Rolex 32** movement issues?

[CamCG]

I was wondering if anyone on TZ has experienced issues with their 32** movement Rolex slowing down?

(Apologies if this has already been discussed elsewhere in TZ, but if it has I didn't find it with a search).

I'm close to a purchase of a watch using the 3230 movement (new from an AD) and this has come up in the course of some research.

There is a long-running thread on Rolex Forums concerning 32** movements. The gist of the problem seems to be 32** movements running at low amplitudes, tending to have degrading amplitudes and then tending to run slow, a problem which gets progressively worse.

This seems to happen from 12 months onwards after purchase.

There are quite a few reports throughout the thread from owners of their 32** watches having to go back to a Rolex for work, sometimes more than once. I found similar reports of this issue on other websites.

The 3235 movement (eg Datejust 41 / GMT Master II / Submariner Date 126610LN) is the most commonly mentioned as being effected.

However, this may be because the 3235 has been in use since 2015 whilst other 32** movements (eg 3230 used by OP41 / Submariner 124060 etc) have been in use for a shorter time and by less common models.

There is plenty of speculation throughout the main thread (and elsewhere) as to the cause(s), but as of yet, no definitive answers or remedies.

I'm aware the thread in question, despite containing compelling evidence of this issue, being over 100 pages long and containing over 250 individual posters still represents a very small sample size of owners.

As such, I'd be interested as to collective experience and wisdom of the TZ community as to this "issue".


Here's a few links to the main thread which may be be of interest...

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=786299
* Starting point of the thread (January 2021)

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=3161
* Summary of what had been learned over the 100+ pages the thread had reached by November 2022

[Toshk]

Definitely true!

[Haywood_Milton]

I have posted previously about the suggestion that production has been reduced in the last couple of years because of problems with the new movements.

Interesting suggestion ;-)

[verv]

I *think* its previous owner sent my 126600 back to rolex under warranty to address timekeeping. That has a 3235 movement.
Now it runs at a steady -0.5

[CamCG]

I have posted previously about the suggestion that production has been reduced in the last couple of years because of problems with the new movements.

Interesting suggestion ;-)

I'm interested whether the information publicly available about this issue would put you off purchasing a Rolex with a 32** movement for personal use?

[Toshk]

I *think* its previous owner sent my 126600 back to rolex under warranty to address timekeeping. That has a 3235 movement.
Now it runs at a steady -0.5

St James’s managed that at the end. After two returns.

Something wrong with those new calibres for sure if often new watches need regulation.

[Haywood_Milton]

I'm interested whether the information publicly available about this issue would put you off purchasing a Rolex with a 32** movement for personal use?

As with any other Rolex, it wouldn't put me off buying one from a seller who would provide a substantial guarantee and be able to back that guarantee up with any necessary remedial work, which means either a new watch or a pre-owned one from an established dealer of verifiable reputation*.

* Please note that this may not best be judged by the existence of a flashy website or Instagram account, a physical shop in Brighton or Reigate, copious but familiar listings on eBay photographed with lurid surgical gloves on so that we can't see Jamie Thorpe's hands, etc.

[MartynJC (UK)]

No issues with mine though I need to unpack my timeograph since moving house.

I have a 124060 (2020) and 126655 (2020) with no timing issues - but a sample size of 2 is not statistically significant.

In UK you should be covered up to 6 years under the consumer rights act (or whatever it is called) and Rolex does warrant watches for 5 years anyway. If I was buying new from an AD I would count myself lucky and not have any worries buying a 32xxx movement watch.

[verv]

St James’s managed that at the end. After two returns.

Something wrong with those new calibres for sure if often new watches need regulation.

Yes, touch wood they seem to have put it right permanently.

The movements dont put me off tbh, seems a bit pot luck like the Tudor gmt date issue.

[Toshk]

Yes, touch wood they seem to have put it right permanently.

The movements dont put me off tbh, seems a bit pot luck like the Tudor gmt date issue.

