What is going on with 32xx Rolex movements

[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

[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…

[Scholar]

What I don't understand about those who think it's some kind of fan hate conspiracy against Rolex, what exactly would the fans have to gain here? It reminds me of when people here kept insisting the batch of Cyclops with no magnification was intended as such. (They seemed to go quiet once Rolex replaced those crystals and sorted out the issue.)

Rolex built its reputation on rock-solid reliability, even where the movements were less fancy than those of competitors (in its own class and of course more finicky and refined movements, too). It was pretty much the only in-house that went toe-to-toe with ETA in that regard.

It's not at all odd that fans of the maker would be concerned that the company has compromised in this area in favour of fancy features. A good example of the same phenomenon from another storied and beloved maker is Mercedes-Benz.

They had assumed the popularity of the gadgetry in the 90s SL-class was driving its sales, so they elected to double down on gadgets and compromise on fundamentals. (Here the comparison might be to the power reserve of new Omegas, or other features from competitors.)

It caused a decade of Mercedes models with severe reliability issues, even on the S-Class, that you would not see even on an econo-car. The ship would not really be righted until about 2010.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Scholar

It caused a decade of Mercedes models with severe reliability issues, even on the S-Class, that you would not see even on an econo-car. The ship would not really be righted until about 2010.

Imho a very small yet vocal few.... and Rolex has taken care of it. Wish Mercedes had Rolex reliability. And just wait until you hear the costs to fix the Mercedes. A guy on YouTube recently got a used Mercedes Maybach... massive very expensive problems.

------
------

But haters should hold on to their concern if fhey want. Don't give up hope. Have faith, as one day, maybe 10 years from now, it will indeed need servicing.

[Daniel23456]

Originally Posted by Scholar

What I don't understand about those who think it's some kind of fan hate conspiracy against Rolex, what exactly would the fans have to gain here? It reminds me of when people here kept insisting the batch of Cyclops with no magnification was intended as such. (They seemed to go quiet once Rolex replaced those crystals and sorted out the issue.)

Rolex built its reputation on rock-solid reliability, even where the movements were less fancy than those of competitors (in its own class and of course more finicky and refined movements, too). It was pretty much the only in-house that went toe-to-toe with ETA in that regard.

It's not at all odd that fans of the maker would be concerned that the company has compromised in this area in favour of fancy features. A good example of the same phenomenon from another storied and beloved maker is Mercedes-Benz.

They had assumed the popularity of the gadgetry in the 90s SL-class was driving its sales, so they elected to double down on gadgets and compromise on fundamentals. (Here the comparison might be to the power reserve of new Omegas, or other features from competitors.)

It caused a decade of Mercedes models with severe reliability issues, even on the S-Class, that you would not see even on an econo-car. The ship would not really be righted until about 2010.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by Scholar

What I don't understand about those who think it's some kind of fan hate conspiracy against Rolex, what exactly would the fans have to gain here? It reminds me of when people here kept insisting the batch of Cyclops with no magnification was intended as such. (They seemed to go quiet once Rolex replaced those crystals and sorted out the issue.)

Rolex built its reputation on rock-solid reliability, even where the movements were less fancy than those of competitors (in its own class and of course more finicky and refined movements, too). It was pretty much the only in-house that went toe-to-toe with ETA in that regard.

It's not at all odd that fans of the maker would be concerned that the company has compromised in this area in favour of fancy features. A good example of the same phenomenon from another storied and beloved maker is Mercedes-Benz.

They had assumed the popularity of the gadgetry in the 90s SL-class was driving its sales, so they elected to double down on gadgets and compromise on fundamentals. (Here the comparison might be to the power reserve of new Omegas, or other features from competitors.)

It caused a decade of Mercedes models with severe reliability issues, even on the S-Class, that you would not see even on an econo-car. The ship would not really be righted until about 2010.

A very "scholarly" point.

You've just got to remember the Rolex Kool-Aid is VERY strong with some people, and these days there is also a real culture of some folks not believing something unless they experience it first-hand. It is what it is.

[East of Eden]

Originally Posted by Scholar

It's not at all odd that fans of the maker would be concerned that the company has compromised in this area in favour of fancy features. A good example of the same phenomenon from another storied and beloved maker is Mercedes-Benz.

