Is this a known Universal calibre? I'm not used to there being quite so little in the way of identification on a U-G and am not impressed with the early nature of the watch as being a reason. I haven't been able to test the back for flexibility. This 18ct watch is a bit expensive and is, mysteriously not running. Meaning should I run away?
It's being offered to me in non-running condition, whatever that means. I am concerned that I have never seen an U-G without Universal on that bridge. And if there are "differences".......
yes, thanks for that but it sounds dangerous, even if the only problem is that the bridge has been replaced? I was tempted because it is one of those really pretty huge chronos with the porcelain dial and tine subs dials. And the 18ct U-Gs do sell quite well The only plus would have been that my retired repairman often rhapsodises so much about high quality chronos that he might well have wanted to come out of his self-imposed retirement and look at this one! Anyway I am buying a similar one at the moment (with the pusher in a different location) which is a bit more reasonably priced so i will post photos when it reaches me. And this one DOES say Universal. It seems to have had a blued movement retaining screw replaced but I am not sure that should be a deal buster.
I agree, 14.5 comes closest. Significant variation though. Lets see the whole watch. My caution would be that there have been unscrupulous sellers cobbling together watches with those cool old enamel dials. Many original cases were melted down for the gold value. UG as one of the first Chronograph makers, never say never. This might be a very early watch.
An even bigger danger sign, mysterious colour variation on bridge (that shouldn't affect the operation of the watch), no Universal marking on (most probably) a Universal watch and whoever might have cobbled it together doesn't seem to have been able to get it working!! I'm satisfying myself with the one that I have bought, which looks to me to be a bit earlier.
So it ISN'T a Universal or Excelsior Park movement? Hence the lack of UNIVERSAL signature on the bridge?
I see some differences (for instance the very long thing which runs along the edge (sorry could not describe it better)) Another thing I found:
But wasnt Universal a company that always used their own (i.e. Martel) calibres? Were there periods when they bought in movements or raw ebauches from other companies such as Valjoux? Surely the legs wouldn't have been in the correct position if someone tried to cobble together the wrong movement with a Universal dial? There aren't any cracks on this dial. Or is what this thread is saying is that a lot of these Universal/Excelsior Park movements were very similar to Valjoux movements?