Well, not entirely sure tbh. I’ve handled six in the last three years. All new and all running slow. The 2nd Sub was the worst though. 8 seconds slow at one point.

[CamCG]

No issues with mine though I need to unpack my timeograph since moving house.

I have a 124060 (2020) and 126655 (2020) with no timing issues - but a sample size of 2 is not statistically significant.

In UK you should be covered up to 6 years under the consumer rights act (or whatever it is called) and Rolex does warrant watches for 5 years anyway. If I was buying new from an AD I would count myself lucky and not have any worries buying a 32xxx movement watch.

This is true, to a point.

The 32** movement is relatively new and some "teething problems" are perhaps inevitable. (It's my understanding the previous 31** movement was updated throughout its time in production).

Nevertheless, if there is a technical issue with a new movement surely it should be understood relatively quickly by the manufacturer and a permanent fix put in place for when effected watches come in?

However, some watches with the 32** movement are reportedly going back to Rolex multiple times, suggesting an improvement in performance after such a "service" is temporary, that the root cause hasn't been properly understood and there isn't a permanent "fix" like an upgraded part yet.

This is despite 32** movements now being present in Rolex watches for 7 years+.

Some watches with 32** movements will have fallen out of the 5 year warranty period by now, which potentially leaves their owners liable for resolving this issue, if present.

From the perspective of someone buying a new Rolex in 2023 which uses a 32** movement, if there is an underlying issue with these movements and Rolex haven't resolved it with a permanent fix in 7 years, it doesn't inspire confidence Rolex will have found such a fix by 2028 when their 5 year warranty would run out.

Furthermore, supposing the issue can only be resolved with an upgraded movement and the upgrades can't be "retrofitted" to existing 32** movements, that could leave owners of some watches stuck in a cycle of "temporary fixes".

Quite a few hypotheticals, but also some food for thought.

[Boss13]

Had an issue with my SD43 not holding power for long enough and it wasn’t overly accurate when I did measure it over a few days, losing a little time. But I didn’t measure it often.

I took it to Rolex SJ and they sorted it.

You have five years warranty so low risk for you I would say. Which model are you going for?

[Willows]

No issues to report from my 3230 models. I've been keeping an eye on the timekeeping, and that famous thread on the rolexforums!

My Submariner 41 (124060) runs about +2.5 s/day, holds power reserve well, as does my Air-king (126900), which runs about -0.5 s/day.

[Toshk]

This is true, to a point.

The 32** movement is relatively new and some "teething problems" are perhaps inevitable. (It's my understanding the previous 31** movement was updated throughout its time in production).

Nevertheless, if there is a technical issue with a new movement surely it should be understood relatively quickly by the manufacturer and a permanent fix put in place for when effected watches come in?

However, some watches with the 32** movement are reportedly going back to Rolex multiple times, suggesting an improvement in performance after such a "service" is temporary, that the root cause hasn't been properly understood and there isn't a permanent "fix" like an upgraded part yet.

This is despite 32** movements now being present in Rolex watches for 7 years+.

Some watches with 32** movements will have fallen out of the 5 year warranty period by now, which potentially leaves their owners liable for resolving this issue, if present.

From the perspective of someone buying a new Rolex in 2023 which uses a 32** movement, if there is an underlying issue with these movements and Rolex haven't resolved it with a permanent fix in 7 years, it doesn't inspire confidence Rolex will have found such a fix by 2028 when their 5 year warranty would run out.

Furthermore, supposing the issue can only be resolved with an upgraded movement and the upgrades can't be "retrofitted" to existing 32** movements, that could leave owners of some watches stuck in a cycle of "temporary fixes".

Quite a few hypotheticals, but also some food for thought.

Totally agree with you. And watching this with interest. Rolex is so overrated.

[CamCG]

Totally agree with you. And watching this with interest. Rolex is so overrated.

From my perspective, I certainly don't feel that way about Rolex.

I'm curious to learn more about this issue with the 32** series movements, but I have a lot of admiration for quite a few of the models, past and present.

