32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Rocket_Man

I finished testing my only 3236 watch. The DJ41 was bought new from an AD in Aug 2019 and never serviced. I used a Weishi 1900 and tested in 6 positions, but I excluded the 12Up position from the average calculation, so the average only uses the 5 COSC positions. I let the timegrapher run for 2 minutes after letting the watch settle 30 seconds between positions. Couldn't take any more data after 53hrs. Watch ran down after 68 hrs.

Thanks for providing some new 32xx data.

Even after full winding, your DJ41 - 3235 is terrible.

Do not measure at midnight where the caliber has a drop in amplitude, as I have shown several times in this thread:
Avoid measurements at 23:00 – 01:00 and 05:00 – 08:00 hours.

The reduced PR (68 hours) alone shows that the movement has problems.

[Seo]

Originally Posted by saxo3

The reduced PR (68 hours) alone shows that the movement has problems.

Definitely terrible results but I don’t think statement on pr is correct. PR can vary from stated spec by +/-5% easily.

[Seo]

Originally Posted by Rocket_Man

I finished testing my only 3236 watch. The DJ41 was bought new from an AD in Aug 2019 and never serviced. I used a Weishi 1900 and tested in 6 positions, but I excluded the 12Up position from the average calculation, so the average only uses the 5 COSC positions. I let the timegrapher run for 2 minutes after letting the watch settle 30 seconds between positions. Couldn't take any more data after 53hrs. Watch ran down after 68 hrs.

I also tested a GMT II with a 3186, an Explorer with a 3132, an old DJ 16030 with a 3035, and a Zinn 856 with a Sellita 300-1. All these movements seem to have higher accuracy and higher amplitude than the 3235. But they wound down sooner as expected.

Wow that is bad. When do you plan to send it in for warranty?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Seo

…. but I don’t think statement on pr is correct.

Why?

Originally Posted by Seo

PR can vary from stated spec by +/-5% easily.

What is your source for the "+/-5% easily"?
Just an assumption?

Rolex specifies "Power reserve: approximately 70 hours " without any tolerance in %.

[Tridor]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Absolutely, can happen in the UK as well, but Rolex SA could simply disregard the decision of the US Court

Not so. If a Judgment is rendered in the U.S. against Rolex SA, then its assets in the U.S. are subject to Judgment enforcement, including, but not limited to attachment and sale. Moreover, the U.S. Judgment might be entered in Switzerland under its Swiss Private International Law Act.

[Seo]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Why?


What is your source for the "+/-5% easily"?
Just an assumption?

Rolex specifies "Power reserve: approximately 70 hours " without any tolerance in %.

They use the word approximately for a reason.

For me from experience my patek is stated to have 35-45, my Daytona which runs perfectly has 68 hours (rsc confirmed fine) my op41 running in spec 68.5 hrs. My second Daytona does just over 74.

There is no explicit stated source for 5% just my experience. I even heard over 10% like patek but you should just confirm your statement with Bas. There is no way 68 hr pr can lead you to determine the movement has an issue. Timegrapher reading sure.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Seo

There is no explicit stated source for 5% just my experience.

ok, you invented the 5% q.e.d.

[Seo]

Originally Posted by saxo3

ok, you invented the 5% q.e.d.

You invented the 68 hr pr 32xx problem.

Seriously ask Bas or rsc if you can take in a 32xx for warranty because of 68hr pr.

[Seo]

Bas can you please let us know what is an acceptable tolerance on pr for the 32xx?

Thank you sir.

[Rocket_Man]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks for providing some new 32xx data.

Even after full winding, your DJ41 - 3235 is terrible.

Do not measure at midnight where the caliber has a drop in amplitude, as I have shown several times in this thread:
Avoid measurements at 23:00 – 01:00 and 05:00 – 08:00 hours.

The reduced PR (68 hours) alone shows that the movement has problems.

I wasn't planning ahead on when to start this test. I just started after I got the timegrapgher and figured out how to use it. I just took another datapoint when I could. Didn't think about the date wheel effect. Also I couldn't get in a test before I went to work on the last day so I missed one last data point. Next time I'll plan ahead better but this takes over two days to get through. Maybe 8 or 9 pm is a better time to start a test like this.

Thanks

[Rocket_Man]

Originally Posted by Seo

Definitely terrible results but I don’t think statement on pr is correct. PR can vary from stated spec by +/-5% easily.

I'm honestly not that worried about the PR. It ran longer than I expected even though it didn't get quite to 70 hrs. I'm pretty sure the timekeeping would have been so bad by this point that I'd have to set the watch again anyway. So what value is 70 hrs of PR if the time is so far off you need to set the watch anyway.

