A NOS Compax

[fizz]

A friend recently picked up this stunning looking Compax, reference 22266, from a dealer in Japan.

The Japanese dealer apparently bought it from someone who had purchased an entire collection of NOS watches from a Swiss Museum.

My friend, who has since bought the watch from the dealer, asked me to receive it, which I did earlier this week. To my untrained eye, the watch, especially the dial, looks pristine. I have no reason to believe or doubt that this is not NOS and I have tried to validate this based on my recently acquired, updated edition of the seminal, authoritative UG book by Sala.

Specifically, on pages 256/257 where Referene 22263 and 22268 are shown, this reference has the exact same case with elongated, shapely lugs on a lovely 34mm case. Even the dial has the same (or similar) motif i.e. 8 small gold (or rose gold?) balls on the hour markers, with the exception of the Roman 12. Even this Roman 12 has a precedent in being featured on other Compax such as the 22464 and 22319 on pages 250/251.

Overall, to me it really does look the kind of museum piece that would be considered pristine and NOS but I am happy to hear the thoughts and views of the others out there.

I leave you with some pictures for your consideration.

 

[GarethS]

Just wow

 

[BLOW UP]

 

[Tony C.]

I am not a UG expert, but it appears to be fully original to my eye.

More broadly speaking, I have done business with some high-end Japanese dealers over many years, both buying and selling, and would say that it is highly unlikely that any of them might knowingly misrepresent a vintage watch.

 

[bubba48]

NOS? I have some doubts

 

[jumpingsecond]

That's one that really looks like it belongs in a museum.

 

[gilb12]

I daresay "almost" nos. Aside that, stunning piece 👍


22268 is with Radium

Edited: Jul 31, 2024

 

[fizz]

I think the NOS label is a bit of a stretch and I agree the case has these marked dings. I am not sure how to explain them but these do have the absolutely horrible female spring bar lugs so perhaps that might have had something to do with it - or just from other tool use.

I am more enamored by the condition of the dial which is gorgeous. It's hard to describe how fascinating the sounds of the internal mechanism is when you wind the crown. Each click is clear and distinct, like the internal gears and wheels have rarely been wound. Even the square pushers activate with a new watch click. All very appealing from a vintage watch perspective.

So yes, not really a NOS, but the dial condition is superb and I can't find any faults even under 20X loupe inspection.

 

[BLOW UP]

My guess is: that it was apprentice work that wasn't quite up to retail standards, that may have been paired with NOS back.
Nevertheless, it's lovely and I would be very happy to own it👍

 

[bgrisso]

gilb12

I daresay "almost" nos. Aside that, stunning piece 👍


22268 is with Radium

case reference bears no indication of dial and hand type for this time period

 

[Larry S]

Handsome beast. Well bought. NOS is an overused term.

 

[Florent]

fizz

A friend recently picked up this stunning looking Compax, reference 22266, from a dealer in Japan.

The Japanese dealer apparently bought it from someone who had purchased an entire collection of NOS watches from a Swiss Museum.

My friend, who has since bought the watch from the dealer, asked me to receive it, which I did earlier this week. To my untrained eye, the watch, especially the dial, looks pristine. I have no reason to believe or doubt that this is not NOS and I have tried to validate this based on my recently acquired, updated edition of the seminal, authoritative UG book by Sala.

Specifically, on pages 256/257 where Referene 22263 and 22268 are shown, this reference has the exact same case with elongated, shapely lugs on a lovely 34mm case. Even the dial has the same (or similar) motif i.e. 8 small gold (or rose gold?) balls on the hour markers, with the exception of the Roman 12. Even this Roman 12 has a precedent in being featured on other Compax such as the 22464 and 22319 on pages 250/251.

Overall, to me it really does look the kind of museum piece that would be considered pristine and NOS but I am happy to hear the thoughts and views of the others out there.

I leave you with some pictures for your consideration.

Mind blowing piece! Congrats 😉

 

[Clelow]

Very nice regardless of originality aspects!