[CamCG]

Had an issue with my SD43 not holding power for long enough and it wasn’t overly accurate when I did measure it over a few days, losing a little time. But I didn’t measure it often.

I took it to Rolex SJ and they sorted it.

You have five years warranty so low risk for you I would say. Which model are you going for?

Yes, all things considered, I've not been discouraged from purchasing the Rolex model I intend to.

I'm hoping to pick up an OP41.

[walkerwek1958]

This is true, to a point.

The 32** movement is relatively new and some "teething problems" are perhaps inevitable. (It's my understanding the previous 31** movement was updated throughout its time in production).

Nevertheless, if there is a technical issue with a new movement surely it should be understood relatively quickly by the manufacturer and a permanent fix put in place for when effected watches come in?

However, some watches with the 32** movement are reportedly going back to Rolex multiple times, suggesting an improvement in performance after such a "service" is temporary, that the root cause hasn't been properly understood and there isn't a permanent "fix" like an upgraded part yet.

This is despite 32** movements now being present in Rolex watches for 7 years+.

Some watches with 32** movements will have fallen out of the 5 year warranty period by now, which potentially leaves their owners liable for resolving this issue, if present.

From the perspective of someone buying a new Rolex in 2023 which uses a 32** movement, if there is an underlying issue with these movements and Rolex haven't resolved it with a permanent fix in 7 years, it doesn't inspire confidence Rolex will have found such a fix by 2028 when their 5 year warranty would run out.

Furthermore, supposing the issue can only be resolved with an upgraded movement and the upgrades can't be "retrofitted" to existing 32** movements, that could leave owners of some watches stuck in a cycle of "temporary fixes".

Quite a few hypotheticals, but also some food for thought.

I’ve no idea whether there is an underlying problem or not, but anyone who really understands watch movements will know that, historically, manufacturers have revised or upgraded certain parts to address potential problems and it stands to reason that thus will be more common during the initial years, anyone who’s worked in a technical development function is better placed to understand this concept than others.

Frankly, this post is utter conjecture, I hesitate to call it drivel but that’s probably the most accurate term.

I’m definitely NOT a Rolex fanboy, far from it, but I find it hard to believe that owners need to worry about future problems with this movement. If I hear otherwise from someone who works on the things I’ll eat my words, the only folks who really understand watches are those who work on them. In an age where everyone’s opinion is supposedly equal this may be unpalatable to some folks, but nonetheless its true.

[CamCG]

I’ve no idea whether there is an underlying problem or not, but anyone who really understands watch movements will know that, historically, manufacturers have revised or upgraded certain parts to address potential problems and it stands to reason that thus will be more common during the initial years, anyone who’s worked in a technical development function is better placed to understand this concept than others.

Frankly, this post is utter conjecture, I hesitate to call it drivel but that’s probably the most accurate term.

I’m definitely NOT a Rolex fanboy, far from it, but I find it hard to believe that owners need to worry about future problems with this movement. If I hear otherwise from someone who works on the things I’ll eat my words, the only folks who really understand watches are those who work on them. In an age where everyone’s opinion is supposedly equal this may be unpalatable to some folks, but nonetheless its true.

A bit of vitriol, spite and assumption in this post.

It should be clear from what I've written that I've no intention of positioning myself as any kind of horology expert.

Rather, a layman who is prepared to spend a not insignificant amount on a watch, has read about a issue which may affect it, has shared his concerns and how he understands things (however accurate or not) and asked for some input from others more knowledgeable in the TZ community.

If you want to use that as a stepping stone to grind your own axes, so be it.

(And if you do happen to look through the Rolex Forum thread, there are contributors who claim to have worked on the 32** movement, as well as read outs from multiple 32** movement watches tested on timegraphers).

[MartynJC (UK)]

Yes, all things considered, I've not been discouraged from purchasing the Rolex model I intend to.

I'm hoping to pick up an OP41.

