Rolex 32xx problems and no one on YouTube is talking

Hi guys is it just me or there a huge coverup here ? On the Rolex forum over 3000 posts about the major problems with the new Rolex 32xx movements . Some say more that 1/3 Of these movements are faulty and when the clients send them in to be repaired the same problems return . The problem I’m referring to is the 32xx movements seriously losing amplitude and slowing down some by 30s/d . No one is saying anything on YouTube, not one video , is this Rolex taking videos down or are watch reporters to scared to take on the king . I have owned 4 Rolexes ( all 3135 movements ) which ran perfectly . It blows my mind that we now have to pay 3 x retail to get one of these watches and then it doesn’t work properly . Tudor seem to have gotten something right though , my last Tudor ran dead on for 6 weeks , no deviation , my current Tudor bb pro runs -2 s/d consistently , my mate Steve in the uk his Tudor pelagos also runs dead on . What will happen when people realise that the new 3x retail Rolexes are faulty , will they still buy them and how will they now be an investment when with a watch that doesn’t keep time . It’s just a piece of jewellery, a very over priced piece of stainless 904l 

·

Considering most people in here moan about not being able to buy a Rolex, I doubt this is something many of us are aware of other than anecdotally. 
 

I am assuming you mean this thread:

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

throwing it up there for others.

I have no comments. I’ve monitored it from time to time, but my Milgauss runs fine, so I’m staying out of it.

No coverup on this platform.

·
chronotriggered

Considering most people in here moan about not being able to buy a Rolex, I doubt this is something many of us are aware of other than anecdotally. 
 

I am assuming you mean this thread:

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

throwing it up there for others.

I have no comments. I’ve monitored it from time to time, but my Milgauss runs fine, so I’m staying out of it.

No coverup on this platform.

Yup, not a problem if I do not own the problem

·

I am not a Rolex owner, but just looking at this from the outside it doesn't sound to me like a coverup. Any product will not have 100% compliance with QA specs coming out of the factory. There are also other factors the manufacturer doesn't fully control like how products are transported, stored and maintained once they leave the factory. So it's hard to tell sometimes if it's an OEM issue all the time or something else.

That said, these watches are supposed to be robust and they are supposed to hold very high standards of QA. So it is disappointing to see things like this pop up. Is it totally unexpected though? I don't think so. These are new movements so they will likely keep improving as time goes on. Also, even at 3000 posts that may equate to 1000 movements out of 4 million that were made in the last 4 years. So it's not a big % in the grand scheme which is probably why it's not making a big splash. Even if you extrapolate to 40,000 movements, still only a small fraction. 

·

Internet media, such as forums, tend to amplify the negative, sometime completely out of proportions.

·
tonmed

I am not a Rolex owner, but just looking at this from the outside it doesn't sound to me like a coverup. Any product will not have 100% compliance with QA specs coming out of the factory. There are also other factors the manufacturer doesn't fully control like how products are transported, stored and maintained once they leave the factory. So it's hard to tell sometimes if it's an OEM issue all the time or something else.

That said, these watches are supposed to be robust and they are supposed to hold very high standards of QA. So it is disappointing to see things like this pop up. Is it totally unexpected though? I don't think so. These are new movements so they will likely keep improving as time goes on. Also, even at 3000 posts that may equate to 1000 movements out of 4 million that were made in the last 4 years. So it's not a big % in the grand scheme which is probably why it's not making a big splash. Even if you extrapolate to 40,000 movements, still only a small fraction. 

How dare you bring statistics into this… 

not wrong though, 800k - 1.05m units a year, 1000 defects is a decent hit rate.

·

Guys 32% of them are faulty , that’s just the owners that are talking , could be much higher . So if there could be almost 1.5 million defective movements out there if they have produced 4 million . That is a big problem that no one is talking about 

·

And remember guys this movement has been around for 7 years . That means there are a lot of potential problems out there . this info is from actual Rolex owners not media . This is going to become a shit storm for Rolex 

·
Eidelweiss

Guys 32% of them are faulty , that’s just the owners that are talking , could be much higher . So if there could be almost 1.5 million defective movements out there if they have produced 4 million . That is a big problem that no one is talking about 

I mean...if you don't believe in sampling error for an uncontrolled online poll, sure.

