32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Like I said, going from +7 to -3 is fine (if a bit odd) if that’s where it stays. But I obviously took notice since the watch is ten months old, which seems right in the “problem zone” for these (even though a 2021 3230 seems less likely to be impacted than a pre-2020 3235).

Your watch lost about 10 seconds/day over a period of 10 months? That would be similar to the decrease rate of – 1 second/month as indicated in the graph above.

Or did you want to say from +0.7 s/d to -0.3 s/d (as in post 2245)?

The rate numbers you provide are these averaged values (X in s/d) over 5 positions or for one specific position?

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Your watch lost about 10 seconds/day over a period of 10 months? That would be similar to the decrease rate of – 1 second/month as indicated in the graph above.

Or did you want to say from +0.7 s/d to -0.3 s/d (as in post 2245)?

The rate numbers you provide are these averaged values (X in s/d) over 5 positions or for one specific position?

Yes! +.7 to -.3!

Happened over the course of about three weeks.

I always rest in same position: dial up, bracelet closed. My only potential concern here is sudden change in consistency.

[saxo3]

Check every 4 weeks under the same conditions, always after full winding.

Measure also the amplitudes ...
Good luck!

[dannyp]

Oh, one other weird thing I’ve noticed: the watch isn’t losing that much more time when worn. It’s that it’s not gaining that time back when not worn. Is that a characteristic of the movement series issue?

[dannyp]

So something just occurred to me: Does Rolex calibrate the same calibre differently for watches of different sizes? Or, more accurately, different dial sizes? Reason being: different hand lengths and therefore weights. Given the precision with which these are meant to operate, would that not make a difference? Not sure if this would cause any abnormal wear, but seemed as good a place as any to ask this…

[Omarion07]

Originally Posted by dannyp

So something just occurred to me: Does Rolex calibrate the same calibre differently for watches of different sizes? Or, more accurately, different dial sizes? Reason being: different hand lengths and therefore weights. Given the precision with which these are meant to operate, would that not make a difference? Not sure if this would cause any abnormal wear, but seemed as good a place as any to ask this…

So from my understanding is that Chronometer certification (-4/+6 spd) is done on the bare movement. Then Rolex case up the movements and test them in 6 different positions to no worse than -2/+2 spd. This is known as superlative chronometer. I’m assuming the things you mentioned are taken into account when calibrating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Omarion07

So from my understanding is that Chronometer certification (-4/+6 spd) is done on the bare movement. Then Rolex case up the movements and test them in 6 different positions to no worse than -2/+2 spd. This is known as superlative chronometer. I’m assuming the things you mentioned are taken into account when calibrating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But is it done with the watch’s final hands? Also would be curious if that impacts component wear in ways that present later.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by dannyp

But is it done with the watch’s final hands? Also would be curious if that impacts component wear in ways that present later.

Do we see consistent component wear over time? I know we often read of regular maintenance here but I can’t remember any talk of consumable components requiring replacement.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

Do we see consistent component wear over time? I know we often read of regular maintenance here but I can’t remember any talk of consumable components requiring replacement.

One of our resident Rolex watchmakers (Bas, a.k.a. SearChart) has mentioned it a few times. Seconds gear pivot, IIRC, seems to be experiencing premature wear on some 32xx pieces.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

But is it done with the watch’s final hands? Also would be curious if that impacts component wear in ways that present later.

Component wear is certainly a factor.
From my understanding in this case the Seconds pivot is not necessarily lubricated.
But part of the stop gap fix for the 32xx problem is to put lube on the pivot in the hope the problem doesn't manifest itself again before they can say(with a degree of plausibility) the watch is due for a service and due to lifestyle factors. One can only assume it would theoretically be within a 7-10 year time period, or at least that is what Rolex and the dealerships would be hoping for.
As we now know, it hasn't necessarily worked out like that with a number of watches presenting with the issue within the warranty period. With some examples being repaired for the same issue multiple times within warranty.

Back to the unusual high wear factor on the Seconds pinion.
There has been a suggestion that the material spec/metallurgy has shifted toward a softer material in more modern times. If so, this would certainly be a contributing factor

One may ask "Why the change to a softer material?"
But that's a question for more knowledgeable folk to answer than typically comprises the internet forum demographic.

Personally I would be inclined to simply leave it up to Rolex to sort out and hope for the best if i were an owner, as hope is all we have left at this stage

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

So something just occurred to me: Does Rolex calibrate the same calibre differently for watches of different sizes? Or, more accurately, different dial sizes? Reason being: different hand lengths and therefore weights. Given the precision with which these are meant to operate, would that not make a difference? Not sure if this would cause any abnormal wear, but seemed as good a place as any to ask this…

Hand length and weight are certainly a factor but in this case it's only transient as the hands move around the dial in the vertical planes.
As the hands are moving uphill more torque is required to drive them, when they are going downhill it's not really a consideration. In effect, it's a 50/50 proposition to put it in its simplest terms but still a factor.
It can be demonstrated at home by yourself with a simple experiment by setting your watch aside in any vertical position and leaving it to run down and stop of its own accord. You will notice a traditional lever escapement will stop with the Seconds hand roughly as its rotating upward and load is at its maximum. For example, the Seconds hand will stop in the vicinity of the 12 o'clock marker if the watch is left to stop in the "Crown up" position. The other vertical resting positions will yield their own result relative to the Crown position when the watch eventually stops.

