32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Annan

Now......if we only had information as to when/if Rolex made any modifications (corrections) to these movements.

In seeing even 2021 3230 movements being affected, it doesn't look like Rolex has done anything about it, which is unfortunate.

This reminds me a lot of the early, two-level escapement issues of the Omega 2500 co-axial from 15-20 years ago. It was a nightmare for some, while others had no issue at all. Granted, the difference is that Omega acknowledged the issue and had A through D variants of that movement, and then moved on to the 8xxx series entirely, so those issues are a thing of the past.

If movements from Rolex watches made in 2021 are having issues, it seems that Rolex is not being proactive to solve the problem.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

In seeing even 2021 3230 movements being affected, it doesn't look like Rolex has done anything about it, which is sad.

This reminds me a lot of the early, two-level escapement issues of the Omega 2500 co-axial from 15-20 years ago. It was a nightmare for some, while others had no issue at all. Granted, the difference is that Omega acknowledged the issue and had A through D variants of that movement, and then moved on to the 8xxx series entirely, so those issues are a thing of the past.

If movements from Rolex watches made in 2021 are having issues, it seems that Rolex is not being proactive to solve the problem.

Perhaps the problem is insurmountable?
To my way of thinking Rolex was pushed into new escapement technology, longer power reserves and longer warranties through advancements other companies were making and seemingly going ahead in leaps and bounds
As you say, Omega went through their dark times with their interpretation of the Co-axials. Until Omega slowed them down in accordance with the parameters that the inventor originally outlined, Omega were all at sea with it.
Daniels was no dummy and the Swiss thought they knew better. At the time.
I do wonder how the new GS escapements will hold up in the long term? But we may never know as they fly under the radar and it's an extremely closed shop there in Japan.

As I've said before, I'll be happy as a pig in s**te with my 48 hour power reserve movements in perpetuity(no pun intended). As long as they're reliable for their entire lifetime with reasonable service intervals and accuracy to match it up with the others

We may have to accept that Rolex has taken on a bridge too far for them and the next movements may be the ones that resurrect their reputation with the 32xx movements being little more than a small stain on the brand.
Regardless, they will still sell every watch they make, just because

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Perhaps the problem is insurmountable?
To my way of thinking Rolex was pushed into new escapement technology, longer power reserves and longer warranties through advancements other companies were making and seemingly going ahead in leaps and bounds
As you say, Omega went through their dark times with their interpretation of the Co-axials. Until Omega slowed them down in accordance with the parameters that the inventor originally outlined, Omega were all at sea with it.
Daniels was no dummy and the Swiss thought they knew better. At the time.

As I've said before, I'll be happy as a pig in s**te with my 48 hour power reserve movements in perpetuity(no pun intended). As long as they're reliable for their entire lifetime with reasonable service intervals and accuracy to match it up with the others

We may have to accept that Rolex has taken on a bridge too far for them and the next movements may be the ones that resurrect their reputation with the 32xx movements being little more than a small stain on the brand.
Regardless, they will still sell every watch they make, just because

Indeed, I’d imagine part of the problem is that collecting has gotten so out of control that longer and longer lower reserves are desired, so people can swap watches often throughout the week. I’d probably be fine with even just a 15hr power reserve, myself.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I’d probably be fine with even just a 15hr power reserve, myself.

Oh, good on you

[sirC]

SD 43. Warranty Card dated 08/11/2017.
Sent in for service early 2021. was losing 20 + sec per day.
Has been running +4 to +5 secs per day since service. If it is off my wrist for more than 2 days I give it 25 full winds.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by sirC

SD 43. Warranty Card dated 08/11/2017.
Sent in for service early 2021. was losing 20 + sec per day.
Has been running +4 to +5 secs per day since service. If it is off my wrist for more than 2 days I give it 25 full winds.

Sounds reasonable and good
God willing, you will be better served by the watch going forward.
Please check in if it goes pear shaped again?

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by sirC

SD 43. Warranty Card dated 08/11/2017.
Sent in for service early 2021. was losing 20 + sec per day.
Has been running +4 to +5 secs per day since service. If it is off my wrist for more than 2 days I give it 25 full winds.

