3235….disappointed

[RustyW]

I have a Red SD purchased in February 2021. Running around -1.5 per day. No issues here. Hope it stays that way. I wear mine in rotation with 7 others. Of the 8 I own, 4 get the main wear, including the SD.

Fingers crossed it stays good

[AJMarcus]

Originally Posted by padi56

Many of the so called 32 series problems are very over exaggerated by many yes some reports of starting to loose seconds out of spec. But today there must be many millions of 32 series movement watches in this world. And Rolex can sell everyone they can make if it was such a terrible movement why do joe public still buy them. Its doubtful if many Rolex buyers even know what low amplitude means unless they read about it on forums from many with one of todays Rolex toys timeographer machines. And any problems you have a 5 year warranty when buying from any AD, myself have one watch at the moment with a 32 movement but although been wearing Rolex watches for well over 50 years now never felt the need to check continually to the exact daily second no matter the movement in the case.

Exactly. Completely agree with you. These bad news stories often get blown way out of proportion in my opinion. I’ve had many Rolex over many years and never had an issue

[sevykor]

You will hear many on here tell you that they haven’t had issues with their 32xx. Not to pick on the 32xx, but there is an issue. I speak from experience with having owned one that made two trips to RSC as advised by my AD. Solution was to sell my DJ41 and now only buy 31xx watches. Unless purchased with the intent to flip, would never own a 32xx watch until certain a fix was found to ensure longevity.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HogwldFLTR]

My 32 qll work great! No complaints!!!

[fmc000]

Originally Posted by amh

why bother?

ok

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

Excellent contribution as always, Bas. Glad you're chiming in, we're lucky to have you.

Originally Posted by brandrea

Indeed we are

thanks Gents

[travisb]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

Excellent contribution as always, Bas. Glad you're chiming in, we're lucky to have you.

100%

[Stan Cooper]

Originally Posted by amh

Technician1: "Uh oh, look at this bearing that's worn out after only 1 year of use"
Technician2: "I looked it up, it came from a batch with improper heat treating. It's already been fixed in manufacturing and won't happen again. Service the watch on our dime."

Bas says the change in ball bearings is unrelated to the issue under discussion. For those with 32xx movements and haven't had a problem, congratulations. There remains a problem, and I for one don't want the hassles of returning an expensive watch for service multiple times.

Originally Posted by SearChart

The update was a change in ball bearings for the rotor and a change in text engraving on the bridges and rotor. It has nothing to do with the issue that people are experiencing.

[Rolexken]

If you search online, 99% of references to this issue are links to this forum. I hope all of the members posting excited threads starting with “Incoming” and “Got The Call” aren’t put off….

[JMGoodnight369]

This should be shared information and definitely something for new collectors to the brand to be aware of. Im one of the unlucky ones. I was aware of the issue and I’ve still purchased 3 32xx movement watches. So far 1 has been sent in. My 124060 ran -9 the day I got it from the AD. I was pretty disappointed but this is my favorite iteration of the submariner so far so I’m gonna deal with it. It’s been serviced and so far running +1.5 since April. My other 126610LV started life at +1 in November and has since slowed to -2ish. Now all of the 31xx watches I’ve owned never skipped a beat. I had a 114270 that never deviated from +1 for 7 years straight. The 32s seem very temperamental and larger deviations in time keeping. I’d rather have that reliability over a 70 hour power reserve

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

You might want to read through the zillion page thread in the tech forum. It’s not good.

A self-perpetuating echo-chamber of doom based on a limited data set of anecdotes from obsessed owners of specialized equipment, many of whom are convinced that a documented anomaly is actually a conspiracy worthy of a class action lawsuit. And now the doom cult contagion is spreading to the main forum. That’s what’s not good.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

A self-perpetuating echo-chamber of doom based on a limited data set of anecdotes from obsessed owners of specialized equipment, many of whom are convinced that a documented anomaly is actually a conspiracy worthy of a class action lawsuit. And now the doom cult contagion is spreading to the main forum. That’s what’s not good.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

A self-perpetuating echo-chamber of doom based on a limited data set of anecdotes from obsessed owners of specialized equipment.

No

Its not.

There is a fundamental problem that affects some 32xx movements. Its been confirmed by people who actually know. Its quite real and there is yet no answer/fix.

One line of thinking that makes sense is that it's becase the lower torque required by the chronergy escapement creates much narrower window of operational tolerances.

When everything is 100% (wear/lubrication/friction/temps/PR, etc) the movement is super accurate. But if something is not 100%, the impact on timekeeping is much more significant. Like a high performance engine, it needs to be in tune at all times.

