New Sub 126040 - 3230 losing time

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Peter,

Please direct us to the statement as you have written in your post here.

There is nothing on the individual references web pages on the Rolex Website.

There is nothing in the linked reference brochure

There is nothing in the user manual.

The statement made is +/- 2 spd after casing. There is no asterisk directing the reader to the small print

What is being missed here is that how Rolex test is irrelevant. The factors impacting timekeeping are irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant is what is clearly stated by Rolex. That is what the consumer is entitled to rely on.

And the fact is that Rolex movements are more than capable of performing 24/7 in any environment within those advertised specs.

I agree that -3spd does not signify a problem, but it it outside of advertised specification. That is an irrefutable fact. There can be no argument about that.

What is open to debate is what an individual owner considers acceptable to them. And them alone

No the statement by Rolex it's tested to a precision of -2+2 seconds after casing,but the uncased movements are still tested at the Swiss COSC to a average -4+6 seconds at time of testing past.And just like the COSC and the Rolex in case test at time of testing met the spec.And this don't mean it will perform exactly the same every day for life as almost daily there could be slight variations depending on owners wearing habits.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Roddypeepa

Because I don’t think I am wrong. And clearly neither do you. So we will have to agree to disagree. That’s fine.

Cheers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're expressing a view as fact, with no basis for doing so other than you don't think you're wrong.

Might want to think twice before giving advice on that basis. Or at least make it clear that the advice given is based on your understanding.

I'm 100% open to being shown thw "small print" as it were. It was my understanding also that the +/- 2spd was an average result.

But its not what Rolex state. And there's no small print.

Rolex do call their superlative testing procedures "draconian" and state:

Today, every Rolex movement is certified by the Swiss Official Chronometer
Testing Institute (COSC) before it is cased. In order to be declared a ‘Superlative Chronometer’, the finished and assembled watch must then pass the Superlative Control tests. This certification, unique to the Rolex Manufacture, guarantees an exceptional precision of –2/+2 seconds per day

https://newsroom-content.rolex.com/-...hmaking_en.pdf

If they meant +/- 2 spd on average it would have been mentioned there, don't you think?

[blufinz52]

I've had my 124060 for a year and a half and it's only losing (not loosing) a second a day.

[Devildog]

Double post

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by padi56

No the statement by Rolex it's tested to a precision of -2+2 seconds after casing,but the uncased movements are still tested at the Swiss COSC to a average -4+6 seconds at time of testing past.And just like the COSC and the Rolex in case test at time of testing met the spec.And this don't mean it will perform exactly the same every day for life as almost daily there could be slight variations depending on owners wearing habits.

Peter, anything you've written above after "but" is not what Rolex state.

Yes, that's how COSC testing is done.

What Rolex actually state is:

Today, every Rolex movement is certified by the Swiss Official Chronometer Testing Institute (COSC) before it is cased. In order to be declared a 'Superlative Chronometer’, the finished and assembled watch must then pass the Superlative Control tests. This certification, unique to the Rolex Manufacture, guarantees an exceptional precision of –2/+2 seconds per day

I'll highlight that last sentence:

This certification, unique to the Rolex Manufacture, guarantees an exceptional precision of –2/+2 seconds per day

No buts. No subject to. No small print.

Just an extremely definitive statement.

Edit to add.

Rolex is an extremely smart and considered organisation. One that has excellent legal representation.

Every detail of everything Rolex publish will have been scrutinised. There is no way that if that's not what Rolex meant to say that it would have made it past that scrutiny.

[Jack T]

Rolex advertises + or - 2 seconds a day

The OP’s watch is slow by 3.5 seconds a day (that he’s able to measure that extra 0.5 second is, in itself, a point of interest)

So, we can get very technical about the deviation of either 3.5 seconds or 1.5 second, but do you want to tie up a new watch for maybe two months for one effing second a day?

How much sense does that make?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Peter, anything you've written above after "but" is not what Rolex state.