Also weight and length are a more serious consideration when we are comparing different types of movements.
For example, a mechanical movement can handle longer and heavier hands because of the inherently higher torque used to drive the movement from the Mainspring.

Way out on the other end of the spectrum, a Quartz movement typically has considerably less torque so weight and length of hands is a much more important factor. But again, it's mostly a factor in the vertical positions but torque is still a factor in the horizontal planes with a Quartz movement that has an Analogue display.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Hand length and weight are certainly a factor but in this case it's only transient as the hands move around the dial in the vertical planes.
As the hands are moving uphill more torque is required to drive them, when they are going downhill it's not really a consideration. In effect, it's a 50/50 proposition to put it in its simplest terms but still a factor.
It can be demonstrated at home by yourself with a simple experiment by setting your watch aside in any vertical position and leaving it to run down and stop of its own accord. You will notice a traditional lever escapement will stop with the Seconds hand roughly as its rotating upward and load is at its maximum. For example, the Seconds hand will stop in the vicinity of the 12 o'clock marker if the watch is left to stop in the "Crown up" position. The other vertical resting positions will yield their own result relative to the Crown position when the watch eventually stops.

Also weight and length are a more serious consideration when we are comparing different types of movements.
For example, a mechanical movement can handle longer and heavier hands because of the inherently higher torque used to drive the movement from the Mainspring.

Way out on the other end of the spectrum, a Quartz movement typically has considerably less torque so weight and length of hands is a much more important factor. But again, it's mostly a factor in the vertical positions but torque is still a factor in the horizontal planes with a Quartz movement that has an Analogue display.

But what about when you compare, say, an OP41 with an OP36, both left face-up? The same movement is working harder at all times in the 41, unless it's calibrated differently. Now, I'm going to assume it was designed to handle the "load," of the 41 hands, but I would also imagine that would cause the 36 to run faster if calibrated identically.

The previous generation of non-date watches had different calibre movements (3132) in the larger dialed (therefore, long-handed) pieces (Exp 39, OP39) vs the smaller-dialed ones like the 36mm and Sub (3130). Similar difference for large-dialed date watches (3136 in DJII, 3156 in DDII). The "12" series use the same calibre in 36, 40, and 41mm watches.

I started to wonder about this when I realized that most of the complaints on here (granted, very small overall sampling) about 32xx issues, especially recurrent ones, were in larger-diameter watches (DJ41, SD43). But who knows...

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

But what about when you compare, say, an OP41 with an OP36, both left face-up? The same movement is working harder at all times in the 41, unless it's calibrated differently. Now, I'm going to assume it was designed to handle the "load," of the 41 hands, but I would also imagine that would cause the 36 to run faster if calibrated identically.

The previous generation of non-date watches had different calibre movements (3132) in the larger dialed (therefore, long-handed) pieces (Exp 39, OP39) vs the smaller-dialed ones like the 36mm and Sub (3130). Similar difference for large-dialed date watches (3136 in DJII, 3156 in DDII). The "12" series use the same calibre in 36, 40, and 41mm watches.

I started to wonder about this when I realized that most of the complaints on here (granted, very small overall sampling) about 32xx issues, especially recurrent ones, were in larger-diameter watches (DJ41, SD43). But who knows...

Dial up is in the "horizontal" plane as is Dial down.
Note the different set of physics which apply between the two planes

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Dial up is in the "horizontal" plane as is Dial down.
Note the different set of physics which apply between the two planes

That’s the reason I mentioned that position. Gravity not impacting it in the same way and the torque required is same at all times.

Now, of course, I’m also wondering if Mk 1 and Mk 2 214270s were calibrated differently, given the difference in hands.

[Justin-rwx]

Submariner Date (126610LN purchased 2/16/22 from an AD)
On 2/25/22 I set the time as close as possible to time.is (0 sec delta)
On 3/3/22 (6 days later) the watch was lagging by 4 seconds
On 3/12/22 the watch was lagging by 8 seconds
On 3/13/22 I set the time as close as possible to time.is (0 sec delta)
On 3/19/22 (6 days later) the watch was still accurate to 0 seconds lead/lag

What's interesting is that setting the watch on two different occasions, the first time it was 4 seconds lagging after 6 days, and the second time it was dead on after 6 days. Both times I set the time and then wound the watch manually 25 times (full rotations).

