Dear UG Forum:
I post this with the encouragement of @oinkitt who is the owner of the piece discussed in the 25.12.19 link on this thread. I also invite him after he gets done fighting fires in OZ to opine here as well. As has been discussed, we should have moved this debate away from the FS ad per the rules. Here is an opportunity to add another reference discussion to the UG Sub Forum.

https://omegaforums.net/threads/withdrawn-from-sale-universal-aero-compax.106649/

To make a long story short, one LT member disagreed with the original dial claim and was seconded by another member. No specifics were provided. Per OP request, I posted more detail on what concerns possibly were, others opined and the watch was withdrawn. There was also the matter of the chrono hand not being blue, but I think that has been explained. The challenge herein is that there is a color plate in Sala for this reference that matches the OP watch. The B&W plates however contradict the color plate. @bgrisso and I also own this reference with a very different dial and a 3 in the fourth SN position vs a 2.

Photos provided by @oinkitt: (crystal on and off)


The suspected issues: rounded 3's on hour and seconds subs and odd 3 on the minute sub/Closed and open 6's/printing not as fine on the outer scales, UG logo seems to crowd the upper subdial....and of course the color of the chrono hand. No Swiss.

Pictured next: @bgrisso watch/my watch also 22289 but S/N 1073.......Note that they are the same and track with the OF understanding of mid 40's fonts. (Flat 3's, Open 6) ...Print quality is also finer.

They also appear to match the rather crappy B&W Sala Factory Plates:

And yet, as has been mentioned before, the color plate for the reference looks exactly like @oinkitt 's watch!

So what gives? Is the watch an original dial? Is the forth figure in the reference number 2 vs 3 a meaningful demarcation? Is this yet another problem with color plates? Later dial? Service dial? I don't personally think its a redial.

Anyway, an inappropriate dial debate on a FS post opens an opportunity for posterity on its own thread.

What do you think? We'd love to see some more correlation and examples. I hope I've captured the essence of the issue.

Thanks

 

Me too

 

The "universal geneve" and "aero-compax" text (and the tachy ring, amongst others) looks very sloppy in comparison on the watch(es) in question...
Could be a redial, could be a service dial, could be bad quality control...
All i can say for sure is that if i were given the choice between the two, i would definitely choose one of the bgrisso/larryS examples.

 

Same here!

 

With respect, is preference the question?
A seller was flamed in his own thread in complete violation of forum rules for presenting as original a dial which others asserted was not.
He took it with more sense of humor than I've seen anyone display in such situation.

I'm curious, what do we call "service dials" exactly?
Are they dials which were produced by the manufacturer and that the manufacturer has in stock ?
Or is it the original dial of the watch which the manufacturer redoes using the same techniques as the original dial?
Or something else?

If there are two literally identical dials, one of which appears in the one authoritative reference book on UG --
isn't the most rational explanation that UG produced both?

I know very little about UG but I like the blue color on the track and the radium plots at 3/6/9.

 

OP requested opinions.
That was my opinion...

 

@Syrte ... service dials were produced at a later date by UG / stocked by dealers to support overhauls. For some references these are well known. They impact value a bit but are recognized as legit parts.

it is also well known that UG allowed for personalization and used multiple dial makers as well. Was the subject dial available as an option back in the day? This was a tool watch after all.

 

I didn't read that missing swiss what mentioned and also the fact that the tachometer scale is different.

Without the caseback engrave with Tommy Milton, it would be possible to suggest that watch in colours plate is the same as the one from @oinkitt. But too difficult regarding picture resolution to go on that way further.

Regarding the missing Swiss on the dial, does UG produce such watch in the US or something like that ?
Tommy Milton was a US car racer and it could be the previous owner of the one in the color plate.

 

Similar dials .. we are not saying subject watch is the color plate watch. Good add though!

 

I know that you are not saying that, but it was one of my hypothesis to explain similar dial from subject and color plate.
There is nothing more similar than the same watch...

 

Very interesting, thank you.

 

Keep em coming folks.

 

From what I have learned on this site, UG seems to have been a company that had many inconsistencies in regards to their watches. It seems overly harsh to pile on to a member who believes the dial to be correct just because others disagree. As I said before, UG was in the business of selling watches and not making sure every piece was exactly the same to satisfy future collectors.

 

I’m curious what @Mlafra and @papaebetu would say?

 

And @Diabolik

 

Fair point but the purpose of this thread is to add to the knowledge base here for future reference. Please ...Let’s not re-litigate the sales post infraction here. What’s done is done. Mea culpa’s and apologies have been mostly rendered. The owner of the watch is as interested as we are in learning more about what he has and has asked for this thread to be started.

 

Thanks Larry for starting this thread. I had been intending to reach out to the seller and ask for permission to use his photos and do the same thing, but I've been laid up in bed sick since New Year's Day.

My thoughts, in no particular order.....

1) as CaptainWinsor just noted, UG is notoriously inconsistent. Not too long ago I was comparing two UG Aero ref 22290 that were only 239 serial apart, and the number of differences was suprising. Even the cut on the case was significantly different (I'm quite sure they were both orig), and there were numerous differences on the dials. Granted, they were not the type of differences we are seeing in the dial in question, but still, we all know this, it's just something to keep in mind.

2) I will post a pic of my two Aero, ref 22289 and 22290. The differences in the size and font of the hour markers, and the UG and Aero Compax text between these two are exactly the same differences I was seeing comparing the two 22290 that were only 239 serials apart. Again, not directly relevant to the dial in question, but an interesting aside.

3) If I had only seen OP dial in question I would assume redial, due to numerous issues pointed out. However with second example in Sala, exact same dial, same reference no less, the idea of two redials ending up in the same ref seems not very probable. (It's two different watches clearly, as the serial is different and one has a personal caseback engraving).

4) it could be service dial, again odd coincidence the first time we are seeing potential service dials, they are both in the same reference?!

5) it could be original dial, weird batch, although I really struggle with the quality of the printing on UG and Aero Compax, not to mention the numerous other issues.

I had a look around and couldn't find any more of these dials online. I think our biggest problem here is sample size. With only two of these dials so far, I don't think we can reach a conclusion, and will probably just have a range of opinions. For myself, I don't have enough info to reach a firm conclusion, I would just say it's an open question, and I hope that we see some more examples turn up in the future.

Thanks to the OP/seller for allowing pics to be used and encouraging further discussion, I think this is an interesting case.

 

Thanks Ben! Feel better.

 

here's a close up on my 22289