32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[goodolejr]

Originally Posted by amanbra

Damn, another one..

Frustrating.

[dannyp]

Ok, I have a new theory here. It may seem outlandish, and there may be reasons any watchmaker could tell me that immediately disprove it. But here it is: Magnetism.

Yes, I realize that the movements' key components are as antimagnetic as they've ever been. But I think that may be part of the problem: Magnetism only affects the minor components, and therefore goes unnoticed for much, much longer. In other words, a lesser/older movement would show signs of erratic behavior long before parts have actually worn out.

It would certainly explain why some movements are impacted and others not so much - some get magnetized and some don't. But what I hadn't known until recently is what can happen when minor components (and only those components) are magnetized. The strain on them becomes greater and watches can slow down, as opposed to when it happens with springs and the watch speeds up.

Thoughts?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by amanbra

Damn, another one..

Have you checked out the great thread about the longest record for a service yet?
It'll make you want to go vintage and forget about the latest and greatest
I'll wager none of these new ones will go similar distances

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Have you checked out the great thread about the longest record for a service yet?
It'll make you want to go vintage and forget about the latest and greatest
I'll wager none of these new ones will go similar distances

yeah i don't disagree with you.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by dieselgeek

My amplitude is 212, beat error 0.1 to 0.4 and it's -6 a day on the wrist. Shows an avg of that on the timegraph as well. 2020 GMT II

You have timegrapher data for 5 different 3285 positions which you can post? What is the 2020 purchase date?

[dieselgeek]

Originally Posted by saxo3

You have timegrapher data for 5 different 3285 positions which you can post? What is the 2020 purchase date?

I can do that, it was a late 2020 purchase. I'll throw it back on there today.

[dieselgeek]

Originally Posted by saxo3

You have timegrapher data for 5 different 3285 positions which you can post? What is the 2020 purchase date?

I took some photos. https://imgur.com/a/jOgSVkX



-6 209* .4ms
-5 200* .3ms
-4 199* 0.0ms
-5 211* .4ms
-5 200* .1ms

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by dieselgeek

I took some photos. https://imgur.com/a/jOgSVkX



-6 209* .4ms
-5 200* .3ms
-4 199* 0.0ms
-5 211* .4ms
-5 200* .1ms

Your timing is insanely consistent for the given position of the watch.

I assume the watch was full my wound for this test?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dieselgeek]

Originally Posted by amanbra

Your timing is insanely consistent for the given position of the watch.

I assume the watch was full my wound for this test?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wound it last night.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by dieselgeek

I took some photos. https://imgur.com/a/jOgSVkX



-6 209* .4ms
-5 200* .3ms
-4 199* 0.0ms
-5 211* .4ms
-5 200* .1ms

From your photos, I can see that your measurement results might be incorrect.

Your watch should be mounted on the timegrapher microphone assembly such that the crown is in contact with the microphone and not the opposite side.

In addition, you placed some kind of rather thick cotton band between the microphone and the watch case, probably to avoid scratches on the watch. This cotton band will attenuate the signal and might lead to wrong readings.

I suggest you rotate the watch by 180 degrees (crown in contact with microphone) and put a very thin tape on the crown to avoid scratches.

[dieselgeek]

Originally Posted by saxo3

From your photos, I can see that your measurement results might be incorrect.

Your watch should be mounted on the timegrapher microphone assembly such that the crown is in contact with the microphone and not the opposite side.

In addition, you placed some kind of rather thick cotton band between the microphone and the watch case, probably to avoid scratches on the watch. This cotton band will attenuate the signal and might lead to wrong readings.

I suggest you rotate the watch by 180 degrees (crown in contact with microphone) and put a very thin tape on the crown to avoid scratches.

Here ya go

https://imgur.com/a/oNWPTps

[saxo3]

Conclusion: 3285 from late 2020 with low amplitudes and negative rates after full winding -> ?

[dieselgeek]

Yup, I was hoping an adjustment would fix it, but that low Amplitude is worrisome.

[6120]

Interesting thread, I was not aware of all these issues. I have a timegrapher and will check mine now.

[dannyp]

Does five to ten minutes on the timegrapher give enough data? Took mine to AD to put on demagnetizer (in case that caused the small, but abrupt, slow-down). Watchmaker also ran timing test and was told all readings looked good (didn’t get specifics). Thought it took longer to get quality reading? Or not?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by 6120

Interesting thread, I was not aware of all these issues. I have a timegrapher and will check mine now.

A timegrapher measurement procedure you can find in this thread in posts #1425 and #771

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=1425

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...&postcount=771

[Vince_76]

My 126334 is less than 2 years old. Was around -0.5 sec/day upon purchase, and now is at -2.0 sec/day. I anticipate it will get worse.