Yes, that's how COSC testing is done.

What Rolex actually state is:

Today, every Rolex movement is certified by the Swiss Official Chronometer Testing Institute (COSC) before it is cased. In order to be declared a 'Superlative Chronometer’, the finished and assembled watch must then pass the Superlative Control tests. This certification, unique to the Rolex Manufacture, guarantees an exceptional precision of –2/+2 seconds per day

I'll highlight that last sentence:

This certification, unique to the Rolex Manufacture, guarantees an exceptional precision of –2/+2 seconds per day

No buts. No subject to. No small print.

Just an extremely definitive statement.

Edit to add.

Rolex is an extremely smart and considered organisation. One that has excellent legal representation.

Every detail of everything Rolex publish will have been scrutinised. There is no way that if that's not what Rolex meant to say that it would have made it past that scrutiny.

Precision test is how close the measurements are to each other,so in other words it in the real world just like the COSC a Average of .But precision sounds more marketing brainwashing than saying average.

[JeanGenie]

How many 32xx watches do we think have been reported on this forum as having timing "issues"? Even in the massive thread that's 165+ pages? Let's say it was 200 watches (I don't think it's even close to that but I can't read that whole thread). What percentage of Rolex's output is that? .0002%? This hardly equates to "proof" there is an "issue" with this movement series.

Not saying owners don't have the right to be annoyed when they observe out of spec time keeping, but just trying to get to some perspective here. Nothing is perfect, even Rolex despite their precision claims. Yes, I'd be annoyed if one of my watches suddenly started losing or gaining several more seconds than it normally does, but I would try to keep things in perspective.

I recently picked up two new 32xx watches (216570 and 126613). I rotate them daily and they've been -1/1.5ish depending on how long I wear them. They'd need to go way out of COSC for me to consider sending them to Rolex.

[Gearjockey]

Originally Posted by racerx

"losing"

You spoiled the running joke.

OP: apparently warmer temps can affect performance. If you have a toaster oven, place on tray wrapped in tin foil on lowest setting for 10 minutes.
We need more recipes.

[sgt10p]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Peter, anything you've written above after "but" is not what Rolex state.

Yes, that's how COSC testing is done.

What Rolex actually state is:

Today, every Rolex movement is certified by the Swiss Official Chronometer Testing Institute (COSC) before it is cased. In order to be declared a 'Superlative Chronometer’, the finished and assembled watch must then pass the Superlative Control tests. This certification, unique to the Rolex Manufacture, guarantees an exceptional precision of –2/+2 seconds per day

No buts. No subject to. No small print.
.

Nice find

[Barada7]

The problem (to me) is not that the 32xx series aren’t keeping stated time, but that they’re consistently losing time, and can’t then be owner regulated via resting positioning.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

This thread is thick with details, details that manifest as both facts and opinions. The absolutist take on the definition of Superlative has been supported with documentation, impressive. Since the OP has repeatedly said on the first page that the change in his watch’s performance “bothers” him the only path to getting un-bothered is to send his watch in for service. This is the only way from the absolutist perspective, hold Rolex’s feet to the fire and make them fix the watch under warranty every time it veers from Superlative. But to me that doesn’t sound like any fun at all.

I have two 32XX watches, an Exp I and an Exp II. Last month for giggles I casually tracked their performance over a week leaving them in the dial-up position and winding them every other day. During that week the Exp I lost an average of 2.83 spd and the Exp II lost an average of 3.5 spd, both out of Superlative Chronometer spec. This performance appears consistent over the roughly two years I have owned the watches but admittedly it’s the first time I’ve tracked it. So the question now is what do I do with this information? Do I hold Rolex’s feet to the fire and demand the performance that they advertise and in the process deal with the distraction of shipping and waiting for watches to return or do I take to heart the lessons that I’ve learned here on TRF that I still have years of warranty left and that performance can change over time and conditions. If I choose the latter does that mean I don’t care about performance? No, it means that I keep performance in context and that I haven’t reached the tipping point where it’s worth it to me to ship my watch. Since the OP has repeatedly stated that he is “Bothered” he’s at his personal tipping point and needs to send his in.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by padi56

Precision test is how close the measurements are to each other,so in other words it in the real world just like the COSC a Average of .But precision sounds more marketing brainwashing than saying average.

