 2016
- Sea-Dweller 116600 (caliber 3135) - March 2017
Reference: Wasted Years

Comparison:
- Sea-Dweller 126600 (caliber 3235) - October 2017 (repaired in 2019)

[Annan]

Some of just absolutely HAD to have a 32XX movement!

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Annan

Some of just absolutely HAD to have a 32XX movement!

The last two posts cannot be more opposed in content!

[francis]

Originally Posted by Annan

Some of just absolutely HAD to have a 32XX movement!

HAHAHAHAHA exactly!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[peterskinner]

Originally Posted by rolexgiants

Anyone having trouble with the 32XX movement in the DD40? I’m not seeing any complaints...

The movement in the DD 40 had major issues with the date/day change over. New parts had to be added.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Fuzzyme

People were still guessing at how many turns it takes.

That's absolutely bizarre to me.

It's simple. Just turn until one can feel the end of the Mainspring slip when it disengages from the detent on the inside of the barrel.
It can be felt and heard.

Perhaps some are just not cut out for mechanical watch ownership. Especially when they question whether there's something wrong with their watch because they have to turn the Winding crown backward to advance the hands when setting the time

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

The last two posts cannot be more opposed in content!

But both equally relevant in the broadest context

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Caliber data comparison 3132, 3135, 3230, 3235, 3285

New data:
- Submariner 124060 (caliber 3230) - October 2020
- GMT Master II 126710BLRO (caliber 3285) - September 2018
- Explorer 214270 (caliber 3132) - July 2016
- Sea-Dweller 116600 (caliber 3135) - March 2017
Reference: Wasted Years

Comparison:
- Sea-Dweller 126600 (caliber 3235) - October 2017 (repaired in 2019)

A very informative graph

Unfortunately it doesn't reveal how well the watches represented in the graph actually performed as timekeepers on the wrist in a day to day scenario

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Dirt

A very informative graph

Unfortunately it doesn't reveal how well the watches represented in the graph actually performed as timekeepers on the wrist in a day to day scenario

Dirt, that is a very good remark, absolutely correct, but one can conclude a lot.

This graph "only" displays the amplitudes measured by 'WastedYears' in dial up (DU) position and compares these numbers with my 126600 SD43.

In post #684 the DU rates were also given for all his watches, have a look at his data tables.

There you see that the 126710 BLRO already has a rather bad rate of -7 s/d after full winding, which becomes worse with time, e.g. -11 s/d after only 24 hours.

The characteristic footprint is the very low amplitude measured for the BLRO already at t = 0 (226 degrees) and at t = 24 h (196 degrees), keeping in mind that the PR for 32xx calibers should approach 70 hours.

In comparison to these numbers, my SD43 has an excellent starting amplitude of 291 degrees and the curve is much better, i.e. the rates remain high for a longer time, e.g. 203 degrees after 62 hours!

I would say that the Sub41 movement is in a much better state than the BLRO movement.

Not a real surprise for me because the Sub41 is very new (Oct. 2020) and the BLRO (Sept. 2018) is about 2 years older.

Based on my experience, it will not take a very long time until the shown BLRO will not reach any longer 200 degrees amplitude after full winding, and then the rates will become soon much more negative than now.

Not to forget that dial up and dial down are the most favourable positions for such measurements.
In all other positions, amplitudes and rates are definitely less good.

In other words: low movement amplitudes are in general a good indicator that something has changed (degraded) with time. For the here discussed 32xx calibers the reason can be a weak mainspring (unlikely for new watches) or enhanced friction (with significant wear) somewhere, e.g. on the 3235-360 second hand wheel.

I hope that helps you for a better understanding of such graphs.

[Ashton_Horologist]

I would like to clarify something. It’s no secret that I think the 31xx series of movements are more tried and tested than the 32xx series of movements. I truly love working on 31xx movements as they are a breeze to work on, and to be honest, I’ve only ever serviced one 32xx movement and that was in training when I worked at Rolex.

Do I think the 32xx movement will overtake the 31xx and become the new workhorse? Absolutely. Do I think the watch has a problem. Absolutely. But I am confident that the watch will be fixed.

I have no skin in the game. I don’t own a 32xx movement, or a 31xx. I’m a 1570 guy. In fact, modern watches don’t do much for me.

Now, to the matter at hand. Amplitude.

The graphs and numbers are interesting, but by no means surprising. It’s a bunch of information we already know. You are free to continue collecting information, but I don’t believe it will tell you anything further. But hey, life is full of pointless things and sometimes we just find them interesting. So have at it.

Let’s first take a 31xx movement. It is stated that after 24 hours the amplitude cannot be below 200 degrees in the vertical position. This is a watch with a 40ish hour power reserve. These numbers make sense. I will say, however, that if a 31xx movement is 201 degrees after 24 hours in the vertical there is problem something that has been overlooked. They are usually around 220. But that is why tolerances exist.