Let’s hope it stays that way. One of my watches which has been in twice to rsc is looking solid for the time being.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Perhaps the problem is insurmountable?
:

At this point one has to consider this a real possibility… considering when the movement was released…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by amanbra

At this point one has to consider this a real possibility… considering when the movement was released…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Certainly happens with certain automobile transmissions. They'll honor the warranty and perhaps do a courtesy service out of warranty and hope it fades away. Most people don't time track their watches closely so they are making a solid gamble from a business perspective I think.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by EEpro

Certainly happens with certain automobile transmissions. They'll honor the warranty and perhaps do a courtesy service out of warranty and hope it fades away. Most people don't time track their watches closely so they are making a solid gamble from a business perspective I think.

100%. The vast majority of the Rolex buyers these days I suspect are either not wearing it or only wear it sparingly to won’t notices these issues.

We’re a very specific subset here that notices and cares about this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[douglasf13]

If it’s widespread after warranties end, there are always class-action lawsuits, like what happened with the Porsche IMS bearing engines. If this thread’s poll is any indication, it could be 3x more common than the Porsche issue.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

In seeing even 2021 3230 movements being affected, it doesn't look like Rolex has done anything about it, which is unfortunate.

To be fair, it’s not always clear when a movement was produced relative to when a watch reaches the dealer. Could be a lag. The 3186 took years to get a fix and that one went into watches worn and used daily (so no delay in discovering issues).

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by dannyp

To be fair, it’s not always clear when a movement was produced relative to when a watch reaches the dealer. Could be a lag. The 3186 took years to get a fix and that one went into watches worn and used daily (so no delay in discovering issues).

The 3230 movement was announced in 2020. Are you saying that 2020/2021 watches might have movements made in 2017 or whatever??

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

To be fair, it’s not always clear when a movement was produced relative to when a watch reaches the dealer. Could be a lag. The 3186 took years to get a fix and that one went into watches worn and used daily (so no delay in discovering issues).

Your lag theory is flawed.
It's a matter of when the watch is sold and the owner starts to wear it. The clock on the issue can't and doesn't start from when the movement is made. It's from when it actually starts it's service life after the sale.

Besides, to take your point to it's ultimate conclusion any lag potentially counts in favour of the movement.
Unless you are saying the issue is proven to directly relate to a degradation in the lubes.

Keep in mind that according to the expert, the problem is with a part that is not generally lubed at the point where it's wearing away. Further to this, the warranty fix is to lube the new part at the wear point in the hope they can kick the can far enough down the road that the watch is out of warranty. That's reportedly not even happening with some watches, some are going in for the exact same issue up to 3 times within the warranty period.

Sadly Rolex is breaking new ground on a number of fronts with this movement series they never bargained for

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Dufresne

Watch was purchased brand new from AD. In my first eight months of ownership, the watch never lost time regardless of position and was always within 0 to +1.0sec/day on average. Worn daily and taken off at night. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, it started keeping time erratically and losing time without any of my wearing or storage habits changing. These were the results when I took it to the AD last week:

Thanks for your reply.

This Witschi printout shows that the AD made two 'errors'.

(1) The lift angle for a 3230 movement is 53 and not 52 degrees. This increases each amplitude number by about 6 degrees, so the timegrapher setting was wrong.

(2) Six positions were measured but the 12U = CR (crown right) position is normally not analysed (also not by Rolex) since the 32xx movements are not regulated in 12U position.

Therefore, these data can be corrected to X = -5.9 s/d and X = 211 degrees, which is a small change.

Under the assumption that the 3230 was fully wound, the results cleary show that this movement has become 'sick'. The clear indicator are the very low amplitudes and the negative X rate (after full winding!).

I would continue to wear the watch and observe its timekeeping.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

The 3230 movement was announced in 2020. Are you saying that 2020/2021 watches might have movements made in 2017 or whatever??

I’m saying that it’s unclear:

1. When 3230 production actually began - doubt it was back in ‘17, but if Rolex originally planned on showing the OP and Sub in March of ‘20 then some began production prior.

2. How many were stockpiled early, and if a watch sold in ‘21 or even ‘22 had a movement produce earlier. The point is that even if a fix was instituted, say, in ‘21, it only applies to movements produced from that point and there’s probably a number produced earlier still being put in watches.

Originally Posted by Dirt

Your lag theory is flawed.
It's a matter of when the watch is sold and the owner starts to wear it. The clock on the issue can't and doesn't start from when the movement is made. It's from when it actually starts it's service life after the sale.

Besides, to take your point to it's ultimate conclusion any lag potentially counts in favour of the movement.
Unless you are saying the issue is proven to directly relate to a degradation in the lubes.