Originally Posted by Seo

Wow that is bad. When do you plan to send it in for warranty?

I need to call ahead and talk to RSC Dallas. Hopefully I can find time tomorrow while at work.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Rocket_Man

I'm honestly not that worried about the PR. It ran longer than I expected even though it didn't get quite to 70 hrs.

How did you measure the power reserve?

[Andad]

Let me guess.

Wind it fully and find out how long it runs for?

[Rocket_Man]

I called the RSC today and that was a strange call. The person seemed to be teleworking from home. I heard what sounded like kids in the background and she was on an IP phone that kept breaking up like on a slow connection. I was on a land line. Anyway I explained what was happening which she didn't seem to follow. The key term is 'watch is running slow' and she sent me mailing instructions. I assumed it would go to Dallas but they are sending everything to Long Island. I've only sent watches to Dallas in the past.

Then I asked how much it would cost to clean my Datejust 16030. She says 'steam clean?' you can take it to a jewelry store. I'm thinking why would I send a watch to an RSC for steam cleaning? Anyway, she says the starting service fee is $850 up to $1,250. Okay so I haven't sent in a watch for service/cleaning in a while but when did it get to $850??? I guess I'm going local.

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by Rocket_Man

I called the RSC today and that was a strange call. The person seemed to be teleworking from home. I heard what sounded like kids in the background and she was on an IP phone that kept breaking up like on a slow connection. I was on a land line. Anyway I explained what was happening which she didn't seem to follow. The key term is 'watch is running slow' and she sent me mailing instructions. I assumed it would go to Dallas but they are sending everything to Long Island. I've only sent watches to Dallas in the past.

Then I asked how much it would cost to clean my Datejust 16030. She says 'steam clean?' you can take it to a jewelry store. I'm thinking why would I send a watch to an RSC for steam cleaning? Anyway, she says the starting service fee is $850 up to $1,250. Okay so I haven't sent in a watch for service/cleaning in a while but when did it get to $850??? I guess I'm going local.

Not a confidence inspiring exchange for a Rolex...

[Scholar]

The self-proclaimed defenders of Rolex in the WUS thread are getting even more vile in their attacks on Al. Embarrassing.

Apparently his analysis is driven by jealousy of RSC workers… yeah, the vintage Rolex and Omega expert is jealous of the teams that throw out old dials.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Scholar

The self-proclaimed defenders of Rolex in the WUS thread are getting even more vile in their attacks on Al. Embarrassing.

Apparently his analysis is driven by jealousy of RSC workers… yeah, the vintage Rolex and Omega expert is jealous of the teams that throw out old dials.

Yes, I've seen something of that business with Al.
One doesn't necessarily have to agree with every aspect of any contribution by Al and overall he is very helpful and provides sound information which one can build upon or go forward with. I have a good measure of respect for Al and our own Bas and what they chose to bring to the table
It might sound cliche, but they're only human and not necessarily always right about everything, but I would be honoured to be under their supervision in any capacity working along side of them in that field

When it comes to the vile nature of some elements of the online format. I am utterly appalled and it's very concerning.
We all need to take what we need out of what's offered with good grace and know what to leave behind with respect.

That's all I have to say about that

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Yes, I've seen something of that business with Al.
One doesn't necessarily have to agree with every aspect of any contribution by Al and overall he is very helpful and provides sound information which one can build upon or go forward with. I have a good measure of respect for Al and our own Bas and what they chose to bring to the table
It might sound cliche, but they're only human and not necessarily always right about everything, but I would be honoured to be under their supervision in any capacity working along side of them in that field

When it comes to the vile nature of some elements of the online format. I am utterly appalled and it's very concerning.
We all need to take what we need out of what's offered with good grace and know what to leave behind with respect.

That's all I have to say about that

The thread at WUS was closed due to bickering. Hope we can avoid that here. This thread is too good and has too much interesting data.

[Seo]

Originally Posted by csaltphoto

The thread at WUS was closed due to bickering. Hope we can avoid that here. This thread is too good and has too much interesting data.

That thread got very toxic. Some real characters in that thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fmc000]

Originally Posted by csaltphoto

The thread at WUS was closed due to bickering. Hope we can avoid that here. This thread is too good and has too much interesting data.

Well, despite a few naysayers I would say that the TRF environment is much more civilized and that this thread usually remains within the bonds of a sane technical discussion.