Good luck with your purchase. I have checked both my 32xx on my trusty Weish (sp) 1000 and both are within the +-2s/d in all positions and amplitudes are strong. My 116610LV 3135 is less in shape but still in COSC (but does have the green tag so I guess should be in +-2s/d) - not sure if these limited stats prove anything one way or another. Martyn

[JIG67]

My SD43 went back as it started running slow after six months of cracking timekeeping. It seemed fine after they sorted it but I never really trusted it after that and so off it went.

[dkpw]

As with any other Rolex, it wouldn't put me off buying one from a seller who would provide a substantial guarantee and be able to back that guarantee up with any necessary remedial work, which means either a new watch or a pre-owned one from an established dealer of verifiable reputation*.

* Please note that this may not best be judged by the existence of a flashy website or Instagram account, a physical shop in Brighton or Reigate, copious but familiar listings on eBay photographed with lurid surgical gloves on so that we can't see Jamie Thorpe's hands, etc.

Oh he's back at it is he? Or did he never actually go away?

[CamCG]

Good luck with your purchase. I have checked both my 32xx on my trusty Weish (sp) 1000 and both are within the +-2s/d in all positions and amplitudes are strong. My 116610LV 3135 is less in shape but still in COSC (but does have the green tag so I guess should be in +-2s/d) - not sure if these limited stats prove anything one way or another. Martyn

Thank you. Enjoy your watches.

[learningtofly]

Just checked my 116613LN, which is a month shy of 2 years old. I've been wearing it for 3 days, and it's gained 1spd over that period. No sign if the accuracy degrading from the day I bought it new from the AD, in fact.

[Toshk]

OP, discussion on RF is really good. Decent feedback too.

[joe narvey]

Does the suspected change in performance apply over elapsed time or with regular use?

If I put one on a timegrapher can the amplitude data be used to confirm if it’s running with correct amplitude and if so is reference amplitude data available?

[MartynJC (UK)]

Just checked my 116613LN, which is a month shy of 2 years old. I've been wearing it for 3 days, and it's gained 1spd over that period. No sign if the accuracy degrading from the day I bought it new from the AD, in fact.

Isn't that a 3135 movement though Tony? That's excellent deviation over 3d!

[learningtofly]

Isn't that a 3135 movement though Tony? That's excellent deviation over 3d!

Oh, could be, Martyn - looks like the Submariners switched over in 2020, so mine (bought in March that year) was probably just on the cusp. But yes, it’s pretty decent for sure.

[Omegamanic]

I’ve had a small number and all have ran well, so far. I’ll have to keep an eye on the, just in case. Although they haven’t quite been as accurate as my recent Tudors for some reason, but all within their -2+2 average.

[jukeboxs]

Yes, all things considered, I've not been discouraged from purchasing the Rolex model I intend to.

I'm hoping to pick up an OP41.

Did you get your new OP41? Have you measured the amplitude since?

Does the suspected change in performance apply over elapsed time or with regular use?

If I put one on a timegrapher can the amplitude data be used to confirm if it’s running with correct amplitude and if so is reference amplitude data available?

Joe - this thread gives useful details (steps given in post 771 on p26). Post 4148 on p139 also gives some handy thoughts on possible causes. There a few Rolex technicians inputting on that thread, my reading of which is there is as yet no fix (any Rolex service / lubrication fixes on the 32xx movements are temporary, the amplitude problems will continue and will eventually impact time keeping noticeably, with the key question for me being who foots the bill from yr 5+).
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=786299

I'm going to borrow a Weishi 1900 this week and will measure my 3 32xx watches.

I received the call from my AD for the steel/everose GMT last week, I've been on the list for a few years - but I'm going to decline, due to these movement issues - which I have only now discovered this past week. I would expect Rolex to correct the issue with the next 33xx iteration (mooted for next year).

P.S. This is also a useful thread on WUS.
https://www.watchuseek.com/threads/o...5483275/page-4

[744ER]

I'm a watchmaker at an RSC and yes the 32 is a problem child.
The only problem that has been officially addressed at this point is an oiling point and the rotor ball bearing.

