The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Forum > Rolex & Tudor Watch Topics > Rolex WatchTech

View Poll Results: Does your 32xx movement seem to be 100% ok?
Yes, no issues 1,059 69.67%
No, amplitude is low (below 200) but timekeeping is still fine 62 4.08%
No, amplitude is low (below 200) and timekeeping is off (>5 s/d) 399 26.25%
Voters: 1520. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 21 June 2024, 07:52 AM   #5011
SOG DIVER
"TRF" Member
 
SOG DIVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Real Name: LtCol R
Location: Mtns-NM-MT
Watch: 1680Red-551214060M
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by maratka View Post
**My humble opinion:** Unfortunately, I probably have to agree with you. Rolex is a very large company with surely competent engineers on board. If the problem hasn't been definitively solved in 6 years (or more?), it's likely that the solution somehow impacts the claims they've made (particularly regarding the power reserve). However, as we know, creating a movement with a 70-hour power reserve is not that difficult a task (considering we're talking about Rolex) and without losing accuracy. But I think the solution to this problem requires such a substantial change to the current design that most parts would need to be replaced, and it just wouldn't be the same anymore. Hence, I conclude that you are right, and there will either be a deep modernization or a new caliber (or they'll call this modernization a new caliber :) ). If we assume that fixing this defect involves replacing, say, 80% of the parts (I'm just making this up), then such an operation could likely only be done at the factory, which is essentially assembling new watches with a new mechanism that requires complex quality control and a lot of time. Currently, Rolex is focused on producing and selling rather than halting production to deal with millions of already released calibers. Therefore, I am almost certain that there will be no solution to this problem. They will continue with "quick" repairs that do not require large production capacities, which are much more needed for new watches. This conclusion makes me think that, unfortunately, the only options left are to either endure the problem and constantly take them to the service center, buy a 3135, or wait for the new generation.
I have been following this 32XX movement issue for awhile, and the 70-hour power reserve mentioned by MARATKA piqued interest and crossed a
separate research path that I am engaged in on the Blancpain 1315 caliber compared to recent Rolex calibers.
Keeping it VERY brief as this is/is not tangential to the 32xx caliber.
BUT the 1315 caliber is known to retain a 100+-hour power reserve while delivering startling accuracy over time.
It does invite a comparison of Rolex 3135 -32xx- and BP 1315 movements
as to their respective qualities, an activity that I am currently
engaged in. {Please excuse this insertion, in the interest of horological
research.} SD
SOG DIVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 June 2024, 09:17 AM   #5012
Easy E
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOG DIVER View Post
I have been following this 32XX movement issue for awhile, and the 70-hour power reserve mentioned by MARATKA piqued interest and crossed a
separate research path that I am engaged in on the Blancpain 1315 caliber compared to recent Rolex calibers.
Keeping it VERY brief as this is/is not tangential to the 32xx caliber.
BUT the 1315 caliber is known to retain a 100+-hour power reserve while delivering startling accuracy over time.
It does invite a comparison of Rolex 3135 -32xx- and BP 1315 movements
as to their respective qualities, an activity that I am currently
engaged in. {Please excuse this insertion, in the interest of horological
research.} SD
Probably a topic for a separate thread, but the 1315 with 3 barrels brings the heat.
Easy E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 June 2024, 03:22 PM   #5013
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOG DIVER View Post
I have been following this 32XX movement issue for awhile, and the 70-hour power reserve mentioned by MARATKA piqued interest and crossed a
separate research path that I am engaged in on the Blancpain 1315 caliber compared to recent Rolex calibers.
Keeping it VERY brief as this is/is not tangential to the 32xx caliber.
BUT the 1315 caliber is known to retain a 100+-hour power reserve while delivering startling accuracy over time.
It does invite a comparison of Rolex 3135 -32xx- and BP 1315 movements
as to their respective qualities, an activity that I am currently
engaged in. {Please excuse this insertion, in the interest of horological
research.} SD
The Blancpain caliber 1315 is a marvel compared to the Rolex 32xx calibers. The 120 h power reserve of the 1315, achieved with 3 barrels, beats by far the 31xx (44 h) and 32xx (70 h). Don't get me started on the 1315 accuracy.
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 June 2024, 09:13 PM   #5014
digiwatch
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 12
One month old Submariner 124060. If the average is within Rolex specs, and each position individually is within COSC specs, that means it’s all good?
Attached Images
 
digiwatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 June 2024, 09:56 PM   #5015
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,918
32xx movement problem poll and data thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by digiwatch View Post
One month old Submariner 124060. If the average is within Rolex specs, and each position individually is within COSC specs, that means it’s all good?
Your new 32xx watch looks perfect after full winding. What you call "Sigma" is normally the "Delta". You continue to measure along the power reserve?