They had assumed the popularity of the gadgetry in the 90s SL-class was driving its sales, so they elected to double down on gadgets and compromise on fundamentals. (Here the comparison might be to the power reserve of new Omegas, or other features from competitors.)

It caused a decade of Mercedes models with severe reliability issues, even on the S-Class, that you would not see even on an econo-car. The ship would not really be righted until about 2010.

And I’m sure many Mercedes fanboys denied the problems.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by East of Eden

And I’m sure many Mercedes fanboys denied the problems.

On a related note, back in May 2023 AstraZeneca informed a guy's lawyer that they do not acknowledge Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS) as being induced by the vaccine on a general level. Today we have UK Big Pharma AstraZeneca acknowledging that its Covid-19 vaccine can lead to a rare side effect known as Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS).

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com.../109702543.cms

Am sure we can all agree Rolex is aware and is fixing things under warranty. No one is getting hurt, this isn't some life or death situation.

PS: Wish the mods would migrate this thread into the one already ongoing within the TRF WatchTech section as am sure they'd welcome the additional comments and information.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=786299

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

On a related note, back in May 2023 AstraZeneca informed a guy's lawyer that they do not acknowledge Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS) as being induced by the vaccine on a general level. Today we have UK Big Pharma AstraZeneca acknowledging that its Covid-19 vaccine can lead to a rare side effect known as Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS).

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com.../109702543.cms

Am sure we can all agree Rolex is aware and is fixing things under warranty. No one is getting hurt, this isn't some life or death situation.

PS: Wish the mods would migrate this thread into the one already ongoing within the TRF WatchTech section as am sure they'd welcome the additional comments and information.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=786299

No way.
Moving this thread across would be an attempt to bury the issue in there again and out of plain sight.
Besides, it would dilute the purity of our natural bodily fluids over in there

On a serious note.
You need to know that Rolex are now charging the full and unadulterated service fee for fixing the issue when the watch is out of warranty pursuant to policy.
You must have missed that memo
Another example of the things that don't necessarily come to light in this murky swamp of life

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Dirt

You need to know that Rolex are now charging the full and unadulterated service fee for fixing the issue when the watch is out of warranty pursuant to policy.

In all seriousness, that's not good if true. i did miss seeing that, my bad :(

You must have missed that memo

(And humor) Did it have a TPS cover sheet? You see, we're putting cover sheets on all TPS Reports now before they go out. Did you see the memo about this?

Yes, very much agreed, Rolex should fix this issue under warranty if it is strictly the only issue of a timepiece that needs correcting.

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by East of Eden

And I’m sure many Mercedes fanboys denied the problems.

I'm sure! Unfortunately posts from older than 2007 on the main Mercedes forum got lost, but as of 2007 it seems the community pretty much agreed that generation was crap. So in that sense they're beating 'us' because that's 7 years into the crap cars whereas we're 9 years into 32-series and the fanboy response is still the predominant one.

Of course the best, if less consequential, example of this phenomenon is right here where people were claiming the non-magnifying Cyclops was a deliberate design change, rather than a manufacturing error.

Rolex's first acknowledgment of the problem? Not an apology to customers, but the removal of language talking about magnification from the Cyclops description on the website… It would be a few years before they'd officially acknowledge it (in the form of fixing the manufacturing, of course, not actually openly stating their mistake.)

We can hope that they're coming up with something new behind the scenes, but they seem perfectly content to keep throwing out these 32-series lemons. Not unlike how Apple had the ticking time bomb butterfly keyboard Macs for about 5 years, which would inevitably go wrong even if kept in the best of conditions, and for which they announced a 'quality program' (i.e. basically replacing the whole thing) whenever that happened, within four years of purchase. I made use of that program at least four times, then traded in the ticking time bomb laptop back to them for the new (actually fixed) model.

[Harry-57]

Originally Posted by East of Eden

And I’m sure many Mercedes fanboys denied the problems.

Possibly, but many owners, prospective owners and motoring journalists criticised the cars and they developed a bad reputation in the wider world outside the Mercedes devotee bubble. They are still regarded as junk. Things like this will not be lost on Rolex but being Rolex, any remedial action going forward will not be revealed in much detail.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Harry-57

Possibly, but many owners, prospective owners and motoring journalists criticised the cars and they developed a bad reputation in the wider world outside the Mercedes devotee bubble. They are still regarded as junk. Things like this will not be lost on Rolex but being Rolex, any remedial action going forward will not be revealed in much detail.

