New Sub 126040 - 3230 losing time

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by forcinitijp

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?

Ah my friend.

You are comparing apples with, well, rocks.

There is a reason your wife didn’t come with a written specification against which her performance can be measured.

And that is because she doesn’t need one. Simply, she is always right. Therefore there can be no complaint because she has done nothing wrong.

You should have know that. The responsibility is all on you.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by padi56

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.

And yet you commented.

Where’s that multiple facepalm picture you always roll out - it’s quite appropriate here


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Roddypeepa]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Ah my friend.

You are comparing apples with, well, rocks.

There is a reason your wife didn’t come with a written specification against which her performance can be measured.

And that is because she doesn’t need one. Simply, she is always right. Therefore there can be no complaint because she has done nothing wrong.

You should have know that. The responsibility is all on you.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It seems there are two people who are ALWAYS right:

*His wife
*Devil Dog

What a thoroughly informative thread that has been and, I’m sure you’ll all agree one reason why we all love TRF so much.

Thanks for taking the time to explain all that to us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeanGenie]

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.

What "issue"? That a handful of the millions of 32xx watches out there did not perform to Rolex's stated standard?

Everything documented here is the exception and not the rule. The fact people keep suggesting there is a flaw with this movement series is pretty funny. Especially the whole "I'll only buy xxxx movement now" narrative. What is happening.

But please...don't buy them so the rest of us have a shot at the AD

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Devildog

And yet you commented.

Where’s that multiple facepalm picture you always roll out - it’s quite appropriate here

Q.E.D. All of this honorable member's argumentation and contradictions around this topic have now been completely dismantled by you, with facts, and proven to be useless and illogical individual pieces

[SubDate]

FWIW I picked up my Sub Date (3235) in Nov 22. Has been -1 / day ever since. Lay it dial up overnight which gains +1. It has never deviated from this.

[East of Eden]

Originally Posted by JeanGenie

What "issue"? That a handful of the millions of 32xx watches out there did not perform to Rolex's stated standard?

Everything documented here is the exception and not the rule. The fact people keep suggesting there is a flaw with this movement series is pretty funny. Especially the whole "I'll only buy xxxx movement now" narrative. What is happening.

But please...don't buy them so the rest of us have a shot at the AD

Tell it to the guy on the other thread who had 6 out of 8 32xx watches go bad, I’m sure he’ll feel better.

[KatGirl]

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.

I’m pretty sure everyone who frequents TRF is familiar with the problems some have had with their watches with 32xx movements. Personally, I’m not worried about it.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Gearjockey]

Originally Posted by SubDate

FWIW I picked up my Sub Date (3235) in Nov 22. Has been -1 / day ever since. Lay it dial up overnight which gains +1. It has never deviated from this.

Yah, but the 3235 lives rent-free in Rolex owner’s heads.

[omar-rye]

Look at you lot, squabbling like seagulls fighting over a discarded french fry, while Rolex sits back, sipping fine champagne, and swimming in pools of cash.

[padi56]

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.

So what you are saying Rolex guarantees that the watch will perform to -2+2 seconds every single day no matter state of mainspring power, resting positions, owners wearing habits etc?. Or is it to the fact the watch was tested to a precision -2+2 seconds on a machine and at time of testing met the spec.

Position Of Watch seconds Per Day this would still pass this precision -2+2 spec.
Dial Up +2
Dial Down -1
6 o’clock +3
9 o’clock -4
3 o’clock +4

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by forcinitijp

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?

You should tag your grievance on to the Rolex class action lawsuit

Carry on.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

Look at you lot, squabbling like seagulls fighting over a discarded french fry, while Rolex sits back, sipping fine champagne, and swimming in pools of cash.

[Ravager135]

This might be the most boorish thread I have come across in recent time.

People can critique the fine print in Rolex marketing all they want, the +\-2 seconds is under a specific set of lab conditions and while many of their movements may continue to carry out this precision in the real world, sometimes and over time it may not to varying degrees of severity. The real problem it sounds like people have here is with Rolex advertising; good luck winning that battle.

I have yet to own a single mechanical watch from a single brand that keeps absolute perfect time after a week or two if the watch is worn and used normally. If you want to take a watch to an RSC for losing a few seconds after a week; be my guest. Good luck winning the publicity war with what Rolex defines on their webpage.

If your watch is severely out of spec, get it fixed. It happens. Has happened. Will continue to happen. These are all anecdotes that everyone here is presenting as factual evidence based flaws in a Rolex calibre. If there’s an endemic issue in the 32xx movement, what is it? What’s happening that something is going wrong? What’s the defect? What part of the movement is failing? Don’t tell me YOUR watch isn’t working. MINE are. What’s the critical flaw here? Anyone?