PS: "perfect" because 4 of the 5 rates are positive and one position (3U) is negative. With such a caliber regulation you are able to compensate, either gain or loss during a day, by choosing an appropriate rest position overnight. In addition, the 2 horizontal and 3 vertical amplitudes are very similar, which is the result of a very good movement regulation, including a positive X (average rate).
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 June 2024, 11:06 PM   #5016
digiwatch
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
Your new 32xx watch looks perfect after full winding. What you call "Sigma" is normally the "Delta". You continue to measure along the power reserve?

PS: "perfect" because 4 of the 5 rates are positive and one position (3U) is negative. With such a caliber regulation you are able to compensate, either gain or loss during a day, by choosing an appropriate rest position overnight. In addition, the 2 horizontal and 3 vertical amplitudes are very similar, which is the result of a very good movement regulation, including a positive X (average rate).
Thanks saxo3! I'll repeat the test after 24 hours.

So 12U is not regulated by Rolex, right? Because the rate in that position was -5.5 s/d, amp was 234 deg and beat error was 0.2 ms.

Out of curiosity I also did the measurements for our almost 2 years old OP34 (2232) and our 1 year old DJ31 (2236):
Attached Images
   
digiwatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 June 2024, 12:14 AM   #5017
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by digiwatch View Post
One month old Submariner 124060. If the average is within Rolex specs, and each position individually is within COSC specs, that means it’s all good?
Rolex does not mention COSC in their timing tolerances for the basic (32xx) movement.

The paper copy below was posted 2 years ago in this thread. Look at the 1st criterion for the rate.

The maximum Delta is 9 s/d, for COSC this would be 10 s/d.

saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 June 2024, 06:22 AM   #5018
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by digiwatch View Post
Thanks saxo3! I'll repeat the test after 24 hours.
Good, you should not move the watch in-between (you certainly know). Keep it in DU position. You could continue taking measurements after 12,24,36,48,60 hours to get an idea about the amplitudes along the power reserve, as others have done before in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digiwatch View Post
So 12U is not regulated by Rolex, right? Because the rate in that position was -5.5 s/d, amp was 234 deg and beat error was 0.2 ms.
Correct, look above, this are the instructions given by Rolex SA: Test positions for the watch (or movement)
Quote:
Originally Posted by digiwatch View Post
Out of curiosity I also did the measurements for our almost 2 years old OP34 (2232) and our 1 year old DJ31 (2236):
Both caliber data sets look very good.
Sigma = Delta
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 June 2024, 09:52 PM   #5019
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by digiwatch View Post
Thanks saxo3! I'll repeat the test after 24 hours.
Do you intend to post an update on your measurements?
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 June 2024, 12:30 AM   #5020
Easy E
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 5,080
Ok, boiys and girls. What we have today is a 3285 caliber piece, purchased from a TS about 2 weeks ago in stated unworn condition, warranty card dated 3/24. For today we are just going to call this Watch X. It appears that at 24hrs the vertical amplitudes are out of spec and the max delta (I think that's the correct term) is 9.6, also slightly out of spec. I post, you decide.
Attached Images
 
Easy E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 June 2024, 12:33 AM   #5021
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,918
32xx movement problem poll and data thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy E View Post
Ok, boiys and girls. What we have today is a 3285 caliber piece, purchased from a TS about 2 weeks ago in stated unworn condition, warranty card dated 3/24. For today we are just going to call this Watch X. It appears that at 24hrs the vertical amplitudes are out of spec and the max delta (I think that's the correct term) is 9.6, also slightly out of spec. I post, you decide.
Holy sh%t
This is a NEW 32xx watch from March 2024!
Thanks for this interesting data along the PR.
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 June 2024, 01:54 AM   #5022
the dark knight
2024 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy E View Post
Ok, boiys and girls. What we have today is a 3285 caliber piece, purchased from a TS about 2 weeks ago in stated unworn condition, warranty card dated 3/24. For today we are just going to call this Watch X. It appears that at 24hrs the vertical amplitudes are out of spec and the max delta (I think that's the correct term) is 9.6, also slightly out of spec. I post, you decide.
Those amp numbers even at full wind look quite low
the dark knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 June 2024, 03:52 AM   #5023
CharlesN
"TRF" Member
 
CharlesN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The UK
Watch: I love them all.
Posts: 1,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy E View Post
I post, you decide.
I have decided …

Your watch, even being from March 2024 has definitely got what has been termed here a number of times as “The Bug”

Of course there are those here who still will or can not bring themselves to admit that Rolex have got a problem and they just will not own up to it.