The 32xx is the modern day equivalent of the Reliant Robin or Holden Camira

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Dirt

The 32xx is the modern day equivalent of the Reliant Robin...

Oh my, the Reliant Robin fan club will surely not be happy with your post. The RR is actually quite entertaining. Perhaps the most 'interactive' truly hands-on driving experience of any reasonably-price car on the road today. In fact band members from Human League might even give you a hand.

[Gearjockey]

Originally Posted by Dirt

The 32xx is the modern day equivalent of the Reliant Robin or Holden Camira

Was thinking Trabant myself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[enjoythemusic]

Mods should properly move this thread to the existing Watch Tech forum thread. Any new threads on this should go there imho.

Mods....... your move.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

Mods should properly move this thread to the existing Watch Tech forum thread. Any new threads on this should go there imho.

Mods....... your move.

Yeah, bury it again and hope it all goes away.

But you know that the cream rises to the top

[the dark knight]

Threads like this confirm to me that Rolex has ZERO incentive to actually fix this problem. Whether it's the 32xx or any other issue people have with Rolex, there's always a vocal contingent of users that will belittle the owner with problems and defend Rolex to the death. And this is on what is basically THE enthusiast Rolex forum on the internet, where people are more attuned to their watches and whatever problems they may be having.

Out in the real world, most owners are oblivious to any issues their watch may be having. Most aren't even wearing it to tell time, they just wear it as jewelry. Maybe one day they notice it's running 1 minute slow per week, so they take it into the AD or a local jeweler and someone just tells them mechanical watches can be inaccurate, just reset the watch once a week and you are fine. And they believe it and just keep wearing it as such.

Meanwhile there is not a single person whether on this forum or not, irregardless of how they feel about the 32xx, that would turn down a steel Daytona or Pepsi if offered to them whether to wear or flip.

Considering all that, what incentive does Rolex have to fix the movement? Why spend $$$ and time trying to figure it out when they are probably already in the planning stages for the 33xx?

What's going to happen is nothing, Rolex will eventually move on to the 33xx which hopefully is more reliable, and 32xx owners will end up having to send their watches in for service every 3-5 years.

[East of Eden]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Threads like this confirm to me that Rolex has ZERO incentive to actually fix this problem. Whether it's the 32xx or any other issue people have with Rolex, there's always a vocal contingent of users that will belittle the owner with problems and defend Rolex to the death. And this is on what is basically THE enthusiast Rolex forum on the internet, where people are more attuned to their watches and whatever problems they may be having.

Out in the real world, most owners are oblivious to any issues their watch may be having. Most aren't even wearing it to tell time, they just wear it as jewelry. Maybe one day they notice it's running 1 minute slow per week, so they take it into the AD or a local jeweler and someone just tells them mechanical watches can be inaccurate, just reset the watch once a week and you are fine. And they believe it and just keep wearing it as such.

Meanwhile there is not a single person whether on this forum or not, irregardless of how they feel about the 32xx, that would turn down a steel Daytona or Pepsi if offered to them whether to wear or flip.

Considering all that, what incentive does Rolex have to fix the movement? Why spend $$$ and time trying to figure it out when they are probably already in the planning stages for the 33xx?

What's going to happen is nothing, Rolex will eventually move on to the 33xx which hopefully is more reliable, and 32xx owners will end up having to send their watches in for service every 3-5 years.

Very well said.

Those who deny the issue is like a guy with prostate cancer being responded to with “Well, I don’t have prostate cancer.” Yes, I know this a comparatively trivial matter.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by East of Eden

Very well said.

Those who deny the issue is like a guy with prostate cancer being responded to with “Well, I don’t have prostate cancer.” Yes, I know this a comparatively trivial matter.

Keep in mind there's prostate cancer and there's Prostate cancer.
Personally, if had to have the choice I would rather die with it but not because of it.
Sometimes we don't get the choice and the treatment can end up being worse than the dying from it part of the equation.

[hartsy]

All I want to know... If my watch shows issues will Rolex fix it?

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by hartsy

All I want to know... If my watch shows issues will Rolex fix it?