Keep in mind that according to the expert, the problem is with a part that is not generally lubed at the point where it's wearing away. Further to this, the warranty fix is to lube the new part at the wear point in the hope they can kick the can far enough down the road that the watch is out of warranty. That's reportedly not even happening with some watches, some are going in for the exact same issue up to 3 times within the warranty period.

Sadly Rolex is breaking new ground on a number of fronts with this movement series they never bargained for

You misunderstand. I’m saying that recognizing a problem like this requires a lot of real world data points - i.e. pieces coming in for service with the same issue. That so many watches reside in safes today delays that collection of data because they aren’t being worn and the issue identified. To illustrate:

Let’s say there were 10,000 3186 movements produced, 50% of which would develop a problem within two years of being worn regularly, and 90% of which were worn regularly. That comes out to 45% off watches coming in for repair with the same issue. No denying it’s widespread and it took two years to learn about it.

Now let’s say 10,000 early 32xx were produced, 50% of which would develop a problem within two years of being worn regularly but only 25% are worn regularly from the start, another 50% are rarely worn, and 25% are held in safes as “investments” for at least a few years. Now, those first two years really only reveal about 12.5% problem rate.

Add to that the fact that the 3186 problem was visually obvious - dangling hot hand - the 32xx takes a while to be noticeable without careful tracking. All this culminates in a scenario where fully discovering the issue takes a lot longer. We may be “convinced” that an issue exists based on dozens of data points here but that’s a rounding error relative to Rolex production.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by dannyp

I’m saying that it’s unclear:

1. When 3230 production actually began - doubt it was back in ‘17, but if Rolex originally planned on showing the OP and Sub in March of ‘20 then some began production prior.

2. How many were stockpiled early, and if a watch sold in ‘21 or even ‘22 had a movement produce earlier. The point is that even if a fix was instituted, say, in ‘21, it only applies to movements produced from that point and there’s probably a number produced earlier still being put in watches.

.

Ok, I see what you’re saying. It is possible that Rolex has fixed the problem, despite us still seeing the issue in new models released in 2021, but I’m skeptical.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

I’m saying that it’s unclear:

1. When 3230 production actually began - doubt it was back in ‘17, but if Rolex originally planned on showing the OP and Sub in March of ‘20 then some began production prior.

2. How many were stockpiled early, and if a watch sold in ‘21 or even ‘22 had a movement produce earlier. The point is that even if a fix was instituted, say, in ‘21, it only applies to movements produced from that point and there’s probably a number produced earlier still being put in watches.



You misunderstand. I’m saying that recognizing a problem like this requires a lot of real world data points - i.e. pieces coming in for service with the same issue. That so many watches reside in safes today delays that collection of data because they aren’t being worn and the issue identified. To illustrate:

Let’s say there were 10,000 3186 movements produced, 50% of which would develop a problem within two years of being worn regularly, and 90% of which were worn regularly. That comes out to 45% off watches coming in for repair with the same issue. No denying it’s widespread and it took two years to learn about it.

Now let’s say 10,000 early 32xx were produced, 50% of which would develop a problem within two years of being worn regularly but only 25% are worn regularly from the start, another 50% are rarely worn, and 25% are held in safes as “investments” for at least a few years. Now, those first two years really only reveal about 12.5% problem rate.

Add to that the fact that the 3186 problem was visually obvious - dangling hot hand - the 32xx takes a while to be noticeable without careful tracking. All this culminates in a scenario where fully discovering the issue takes a lot longer. We may be “convinced” that an issue exists based on dozens of data points here but that’s a rounding error relative to Rolex production.

Yes.
I see where you are coming from

From what we know, Rolex was onto this fairly early on.
It's just that it's troublesome that there is little evidence it's been addressed effectively 6 years or so down the track
It would have to be a record for the same ongoing issue if it hasn't been addressed. That's all

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Yes.
I see where you are coming from

From what we know, Rolex was onto this fairly early on.
It's just that it's troublesome that there is little evidence it's been addressed effectively 6 years or so down the track
It would have to be a record for the same ongoing issue if it hasn't been addressed. That's all

Sure. But again, back to my point, the urgency with which an issue is addressed has to do with how widespread they are. I’m guessing that it took a while to understand the extent of it, for the reasons I hypothesized. A problem impacting 5% of your products will be handled differently than one impacting 55% of them.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Sure. But again, back to my point, the urgency with which an issue is addressed has to do with how widespread they are. I’m guessing that it took a while to understand the extent of it, for the reasons I hypothesized. A problem impacting 5% of your products will be handled differently than one impacting 55% of them.