How much more proof does Rolex or the unbelievers need ?
__________________
Regards,
CharlesN
Member of the IWJG.
CharlesN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 June 2024, 04:21 AM   #5024
enjoythemusic
2024 Pledge Member
 
enjoythemusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Real Name: Steven
Location: Glocal
Posts: 21,192
Well, there's nearly always a flip-side to any movement. For all the yeses, there will be nos.

Plus, does it really matter about the non-believers if their destiny is still certain? What will happen, will, all in good time.
__________________
__________________

----> Was Great Seeing Everyone At The TRF December 9 Tampa Meetup <----
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=968133

Love timepieces and want to become a Watchmaker? Rolex has a sensational school.
www.RolexWatchmakingTrainingCenter.com/

Sent from my Etch A Sketch using String Theory.
enjoythemusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28 June 2024, 07:38 AM   #5025
Via reggio
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: May 2024
Location: North
Posts: 12
Low amplitude on a watch today, I started to only change the palettfork and the n the amplitude went up from 215 up to 260 - 270 in horizontal
Also passed 24h 200 amp tolerance
Via reggio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 June 2024, 09:06 AM   #5026
the dark knight
2024 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy E View Post
Ok, boiys and girls. What we have today is a 3285 caliber piece, purchased from a TS about 2 weeks ago in stated unworn condition, warranty card dated 3/24. For today we are just going to call this Watch X. It appears that at 24hrs the vertical amplitudes are out of spec and the max delta (I think that's the correct term) is 9.6, also slightly out of spec. I post, you decide.
BTW, is this watch the DJ41 in your handle? The reason I ask is because it's not unheard of for ADs to hang on to some more "popular" models to try to bundle them or entice people to buy more watches before making them available. So a 3/24 warranty date could be a watch that was manufactured quite a while ago. But I don't think this would be the case for a DJ41.

Anyway, I was getting optimistic because of Bas's post a while ago about not seeing nearly as many 32xx watches coming in for warranty services, but this would throw a damper on those hopes.
the dark knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 June 2024, 10:54 AM   #5027
Easy E
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by the dark knight View Post
BTW, is this watch the DJ41 in your handle? The reason I ask is because it's not unheard of for ADs to hang on to some more "popular" models to try to bundle them or entice people to buy more watches before making them available. So a 3/24 warranty date could be a watch that was manufactured quite a while ago. But I don't think this would be the case for a DJ41.

Anyway, I was getting optimistic because of Bas's post a while ago about not seeing nearly as many 32xx watches coming in for warranty services, but this would throw a damper on those hopes.
You have a good point, re: hold backs. This is a GMT
Easy E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 June 2024, 10:55 AM   #5028
Easy E
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via reggio View Post
Low amplitude on a watch today, I started to only change the palettfork and the n the amplitude went up from 215 up to 260 - 270 in horizontal
Also passed 24h 200 amp tolerance
So then to me, the next most obvious question is what is the difference between the pallet forks?
Easy E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 June 2024, 06:01 PM   #5029
Via reggio
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: May 2024
Location: North
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy E View Post
So then to me, the next most obvious question is what is the difference between the pallet forks?
Dont really know, they look the same
Via reggio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 June 2024, 06:14 PM   #5030
Via reggio
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: May 2024
Location: North
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy E View Post
Ok, boiys and girls. What we have today is a 3285 caliber piece, purchased from a TS about 2 weeks ago in stated unworn condition, warranty card dated 3/24. For today we are just going to call this Watch X. It appears that at 24hrs the vertical amplitudes are out of spec and the max delta (I think that's the correct term) is 9.6, also slightly out of spec. I post, you decide.
What happens if you turn the crown/wind really slow so you can feel a slight resistance and observe the amp at the same time?
Via reggio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 June 2024, 09:51 PM   #5031
S.Explorer
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: United Kingdom
Watch: Rollie
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy E View Post
So then to me, the next most obvious question is what is the difference between the pallet forks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via reggio View Post
Dont really know, they look the same
Could a difference in weight affect the amplitude?
S.Explorer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28 June 2024, 10:20 PM   #5032
Via reggio
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: May 2024
Location: North
Posts: 12
Could a difference in weight affect the amplitude?

