32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by dannyp

But there was no guarantee it was fully wound prior to testing if it was coming off your wrist instead of being hand wound. Were the others you tested similar or hand wound until full prior to testing?

The WG Sub was fully wound before I wore it for the 4 days. All others tests start at zero hour, my tables all say “fully wound,” because they were….you know….fully wound.

The WG Sub test was to see how the watch performed after a full wind at what I would call regular use. Then wind up again, 60hr sequence. The test is good.

[Seo]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Yet again we come back to the difference between PRECISION and ACCURACY.

They are NOT the same. This has been well explained and demonstrated earlier in this thread.

And as to your suggestion of 20 seconds per day error and around that area of course Rolex will NOT even suggest that is good.

Long time lurker, first time post.

On this topic though there is a technical difference between precision and accuracy don’t you feel they are simply using the term interchangeably? Any normal customer will take this as accuracy. When I took my DJ41 to rsc they spoke as if it meant accuracy per day. At no point did they try and correct me. At no point did they try and point out the consistency of the timing.

Just to contribute a tiny bit to this mega thread. My early 2021 dj41 was my daily. Started it’s life at a fantastic +1 per day. 7 months in I noticed it was slower than normal dropped to about -3s per day. By the eight month I was -10s per day. I had the watch warrantied and sold the watch which I replaced with a skydweller. It’s a bit thicker than I like but much prefer knowing there is no issue with the movement.

Sorry about my English it’s my second language.

[vipereaper30]

After reviewing this thread it seems like it would be a good idea to check out my current 32xx series watches, 4 w/3235 and 2 w/3285. Problem is no timegrapher and I'm not taking them all in to an AD or RSC for testing. Anyone have an idea of a better way?

The watches are in a large rotation so not sure if that means issues will be further delayed. Just tried a 2019 3285 and it's at -5/day which I think is not good.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

You still make no attempt to reasonably answer the question I had asked you two weeks ago?

What happened to your 3230 watch since April 2022?

Instead you come back as if nothing had happened except your evasive cheap answers?

Take care

Or I missed it since I don't always visit this sub-forum But why bother with the obvious answer (not everything is a conspiracy)? Either way, I've little interest now in going back to find it and fill in answers.

Originally Posted by Easy E

The WG Sub was fully wound before I wore it for the 4 days. All others tests start at zero hour, my tables all say “fully wound,” because they were….you know….fully wound.

The WG Sub test was to see how the watch performed after a full wind at what I would call regular use. Then wind up again, 60hr sequence. The test is good.

I don't know if you can assume that it stayed fully wound (vs. "wound enough"), and I can see that influencing the test results.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Either way, I've little interest now in going back to find it and fill in answers.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by vipereaper30

After reviewing this thread it seems like it would be a good idea to check out my current 32xx series watches, 4 w/3235 and 2 w/3285. Problem is no timegrapher and I'm not taking them all in to an AD or RSC for testing. Anyone have an idea of a better way?

The watches are in a large rotation so not sure if that means issues will be further delayed. Just tried a 2019 3285 and it's at -5/day which I think is not good.

Welcome here

Six watches with 32xx movements are very interesting for this thread.

I recommend to purchase your own timegrapher and do the tests yourself.

Given the price, the "Weishi 1900" seems to be a sensible purchase for many.

Does your collection contain 2022 watches with 3235 or 3285 movements?

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by dannyp

I don't know if you can assume that it stayed fully wound (vs. "wound enough"), and I can see that influencing the test results.

You absolutely can not assume it stayed wound, you are correct. The point of that sequence of tests was to see how the watch behaved under what I considered normal wear conditions then compare that to what the readings looked like from 0-60 hrs. Unless you wind your watch every morning your watch is likely never back to full power. Again, that was, in fact, the point of that sequence of readings.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by saxo3

You still make no attempt to reasonably answer the question I had asked you two weeks ago?

What happened to your 3230 watch since April 2022?

Instead you come back as if nothing had happened except your evasive cheap answers?

Take care

Originally Posted by saxo3

Not everyone is living in this thread on a daily basis E and isn’t this supposed to be more of a hobby than a source of mandatory information required by you?

If this is your current attitude this thread should be closed?

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

Really? So if a 32xx lemon is running -22spd/-18spd, i.e., +/-2spd around -20spd “accuracy” Rolex will consider that to meet its guarantee?