If that is indeed the issue (and why a service will remedy it - for a while, at least) its not at all easily fixable. Because the "fix" goes against the whole design concept of the chronergy escapement.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by SearChart

[destrodan]

...of engaging in this hobby, one thing was always a certainty: Guaranteed piece of mind when it came to Rolex's bulletproof movements.

Folks may try to discount the current 32XX 'internet chatter,' but over those 20 years visiting the watch forums every day...there WAS NO internet chatter when it came to a question on the dependability of Rolex's movements. Practically no other mechanical watch brand (and that's a conservative statement - the reality is closer to 'no other mechanical watch brand') had such a streak regarding a lack of conversation about the dependability of their movements. When the question was asked in the forums, the debate started and ended with a list of replies littered with one-sentence-long amazing answers like "mine has been running for 15 years and no problems whatsoever". There were no - as in ZERO - comments such as "yeah, already sent my brand-new Rolex back to the company two times in the past few years and still having problems." Such online conversations may have been boring to some, since everyone likes a bit of controversy and debate, but over time such a lack of critical comments and such a constant stream of amazing comments created a halo effect for Rolex.

Unfortunately a reputation like that, which took many decades to build at a glacial pace, can take only a few years to destroy. The halo isn't fully faded away quite yet, but Rolex had better get their sh*t together quickly, or, in my opinion, they'll become just another historically retro 'cool' watch company like so many others out there for hipsters and those seeking status symbols.

This is all very sad to me as I hesitate now on acquiring Rolex's that I'd have in my collection were it not for the risk of movement issues.

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by SearChart

The update was a change in ball bearings for the rotor and a change in text engraving on the bridges and rotor. It has nothing to do with the issue that people are experiencing.

Even the 31×× got updated last year, every mainspring now has to be a complete barrel change during service, the new barrel has an extra 2 hours of power reserve.
Daytona 4130 barrel also changed, no seperate mainsprings available anymore, same goes for 22××, all of these movements now get the barrel from the 2236 with more power reserve when you get a service.

Parts for movements get updated all the time, even in older movements. In recent years the 15×× (yes an over 50 year old movement) received a 'quiet update' where the escape wheel anti-shock got updated to Kif anti-shock, which is easier for the watchmakers to work with than the old spring (which was an absolute pain in the..)

There's many more of these updates, and aside from watchmakers like me most people will never know of them.

Thanks for sharing Bas!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[DavidUK]

Originally Posted by SearChart

The update was a change in ball bearings for the rotor and a change in text engraving on the bridges and rotor. It has nothing to do with the issue that people are experiencing.

Even the 31×× got updated last year, every mainspring now has to be a complete barrel change during service, the new barrel has an extra 2 hours of power reserve.
Daytona 4130 barrel also changed, no seperate mainsprings available anymore, same goes for 22××, all of these movements now get the barrel from the 2236 with more power reserve when you get a service.

Parts for movements get updated all the time, even in older movements. In recent years the 15×× (yes an over 50 year old movement) received a 'quiet update' where the escape wheel anti-shock got updated to Kif anti-shock, which is easier for the watchmakers to work with than the old spring (which was an absolute pain in the..)

There's many more of these updates, and aside from watchmakers like me most people will never know of them.

Thanks. If the 3235 update has nothing to do with the alleged issue people are experiencing, are you able to comment as to why the Rolex haven't made any amendments for it?

Many thanks.

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by trf2271

Start at post 2745 in the 32xx movement thread

While they may have updated the movements, has this solved the issue? And has it been retrofitted into ailing 32xxs during the warranty services? I’m certainly hoping so being the rather disappointed owner of an afflicted explorer. It was serviced earlier this year, so I’m hoping all will now be well!

But, there is absolutely no way I’d buy another 32xx watch, and had I known about the movement problems, I wouldn’t have bought my explorer.

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by Mountain

While they may have updated the movements, has this solved the issue? And has it been retrofitted into ailing 32xxs during the warranty services? I’m certainly hoping so being the rather disappointed owner of an afflicted explorer. It was serviced earlier this year, so I’m hoping all will now be well!

But, there is absolutely no way I’d buy another 32xx watch, and had I known about the movement problems, I wouldn’t have bought my explorer.

Ok, ignore this, as I see it’s been addressed subsequently by Bas. Thank you!

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by Devildog

No

Its not.

There is a fundamental problem that affects some 32xx movements. Its been confirmed by people who actually know. Its quite real and there is yet no answer/fix.

One line of thinking that makes sense is that it's becase the lower torque required by the chronergy escapement creates much narrower window of operational tolerances.

When everything is 100% (wear/lubrication/friction/temps/PR, etc) the movement is super accurate. But if something is not 100%, the impact on timekeeping is much more significant. Like a high performance engine, it needs to be in tune at all times.