The big deal for me isn’t in the timekeeping in it of itself. These are mechanical watches and if you’re going for accuracy, you’re looking at the wrong product segment.

The issue is that Rolex advertises this movement within COSC standards, and it’s clear that there’s a systemic issue making this movement fall out of specs. Their failure to address a known, prolofic, issue is quite disappointing.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Vince_76

My 126334 is less than 2 years old. Was around -0.5 sec/day upon purchase, and now is at -2.0 sec/day. I anticipate it will get worse.

The big deal for me isn’t in the timekeeping in it of itself. These are mechanical watches and if you’re going for accuracy, you’re looking at the wrong product segment.

The issue is that Rolex advertises this movement within COSC standards, and it’s clear that there’s a systemic issue making this movement fall out of specs. Rolex’s failure to address a prolific issue that they’ve been aware of is quite disappointing.

There's definitely an issue, but I don't think your description is quite accurate. It's not as though this is a movement that operates normally, but outside of Rolex/COSC standards. Those operating outside of those standards have a different flaw, causing abnormal wear on some watches. Those not experiencing the flaw run within spec (by and large), while those that are experiencing it are way, way off. It's not as though Rolex simply produced a movement that is outside of spec when operating normally. Somewhat different.

[Vince_76]

Originally Posted by dannyp

There's definitely an issue, but I don't think your description is quite accurate. It's not as though this is a movement that operates normally, but outside of Rolex/COSC standards. Those operating outside of those standards have a different flaw, causing abnormal wear on some watches. Those not experiencing the flaw run within spec (by and large), while those that are experiencing it are way, way off. It's not as though Rolex simply produced a movement that is outside of spec when operating normally. Somewhat different.

I never claimed that, at the point of production, the movement was outside of COSC specs. In fact, to the contrary, the movement was fine. My movement is still “fine” per the COSC standards but I wouldn’t be surprised if it falls out of specs (and it definitely is trending that way).

My point is this - Rolex knows of this systemic issue, and they haven’t addressed it in a systemic manner. For a luxury company, to keep customers in the dark like this, is pretty disappointing. You know that Rolex knows about this issue. Yet, what have they done on a company-wide basis?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Vince_76

Rolex knows of this systemic issue, and they haven’t addressed it in a systemic manner.

This is not correct …

Originally Posted by Vince_76

For a luxury company, to keep customers in the dark like this, is pretty disappointing.

Agreed, but that's not a surprise and not Rolex specific.

Originally Posted by Vince_76

Yet, what have they done on a company-wide basis?

A lot …

[TheVTCGuy]

Have you guys tried changing the watch battery?

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

A lot …

Do you know something regarding a permanent fix? Or just the various things that are done during service to try and remedy the problem on individual watches?

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Vince_76

I never claimed that, at the point of production, the movement was outside of COSC specs. In fact, to the contrary, the movement was fine. My movement is still “fine” per the COSC standards but I wouldn’t be surprised if it falls out of specs (and it definitely is trending that way).

My point is this - Rolex knows of this systemic issue, and they haven’t addressed it in a systemic manner. For a luxury company, to keep customers in the dark like this, is pretty disappointing. You know that Rolex knows about this issue. Yet, what have they done on a company-wide basis?

My point was that if these were technically functioning fine, but in constant need of regulation, that would be different than having what seems to be a single design flaw that degrades a specific part.

I'm sure Rolex is working on a permanent fix, and will implement it on all new watches. But if Rolex made an announcement, two things would happen:

1. It would lose face.
2. Half the owners out there would send their watch in, regardless of issues, to have it corrected.

What's important is that once a fix is recognized, Rolex extends (officially or unofficially) warranties indefinitely to fix watches that develop this particular issue after five years.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Have you guys tried changing the watch battery?

Yes, Rolex tried and it is their permanent fix … but don't tell your friends … wait until Charles comes back after 6 months to continue your timegrapher apprentice training.

[Vince_76]

Originally Posted by saxo3

This is not correct …


Agreed, but that's not a surprise and not Rolex specific.


A lot …

Such as…? As far as I’m aware it’s all one-off fixes primarily with lubrication. Am I missing something?

I refuse to believe RSC is so blind or has such poor data collection that they are not aware of an issue with the 3235.

Originally Posted by dannyp

My point was that if these were technically functioning fine, but in constant need of regulation, that would be different than having what seems to be a single design flaw that degrades a specific part.

I'm sure Rolex is working on a permanent fix, and will implement it on all new watches. But if Rolex made an announcement, two things would happen:

1. It would lose face.
2. Half the owners out there would send their watch in, regardless of issues, to have it corrected.

What's important is that once a fix is recognized, Rolex extends (officially or unofficially) warranties indefinitely to fix watches that develop this particular issue after five years.