Theoretically but the part number is the same, usually they get a suffix like -1 if there is a change. But one of the train wheels (picture in my earlier post) did not get a suffix but is changed in design. I’m not sure a change is made but it solved the amplitude issue of this watch.

The movement feels differently and that its not much torque going through the wheeltrain, but it spins for a long time on a small turn of the winding crown, also the escapement seems really sensitive on 32.
It’s really a low powered movement, never get higher amplitudes like other movements, but what is strange is that it can loose a lot of time when the amplitude goes down a lot even on a full wind. Normally a movement can keep good time around 200 amplitude also. Like this repair: amplitude around 200 on full wind and slowing a lot, then I change palletfork and it gets 260-270 amplitude and good timekeeping, then 220 when letting down mainspring 3,5 turns to simulate 24 hours. Timekeeping still good
Via reggio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 June 2024, 10:41 PM   #5033
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,918
32xx movement problem poll and data thread

Different view of EasyE's 3285 timegrapher numbers from post #5020 – 2 graphs for his 3285 'Watch X'



What everybody can see:
• The 3 vertical amplitudes are too low after full winding (204°,214°,213°) and below Rolex specs (min. 200°) after 24 hours (190°,192°,199°).

• The 3 vertical rates are all negative along the entire power reserve, measured up to 60 hours, while the 2 horizontal rates are always positive. Consequently, the average rate, X, remains quite good, even within -2/+2 s/d until 24 hours.

The facts:
• The 3200 movement series was introduced in 2015 (3235, 3255), followed by the 3285 (2018) and the 3230 (2020).

• This Rolex watch (3285) was sold in 06/2024, i.e., about 9 years after introduction of the 32xx series.

Unknown:
• What is the age of this 3285 caliber?

• Did Rolex find a solution, or a temporay fix, for the long standing 32xx caliber issue? I leave the answer (only Rolex knows) to the reader.

• Is the post (by Bas) about "less 32xx watches incoming for repair" at his RSC, observed and reported from one single RSC watchmaker representative for the world-wide situation? I don't think so. It appears as a tiny light of hope in the watch galaxy where the main part of the horizon is like a 32xx black hole. Anyhow, I leave the interpretation of his post to the reader.

Conclusion:
• This 2024 Rolex GMT 3285 is a gold-plated example why many 32xx watch owners, who look (at best) at the timekeeping on their wrists, do not and can not see that their 32xx has the low amplitude virus. You do need a timegrapher to identify at an early stage, later the accuracy will deteriorate significantly, also for this watch.
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 June 2024, 12:03 AM   #5034
Easy E
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
Different view of EasyE's 3285 timegrapher numbers from post #5020 – 2 graphs for his 3285 'Watch X'



What everybody can see:
• The 3 vertical amplitudes are too low after full winding (204°,214°,213°) and below Rolex specs (min. 200°) after 24 hours (190°,192°,199°).

• The 3 vertical rates are all negative along the entire power reserve, measured up to 60 hours, while the 2 horizontal rates are always positive. Consequently, the average rate, X, remains quite good, even within -2/+2 s/d until 24 hours.

The facts:
• The 3200 movement series was introduced in 2015 (3235, 3255), followed by the 3285 (2018) and the 3230 (2020).

• This Rolex watch (3285) was sold in 06/2024, i.e., about 9 years after introduction of the 32xx series.

Unknown:
• What is the age of this 3285 caliber?

• Did Rolex find a solution, or a temporay fix, for the long standing 32xx caliber issue? I leave the answer (only Rolex knows) to the reader.

• Is the post (by Bas) about "less 32xx watches incoming for repair" at his RSC, observed and reported from one single RSC watchmaker representative for the world-wide situation? I don't think so. It appears as a tiny light of hope in the watch galaxy where the main part of the horizon is like a 32xx black hole. Anyhow, I leave the interpretation of his post to the reader.

Conclusion:
• This 2024 Rolex GMT 3285 is a gold-plated example why many 32xx watch owners, who look (at best) at the timekeeping on their wrists, do not and can not see that their 32xx has the low amplitude virus. You do need a timegrapher to identify at an early stage, later the accuracy will deteriorate significantly, also for this watch.