Peter.

I know where you are coming from. I do.

But that is just your interpretation of what to expect. Which you are absolutely entitled to.

That’s not what Rolex is stating. There would be no point in Rolex doing so. Most people don’t care.

What they do care about is how much time in total their watch will gain or lose. That’s the relevant comparison, the relevant measure and that’s what the consumer can expect that statement to mean.

Rolex is not stating “average” nor is Rolex using precision instead of average, even if that suits your narrative. You’ve already contradicted yourself. One minute “Precision” is the average gain or loss over multiple positions

And now “Precision” is how close the measurements are to each other.

I can’t be both.

Why is it so hard for you to simply accept what Rolex is advertising?

The 3235 in my 126600 was consistently within 2 seconds per day (per week actually) until the 32** problem manifested itself.

I wore that watch daily. Never had to manually wind it. It got hot. It got cold. It got wet. It was subject to all manner of external factors. And it performed well within 2 seconds per day no matter what I was doing. Not on average. In maximum deviation. It never ran slow until it started to fail.

It performed as advertised. In the real world.

Those movements are entirely capable of being within +/- 2 seconds per day regardless of all the external factors you mention. Rolex even states that they are designed to not be affected by those factors. In black and white.

There is not one single caveat to the +/-2 SPD statement. The fact it’s after casing means consumers can place even more reliance on it.

There’s no small print. No get out warranty claim clauses. Anywhere.

For the record I don’t care whether you accept any of this or not.

But I do feel it’s helpful for those for whom performance is important to be presented with an alternative to the usual dismissiveness that flows when those concerns are raised in this forum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[7enderbender]

Originally Posted by padi56

Wow how can you live with a watch loosing 2.5 to 3 seconds a day out of 86400 seconds in a day.

In all seriousness, I wouldn’t want that. I’m ok with gaining a few second as. That’s an easy fix where you just stop the watch for a moment once a week and move on. Fiddling around with a watch that runs slow sucks.

Which brings me to: am I making a mistake buying a new datejust? Maybe I should look at neo vintage there as well. Seems like everything made these days is somehow a bit worse than it used to be.

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by 7enderbender

I’ll m all seriousness, I wouldn’t want that. I’m ok with gaining a few second as. That’s an easy fix where you just stop the watch for a moment once a week and move on. Fiddling around with a watch that runs slow sucks.

^^Siure, it’s less than ideal as most want their watches to be slightly fast. It’s the luck of the calibration when you buy a new watch how it will play out. If you absolutely need your watch to be slightly fast, then the only solution is to send it in for a calibration. It’s no different than most of our $ix figure new cars needing fixed for a stupid manufacturing quality control mistakes. You usually find them in the first month of ownership and then things get much better. Of course we shouldn’t have to do it, but the reality is, rarely nothing is perfect and the higher end you go the more your expectations are and the more you may get discouraged.
How would you feel if your $90k Nautilus was -4 seconds a day slow because that isn’t any more unusual.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Peter.

I know where you are coming from. I do.

But that is just your interpretation of what to expect. Which you are absolutely entitled to.

That’s not what Rolex is stating. There would be no point in Rolex doing so. Most people don’t care.

What they do care about is how much time in total their watch will gain or lose. That’s the relevant comparison, the relevant measure and that’s what the consumer can expect that statement to mean.

Rolex is not stating “average” nor is Rolex using precision instead of average, even if that suits your narrative. You’ve already contradicted yourself. One minute “Precision” is the average gain or loss over multiple positions

And now “Precision” is how close the measurements are to each other.

I can’t be both.

