Forums Latest Members
  1. Diabolik Aug 16, 2016

    Posts
    1,372
    Likes
    2,659
    But ....


    unfortunately a redial!

    [​IMG]
     
  2. SeanO Aug 16, 2016

    Posts
    1,306
    Likes
    1,443
    They're getting better though. Except for the slight centre error with the 30 minute register you could live with it.
     
  3. Diabolik Aug 16, 2016

    Posts
    1,372
    Likes
    2,659
    there are a few other issues with dial (one which is quaint but obvious) but admittingly, it is one of the better ones.
     
  4. Larry S Color Commentator for the Hyperbole. Aug 16, 2016

    Posts
    12,518
    Likes
    49,708
    The date wheel for me is the first warning sign. The dial is too clean, 30 minute register. What else?
     
  5. timjohn Aug 16, 2016

    Posts
    1,138
    Likes
    6,682
    Muddled typography, off-centre 12 o'clock pip and lume hands but none on the dial would combine to irritate me...
     
  6. Diabolik Aug 16, 2016

    Posts
    1,372
    Likes
    2,659
    I believe that it should be a 22278-1 reference.

    upload_2016-8-16_14-4-2.png

    The rounded 3 is one, the style of the 4, 6 and 9's and generally the font used on hour counter is all wrong. Rounded 3's were only used in the later 60s references. On that dial and earlier dials I would expect the flat head 3.

    Missing "swiss" at six (could argue that it is not visible, however, that would make the outer second dial much too large). I believe the hands are also incorrect (probably from a 22297 reference which is a much later style) ...

    UG references are case specific but certain dial / hand combinations and characteristics can be associated with specific periods (40s, 50s. 60s).

    Second counter is incorrectly marked.

    The Universal Geneve logo is messy. Not what I would expect on a 50s dial....

    There is more!
     
    Larry S likes this.
  7. gop76 Aug 16, 2016

    Posts
    754
    Likes
    2,419
    Isn't a bad looking watch but the redial isn't brilliant