Nearly 30% of poll respondents having issues surprised me. Porsche had a 996 class action lawsuit based around numbers less convincing. I guess the difference is that Porsche wasn’t repairing out of warranty. If Rolex just keeps it’s head down and repeatedly fixes the issue outside of warranty, maybe they’ll get through it until a fix arrives (if the fix isn’t already here in newer movements.)

The fortunate thing for Rolex is, unlike the early co-axials, the 32xx movement doesn’t stop altogether when it has issues. That probably muddies the water enough for casual users.

[saxo3]

Who knows which 32xx movements are assembled by Rolex SA in which models of watches sold in 2022?
The answer is a clear - Nobody, except Rolex.

Who can exclude that a 2022 watch has a caliber installed, which was produced in 2019, 2018, 2017...?
The answer is a clear - Nobody, except Rolex.

As we all know, the 32xx caliber fits geometrically into "old" and "new" watches. So you (could) mix the good and the bad movements and nobody would be able to find out due to random watch serial numbers.

Of course, you don't announce any problems or fixes and just go ahead and do the silent repair when watches come in for service or repair.

That is the most cost efficient way since 99.9 % of Rolex owners never find this 32xx problem or don't care.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Sure. But again, back to my point, the urgency with which an issue is addressed has to do with how widespread they are. I’m guessing that it took a while to understand the extent of it, for the reasons I hypothesized. A problem impacting 5% of your products will be handled differently than one impacting 55% of them.

Agreed

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Who knows which 32xx movements are assembled by Rolex SA in which models of watches sold in 2022?
The answer is a clear - Nobody, except Rolex.

Who can exclude that a 2022 watch has a caliber installed, which was produced in 2019, 2018, 2017...?
The answer is a clear - Nobody, except Rolex.

As we all know, the 32xx caliber fits geometrically into "old" and "new" watches. So you (could) mix the good and the bad movements and nobody would be able to find out due to random watch serial numbers.

Of course, you don't announce any problems or fixes and just go ahead and do the silent repair when watches come in for service or repair.

That is the most cost efficient way since 99.9 % of Rolex owners never find this 32xx problem or don't care.

Quite right.
As I've said before I would like to wait until Baz gets back to us on that. However he seems to have gone to ground around these parts for the time being.
Taking your ideas into consideration. I wonder if the watchmakers would ever necessarily know outside a different spec lube or changed lube schedule unless they're installing modified parts that are easily identifiable by a different part number, then the fix would indeed be totally silent and I suppose it would have to be because it's not like there will be any recalls for a suite of reasons
If the fix is something more subtle like a different heat treatment or metallurgy it may well go unnoticed.

After all a mod or two to the 31xx movements were so subtle that even the watchmakers had difficulty identifying which parts were which

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Nearly 30% of poll respondents having issues surprised me. Porsche had a 996 class action lawsuit based around numbers less convincing. I guess the difference is that Porsche wasn’t repairing out of warranty. If Rolex just keeps it’s head down and repeatedly fixes the issue outside of warranty, maybe they’ll get through it until a fix arrives (if the fix isn’t already here in newer movements.)

The fortunate thing for Rolex is, unlike the early co-axials, the 32xx movement doesn’t stop altogether when it has issues. That probably muddies the water enough for casual users.

A rather different dynamic and set of circumstances
We wait with great interest.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Quite right.
Taking your ideas into consideration. I wonder if the watchmakers would ever necessarily know outside a different spec lube or changed lube schedule unless they're installing modified parts that are easily identifiable by a different part number, then the fix would indeed be totally silent and I suppose it would have to be because it's not like there will be any recalls for a suite of reasons
If the fix is something more subtle like a different heat treatment or metallurgy it may well go unnoticed.

Good Dirt, you now seem to understand my point. Part of my considerations is:

- They will never acknowledge any 32xx problems.

- They have investigated, found, and adressed the issues already some time ago, i.e. there is a fix.

- They will not inform any RSC or AD worldwide and let them use their already bought and stored repair parts, until RSC's and AD's need to order new ones.

- They deliver new and improved or modified maintenance components with the same spare part number, i.e. they will never change the parts numbers.

Doing all that it is a silent repair. They (Rolex SA) are much smarter than many might believe.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Good Dirt, you now seem to understand my point. Part of my considerations is:

- They will never acknowledge any 32xx problems.