I must say, I never could wrap my head around the numbers for the 32xx movement. Or the 41xx for that matter. They have a 70 hour power reserve but also must have amplitude of 200 degree minimum in the vertical. The issue I have is that they are required to run for much longer with an accurate rate. This would have me think the amplitude needs to be at least 230 in the vertical. But, that isn’t what Rolex states and maybe they no something I don’t. I say that as amplitude is a fascinating subject. I fix many vintage Seiko’s, and if we take the 6139 movement as an example - it’s a low amplitude movement. It can be made to keep very accurate time, almost chronometer standard, but at full wind it runs at around 220 - 230 degrees in the horizontal! And has a power reserve of a around 40 hours. It’s engineered that way.

So, perhaps the 32xx has been designed to run at a lower amplitude and still maintain its rate, hence the minimum requirements. I’m not sure. But based on what I know and have seen, that’s not the case. So, a watch that is running at 185 degrees after 24 hours definitely has something wrong.

So, the more interesting question to me is - what are the power reserve like? That’s more of an indicator of issue (this may have been discussed, but I’ll be honest, I only skimmed through).

The one thing we know for sure though is this - I’m a bit of an idiot who doesn’t know anything and FuzzyMe is a horological God. So perhaps we should get his take...

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist

So, the more interesting question to me is - what are the power reserve like? That’s more of an indicator of issue (this may have been discussed, but I’ll be honest, I only skimmed through).

All three watches of mine show about 70-72hrs PR

The two that are operating fine run a tad faster towards the end of the PR and then slow right down at the end of the PR.

my problem 3235 starts of slow and just gets slower and slower.

So i take it off friday after work and pick it up monday and it's like 2mins behind. When it was running in spec and with my other two they're basically +4+6 seconds over that period of time.

[Ashton_Horologist]

What’s is the amplitude on Monday mornings?

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist

What’s is the amplitude on Monday mornings?

something woeful on the bad movement like 165ish? dail up.

the good ones I haven't ever measured 2 and a half days in.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist

So, perhaps the 32xx has been designed to run at a lower amplitude and still maintain its rate, hence the minimum requirements. I’m not sure. But based on what I know and have seen, that’s not the case. So, a watch that is running at 185 degrees after 24 hours definitely has something wrong.

So, the more interesting question to me is - what are the power reserve like? That’s more of an indicator of issue (this may have been discussed, but I’ll be honest, I only skimmed through).

Hi Ashton, thanks again for joining in the conversation. Your input will always be valued by those of us who started this thread in the first place. You'll have to forgive us for collecting more data but saxo and I just tend to think in that direction. Even if it's not an area where we are experts, it seems to give some way to find patterns, and I suppose there is some "comfort" in that.

So let's take my particular watch:

Full wind: dial up - 255 degrees, crown down - 212.
After 12 hours: dial up - 255, crown down - 203
After 24 hours: dial up - 243, crown down - 184
After 36 hours: dial up - 232, crown down - 184
After 48 hours: dial up - 208, crown down - 157

By "the spec" and your assessment my watch is definitely low on amplitude. I'm at the limit of the spec after only 12 hours, and well below from there on. Yet my power reserve was 71 hours and at hour 68 I was exactly at +/- 0 seconds as compared to the atomic clock (granted, it gradually went up to +4 in the first 48 hours, then drifted back down to +0 in the next 20 hours).

What does that mean? Amplitude seems "way low" yet timekeeping and PR are quite good. Granted the majority of that 71 hours was spent in the dial up position and we can clearly see my vertical positions have much lower amplitude. Therefore these timekeeping and PR results are likely optimistic as compared to real world wearing. But of course if it were being worn that whole time it would still be winding and PR isn't really a concern.

In my mind, all the curiosity in compiling "data" comes back to this - are these low amplitudes a warning, a precursor if you will, to an inevitable failure down the road? Or is it actually possible this thing will still be humming along keeping great time 5 years from now? Your comments suggest you are a bit skeptical about the claimed "correct" amplitude values. But what are the actual normal, average numbers these things are putting out? We know amplitude is low when there is a problem. But is there always a problem when amplitude is low? And how much variation is to be expected within the same model of movement? If I had 3 Subs would we expect all 3 to be within 5-10 degrees of each other at the same PR? Or would you say no, there could be a 20-30 degree difference just due to tolerances and everything is fine?