Frankly, as a consumer, I don’t care about fixes on new iterations of the movement. I care about my watch.

And what you’re saying regarding an announcement is that Rolex puts its pride ahead of their customers. How is this any different than the early AirPod Pro defects that Apple not only extended the warranty for but issued statements about and provided free replacements as well? And I would hope that Rolex would cater more towards its customers given its luxury segmentation versus a company like Apple.

I agree they’re extending the warranty is a must. What Apple did as well.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Vince_76

Frankly, as a consumer, I don’t care about fixes on new iterations of the movement. I care about my watch.

And what you’re saying regarding an announcement is that Rolex puts its pride ahead of their customers. How is this any different than the early AirPod Pro defects that Apple not only extended the warranty for but issued statements about and provided free replacements as well? And I would hope that Rolex would cater more towards its customers given its luxury segmentation versus a company like Apple.

I agree they’re extending the warranty is a must. What Apple did as well.

1. As a fellow consumer, I agree entirely.
2. Rolex and Apple are in very different positions here. There are far more bloggers out there publicizing Apple issues, so there is no choice but to confront publicly.

[Vince_76]

Originally Posted by dannyp

1. As a fellow consumer, I agree entirely.
2. Rolex and Apple are in very different positions here. There are far more bloggers out there publicizing Apple issues, so there is no choice but to confront publicly.

That’s fair. I think it’s still in Rolex’s best interest to take a more comprehensive approach, even if it’s more under the radar. For example, what’s wrong with a note after returning the watch from RSC stating that they are aware of the issue and will reach back out when there is a more permanent fix with a complimentary service.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Frankly I’m disappointed that this issue hasn’t driven more owners away from Rolex and improved wait times at ADs.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Vince_76

That’s fair. I think it’s still in Rolex’s best interest to take a more comprehensive approach, even if it’s more under the radar. For example, what’s wrong with a note after returning the watch from RSC stating that they are aware of the issue and will reach back out when there is a more permanent fix with a complimentary service.

In this day and age, that's as much as public admission. What I think is more appropriate is to just comp the service if the watch fails again after the two year service warranty is up. Typically, though, repeat offenders tend to do so within two years. I recall this sort of thing with the 3186 movement and one of the parts controlling the 12hr hand. There was no announcement of a fix, just a directive to replace the part on any 3186 coming in for service.

And, frankly, it's possible there has already been a fix and we're simply unaware of it (though I would expect one of our resident RSC watchmakers to chime in with that).

Good news, for you, is that I don't hear of as many later 32xx movements and so far have seen virtually no reports of it on 36mm watches. But we'll see...

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Vince_76

Such as…? As far as I’m aware it’s all one-off fixes primarily with lubrication. Am I missing something?

I refuse to believe RSC is so blind or has such poor data collection that they are not aware of an issue with the 3235.



Frankly, as a consumer, I don’t care about fixes on new iterations of the movement. I care about my watch.

And what you’re saying regarding an announcement is that Rolex puts its pride ahead of their customers. How is this any different than the early AirPod Pro defects that Apple not only extended the warranty for but issued statements about and provided free replacements as well? And I would hope that Rolex would cater more towards its customers given its luxury segmentation versus a company like Apple.

I agree they’re extending the warranty is a must. What Apple did as well.

Please don't go making comparisons with any Apple products or any other tech related product and high quality wristwatches.
One is disposable and in the same league as a Swatch watch as far as those of us who are "into" watches which are at the serious end of the spectrum.
I'm refering to watches which are for the want of a better expression "heirloom quality".
It's inconceivable for tech related products to last in a useful manner much beyond a decade or so.

Tech is superseded as soon as it's released.
We are accustomed to downloading updates, patches and lord knows what else just to keep it running, along with adding other software which needs to be updated to protect the crap.

If you are having difficulty discerning the fundamental differences, you're in the wrong place and effectively lost.

As far as the notion that Rolex should aim up to the issue in the same manner that a company like Apple would do is beyond fanciful. Rolex going down that path would virtually blow Rolex up from the inside.
Also the Swiss are in some ways pretty arrogant when it comes to watchmaking in that they believe their own longstanding propaganda and they think they know more about watchmaking than anyone else in the entire universe.
Foe example, when Daniels told them how to make a Co-axial work, they ignored him and went skiing off down the road in their own way. It wasn't until they work out that Daniels was right after some serious problems with the way they went about it.
Then they changed the Co-axial to work as he fundamentally intended and had originally work it out.
The Swiss haven't fully appreciated that virtually all the most notable horologists throughout history have been from other countries. Not to mention how the Japanese slapped them around quite a bit in concourses which motivated them to lift their game among other things