There's no official word from Rolex, just service it and return to customer.

There's absolutely no indication that a 33XX movement is in the works, that's just an internet rumour.

Personally I've held off on buying anything with a 32 in it. Now that they introduced chronergy to 4131 Daytona I'm guessing they're pretty committed to it. I will probably buy a 126500 as an investment, but will never wear it, just keep my old trusty 16710 on.

[Doug86]

Is there an accepted method to testing this, assuming you have a timegrapher, before taking it in to RSC/AD for a service?

[TF23]

.. the amplitude problems will continue and will eventually impact time keeping noticeably, with the key question for me being who foots the bill from yr 5+).

I think you already pretty much know the answer to that question though, don't you?!

[jukeboxs]

I'm a watchmaker at an RSC and yes the 32 is a problem child.
The only problem that has been officially addressed at this point is an oiling point and the rotor ball bearing.
...

Thanks very much for your reply and insight, that's interesting and helpful.

I have three 32xx watches (could have been 4, but I just pulled out of a new everose GMT from my AD due to these 32xx issues), I just realised that my earliest model (Sept 2018 Pepsi GMT) is about to fall out of warranty. So, I stuck it on the Wishi 1900. Results are poor:

• Power reserve = 65 hours, under Rolex's 69hr minimum
• Lowest amplitude for 3U/6U/9U at 0hrs = 177d (and 155d at 24hrs), well under Rolex's 200d minimum
• Average Rate = -9s/d (at 0 hrs), well outside Rolex's (-1, +3) spec
• Variance between min and max Rates in multiple positions at 0hrs = 14s/d, well above Rolex's 9s/d max.

So, I'll be taking it into my AD on Monday to return to Rolex for repair / service (just temporary of course as discussed as no fix yet available, but better than nothing).

[I measured my other two 32xx watches - SD43 and Cermit - 4 & 2 yrs old, and both are still within spec, so all good so far. I'll keep monitoring and they'll be going back to the mothership if needed. A 32xx fix would be nice before my warranties are up.]

[boring_sandwich]

I'm a watchmaker at an RSC and yes the 32 is a problem child.
The only problem that has been officially addressed at this point is an oiling point and the rotor ball bearing.

There's no official word from Rolex, just service it and return to customer.

There's absolutely no indication that a 33XX movement is in the works, that's just an internet rumour.

Personally I've held off on buying anything with a 32 in it. Now that they introduced chronergy to 4131 Daytona I'm guessing they're pretty committed to it. I will probably buy a 126500 as an investment, but will never wear it, just keep my old trusty 16710 on.

It will be interesting to see how Rolex deal with this after a 5 year warranty period have elapsed. Full service at the owners expense?

[ODP]

It will be interesting to see how Rolex deal with this after a 5 year warranty period have elapsed. Full service at the owners expense?

I would imagine so. Very poor if this is the case.

[Tom-P]

Thought I'd bump this just to see if anyone had further reports of issues (or otherwise) with the 32xx issue. It would be good to keep the thread going as an inventory of experiences and intel.

[beechcustom]

I'm amazed no one outside of us and TRF is talking about this??? None of the youtube content providers in the watch space have ever gone anywhere near this to my knowledge. You'd think at least someone might have picked it up by now as a discussion point.

[Tom-P]

I'm amazed no one outside of us and TRF is talking about this??? None of the youtube content providers in the watch space have ever gone anywhere near this to my knowledge. You'd think at least someone might have picked it up by now as a discussion point.

I agree that, given how much Rolex chatter is out there, it's odd that it's not more widely discussed. Because where it is discussed there is clear evidence of an issue; and we have an RSC watchmaker on this thread (744ER) telling us it is an issue, and that Rolex know it is an issue, and don't really have a fix.

There are also threads on Watchuseek, and the usual avalance on Reddit.