This is just one of those things where we don't have enough data to paint the full picture. The watches that ended up losing tons of time, did they start off with weak amplitudes and get even weaker? Not sure. As well, are there any examples of a watch having consistently low amplitude and never getting any worse? Again, not sure. So you still may be convinced we are wasting time, and I can't really say you are wrong, but hopefully that at least points to what we're trying to flesh out. At the end of the day it is still Rolex's problem to solve. Even if we had graphs from 10,000 units that isn't going to magically make a new part or procedure show up at the RSCs. But it would provide a little comfort/closure to those of us who are interested in such things.

An analogy would be a car failure. If your car breaks down and you have to get a tow truck, some might argue it doesn't really matter what the cause is, the result is the same - the car stopped and has to get fixed. But another person might feel that knowing whether it was a failed fuel pump or a broken crankshaft makes a big difference in how they perceive the overall reliability of the vehicle. And it also just satisfies a basic curiosity that many of us have. I like mechanical watches because I like mechanical things. And I like mechanical things because I'm fascinated by how they work. So here we are :)

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist

So, perhaps the 32xx has been designed to run at a lower amplitude and still maintain its rate, hence the minimum requirements. I’m not sure. But based on what I know and have seen, that’s not the case. So, a watch that is running at 185 degrees after 24 hours definitely has something wrong.

An excellent point and one I have made myself previously based upon the reports of another Watchmaker who has a lot of experience repairing them along side others in the Service centre.
He has previously intimated that the 32xx movements do not tend to be big on amplitude by nature.

So yes, it's entirely plausible the 32xx movement may well have always been intended to run to an acceptable standard with notably lower amplitudes across the power reserve in a similar fashion to the Seiko 6139 movement.

I suspect that in the short term the only ones who would be able to shed light on this aspect will be those good folk beavering away and securely cloistered within the belly of the mothership.

I think we also need to understand that the measurement of amplitude in the case of these 32xx movements presenting with problems in warranty, is simply used as a non-invasive method to establish whether a watch has a problem with timekeeping and needs to be serviced.
Amplitude is symptomatic of the movements decline.
The path to rectification is well trodden at the RSCs.
The root cause has yet to be uncovered and a permanent fix applied if possible.

To date, this poll looks like the only pathway for us mere mortals to reconcile whether a fix has been applied.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Dirt

An excellent point and one I have made myself previously based upon the reports of another Watchmaker who has a lot of experience repairing them along side others in the Service centre.
He has previously intimated that the 32xx movements do not tend to be big on amplitude by nature.

So yes, it's entirely plausible the 32xx movement may well have always been intended to run to an acceptable standard with notably lower amplitudes across the power reserve in a similar fashion to the Seiko 6139 movement.

I suspect that in the short term the only ones who would be able to shed light on this aspect will be those good folk beavering away and securely cloistered within the belly of the mothership.

I think we also need to understand that the measurement of amplitude in the case of these 32xx movements presenting with problems in warranty, is simply used as a non-invasive method to establish whether a watch has a problem with timekeeping and needs to be serviced.
Amplitude is symptomatic of the movements decline.
The path to rectification is well trodden at the RSCs.
The root cause has yet to be uncovered and a permanent fix applied if possible.

To date, this poll looks like the only pathway for us mere mortals to reconcile whether a fix has been applied.

Bas did say the 32XX were not amplitude monsters.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Hi Ashton, thanks again for joining in the conversation. Your input will always be valued by those of us who started this thread in the first place. You'll have to forgive us for collecting more data but saxo and I just tend to think in that direction. Even if it's not an area where we are experts, it seems to give some way to find patterns, and I suppose there is some "comfort" in that.

So let's take my particular watch:

Full wind: dial up - 255 degrees, crown down - 212.
After 12 hours: dial up - 255, crown down - 203
After 24 hours: dial up - 243, crown down - 184
After 36 hours: dial up - 232, crown down - 184
After 48 hours: dial up - 208, crown down - 157

By "the spec" and your assessment my watch is definitely low on amplitude. I'm at the limit of the spec after only 12 hours, and well below from there on. Yet my power reserve was 71 hours and at hour 68 I was exactly at +/- 0 seconds as compared to the atomic clock (granted, it gradually went up to +4 in the first 48 hours, then drifted back down to +0 in the next 20 hours).

What does that mean? Amplitude seems "way low" yet timekeeping and PR are quite good. Granted the majority of that 71 hours was spent in the dial up position and we can clearly see my vertical positions have much lower amplitude. Therefore these timekeeping and PR results are likely optimistic as compared to real world wearing. But of course if it were being worn that whole time it would still be winding and PR isn't really a concern.

