What is going on with 32xx Rolex movements

[Kevin of Larchmont]

While I know that others have had frustrating experiences I can only report that my 32XX movements continue to run reliably and consistently.

[hartsy]

Reporting in that my 32XX movement has been incredibly consistent and impressive. 5 months of wear and only about 3 seconds fast.

[Rolex1982]

I decided to track accuracy of my watch after going to RSC for the low amplitude problem. I wear it 24/7.




Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

[JRell]

Don’t know, never had a problem with any 32s and had many.

[whatsthetime?]

Originally Posted by crapvegaspodcast

The issue has been fixed. Take your 226570 to RSC to be fixed if it's running slow

As already asked by other members--can you please provide facts that the 32XX "issue has been fixed"? My '22 124060 is at RSC right now being serviced for running -8sec in ~10hrs after a complete stop and completely full wind.

[Gearjockey]

Nope

[kieselguhr]

Originally Posted by brandrea

If you don’t want to have it serviced, and the time keeping bothers you, sell the watch and move on

Agreed.

Certain personalities should just stick to Atomic quartz, or Apple Watches.

[Gearjockey]

Originally Posted by BooZiggy

As a therapist who works with people who have experienced actual trauma, I am very much disgusted by your use of this word to describe scratches on a watch.

That’s a strong first post!

[Gearjockey]

The 32XX issue is one of those that can cause real problems with friendships.

A friend of mine was looking at purchasing a Rolex explorer II 226570

I asked him if he had considered the 216570 with the 31XX movement.
He told me the newer movement was much better with the 70 hour power reserve and I asked him if he had heard of the problems being circulated on the internet concerning the 32XX movement and whether he was concerned about potential problems.

I told him I thought the 31XX was a more reliable movement and asked if he really needed 70 hours of power reserve? I’ve never needed it personally: “never had a problem.”

I could sense any logical discussions surrounding the new vs old movements was going to be a problem between him and I so I ceased and desisted.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

Yes. Seriously. Both watches sent to RSC came back scratched/banged. So I am not sending any more watches there due to a slow movement. I have sent watches to independent watchmakers that came back in perfect condition & well taken care of during the service.

Okay, but I remember walking into a hospital to have open heart surgery and not feeling "traumatized" by it. It's not like you're having brain surgery or anything like that.

But it's all good.

So far, I haven't had any problems with the 32xx movement...but every time I post that, I feel like I'm jinxing myself...

[Daniel23456]

Originally Posted by Krash

Okay, but I remember walking into a hospital to have open heart surgery and not feeling "traumatized" by it. It's not like you're having brain surgery or anything like that.

But it's all good.

So far, I haven't had any problems with the 32xx movement...but every time I post that, I feel like I'm jinxing myself...

Maybe you were not traumatized because the surgery went well

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by crapvegaspodcast

The issue has been fixed. Take your 226570 to RSC to be fixed if it's running slow

Not trying to be combative, but would you mind sighting your source for this?

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by padi56

Same here and many today blown out of all proportion by some members.

I have owned 7 that had the issue, 2 that have not. Of the 7, two have been sent in for service. How do you think your approach to this situation would differ if you had these results?

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by brandrea

If you don’t want to have it serviced, and the time keeping bothers you, sell the watch and move on

It’s pretty much this simple.

[tymonster]

Bought my Explorer II new February 2024. I wear it daily and check it against a reference clock every Monday. Consistently 3-4 seconds slow per week. Can’t complain about that.

If you’re not happy with yours Rolex will adjust it. So many things can influence accuracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ecbkk]

Originally Posted by Easy E

I have owned 7 that had the issue, 2 that have not. Of the 7, two have been sent in for service. How do you think your approach to this situation would differ if you had these results?

Im surprised that with 9!! 32xx series rolex you arent on some kind of VIP list where rolex makes sure you get the defect free movements instead of one of the 25% of movements with the defect.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by ecbkk

Im surprised that with 9!! 32xx series rolex you arent on some kind of VIP list where rolex makes sure you get the defect free movements instead of one of the 25% of movements with the defect.

25% is a purely fabricated number, colloquially based on a small dataset from a poll on an enthusiast website. Nobody knows how many watches have had the trouble because Rolex does not supply that data.

[Wilco68]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

But when I buy a modern Rolex that claims to keep +-2 seconds per day and receive a -12 result it is very unacceptable.

Spectacular first world problem. Really don’t know how you’re coping…..

[madsitalia]

Originally Posted by thegrandseirolexguy

Timing results on my 2 year-old 126622 yacht-master. I wear it on my left hand and leave it dial up overnight.

I thought it was out of spec so I took it to RSC.

They clarified that the +\-2 SPD guarantee is based on the average of all 6 test positions. Mine tested -1.8/s on average.

And there’s a tolerance standard for the maximum deviation between each position.

Can you clarify how wonky your 32xx series Rolexes run, OP?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which app is this?

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

Maybe you were not traumatized because the surgery went well

Yeah but I bet he came home with some pretty deep scratches.

[msum]

Interesting thread. The online forum space is a tricky place to talk through differing opinions.

I would be interested to see the data Rolex has, if it has any (presumably it does).

I can understand the OP being frustrated and it sounds like maybe going to a neo-vintage model is a reasonable solution. I wouldn’t mind owning something with a 31xx.

Proof is a tricky thing in this setting, but my personal impression is that the anecdotes are sufficiently compelling to suggest that this would be something very worthwhile for Rolex to look at, if they are interested in optimising their movement quality. Now, of course, it’s their prerogative to decide that things are good enough and it’s then up to the buying public to agree or disagree…

[Daniel23456]

Originally Posted by Wilco68

Spectacular first world problem. Really don’t know how you’re coping…..

Everything in this forum is first-world problems then, isn't it.

[Wilco68]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

Everything in this forum is first-world problems then, isn't it.

No, absolutely not. The majority of posts are not complaining about something.

[Daniel23456]

Originally Posted by Wilco68

No, absolutely not. The majority of posts are not complaining about something.

Some will tell a story and some will ask a question. Both are first world problems.

[Wilco68]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

Some will tell a story and some will ask a question. Both are first world problems.

Yet again, no absolutely not. There are some great positive stories on here, and asking a question to say get some advice on something, doesn’t have to be a problem. Keep digging the hole if you want to……

[kkqd1337]

Originally Posted by brandrea

If you don’t want to have it serviced, and the time keeping bothers you, sell the watch and move on

This is the solution

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

25% is a purely fabricated number, colloquially based on a small dataset from a poll on an enthusiast website. Nobody knows how many watches have had the trouble because Rolex does not supply that data.

The 1,400+ participants in the TRF poll is actually a pretty good number. Anything over 1,000 is supposedly good for a poll as I understand it.

https://www.rolexforums.com/poll.php...ts&pollid=5876

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

The 1,400+ participants in the TRF poll is actually a pretty good number. Anything over 1,000 is supposedly good for a poll as I understand it.

https://www.rolexforums.com/poll.php...ts&pollid=5876

“Pretty good” and “supposedly good” are telltale qualifiers, tacit admission that nobody really knows.

[Hollie_Rollie]

Originally Posted by brandrea

If you don’t want to have it serviced, and the time keeping bothers you, sell the watch and move on

Agreed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

“Pretty good” and “supposedly good” are telltale qualifiers, tacit admission that nobody really knows.

I'm not tacitly admitting anything - of course nobody really knows. I was just pointing out that 1,400+ is not a "small dataset" for a poll.