Thanks for the graphs. Those are a fair bit easier to look at than my tables.

On the wrist this watch appears to run fine, as described above, you probably wouldn't notice. On one hand that is really the point of the watch. On the other, when you look under the hood there is a different story. I do have a question regarding "break in." Pretty sure I know the answer, but here goes. I have read many times about giving a watch a break in period (duration varies). By winding, wearing, letting run all the out and repeating, what if anything will that procedure do to "loosen" this watch up?

As for date of production, that is a question I have had for a little while now. I realize no one on this forum will know that for sure. If you told me this movement was produced a year ago, i would believe that easily. Who knows?
Easy E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 June 2024, 12:49 AM   #5035
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy E View Post
I do have a question regarding "break in." Pretty sure I know the answer, but here goes. I have read many times about giving a watch a break in period (duration varies). By winding, wearing, letting run all the out and repeating, what if anything will that procedure do to "loosen" this watch up?
What is your answer?
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 June 2024, 03:30 AM   #5036
Easy E
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
What is your answer?
Little to no discernible impact.
Easy E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 June 2024, 05:43 AM   #5037
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy E View Post
Little to no discernible impact.
Yes.

The so-called "break-in" or "running-in" is simply friction between parts moving against each other, which improves the fit over time. This may slightly affect accuracy, but the amplitudes? Nobody knows how long it takes or how much the effect will be. Most arguments are just guesses.

Mechanical movements are not like brand new motors in new cars. 32xx calibers were already running for a while during testing at COSC, followed by more testing in Rolex labs. I don't think you'll see much improvement in all three vertical amplitudes, to be determined.

I propose an experiment: wear this watch for 1-2 months, measure once per week after full winding and 24 hours later.
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 June 2024, 05:58 AM   #5038
Easy E
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
Yes.

The so-called "break-in" or "running-in" is simply friction between parts moving against each other, which improves the fit over time. This may slightly affect accuracy, but the amplitudes? Nobody knows how long it takes or how much the effect will be. Most arguments are just guesses.

Mechanical movements are not like brand new motors in new cars. 32xx calibers were already running for a while during testing at COSC, followed by more testing in Rolex labs. I don't think you'll see much improvement in all three vertical amplitudes, to be determined.

I propose an experiment: wear this watch for 1-2 months, measure once per week after full winding and 24 hours later.
I have considered this already. Very well may just do that.
Easy E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 June 2024, 07:10 AM   #5039
Poodlopogus
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via reggio View Post
Could a difference in weight affect the amplitude?

Theoretically but the part number is the same, usually they get a suffix like -1 if there is a change. But one of the train wheels (picture in my earlier post) did not get a suffix but is changed in design. I’m not sure a change is made but it solved the amplitude issue of this watch.

The movement feels differently and that its not much torque going through the wheeltrain, but it spins for a long time on a small turn of the winding crown, also the escapement seems really sensitive on 32.
It’s really a low powered movement, never get higher amplitudes like other movements, but what is strange is that it can loose a lot of time when the amplitude goes down a lot even on a full wind. Normally a movement can keep good time around 200 amplitude also. Like this repair: amplitude around 200 on full wind and slowing a lot, then I change palletfork and it gets 260-270 amplitude and good timekeeping, then 220 when letting down mainspring 3,5 turns to simulate 24 hours. Timekeeping still good
With regards to both parts: It makes sense that the part number remains the same. If Rolex changed it, the obvious question is: "Why the change?" Yet Rolex SA seems to have decided not to acknowledge the problem even to its own watchmakers (at least those working in its service centers). That makes the answer to the aforementioned question quite inconvenient.
Poodlopogus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 June 2024, 10:50 AM   #5040
Andad
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
Andad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Real Name: Eddie
Location: Australia
Watch: A few.
Posts: 37,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy E View Post
Ok, boiys and girls. What we have today is a 3285 caliber piece, purchased from a TS about 2 weeks ago in stated unworn condition, warranty card dated 3/24. For today we are just going to call this Watch X. It appears that at 24hrs the vertical amplitudes are out of spec and the max delta (I think that's the correct term) is 9.6, also slightly out of spec. I post, you decide.
Those results, at full wind positions 3, 6 and 9 , tells me that this movement is not going to meet any Rolex spec.
__________________
E

Andad is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 13 (0 members and 13 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Wrist Aficionado

My Watch LLC

WatchesOff5th

DavidSW Watches

Takuya Watches

OCWatches


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.