If that is indeed the issue (and why a service will remedy it - for a while, at least) its not at all easily fixable. Because the "fix" goes against the whole design concept of the chronergy escapement.

Yes, I believe I covered that when I very clearly used the phrase “documented anomaly.” Thank you for restating the obvious. What I rail against is the endless relentless doomsaying that all 32XX movements are destined for catastrophic self-destruction, are “ticking time bombs”, that the dataset of approximately 1300 poll responders represents a failure rate of 25% of all 32XX movements and that a class action lawsuit is in order. It’s the histrionics and grand generalizations that are the subject at hand, not the documented adjustments occasionally necessary to keep a small percentage of finely tuned machines running optimally. I’ve never said there isn’t an issue nor have I ever questioned the bona fides of the few experts here that speak with authority on the subject, I’m just holding up a light to those sack cloth wearing placard bearers chanting “the end is nigh.” It’s just a little machine from a storied manufacturer legendary for their quality, the anomaly will be addressed and if it’s not the worst case scenario is that you trade it back in on something else. We’re debating on a luxury watch forum, not a post-apocalyptic survival forum. Its not the end of the world, the end is not nigh.

[JMGoodnight369]

Originally Posted by destrodan

...of engaging in this hobby, one thing was always a certainty: Guaranteed piece of mind when it came to Rolex's bulletproof movements.

Folks may try to discount the current 32XX 'internet chatter,' but over those 20 years visiting the watch forums every day...there WAS NO internet chatter when it came to a question on the dependability of Rolex's movements. Practically no other mechanical watch brand (and that's a conservative statement - the reality is closer to 'no other mechanical watch brand') had such a streak regarding a lack of conversation about the dependability of their movements. When the question was asked in the forums, the debate started and ended with a list of replies littered with one-sentence-long amazing answers like "mine has been running for 15 years and no problems whatsoever". There were no - as in ZERO - comments such as "yeah, already sent my brand-new Rolex back to the company two times in the past few years and still having problems." Such online conversations may have been boring to some, since everyone likes a bit of controversy and debate, but over time such a lack of critical comments and such a constant stream of amazing comments created a halo effect for Rolex.

Unfortunately a reputation like that, which took many decades to build at a glacial pace, can take only a few years to destroy. The halo isn't fully faded away quite yet, but Rolex had better get their sh*t together quickly, or, in my opinion, they'll become just another historically retro 'cool' watch company like so many others out there for hipsters and those seeking status symbols.

This is all very sad to me as I hesitate now on acquiring Rolex's that I'd have in my collection were it not for the risk of movement issues.

Hands down the best comment that’s been left on a thread in regards to the 32xx debacle. The thing that brought me to Rolex was never seeing anything bad in regards to the reliability of the movements. I want to trust my timepieces as I wear them as instruments to tell time, not just jewelry.

[Strad]

I have two Rolex watches with the new movements. A Deep Sea 126660 was purchased in November of 2019 and a GMT Master II purchased in October 2020.

I wore the Deep Sea regularly and it was incredibly accurate until around April/May of 2023. At that point, it started losing time. This occurred even after long walks that should have resulted in the watch being wound. Remembering that the rotor bearings were increased from 7 to many and a possible lubrication problem, I sent the watch in for warranty service.

It was returned to me and now runs perfectly 0 sec/day gain/loss. I don't know what was done. I didn't open the watch before or after servicing. If it fails in the next 1 1/2 years. I can have it serviced under warranty again.

My GMT II continues to run perfectly at 0 sec/day gain/loss over the past 18 days that I have measured it.

I don't understand why Rolex would increase the number of bearings in the rotor assembly if it has nothing to do with function? However, I'm not a watchmaker.

The two newer movements 3235 and 3285 I have are more accurate than any of the 3135 movements I have had. So, I appreciate the accuracy and increased power reserve while I am concerned about the need for early servicing.

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by destrodan

...of engaging in this hobby, one thing was always a certainty: Guaranteed piece of mind when it came to Rolex's bulletproof movements.

Folks may try to discount the current 32XX 'internet chatter,' but over those 20 years visiting the watch forums every day...there WAS NO internet chatter when it came to a question on the dependability of Rolex's movements. Practically no other mechanical watch brand (and that's a conservative statement - the reality is closer to 'no other mechanical watch brand') had such a streak regarding a lack of conversation about the dependability of their movements. When the question was asked in the forums, the debate started and ended with a list of replies littered with one-sentence-long amazing answers like "mine has been running for 15 years and no problems whatsoever". There were no - as in ZERO - comments such as "yeah, already sent my brand-new Rolex back to the company two times in the past few years and still having problems." Such online conversations may have been boring to some, since everyone likes a bit of controversy and debate, but over time such a lack of critical comments and such a constant stream of amazing comments created a halo effect for Rolex.