Sure, Rolex use the term “Precision” but the context is +/-2 precision around accuracy of zero spd.

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Yet again we come back to the difference between PRECISION and ACCURACY.

They are NOT the same. This has been well explained and demonstrated earlier in this thread.

And as to your suggestion of 20 seconds per day error and around that area of course Rolex will NOT even suggest that is good.

My question is what is the point at which Rolex does declare the watch out of spec? I get that a watch may be -4 spd and +2/-2 in 5 positions of some period of time (say 24 hrs). So with that, assuming I understand this correctly, +2-2 from -4 spd could put you reading -6 spd somewhere in the allotted time period. Is this correct.? If yes, does your actual spd have to hit +9/-7 to be considered out of spec? Is there even an actual guarantee on accuracy?

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by WatchMySix

I haven't, but will. Weishi 1900 is the best bang for your buck, correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by saxo3

Yes, good amateur device

I have the 1900, really just got started with it, so all I know is in the tables over the last couple of pages.

I have read little about the Witschi, but wow, pricey. I sort of equate the 1900 to a point and shoot camera and the Witschi to a pro DLSR. Is there much in between?

[vipereaper30]

Originally Posted by Easy E

I have the 1900, really just got started with it, so all I know is in the tables over the last couple of pages.



I have read little about the Witschi, but wow, pricey. I sort of equate the 1900 to a point and shoot camera and the Witschi to a pro DLSR. Is there much in between?

Yeah I'd rather split the cost of a Witschi and share with some members here than buy a still-kinda-expensive hobby toy that I'll rarely use. Or another option is anyone interested in sharing their Witschi for a rental fee?

[sski]

this Teapot tempest is not even rated 1 thru 5

At this point, it lingers on as a disturbance!

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by sski

this Teapot tempest is not even rated 1 thru 5

At this point, it lingers on as a disturbance!

Lol.
So you say.

It appears it's not particularly important to you, but this is worse than the Co-axial teething problems.
Some people are possibly more concerned than yourself in getting what they paid for.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Some people are possibly more concerned than yourself in getting what they paid for.

I'm Concerned !

[CharlesN]

I have just recently been to the RSC.

I needed to take in 2 watches for different reasons. One, mine, a 216570 Exp II and the other, belonging to a friend, Lady DJ that is 30 years old and needs it's first service desperately.

Whilst there I saw and overheard a few other Rolex owners.

Two of them had brought in their DateJust watches, Both 3235 watches that were running too slowly.

Rolex have taken both of the watches in for some form of correction which will take approximately 4 weeks to perform.

The Lady DJ I took in is having a full service and will be 4 weeks.

Sounds like the 3235 watches are going to get a full service.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

I have just recently been to the RSC.

I needed to take in 2 watches for different reasons. One, mine, a 216570 Exp II and the other, belonging to a friend, Lady DJ that is 30 years old and needs it's first service desperately.

Whilst there I saw and overheard a few other Rolex owners.

Two of them had brought in their DateJust watches, Both 3235 watches that were running too slowly.

Rolex have taken both of the watches in for some form of correction which will take approximately 4 weeks to perform.

The Lady DJ I took in is having a full service and will be 4 weeks.

Sounds like the 3235 watches are going to get a full service.

Sounds like SOP.
At least it's an indication that this forum is not operating within a vacuum as some would strongly suggest and other poor souls are paying attention to whether they are getting what they paid for(value for money).

Those two DJs must have been the very earliest of production hey?

[jgrae]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Sounds like SOP.
At least it's an indication that this forum is not operating within a vacuum as some would strongly suggest and other poor souls are paying attention to whether they are getting what they paid for(value for money).

Those two DJs must have been the very earliest of production hey?

FWIW, I greatly appreciate this thread and all the commenters. In a very marginal decision I wound up going for a 31xx DD2 over a DD40. It's an important consideration, but I'm sure Rolex will make everything right no matte what.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by jgrae

FWIW, I greatly appreciate this thread and all the commenters. In a very marginal decision I wound up going for a 31xx DD2 over a DD40. It's an important consideration, but I'm sure Rolex will make everything right no matte what.