- They have investigated, found, and adressed the issues already some time ago, i.e. there is a fix.

- They will not inform any RSC or AD worldwide and let them use their already bought and stored repair parts, until RSC's and AD's need to order new ones.

- They deliver new and improved or modified maintenance components with the same spare part number, i.e. they will never change the parts numbers.

Doing all that it is a silent repair. They (Rolex SA) are much smarter than many might believe.

The one issue with this is if they know what the issue is and if they had some older movements still waiting to be used then they should have removed these movements from production and fixed them before putting them into watches. This is what any manufacturer with any level of integrity would do.

Also rolex being an extremely mature and sophisticated manufacturer you have to believe they use fifo for their movements. Not make heaps of movements put them in a pile and use which ever movement they please at the time.

If you give them credit for being smart enough to silently fix you have to assume they don’t use very old processes for other things.

So far things look bad with newer watches going bad. Evidence (which is all we have) at the moment looks like they don’t have a rock solid solution for this just yet.

Now you seem to act like you know there is a fix? How do you know? You know someone in Rolex but you won’t share it with anyone? If they have a known fix are they really releasing problem movements into watches in 2022? I’d love to believe Rolex have enough integrity not to do this but this is how it reads.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Quite right.
As I've said before I would like to wait until Baz gets back to us on that. However he seems to have gone to ground around these parts for the time being.
Taking your ideas into consideration. I wonder if the watchmakers would ever necessarily know outside a different spec lube or changed lube schedule unless they're installing modified parts that are easily identifiable by a different part number, then the fix would indeed be totally silent and I suppose it would have to be because it's not like there will be any recalls for a suite of reasons
If the fix is something more subtle like a different heat treatment or metallurgy it may well go unnoticed.

After all a mod or two to the 31xx movements were so subtle that even the watchmakers had difficulty identifying which parts were which

The only issue I have with this theory is Rolex should be a company that do not release problematic movements into the market after a solution is found.

High integrity companies would immediately ensure that after a solution is found every product that leaves after this point has the fix in there.

I’d like to believe Rolex is like this but of course who knows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by amanbra

The only issue I have with this theory is Rolex should be a company that do not release problematic movements into the market after a solution is found.

High integrity companies would immediately ensure that after a solution is found every product that leaves after this point has the fix in there.

I’d like to believe Rolex is like this but of course who knows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I concur.
But who knows how they operate.
I always assumed they have total traceability given serial numbers on movements and their sophisticated stock control measures where parts at the mothership are picked out of stock by robots and so forth.
So they should know what parts they have in stock and where they are at any time. Even when in transit and the destination.

Theoretically, they could ship the revised parts out to the RSCs and tell them to return the older ones in the original packaging for the mothership to dispose of upon return. Or send them back to the mothership first and they will be replaced promptly.
Any revised parts could be changed for the old ones at the mothership within minutes with a press of a button.
At least, that way we won't be hearing of repeat performances at the RSCs on an ongoing basis.
It would be in the brands best interests.

But I get there will be a bit of carry over out there in the wild for a range of reasons beyond the mothship's control as well.
We will see in due course.
Perhaps you are currently sitting on a handfull of completely revised components residing in your watch at this very moment?

[eijiboy]

This video is probably one of the few issues of 32 movement. Poor lubrication. Notice the train wheels not spinning freely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNoK92cBAqQ

If you look closely, they were able to disassemble the barrel where rolex said that it cannot be disassemble due to very thin barrel walls

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Dirt

I concur.
But who knows how they operate.
I always assumed they have total traceability given serial numbers on movements and their sophisticated stock control measures where parts at the mothership are picked out of stock by robots and so forth.
So they should know what parts they have in stock and where they are at any time. Even when in transit and the destination.

Theoretically, they could ship the revised parts out to the RSCs and tell them to return the older ones in the original packaging for the mothership to dispose of upon return. Or send them back to the mothership first and they will be replaced promptly.
Any revised parts could be changed for the old ones at the mothership within minutes with a press of a button.
At least, that way we won't be hearing of repeat performances at the RSCs on an ongoing basis.
It would be in the brands best interests.

But I get there will be a bit of carry over out there in the wild for a range of reasons beyond the mothship's control as well.
We will see in due course.
Perhaps you are currently sitting on a handfull of completely revised components residing in your watch at this very moment?

doubt it... my DD looks like it's going to be a problem movement =(