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by padi56

So what you are saying Rolex guarantees that the watch will perform to -2+2 seconds every single day no matter state of mainspring power, resting positions, owners wearing habits etc?. Or is it to the fact the watch was tested to a precision -2+2 seconds on a machine and at time of testing met the spec.

Position Of Watch seconds Per Day this would still pass this precision -2+2 spec.
Dial Up +2
Dial Down -1
6 o’clock +3
9 o’clock -4
3 o’clock +4

I'm not saying it Peter, Rolex is.

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

Thats an on an event (certification) something else applies (the guarantee of exceptional precision)

or, once certified, precision of -2/+2 is guaranteed.

Nothing to do with it only applying during testing under laboratory conditions.

You can argue the definition of precision vs accuracy all day long.

So let's see what the Oxford Dictionary defines it as, shall we?

Precision

the quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate.

Exact and accurate.

By definition, Rolex guarantees their (green seal) watches to be exact and accurate to within +/- 2 seconds per day.

That it. No 'ifs", no "buts" and no "subject to" anything.

If that's not what Rolex means, they would undoubtedly have written it differently.

I've presented facts, documents, Rolex's own written statements and now a definition.

You and Roddypeepa have presented nothing other than an assumption that Rolex "Superlative" certification is just the same as COSC but to a smaller margin.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Ravager135

This might be the most boorish thread I have come across in recent time.

People can critique the fine print in Rolex marketing all they want, the +\-2 seconds is under a specific set of lab conditions

It's not fine print. And it absolutely would stand up in law in my country.

Go on then. If you are so certain (and don't understand the meaning of the word "guarantees") prove to us all that the +/- 2spd only applies to a specific set of lab conditions.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by brandrea

You should tag your grievance on to the Rolex class action lawsuit

Carry on.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Devildog

I'm not saying it Peter, Rolex is.

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

Thats an on an event (certification) something else applies (the guarantee of exceptional precision)

or, once certified, precision of -2/+2 is guaranteed.

Nothing to do with it only applying during testing under laboratory conditions.

You can argue the definition of precision vs accuracy all day long.

So let's see what the Oxford Dictionary defines it as, shall we?

Precision

the quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate.

Exact and accurate.

By definition, Rolex guarantees their (green seal) watches to be exact and accurate to within +/- 2 seconds per day.

That it. No 'ifs", no "buts" and no "subject to" anything.

If that's not what Rolex means, they would undoubtedly have written it differently.

I've presented facts, documents, Rolex's own written statements and now a definition.

You and Roddypeepa have presented nothing other than an assumption that Rolex "Superlative" certification is just the same as COSC but to a smaller margin.

Well let's hope many sue Rolex as like any mechanical movement there could be daily slight variations.And even the original poster should sue Rolex because his watch is 1.5 seconds outside guaranteed spec.But doubt if he or anyone would get an compensation,the term superlative chronometer has been on Rolex dials for 60 years.And the main reasons for Rolex to change to this new -2+2 is the Omega done it first.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Roddypeepa

It seems there are two people who are ALWAYS right:

*His wife
*Devil Dog

What a thoroughly informative thread that has been and, I’m sure you’ll all agree one reason why we all love TRF so much.

Thanks for taking the time to explain all that to us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nah mate. I’m not always right.

I’ve just presented the facts as they are available.

Rather than running with assumptions




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well let's hope many sue Rolex as like any mechanical movement there could be daily slight variations.And even the original poster should sue Rolex because his watch is 1.5 seconds outside guaranteed spec.But doubt if he or anyone would get an compensation,the term superlative chronometer has been on Rolex dials for 60 years.And the main reasons for Rolex to change to this new -2+2 is the Omega done it first.

We know.

No one is suing Rolex. No one will get compensation. You’re just being silly now Peter.

Consumers will (and are) getting regulation under warranty however.

Those that care enough to ask for it




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Consumers will (and are) getting regulation under warranty however.

Those that care enough to ask for it …

Precisely

In all honesty, Rolex painted themselves into a corner with this advertised spec.

I’d hazard a guess that the vast majority of owners don’t have a clue if their watch isn’t keeping time with +2/-2 seconds a day. I certainly don’t.

That said, to those that care enough to check, then it would appear as though the new Rolex 32xx movements aren’t the way to go or at the very least they are a big gamble, one which I personally wouldn’t be willing to take based on the data thread

[Roddypeepa]

Originally Posted by Devildog

I'm not saying it Peter, Rolex is.