That is what we are hoping for, but this far down the track it may be a lost cause.
At least we have movements that deliver on the promise after decades of incremental improvements.
I wonder if there are still updates coming through the system for 31xx movement components

[maxbelg]

I've been thinking about the antimagnetic properties of the 32xx movements compared to the 31xx.

Isn't it possible that most components are now made from amagnetic metals and therefore the material properties have changed, making them susceptable to increased wear. For example the old steel burnished pivots might now be nickel or some other amagnetic part. That would explain why they run perfectly initially but after a certain amount of time problems occur. That would also explain why watchmakers don't seem to understand what's going on.

Furthermore Rolex could then bring a "silent fix" in the form of updated materials with the same reference numbers for parts but before they are available in workshops everywhere, some watches could be serviced 2 or even 3 times with similar "softer" parts, leading to similar problems.

If true the problems will decrease progressively over the next years....

[saxo3]

Easy to verify: take two movements, analyse and compare all individual components using SEM and EDX, report here

[Bizcut1]

This thread is hilarious...please do carry on....

So glad to be on this side of the rabbit hole.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by maxbelg

I've been thinking about the antimagnetic properties of the 32xx movements compared to the 31xx.

Isn't it possible that most components are now made from amagnetic metals and therefore the material properties have changed

I have very recently had one of my watches (Non-Rolex brand) changed from a magnetic to a non-magnetic spring.

This was offered as a chargeable upgrade that could be done during a service.

The watch in question hardly changed it's Amplitude, Beat Error or Rate. the watch's timekeeping both before and after the service was never in question as it is and always has been well within 1/2 a second error per day every day.

Rolex are known to do "Silent Fixes" and part numbers for the parts to be changed don't change .. just the part does "secretly".

The 31xx movements have been around long enough and modifications made over the years that i do expect something would have shown up if there was a problem.

To date it does not seem that there is a widespread problem similar to the 32xx problems.

[fmc000]

Originally Posted by Bizcut1

This thread is hilarious...please do carry on....

So glad to be on this side of the rabbit hole.

Good for you. Please be sure to post here ALSO when your watch will start to lose time randomly so that WE will laugh at you

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by fmc000

Good for you. Please be sure to post here ALSO when your watch will start to lose time randomly so that WE will laugh at you

No surprise. This guy is not worth to read his hater nonsense or reply to. None of his 7 posts here have any tiny content. JMO

[onyourbikes]

Originally Posted by saxo3

No surprise. This guy is not worth to read his hater nonsense or reply to. None of his 7 posts here have any tiny content. JMO

But he has a Ukraine flag, so you know he is a superior being who should be worshiped for his outward display of virtue signalling.


As for the 32XX, I've head about the issue from enough people in passing that it must be fairly widespread and I am no longer interested in any new watches. I'm on the hunt for a few 31xx watches instead now.

[Seo]

Originally Posted by onyourbikes

But he has a Ukraine flag, so you know he is a superior being who should be worshiped for his outward display of virtue signalling.


As for the 32XX, I've head about the issue from enough people in passing that it must be fairly widespread and I am no longer interested in any new watches. I'm on the hunt for a few 31xx watches instead now.

It is strange why certain people don’t accept data. So many in this thread.

As for looking for 31xx watches I feel this is the wise thing to do. I was recently fortunately enough to get a current blnr. I immediately had it traded for a lnib 3186 Batman. This 6 year old watch is doing 310 amp dial and happily doing +3 a day.

Sorry for my English it is a second language.

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by Seo

It is strange why certain people don’t accept data. So many in this thread.

I don't get it either. Some people are so combative about it too. But with over a thousand people responding, that's enough to establish a trend. Is it a independent, double-blind survey with random sampling blah blah? No, certainly not. Self reporting is subject to it's own biases but we can't determine these with the existing data set (For example, one could determine with a questionnaire if people were more likely to report problems or more likely to report no problems with a Rolex. Generally there is a bias towards reporting problems with consumer items for obvious reasons but it could skew the other way for Rolex owners since they might not want to admit their 10K+ watch is not all that was hoped for. Just no way to determine here) So while the actual percentage of watches with problems can't be precisely determined, there are certainly enough with problems to suggest something in the area of 15-35%. It's definitely not made up or imaginary.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by csaltphoto

I don't get it either. Some people are so combative about it too. But with over a thousand people responding, that's enough to establish a trend. Is it a independent, double-blind survey with random sampling blah blah? No, certainly not. Self reporting is subject to it's own biases but we can't determine these with the existing data set (For example, one could determine with a questionnaire if people were more likely to report problems or more likely to report no problems with a Rolex. Generally there is a bias towards reporting problems with consumer items for obvious reasons but it could skew the other way for Rolex owners since they might not want to admit their 10K+ watch is not all that was hoped for. Just no way to determine here) So while the actual percentage of watches with problems can't be precisely determined, there are certainly enough with problems to suggest something in the area of 15-35%. It's definitely not made up or imaginary.