Unfortunately a reputation like that, which took many decades to build at a glacial pace, can take only a few years to destroy. The halo isn't fully faded away quite yet, but Rolex had better get their sh*t together quickly, or, in my opinion, they'll become just another historically retro 'cool' watch company like so many others out there for hipsters and those seeking status symbols.

This is all very sad to me as I hesitate now on acquiring Rolex's that I'd have in my collection were it not for the risk of movement issues.

And this is what makes the 32XX movement issues such a hot topic here for some of the owners. Or at least one of the issues. There are at least a subset of Rolex owners who became owners at least partially because of Rolexes reputation for durability and accuracy. There are plenty of luxury watch brands where this isn't an issue; the movements are acknowledged to be finicky and fragile and in some cases not even all that accurate. That's fine; that is not what that company is marketing.

Rolex, specifically, is marketing its ruggedness, reliability and accuracy.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Then you pay for a service.

But if the problem persists (and presents within two years) at least you have the service warranty. So theoretically you're only paying for every other service if it's a chronic issue.

[Chewbacca]

Many intelligent and important people in Switzerland are saying Rolex will swap the terrible unremarkable failed 32xx with the new state of the art 33xx or offer refunds to the current owners of these time bombs next year.

Finally!!!!

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

Yes, I believe I covered that when I very clearly used the phrase “documented anomaly.” Thank you for restating the obvious. What I rail against is the endless relentless doomsaying that all 32XX movements are destined for catastrophic self-destruction, are “ticking time bombs”, that the dataset of approximately 1300 poll responders represents a failure rate of 25% of all 32XX movements and that a class action lawsuit is in order. It’s the histrionics and grand generalizations that are the subject at hand, not the documented adjustments occasionally necessary to keep a small percentage of finely tuned machines running optimally. I’ve never said there isn’t an issue nor have I ever questioned the bona fides of the few experts here that speak with authority on the subject, I’m just holding up a light to those sack cloth wearing placard bearers chanting “the end is nigh.” It’s just a little machine from a storied manufacturer legendary for their quality, the anomaly will be addressed and if it’s not the worst case scenario is that you trade it back in on something else. We’re debating on a luxury watch forum, not a post-apocalyptic survival forum. Its not the end of the world, the end is not nigh.

Your use of the word "anomaly" was noted. I believe that was a poor word choice notwithstanding I suspect it was carefully chosen. It's not an anomaly. It's practically designed in.

Its almost as if the marketing department has overruled technical. Much like when car manufacturers started putting massive wheels with extremely low profile tyres on cars, making them look good, but ruining the ride/handling balance.

As others have said, the fact that it is being discussed makes it relevant. This isn't just a case of the vocal minority making an issue out of nothing. Rolex has dropped the ball here in their "need" to keep up with the masses and their 70hr power reserves.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by dannyp

But if the problem persists (and presents within two years) at least you have the service warranty. So theoretically you're only paying for every other service if it's a chronic issue.

Rolex suggests 10 year service intervals. You could easily have 2 or 3 in that timescale that you'd have to pay for.

The irony here is that Rolex hype is such with the masses that no one would care if they still had a 40hr pr or were outside +2/-2 spd.

Rolex has made a rod for its own back doing something it really didn't have to do in creating the 32xx movements.

[DavidUK]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca

Many intelligent and important people in Switzerland are saying Rolex will swap the terrible unremarkable failed 32xx with the new state of the art 33xx or offer refunds to the current owners of these time bombs next year.

Finally!!!!

Hearsay.

Unless you can name them and link to their statements.

Why give those who say they have "the issue" false hope?

Why spread more fear amongst the vast majority of happy owners by saying Rolex will effectively bin all 3235 watches in some vast recall/refund?

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

A self-perpetuating echo-chamber of doom based on a limited data set of anecdotes from obsessed owners of specialized equipment, many of whom are convinced that a documented anomaly is actually a conspiracy worthy of a class action lawsuit. And now the doom cult contagion is spreading to the main forum. That’s what’s not good.

Would be funnier if not so true. The 32xx parade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Rolex suggests 10 year service intervals. You could easily have 2 or 3 in that timescale that you'd have to pay for.

The irony here is that Rolex hype is such with the masses that no one would care if they still had a 40hr pr or were outside +2/-2 spd.

Rolex has made a rod for its own back doing something it really didn't have to do in creating the 32xx movements.

This is the sad truth. D!(k-measuring against Omega somehow made Rolex forget that the goal is to keep selling more and more watches and reduce cost to service them (to make servicing more profitable).

Or maybe my read is all wrong and someone realized Tudor movements were about to outperform Rolex movements and got spooked.