Why is it so hard for you to simply accept what Rolex is advertising?

The 3235 in my 126600 was consistently within 2 seconds per day (per week actually) until the 32** problem manifested itself.

I wore that watch daily. Never had to manually wind it. It got hot. It got cold. It got wet. It was subject to all manner of external factors. And it performed well within 2 seconds per day no matter what I was doing. Not on average. In maximum deviation. It never ran slow until it started to fail.

It performed as advertised. In the real world.

Those movements are entirely capable of being within +/- 2 seconds per day regardless of all the external factors you mention. Rolex even states that they are designed to not be affected by those factors. In black and white.

There is not one single caveat to the +/-2 SPD statement. The fact it’s after casing means consumers can place even more reliance on it.

There’s no small print. No get out warranty claim clauses. Anywhere.

For the record I don’t care whether you accept any of this or not.

But I do feel it’s helpful for those for whom performance is important to be presented with an alternative to the usual dismissiveness that flows when those concerns are raised in this forum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I give up in the real world I have far more important thing to worry about that a watch which in the real world might be 1.5 seconds out of so called Rolex spec.

[forcinitijp]

The truth is that it's funny... we are talking about mechanical watches... please... they want to be more watchmakers than those who make watches... 1.5 seconds IS NOTHING... This is how long it takes to turn the crown 4 times or to put it on... adjusting it once every 6 months is ok! cosc is +6 seconds... IT IS NOT THE CALIBER 32XX, it is the person who is using it... rolex tells you +2... and it does not comply with that... go for IWC or tudor...

[East of Eden]

Originally Posted by 7enderbender

In all seriousness, I wouldn’t want that. I’m ok with gaining a few second as. That’s an easy fix where you just stop the watch for a moment once a week and move on. Fiddling around with a watch that runs slow sucks.

Which brings me to: am I making a mistake buying a new datejust? Maybe I should look at neo vintage there as well. Seems like everything made these days is somehow a bit worse than it used to be.

Personally, I wouldn’t buy any 32xx watch. As I’ve said here before, life has enoughunpleasant surprises without stepping into a known issue. Would you buy a car with a really bad reliability rating?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by East of Eden

Personally, I wouldn’t buy any 32xx watch. As I’ve said here before, life has enoughunpleasant surprises without stepping into a known issue. Would you buy a car with a really bad reliability rating?

Well that's your perocative but there must be millions of others that will, and they still sell every one they make with the 32 series movement.

[East of Eden]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well that's your perocative but there must be millions of others that will, and they still sell every one they make with the 32 series movement.

And all of those buying them are fully aware of the issue? Heck, even many on TRF aren’t.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Devildog

…

You have summarized and explained the facts extremely well, in all your posts, for later references:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...8&postcount=25
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...0&postcount=28
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...7&postcount=50
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...3&postcount=62
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...2&postcount=65
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...0&postcount=73

What a great way to completely refute every discussion partner.

There is only one point I do not completely agree with you, see post 25: "Semantics over precision versus accuracy are irrelevant".

I would add "for the majority of customers". I do understand what you mean but Rolex SA is extremely careful what and how they publish. We both know that precision and accuracy (or timekeeping) are not the same.

From a scientific point of view, the term precision might be the only way for Rolex to escape (legally) from their published specification: Precision -2/+2 sec/day, after casing.

If Rolex SA uses this subtlety of words, then they would intentionally mislead all their customers.

I do believe that most Rolex customers do understand precision = accuracy = timekeeping.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by East of Eden

And all of those buying them are fully aware of the issue? Heck, even many on TRF aren’t.

No comment as it's a waste of time,I have far more important things to worry about, than whether a watch might or might not lose or gain a few seconds.

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by East of Eden

Personally, I wouldn’t buy any 32xx watch. As I’ve said here before, life has enoughunpleasant surprises without stepping into a known issue. Would you buy a car with a really bad reliability rating?