Agreed
Based upon what information we have been privy to, it's no implausible that there a good number of owners of these things that take notice of how well their watch is running and they are quietly turning to the mothership to make it right whether it be covered under warranty or not.
If the mothership can't put things right long term and it becomes untenable for the owners, the owners will either trade or sell the watch bepending on how much love they have for it, or maybe just stick it away somewhere after it eventually dies to be found whilst people are in the process of working through the owners estate.

Either way, they won't necessarily be telling too many people about it unless asked.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Easy E

My question is what is the point at which Rolex does declare the watch out of spec? I get that a watch may be -4 spd and +2/-2 in 5 positions of some period of time (say 24 hrs). So with that, assuming I understand this correctly, +2-2 from -4 spd could put you reading -6 spd somewhere in the allotted time period. Is this correct.? If yes, does your actual spd have to hit +9/-7 to be considered out of spec? Is there even an actual guarantee on accuracy?

You are way over thinking this.

Rolex advertise +2/-2 spd. There are no legal definitions, caveats, disclaimers or anything else about how that number is derived. Consumers therefore (in the UK at least as that's the law I'm familiar with) can reasonably expect their watch to operate within the parameters of either losing or gaining 2 seconds per day. Not operating within +2/-2 of a consistent loss or gain of however many seconds per day.

If I set my (up to 5 year old) watch at 1pm today to the exact time and its more than 2 seconds fast or slow by 1pm tomorrow using that same exact time reference its not operating within the spec Rolex say it will in their publicly promoted marketing information and I have a right to expect Rolex to address that under warranty.

Now, we all know that mechanical timepieces are subject to many different environmental factors, temperature, age of components, positioning, power reserve, wearing habits, etc, etc that can (and will) impact timekeeping, but the average consumer is not expected to know that and can, in law, simply expect their watch to perform as advertised.

Incidentally we also need to drop the whole precision versus accuracy point as far as Rolex’s advertising statement is concerned

Precision is literally defined as

“the quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate”

So there’s no difference from the legal perspective of interpretation of Rolex advertising.

I believe the laws are very similar throughout Europe. The rest of the world may of course differ.

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by Devildog

You are way over thinking this.

Rolex advertise +2/-2 spd. There are no legal definitions, caveats, disclaimers or anything else about how that number is derived. Consumers therefore (in the UK at least as that's the law I'm familiar with) can reasonably expect their watch to operate within the parameters of either losing or gaining 2 seconds per day. Not operating within +2/-2 of a consistent loss or gain of however many seconds per day.

If I set my (up to 5 year old) watch at 1pm today to the exact time and its more than 2 seconds fast or slow by 1pm tomorrow using that same exact time reference its not operating within the spec Rolex say it will in their publicly promoted marketing information and I have a right to expect Rolex to address that under warranty.

Now, we all know that mechanical timepieces are subject to many different environmental factors, temperature, age of components, positioning, power reserve, wearing habits, etc, etc that can (and will) impact timekeeping, but the average consumer is not expected to know that and can, in law, simply expect their watch to perform as advertised.

Incidentally we also need to drop the whole precision versus accuracy point as far as Rolex’s advertising statement is concerned

Precision is literally defined as

“the quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate”

So there’s no difference from the legal perspective of interpretation of Rolex advertising.

I believe the laws are very similar throughout Europe. The rest of the world may of course differ.

This is correct.

Any time I've ever told a Rolex AD watchmaker that my watch was -3 or -4 spd they scowled and asked for a pic, I show them my watchtracker plot, and then they take it back to regulate it. 3-4 min job.

They expect it to hold the 2 second window. They make no fuss about adjusting it to meet that. There's not accuracy / precision discussion going on. A clock necessarily must be precise to hold a preset accuracy.