Found this @ pawn shop in coal country, virginia. I wasn't sure about the crown but it turns out to be correct for this reference. The serial number pegs this watch to the fall of 1954 (I've another UG only ~500 watches away which I've done a boatload of research on). I'm very attracted to the color scheme of this dial. It embodies everything I like about mid-century design. A little elbow grease, the right strap (what do you think of the strap in the middle?) and I think I've got a keeper...
If UG would have made a manual-wind version of the Polerouter, I suspect that it would have looked something like that. I think I would like a nice lizard or alligator strap for that watch. Also would like to know the source of your research. All of the dating charts I've seen would place your watch around 1958. Doesn't mean that the charts right are right, either. gatorcpa
I know that there exists a couple of .xcl charts for UG on the googles but all of them have glaring errors. I know this because I have watches with sales receipts with dates that are earlier than the purported production years. Of course later would be easily explainable but not earlier. I also know that UG applied for a US patent on 5/27/55 for the 215 and began manufacturing and selling watches under a "patent pending" exemption during that same exact month. Exactly (3) years later; more precisely it was May the 15th, 1958, UG was granted patent number xxxxxxx for the 215. I'm at work right now and I've only access to what's in my addled brain and Iphone. The rest is at home on my MacBook or in safe or safe deposit box somewhere. neways, I have a PolArouter (the distinction is important) with an original 138ss which according to UG and watch experts, was only produced for (6) months in 1954. The serial number on that watch is 1826xxxx. But, if I look at the charts on the googles, this watch was made in 1957. you gonna believe me, or your lyin' eyes? Haha. I'm not the forensic type but even I can see that those charts are wrong. I'm more inclined to believe that the truth of the matter lies somewhere in middle. UG might have "pre-stamped" a bunch of different case backs for certain references (especially gold). it's no big secret that watch makers were pulling all sorts of magic tricks in the 50's to avoid certain tariffs and taxes targeted towards the watch business. the jewelry business doesn't have a reputation for no reason...
I would be wary about watches from South Korea only because some the highest quality redials I've even seen come from there. The people are very nice, and they almost always disclose the truth (if they know it) in their listings on eBay. However, since you are dealing direct with someone, please make sure that they know what they are doing, and you do also. With respect to your Polerouter, are you sure that the serial number isn't 1.6M, rather than 1.8M? I have found that it is difficult to tell "6" from "8" on some of the early UG cases, depending on the contractor. Here is an example of one of the first SAS Polarouters from another post on this forum: http://omegaforums.net/threads/1954-sas-universal-polarouter.3806/page-2#post-68828 You can see that the numerals look almost the same on this watch, but the owner specifically states that the second digit is "6" and the fourth digit is "8". The rest of the above post is very interesting as well. Hope this helps. gatorcpa
Well, it will be unavoidably be a few days late, it seems. My watchmaker-friend wanted to make sure it was tip-top running condition before sending it out. These can be quite finicky. Hoping for Monday!
This one arrived yesterday on the black strap and I switched to brown this morning for the time being...