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

Thats an on an event (certification) something else applies (the guarantee of exceptional precision)

or, once certified, precision of -2/+2 is guaranteed.

Nothing to do with it only applying during testing under laboratory conditions.

You can argue the definition of precision vs accuracy all day long.

So let's see what the Oxford Dictionary defines it as, shall we?

Precision

the quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate.

Exact and accurate.

By definition, Rolex guarantees their (green seal) watches to be exact and accurate to within +/- 2 seconds per day.

That it. No 'ifs", no "buts" and no "subject to" anything.

If that's not what Rolex means, they would undoubtedly have written it differently.

I've presented facts, documents, Rolex's own written statements and now a definition.

You and Roddypeepa have presented nothing other than an assumption that Rolex "Superlative" certification is just the same as COSC but to a smaller margin.

This certainly isn’t the first time that this has been discussed on here:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=706110 to name but one.

I think that if I have this right, COSC has an average daily rate of plus 6 to minus 4 tested over a number of positions, at a range of temperatures and so on.

Devil is correct in that I/ Peter cannot prove that “superlative” is not an absolute guarantee of within 2 seconds of zero, all the time, with full range of mainspring wind and at any point within 5 years of purchase.

However, in the real world these will be tested on machine, after casing, and with a range positions and other conditions and averaged. I’d bet my house on it but at the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter if the OP’s watch is genuinely playing up then take it in. However, I advised watch it for a while and see about different testing positions, give it a full wind etc is all sensible advice. No need to jump the gun…

I cannot prove this is how it is done when Rolex are testing “superlative”but common sense would dictate that in any manufacturing process quality control would mean a range of tests, an average is taken and we move on.

I do now agree with him that anyone has the right to take a watch in if it’s even a tiny fraction of a second outside this range but as I’ve said before I do not think that in a lot of cases any actual work would get done once they’ve put it on one of their timing machines and made a judgement.

But just because it is a very small margin outside of this in every day conditions we don’t know about this individual case. The OP asked a question, I and others chipped in with our advice. My advice is no less relevant than Devil’s. He argues well but in the whole time I have been in to this hobby that is my understanding. It would actually be very unreasonable for any one of us to expect a watch to be plus minus two for 5 years. It doesn’t mean it can’t and doesn’t happen but it’s a marvel that in the vast majority of cases they run to well within basic COSC standards that whole time.

Some of the people reading this thread with their popcorn out will agree with him, some with Padi and some couldn’t give a damn either way. One of the other posters is right - this is becoming extremely boorish which I regret and was never my intention.

I will reiterate what I meant yesterday: you have argued your point very well from a legal point of view. But you don’t know either how Rolex come to the superlative standard unless you are keeping your cards very close to your chest.

I don’t care one jot about the legalities of it - I’m interested in watchmaking and horology in general, not value, not marketing, not legal speak, not people wanting to massage their egos by catching well meaning posters out with legalities or bamboozling some others with legal jargon and carefully pasted statements from the Rolex website. That’s why I’m here.

I recently took a break from the forum because it had become stale with no availability, lots of boring no availability posts, loads of should I ask my AD x or y, loads of flexing incomings.

What I’d really like to see is a Rolex service centre technician or similar come on here and give us the truth because I think both sides of the argument raise some very interesting technical questions - exactly the kind we are interested in answering/hearing.

I think most of us who have been around a while, including you like discussing the technical side of the hobby much more than all the other value, availability nonsense. Long may that continue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ravager135]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Precisely

In all honesty, Rolex painted themselves into a corner with this advertised spec.

I’d hazard a guess that the vast majority of owners don’t have a clue if their watch isn’t keeping time with +2/-2 seconds a day. I certainly don’t.

That said, to those that care enough to check, then it would appear as though the new Rolex 32xx movements aren’t the way to go or at the very least they are a big gamble, one which I personally wouldn’t be willing to take based on the data thread

So this is the first rationalized response to what is being presented here. I agree wholeheartedly with the first two paragraphs. The third I'm not so sure about. I'm not convinced this is an endemic issue. Again, only my anecdote, I think the worst case scenario is that most watches with the 32xx movement are functioning around COSC spec. That's not enough to convince me to not buy a Rolex.

I am not a technical expert, but I can think critically. Until someone can tell me exactly what the problem with the 32xx movement is, it's all just anecdote. Maybe it's the physician in me, but diagnose the problem. If there's an issue, I'd be the first to send all of my pieces with this movement back to Rolex for the fix. The problem is, no one can.