Are you pretty much done with Rolex then?? I guess the 4130 cal is probably the only movement I could recommend as every other workhorse caliber has had some flaw or minor issue over the years. Then there is the calibers that didn’t get any intense scrutiny pre-Internet days so who knows how many Rolex movements would live up to today’s expectations?? There will never be a satisfying ending or solution that the public will get if there is/was a problem with any Rolex movement. This is how Rolex works and really has a “we don’t care if you buy our watches” mentality. Rolex as a brand expects their customers to be o.k with a tyrannical relationship.

[East of Eden]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Are you pretty much done with Rolex then??

Why would I be? The conversation is about one specific movement. No issues with my four non-32xx movements.

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by East of Eden

Why would I be? The conversation is about one specific movement. No issues with my four non-32xx movements.

Because your stated “Personally, I wouldn’t buy any 32xx watch.”. So I took that to mean you are done with all new Rolex models.

[East of Eden]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Because your stated “Personally, I wouldn’t buy any 32xx watch.”. So I took that to mean you are done with all new Rolex models.

Ok, but you didn’t say done with new models, you said done with Rolex.

[forcinitijp]

Someone can list here all the mistakes that Rolex had through time... from out-of-place prints to problems with some movements such as the 1570.... those 1.5 seconds is totally acceptable because it is within what COSC regulates ... that makes more sense than what Rolex says.

Is anyone talking about a Nautilus? Here's how much they lose a day

"Loss 1 minute in 2 weeks means -4 per day.
I won't be worried about it.
That's similar to my 7 PP watches, ranging from nautilus to perpetual chrono.
Though PP aims at -3 to +2 a day.”

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=421338

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by saxo3

You have summarized and explained the facts extremely well, in all your posts, for later references:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...8&postcount=25
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...0&postcount=28
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...7&postcount=50
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...3&postcount=62
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...2&postcount=65
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...0&postcount=73

What a great way to completely refute every discussion partner.

There is only one point I do not completely agree with you, see post 25: "Semantics over precision versus accuracy are irrelevant".

I would add "for the majority of customers". I do understand what you mean but Rolex SA is extremely careful what and how they publish. We both know that precision and accuracy (or timekeeping) are not the same.

From a scientific point of view, the term precision might be the only way for Rolex to escape (legally) from their published specification: Precision -2/+2 sec/day, after casing.

If Rolex SA uses this subtlety of words, then they would intentionally mislead all their customers.

I do believe that most Rolex customers do understand precision = accuracy = timekeeping.

Thank you and yes, I agree that I should have added "for the majority of customers"

Different countries of course have different consumer laws of course.

In the UK, the consumer would be able to rely, by law, on the understanding that +/- 2 spd refers to accuracy/timekeeping. If there is any ambiguity the law will side with the consumer. Rolex will or should know that.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by forcinitijp

The truth is that it's funny... we are talking about mechanical watches... please... they want to be more watchmakers than those who make watches... 1.5 seconds IS NOTHING... This is how long it takes to turn the crown 4 times or to put it on... adjusting it once every 6 months is ok! cosc is +6 seconds... IT IS NOT THE CALIBER 32XX, it is the person who is using it... rolex tells you +2... and it does not comply with that... go for IWC or tudor...

Juan

You are missing the key point here.

I agree 1.5 seconds is nothing.

However, if a manufacturer makes a big deal out of a number, those who purchase their product are entitled to expect compliance with that number.

Whether you, Peter or anyone else agrees with that is irrelevant.

They have an absolute right to expect their watch to perform as guaranteed by Rolex.

[forcinitijp]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Juan

You are missing the key point here.

I agree 1.5 seconds is nothing.

However, if a manufacturer makes a big deal out of a number, those who purchase their product are entitled to expect compliance with that number.

Whether you, Peter or anyone else agrees with that is irrelevant.

They have an absolute right to expect their watch to perform as guaranteed by Rolex.

My wife, before I got married, promised me that she would let me go play golf every week and it never happened... who do I complain to about that?