[Grapenut]

Great information in this thread. A few months back I noticed my 2019 126710 BLRO was running a bit slow. Moved on at the time, but stumbled across this thread and decided to test accuracy.

Simple method of syncing with apple watch and doing full winds every 12 hours, I ended up losing 10 seconds a day, dial up. Crown up & crown down were 12ish seconds behind. Sent it out to RSC Dallas a week ago to have it checked out since it was still under warranty.

[SearChart]

As requested, PR tolerance for the 32××:

[Andad]

Thanks for the information Bas.

[Seo]

Thank you Bas and okay I was wrong. Wow every my “good 32xx” is out of spec. Wonder why my RSC told me the PR isn’t an issue and this also goes against every other watch manufacture I own.

Well I have a 3235 with very health amps but doesn’t pass the PR spec, awesome

[S.Explorer]

Originally Posted by Seo

Well I have a 3235 with very health amps but doesn’t pass the PR spec, awesome

I'd rather that than the other way round!

[GradeV]

Originally Posted by Seo

That thread got very toxic. Some real characters in that thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It became something else. Still at least it was locked and not deleted; there is a fair amount of useful information in it.

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by GradeV

It became something else. Still at least it was locked and not deleted; there is a fair amount of useful information in it.

there was and the results were similar to here as I recall. Something like 25-30% of 32xx owners had issues.

[rbndylan]

Thanks Bas for the information, very interesting !
What do you think about this ? My 3230 of 25 February :

FULL:
DU: +0.7: 269: 0ms
6H : -3.7: 211: 0ms
9H : -5.1: 215: 0.1ms
3H : -2.2: 219: 0.2ms
DD : +0.9 : 258 : 0ms
Average: -1.88 / 234.4 / 0.06

10H :
DU: +1.5: 270: 0ms
6H: -3.5: 210 : 0ms
9H: -3.7: 223 : 0ms
3H: -1.9: 222 : 0.2ms
DD: +0.9: 254 : 0ms
Average: 1.34 / 235.8 / 0.04

24H :
DU: +1.5: 261 : 0ms
6H: -4.2 : 202 : 0ms
9H: -5.2 : 200 : 0ms
3H: -4.2 : 204 : 0.2ms
DD: 0.0 : 242 : 0ms
Average: -2.42 / 221.8 / 0.04

34H :
DU: +1.2 : 251 : 0ms
6H: -5.8 : 189 : 0.1ms
9H: -4.8 : 192 : 0.1ms
3H: -5.5 : 192 : 0.3ms
DD: 0.0 : 225 : 0ms
Average: -2.98 / 209.8 / 0.1

48H :
DU: +0.1 : 230 : 0ms
6H: -13.3 : 162 : 0ms
9H: -6.2 : 158 : 0ms
3H: -10.2 : 165 : 0.4ms
DD: -1.3 : 193 : 0ms
Average: -6.18 / 175.6 / 0.08

58H :
DU: -0.1 : 199 : 0ms
6H: -19.9 : 143 : 0ms
9H: -9.1 : 141 : 0ms
3H: -13.2 : 145 : 0.4ms
DD: -4.4 : 169 : 0ms
Average: -9.34 / 159.4 / 0.08

69H:
DU: -5.7 : 150 : 0ms
6H:
9H:
3H:
DD:
Average:

Stop in full measure: 69h10min
1 month ago: it was 70h40min

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by rbndylan

What do you think about this ? My 3230 of 25 February :

FULL:
DU: +0.7: 269: 0ms
6H : -3.7: 211: 0ms
9H : -5.1: 215: 0.1ms
3H : -2.2: 219: 0.2ms
DD : +0.9 : 258 : 0ms
Average: -1.88 / 234.4 / 0.06

24H :
DU: +1.5: 261 : 0ms
6H: -4.2 : 202 : 0ms
9H: -5.2 : 200 : 0ms
3H: -4.2 : 204 : 0.2ms
DD: 0.0 : 242 : 0ms
Average: -2.42 / 221.8 / 0.04
…..

Stop in full measure: 69h10min
1 month ago: it was 70h40min

This 3230 caliber is sick, as I see from the too low vertical amplitudes already after full winding.

Only a question of time when vertical amplitudes will be below 200 degrees after 24 hours.

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by saxo3

This 3230 caliber is sick, as I see from the too low vertical amplitudes already after full winding.

Only a question of time when vertical amplitudes will be below 200 degrees after 24 hours.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but the second of Bas’s photos in the post just above implies any amplitude above 200’ is acceptable for the vertical positions. However, It’s not clear (to me) whether that relates to a fully wound movement.