Do I see a trend wherein my Omega watches tend to keep tighter time than my Rolex pieces? Yes. This hasn't changed from when I started collecting seriously in 2008. I have 32xx movements from the introduction of the Datejust 41 which I purchased in 2017 all the way through a 126613LB I purchased two months ago. This also includes a 124060 and 126710BLRO. Not a single piece has a single issue and certainly the older models should have shown problems by now based on the reports of some people.

I say all of this to say not that other people's experiences aren't valid or worthy of correction under warranty. But to take those experiences and characterize them as an endemic issue just doesn't pass the same whiff test that the countless others whose references run perfect.

My opinion, and purely my opinion, is that if you want to hold Rolex's feet to the fire on this issue; be by guest. You won't win, other that possibly getting your movement regulated. Which, by the way, there are an equal number of anecdotes of this occuring and people getting back watches that continue to run out of spec in a completely different fashion.

[Ravager135]

Originally Posted by Devildog

It's not fine print. And it absolutely would stand up in law in my country.

Go on then. If you are so certain (and don't understand the meaning of the word "guarantees") prove to us all that the +/- 2spd only applies to a specific set of lab conditions.

As I said, boorish... Go on then, look up the word boorish and prove to me your posts don’t meet this definition.

I do not have a single watch in my collection from numerous brands and ages that runs +2/-2 over several weeks of testing if worn "normally" (however we want to define that). These include watches that if you leave them on the timegrapher will run with +/-0 results. If that's Rolex screwing up with their own marketing making this a guarantee that people will cling to with unrealistic expectations then that IS on them. Thinking critically and with experience, I can easily see that to expect this is unrealistic.

[Ravager135]

Originally Posted by Roddypeepa

Some of the people reading this thread with their popcorn out will agree with him, some with Padi and some couldn’t give a damn either way. One of the other posters is right - this is becoming extremely boorish which I regret and was never my intention.

It's not you. This forum IS for asking questions. I have no doubt there are owners out there whose watches need regulation. That is nothing new and for anyone who has been collecting for some time will attest to regardless of the calibre.

What's tiring with these threads is the certainty with which people think their anecdote is fact, including my own. If people want to take it up with Rolex that their advertising doesn't hold up in real world use; be my guest. If you've been at his hobby for long enough, wear your watches normally, and think critically its very easy to see that regardless of what Rolex claims their watches can do, almost no brand can properly accomplish on a long enough timeline with normal wear and variation.

[Roddypeepa]

Originally Posted by Ravager135

It's not you. This forum IS for asking questions. I have no doubt there are owners out there whose watches need regulation. That is nothing new and for anyone who has been collecting for some time will attest to regardless of the calibre.

What's tiring with these threads is the certainty with which people think their anecdote is fact, including my own. If people want to take it up with Rolex that their advertising doesn't hold up in real world use; be my guest. If you've been at his hobby for long enough, wear your watches normally, and think critically its very easy to see that regardless of what Rolex claims their watches can do, almost no brand can properly accomplish on a long enough timeline with normal wear and variation.

I couldn’t agree more


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ravager135]

Originally Posted by Roddypeepa

I couldn’t agree more


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely. This is an obsessive hobby. That’s nothing new. I can’t speak for Padi, I just hope to inject my own amateur experiences as well as a counterpoint to others which are also equally valid.

[Kinnakeet]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well let's hope many sue Rolex as like any mechanical movement there could be daily slight variations.And even the original poster should sue Rolex because his watch is 1.5 seconds outside guaranteed spec.But doubt if he or anyone would get an compensation,the term superlative chronometer has been on Rolex dials for 60 years.And the main reasons for Rolex to change to this new -2+2 is the Omega done it first.

Omega is 0 to + 5 per day. Pretty sure. The ones I have and have run/ran about +2 seconds per week.

[Roddypeepa]

Originally Posted by Kinnakeet

Omega is 0 to + 5 per day. Pretty sure. The ones I have and have run/ran about +2 seconds per week.

My omega master chronometer is minus three and is guaranteed to 0-plus 5.
Was originally spot on for about a month.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I’d hazard a guess that the vast majority of owners don’t have a clue if their watch isn’t keeping time with +2/-2 seconds a day. I certainly don’t.

No doubt. When you factor in the number of owners that have bought a Rolex as a special occasion watch to be worn maybe 4 times a year, those that never even bother to set the time, those that have no idea it’s even a mechanical timepiece, those that actually never wear theirs, those that simply do not care, etc. The big thread represents, imho, a very small subset of owners. But not knowing about a thing doesn’t make the thing nonexistent.