In my mind, all the curiosity in compiling "data" comes back to this - are these low amplitudes a warning, a precursor if you will, to an inevitable failure down the road? Or is it actually possible this thing will still be humming along keeping great time 5 years from now? Your comments suggest you are a bit skeptical about the claimed "correct" amplitude values. But what are the actual normal, average numbers these things are putting out? We know amplitude is low when there is a problem. But is there always a problem when amplitude is low? And how much variation is to be expected within the same model of movement? If I had 3 Subs would we expect all 3 to be within 5-10 degrees of each other at the same PR? Or would you say no, there could be a 20-30 degree difference just due to tolerances and everything is fine?

This is just one of those things where we don't have enough data to paint the full picture. The watches that ended up losing tons of time, did they start off with weak amplitudes and get even weaker? Not sure. As well, are there any examples of a watch having consistently low amplitude and never getting any worse? Again, not sure. So you still may be convinced we are wasting time, and I can't really say you are wrong, but hopefully that at least points to what we're trying to flesh out. At the end of the day it is still Rolex's problem to solve. Even if we had graphs from 10,000 units that isn't going to magically make a new part or procedure show up at the RSCs. But it would provide a little comfort/closure to those of us who are interested in such things.

An analogy would be a car failure. If your car breaks down and you have to get a tow truck, some might argue it doesn't really matter what the cause is, the result is the same - the car stopped and has to get fixed. But another person might feel that knowing whether it was a failed fuel pump or a broken crankshaft makes a big difference in how they perceive the overall reliability of the vehicle. And it also just satisfies a basic curiosity that many of us have. I like mechanical watches because I like mechanical things. And I like mechanical things because I'm fascinated by how they work. So here we are :)

I noted you were +/-0 after 68 hours.

Was this dial up during this time?

My 3235 was also accurate towards the end of its power reserve dial up but my TimeG showed that other positions would not have given me anywhere near the same result.

[RFC]

Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist

I would like to clarify something. It’s no secret that I think the 31xx series of movements are more tried and tested than the 32xx series of movements. I truly love working on 31xx movements as they are a breeze to work on, and to be honest, I’ve only ever serviced one 32xx movement and that was in training when I worked at Rolex.

Do I think the 32xx movement will overtake the 31xx and become the new workhorse? Absolutely. Do I think the watch has a problem. Absolutely. But I am confident that the watch will be fixed.

I have no skin in the game. I don’t own a 32xx movement, or a 31xx. I’m a 1570 guy. In fact, modern watches don’t do much for me.

Now, to the matter at hand. Amplitude.

The graphs and numbers are interesting, but by no means surprising. It’s a bunch of information we already know. You are free to continue collecting information, but I don’t believe it will tell you anything further. But hey, life is full of pointless things and sometimes we just find them interesting. So have at it.

Let’s first take a 31xx movement. It is stated that after 24 hours the amplitude cannot be below 200 degrees in the vertical position. This is a watch with a 40ish hour power reserve. These numbers make sense. I will say, however, that if a 31xx movement is 201 degrees after 24 hours in the vertical there is problem something that has been overlooked. They are usually around 220. But that is why tolerances exist.

I must say, I never could wrap my head around the numbers for the 32xx movement. Or the 41xx for that matter. They have a 70 hour power reserve but also must have amplitude of 200 degree minimum in the vertical. The issue I have is that they are required to run for much longer with an accurate rate. This would have me think the amplitude needs to be at least 230 in the vertical. But, that isn’t what Rolex states and maybe they no something I don’t. I say that as amplitude is a fascinating subject. I fix many vintage Seiko’s, and if we take the 6139 movement as an example - it’s a low amplitude movement. It can be made to keep very accurate time, almost chronometer standard, but at full wind it runs at around 220 - 230 degrees in the horizontal! And has a power reserve of a around 40 hours. It’s engineered that way.

So, perhaps the 32xx has been designed to run at a lower amplitude and still maintain its rate, hence the minimum requirements. I’m not sure. But based on what I know and have seen, that’s not the case. So, a watch that is running at 185 degrees after 24 hours definitely has something wrong.

So, the more interesting question to me is - what are the power reserve like? That’s more of an indicator of issue (this may have been discussed, but I’ll be honest, I only skimmed through).

The one thing we know for sure though is this - I’m a bit of an idiot who doesn’t know anything and FuzzyMe is a horological God. So perhaps we should get his take...

Ashton I read your piece in a blog recently about the 3135-from your perspective as a watchmaker-being more reliable and easier to repair and service than the 3235 for a number of design and part-related issues that I confess not to understand well. You have more standing to give an opinion than any of us forum readers/writers that are not watchmakers or have never serviced a watch. I’ve owned a 3135 movement in a 96’ datejust and a 3130 in a Sub and both work like a charm.

Ashton on a side note what’s your view of Omega’s 8800 master co axial used in the Seamaster? I’ve read comparisons that the 8800 is superior as a master chronometer to the Chronergy escapement.