Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravager135
I've been seeing these posts so I went out and purchased a timegrapher. All of the 32xx movements I have in my collection are +/- 0 seconds. I have five watches with a variation on this movement bought over the past seven or so years. My only Rolex without a 32xx movement is a 216570 from 2013 that I recently had serviced after 10 years of use and it's also keeping perfect time.
I am sure there are issues with movements. There always have been and will continue to be. The problem is people are blowing these issues out of proportion or making it seems it is commonplace given the exposure the internet provides. All my watches run perfectly, it doesn't mean that there aren't defective movements. On a long enough timeline, all movements become defective. I just don't see this being the norm.
In my anecdotal experience, my Omega watches with co-axial movements keep far superior time over a long period of time and that includes my handwound Speedmaster Moonwatch.
|
Ironically the co-axial movements had known issues early on but the problems were much more transparent. Not necessarily Omega being forthcoming, but the community at large. There were people defending Omega to the death and denying issues just like people here are doing with Rolex of course, but there were a lot more members that acknowledged there were real issues with that movement along with watchmakers.
And Omega indirectly provided some transparency because they kept coming out with slight modifications of the movement - 2500A,B,C,D, and by D the architecture was significantly changed and more akin to the 8500, by which time all the issues seemed to have been worked out.