But it's a Rolex enthusiast forum for people who specifically are seeking out information about their watches not operating the way they want them to.  Of course they're polling high on finding problems.

It's like saying 70% of the people in an emergency room have a medical problem.  I don't doubt that there are problems out there (it's a mass produced watch after all) but the global incidence rate is almost certainly overstated prima facie because of the venue and the way the poll was conducted.

·

i agree and have a few collector buddies who are facing this issue, but here comes the problem: its a Rolex. Most Rolex owners, ie the general public, couldnt care less because its a Rolex. And because, as you say, its only 32% of market having issues with this, I do not think Rolex will bother with it now. Future? May be. 

·

I hear you . My point is if you want to buy a Rolex , you can’t , only if you pay 2-3 times retail. Then it keeps worse time time than a Vostok , I would be pissed . Thank goodness we have Tudor that we can still buy a good tool watch that actually keeps time and has great value . I miss what Rolex was . Now they are just flashy . Although that new titanium deep sea challenge is beautiful tool watch but again the same dodgy movement . This is going to burst Rolexes high flying bubble 

·
tonmed

I am not a Rolex owner, but just looking at this from the outside it doesn't sound to me like a coverup. Any product will not have 100% compliance with QA specs coming out of the factory. There are also other factors the manufacturer doesn't fully control like how products are transported, stored and maintained once they leave the factory. So it's hard to tell sometimes if it's an OEM issue all the time or something else.

That said, these watches are supposed to be robust and they are supposed to hold very high standards of QA. So it is disappointing to see things like this pop up. Is it totally unexpected though? I don't think so. These are new movements so they will likely keep improving as time goes on. Also, even at 3000 posts that may equate to 1000 movements out of 4 million that were made in the last 4 years. So it's not a big % in the grand scheme which is probably why it's not making a big splash. Even if you extrapolate to 40,000 movements, still only a small fraction. 

Since this is a fun platform for hobbyist and enthusistast of watches I was hesitant to reply but that kind of math is tricky.

Extrapolation, let alone couple with uncertainty, is essentially impossible. It is extraordinarily difficult to estimate how many of the watches Rolex sold are actually being worn with any type of regularity so that this would be even possible to notice. Then the odds of a person who these days can get a Rolex, which is not the anal enthusiast that tends to lurk around that forum, reporting an issue on a forum are even harder to estimate. Also, a "good" rate is probably not something that is determined in isolation. Good would be not significantly worse than most others I would say. And this may or may not be the case.

·

Didn't Rolex increase the power reserve by doing something to the barrel make it bigger or something? So what we observe is a consequence of Hooke's law with greater extremes? In other words, this is expected behaviour?

I know this is shocking but the laws of physics apply even to Rolex!

In fact, I'm almost positive that most watches do that. My watches certainly suffer from that phenomenon... to some extent at least.

·

I just went to my AD with my BB GMT last night.  It went from losing just a couple of seconds a day to losing 24 days from November 1-3.  I'm not sure why.

·
MegaBob

Didn't Rolex increase the power reserve by doing something to the barrel make it bigger or something? So what we observe is a consequence of Hooke's law with greater extremes? In other words, this is expected behaviour?

I know this is shocking but the laws of physics apply even to Rolex!

In fact, I'm almost positive that most watches do that. My watches certainly suffer from that phenomenon... to some extent at least.

They increased the spring length and decreased the barrel wall thickness so now at service you can’t just replace the spring you have to do the whole barrel assembly 

·
MegaBob

Since this is a fun platform for hobbyist and enthusistast of watches I was hesitant to reply but that kind of math is tricky.

Extrapolation, let alone couple with uncertainty, is essentially impossible. It is extraordinarily difficult to estimate how many of the watches Rolex sold are actually being worn with any type of regularity so that this would be even possible to notice. Then the odds of a person who these days can get a Rolex, which is not the anal enthusiast that tends to lurk around that forum, reporting an issue on a forum are even harder to estimate. Also, a "good" rate is probably not something that is determined in isolation. Good would be not significantly worse than most others I would say. And this may or may not be the case.

This is a good point so the problem could be much bigger the 32% . My point was or question was at the beginning of this post . Why is no one talking about this .