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by Justin-rwx

Submariner Date (126610LN purchased 2/16/22 from an AD)
On 2/25/22 I set the time as close as possible to time.is (0 sec delta)
On 3/3/22 (6 days later) the watch was lagging by 4 seconds
On 3/12/22 the watch was lagging by 8 seconds
On 3/13/22 I set the time as close as possible to time.is (0 sec delta)
On 3/19/22 (6 days later) the watch was still accurate to 0 seconds lead/lag

What's interesting is that setting the watch on two different occasions, the first time it was 4 seconds lagging after 6 days, and the second time it was dead on after 6 days. Both times I set the time and then wound the watch manually 25 times (full rotations).

That is excellent on both accounts. Wind the watch 40+ full turns before screwing the crown back in. Accuracy is always at the top of the power reserve and there is no way to over wind so wind it 40+ turns as a general rule if the movement is still running and 60 turns if the movement stopped.

[saxo3]

Just sold my 126710BLRO, was not easy at all to let it go ...

The new owner knows and does not care about the 3235 movement issue of this watch.

[Omarion07]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Just sold my 126710BLRO, was not easy at all to let it go ...

The new owner knows and does not care about the 3235 movement issue of this watch.

It’s a pity Saxo3… I’m pretty sure you didn’t lose any money selling it. But I wonder if you’ll regret your decision when Rolex come up with a solution for this issue (If they haven’t already). If history is any indication, the 3231, 3236 , 3286 calibres are bound to come sooner or later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Just sold my 126710BLRO, was not easy at all to let it go ...

The new owner knows and does not care about the 3235 movement issue of this watch.

Ah man. Well at least you got out at a good time.

I don't think $30k USD will do it for me. Maybe at $40-50K I'd sell just because there's other things I'd prefer to do with the cash than this watch.

Hope you find another piece you love.

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Just sold my 126710BLRO, was not easy at all to let it go ...

The new owner knows and does not care about the 3235 movement issue of this watch.

How many times were it at RSC ?

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Just sold my 126710BLRO, was not easy at all to let it go ...

The new owner knows and does not care about the 3235 movement issue of this watch.

Wow good on your for disclosing, sad to hear you decided to get rid of it but I totally understand your decision as I did the same with 2 of mine that went bad and didn’t have much attachment to it.

I do suspect a lot of Rolex owners don’t care about the movement issue…

[Kevin of Larchmont]

I own two and I don’t care. If it proves to be a problem when I’m out of warranty then maybe I’ll care. At this point they are the most accurate watches I own.

[alphadweller]

I'm currently tracking my 2017 SD43 against my 2020 Sub41.

First 48h (full wind dial up) show -5.4 s/d for the SD43 vs. +1.3 s/d for the Sub41.

Makes me wonder if Rolex fixed the 3235 with their latest batch.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

I'm currently tracking my 2017 SD43 against my 2020 Sub41.

First 48h (full wind dial up) show -5.4 s/d for the SD43 vs. +1.3 s/d for the Sub41.

Makes me wonder if Rolex fixed the 3235 with their latest batch.

Assuming Sub date? For true comparison.

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Assuming Sub date? For true comparison.

Sub Date indeed

[George58]

My long 23 year pp 5066 woman's size tissue delicate watch accuracy report good enough for me

[xcesiv]

My 124060 sub ran great for the 2 weeks I owned it. Awesome watch, but that 904L sadly irritated my wrist.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by xcesiv

My 124060 sub ran great for the 2 weeks I owned it. Awesome watch, but that 904L sadly irritated my wrist.

Disappointing.
Maybe PM or Titanuim watches is where you need to land on that

[xcesiv]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Disappointing.
Maybe PM or Titanuim watches is where you need to land on that

Yes I messed up big time. I had a Y serial 16710 that I haistly got rid of for the 124060. I had no skin irritation issues with the 16710 whatsoever. I've always had problems with sterling silver, buttons on certain jeans, belt buckles, etc. I had a problem with a stainless chain years back, and the jeweler I purchased it from was perplexed and so was I. After this more recent incident I now have a better understanding of the correlation between the 904L stainless and the rash. I have no problems with any of my chains or earrings, but they are 18K yellow gold & 950 Platinum.

[Gab27]

Originally Posted by xcesiv

Yes I messed up big time. I had a Y serial 16710 that I haistly got rid of for the 124060. I had no skin irritation issues with the 16710 whatsoever. I've always had problems with sterling silver, buttons on certain jeans, belt buckles, etc. I had a problem with a stainless chain years back, and the jeweler I purchased it from was perplexed and so was I. After this more recent incident I now have a better understanding of the correlation between the 904L stainless and the rash. I have no problems with any of my chains or earrings, but they are 18K yellow gold & 950 Platinum.

If 316 does not bother you and 904 does, do you think this is due to the higher nickel content in 904?