They will

[881]

Nothing wrong with the current movement and the five digit Explorer II is my least liked Rolex SS sports model, would never wear one.

[BMWMotoRider]

What is significant are the people that own multiple 3235 movements and have had more than one of them with low amplitude/slow down issues. If it was as rare as many want to say, I don’t think this would be the case.

There are many people on TRF that have a big financial interest in trivializing the problem because they have a lot invested in multiple 3235 movement watches. I’m sure they are the most vocal about locking this and other threads about the problem.


For myself, I only have 1 Rolex, a 3235 Seadweller 43 that is two years old. It is loosing around 30 seconds or more per day. I bought it for my daily wear and the 70 hour reserve and +-2 seconds per day were a big part of the draw for me to buy it. I’d like to get it fixed but have zero confidence there is currently a fix for it with the no transparency from Rolex. I’m also concerned that RSC will cause some cosmetic damage as others have reported.


I’m happy for those that have reliable, accurate 3235 watches. Unfortunately, there are many that have not been that lucky and are tired of hearing the problems being downplayed.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by BMWMotoRider

What is significant are the people that own multiple 3235 movements and have had more than one of them with low amplitude/slow down issues. If it was as rare as many want to say, I don’t think this would be the case.

There are many people on TRF that have a big financial interest in trivializing the problem because they have a lot invested in multiple 3235 movement watches. I’m sure they are the most vocal about locking this and other threads about the problem.


For myself, I only have 1 Rolex, a 3235 Seadweller 43 that is two years old. It is loosing around 30 seconds or more per day. I bought it for my daily wear and the 70 hour reserve and +-2 seconds per day were a big part of the draw for me to buy it. I’d like to get it fixed but have zero confidence there is currently a fix for it with the no transparency from Rolex. I’m also concerned that RSC will cause some cosmetic damage as others have reported.


I’m happy for those that have reliable, accurate 3235 watches. Unfortunately, there are many that have not been that lucky and are tired of hearing the problems being downplayed.

I think the reports of cosmetic damage are an even smaller subset than 32 reports. Can damage happen? Of course. Just about anything can be fixed. Just take a bunch of pics before you send it in. For sure, the watch isn’t going to fix itself.

Will the fix stick? Who knows, I hope that by now it’s sorted. Only time will tell, because Rolex won’t.

[Gerry62]

Originally Posted by BMWMotoRider

What is significant are the people that own multiple 3235 movements and have had more than one of them with low amplitude/slow down issues. If it was as rare as many want to say, I don’t think this would be the case.

There are many people on TRF that have a big financial interest in trivializing the problem because they have a lot invested in multiple 3235 movement watches. I’m sure they are the most vocal about locking this and other threads about the problem.


For myself, I only have 1 Rolex, a 3235 Seadweller 43 that is two years old. It is loosing around 30 seconds or more per day. I bought it for my daily wear and the 70 hour reserve and +-2 seconds per day were a big part of the draw for me to buy it. I’d like to get it fixed but have zero confidence there is currently a fix for it with the no transparency from Rolex. I’m also concerned that RSC will cause some cosmetic damage as others have reported.


I’m happy for those that have reliable, accurate 3235 watches. Unfortunately, there are many that have not been that lucky and are tired of hearing the problems being downplayed.

I couldn't stand something like that, I would sell the watch immediately. I had sub 116613 and deepsea 116660 both with old cal. 3135 and never a problem . Greetings brother BMWist

[sgt10p]

I wish people could play nicely and respect others opinions ��.

I find these discussions interesting as I have a 32XX movement which is only a baby, 3 months of use 24/7 and am interested when problems may occur.

[Daniel23456]

Originally Posted by sgt10p

I wish people could play nicely and respect others opinions ��.

I find these discussions interesting as I have a 32XX movement which is only a baby, 3 months of use 24/7 and am interested when problems may occur.

For me the problems were from day 1 of each reference. Assuming it has been all good for 3 months, I don't think you'll have issues.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

For me the problems were from day 1 of each reference. Assuming it has been all good for 3 months, I don't think you'll have issues.

I wouldn't make that assumption TBH. My (departed) SD43 developed issues after 18 months, so it's not necessarily immediate from day 1.

[sgt10p]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

For me the problems were from day 1 of each reference. Assuming it has been all good for 3 months, I don't think you'll have issues.

Thanks