I have been surprised by the lack of any intel from Rolex re the issue, and its proposed fix, but then they are the high priests of "never apologise, never explain".

[omegasteve]

yep I have had this with my 2021 sub, well under 200 amp and losing lots of time.

It's come back from warranty work at +2 seconds and 260 amp so much better however.....I'm watching it like a hawk as think it has just lost 1 min over 24hrs. It was this erratic time keeping that first made me realise it wasn't right so I'll see over the next month.

I have 4 x 31xx movements in other watches and never had an issue, all absolutely rock solid. I think on my experience to date I wouldn't bother with Rolex until this is fixed imo.

[beechcustom]

yep I have had this with my 2021 sub, well under 200 amp and losing lots of time.

I think on my experience to date I wouldn't bother with Rolex until this is fixed imo.

I've only got one Rolex with the current 32xx movement. It's a Jan 2024 and well within super cosc so far but I'm keeping an eye on it. Not done a detailed test yet but am tempted to get a timegrapher for that purpose.

[mylofitz]

My SD43 went back to Rolex under warranty for said issue. Still charged me £190 after claiming the crystal had failed with water pressure test. Hasn’t happened since being returned.

[CaptainRockNRoll]

I’ve had the new 36mm Explorer since January 2022 and worn it on a nearly daily basis since that time. I was aware of the reported movement issues, so do keep a keen eye on its time keeping. I can happily report it has been consistently -1.5 seconds per day in all that time.

[Russ]

The poll on TRF still runs at 75% saying no problems and 25% saying they have had issues. The thread has gone a bit stale now and the sample size remains at around 1400. As said before, people are much more likely to report issues on such a thread so it might not reflect the true picture. One of mine runs at plus 2 and never changes. The other seems to be sensitive to temperature, runs at plus 2 in the winter and minus 2 in the summer.

[Dynam0humm]

I agree that, given how much Rolex chatter is out there, it's odd that it's not more widely discussed. Because where it is discussed there is clear evidence of an issue; and we have an RSC watchmaker on this thread (744ER) telling us it is an issue, and that Rolex know it is an issue, and don't really have a fix.

There are also threads on Watchuseek, and the usual avalance on Reddit.

I have been surprised by the lack of any intel from Rolex re the issue, and its proposed fix, but then they are the high priests of "never apologise, never explain".

From what I've read there is no fix as it would mean a comprehensive re-design of the movement, so maybe that is the fix and the new 33xx is currently being rushed through development...

[MartynJC (UK)]

From what I've read there is no fix as it would mean a comprehensive re-design of the movement, so maybe that is the fix and the new 33xx is currently being rushed through development...

How many watches do Rolex produce a year (>1Million) how many have an issue? I did hear on one YouTuber (ex-Watchfinder) that Rolex would replace with upgraded movements on service - as necessary.

[Jon Kenney]

Each of mine with the 32XX movements dating from 2017 - 2023 have experienced no issues whatsoever.

The 2017 DD40 has not been serviced.

[Tom-P]

Thanks for the intel gents. I fret about this myself as I have an early SD43 which is therefore out of warranty. It's not a daily wearer but has behaved so far - it's probably dropped from +1 to -2 secs per day over the six years, but not the big drop-off which seems to characterise the issue.

It's irritating having that niggling worry, though. This is my one Rolex - I sold a 16570 - and the appeal was its notional robustness. I remember verv's past phrase re Rolex - 'tractor movements' - so it's a pain to have one that might not be.

I think it might be a good excuse to get a timegrapher ...

[verv]

I wouldn't worry too hard Tom.
I believe that the issue with the 32's is a lubrication and coating issue that can be sorted at service and not a more significant flaw of design/build.

[wileeeeeey]

Had one serviced under warranty a few weeks back. Asked when collecting it what the issue was and they said it was the oils so probably it had that issue.

[Toshk]

What RSC have been instructed to answer. Many keep going back after “ full service “ under warranty. Developing the same issue after few months. Happens more on watches worn every day.