Double signed Universal Geneve

vujen · Oct 17, 2024

Honestly, I’m not entirely convinced by what was said years ago (almost 9 years ago now) by other Italian collectors. The concept of replacement dials starts from Rolex and from dials (or cases or hands, etc.) that were replaced in specific references. References that were produced for more than 20 years in some cases (for instance: Rolex Explorer).

In UG, production is completely different, both physically and conceptually. There is no defined case-dial association in the majority of cases. Therefore, it is our concept of replacement parts that is wrong.

Obviously, UG had dials available, and clearly some designs are more common than others. But this concept is different from the idea of a dial specifically created as a replacement.

In fact, this same design, as we can see, was co-signed by Turler, which is exactly the opposite of the concept of supply.

Just my humble opinion, of course.

Woops · Oct 17, 2024

vujen
Honestly, I’m not entirely convinced by what was said years ago (almost 9 years ago now) by other Italian collectors. The concept of replacement dials starts from Rolex and from dials (or cases or hands, etc.) that were replaced in specific references. References that were produced for more than 20 years in some cases (for instance: Rolex Explorer).

In UG, production is completely different, both physically and conceptually. There is no defined case-dial association in the majority of cases. Therefore, it is our concept of replacement parts that is wrong.

Obviously, UG had dials available, and clearly some designs are more common than others. But this concept is different from the idea of a dial specifically created as a replacement.

In fact, this same design, as we can see, was co-signed by Turler, which is exactly the opposite of the concept of supply.

Just my humble opinion, of course.

I fully agree with all of this.

I agree mainly because I have held so many Tris from the mid 40s, fitted with so-called “60s service dials”, that felt coherent and legitimate and as though all parts of the watch came together on the same day. The lume and degradation and patina matches the hands and the case perfectly in so many of these watches. The suggested two decade gap between dial and watch has never been apparent in any of them.

I have also always felt that the service dial theory swerves some pretty big questions. Why make a service dial for just for one model and not, for example, the jumbo cased Tri? When were these dials actually manufactured? Buba suggested “around 60-70s” but I find that hard to believe. In this era UG was surely more preoccupied with trying to stay solvent by rapidly banging out new watches rather than making new parts for old client watches from twenty years prior. If these dials really were printed by UG in the 60s then surely the lume compound would be wildly different and the dials themselves a closer, trendier cousin to Clapton? Why do we see so many horrible 34.5mm Tri redials if service dials were mysteriously plentiful and abundant for this one specific case?

Personally, I find it far more plausible that a batch of dials were manufactured and fitted to Tri Compax 34.5mm models in the mid 40s that, for reasons we will probably never know, deviated from the accepted cliche and escaped quality control. I find them more precious for that fact, not less!

Mark020 · Oct 20, 2024

Benson Polerouter for sale https://www.ricardo.ch/de/a/1959-universal-geneve-polerouter-20375-1-double-signature-1271181714/

Tohz · Oct 20, 2024

Freccero Ref. 12243
http://www.offerte.meetingart.it:77...E740110F1&InNvlProgressivoLotto=0&InLotto=232

magana_manuel · Oct 22, 2024

Woops
I fully agree with all of this.

I agree mainly because I have held so many Tris from the mid 40s, fitted with so-called “60s service dials”, that felt coherent and legitimate and as though all parts of the watch came together on the same day. The lume and degradation and patina matches the hands and the case perfectly in so many of these watches. The suggested two decade gap between dial and watch has never been apparent in any of them.

I have also always felt that the service dial theory swerves some pretty big questions. Why make a service dial for just for one model and not, for example, the jumbo cased Tri? When were these dials actually manufactured? Buba suggested “around 60-70s” but I find that hard to believe. In this era UG was surely more preoccupied with trying to stay solvent by rapidly banging out new watches rather than making new parts for old client watches from twenty years prior. If these dials really were printed by UG in the 60s then surely the lume compound would be wildly different and the dials themselves a closer, trendier cousin to Clapton? Why do we see so many horrible 34.5mm Tri redials if service dials were mysteriously plentiful and abundant for this one specific case?

Personally, I find it far more plausible that a batch of dials were manufactured and fitted to Tri Compax 34.5mm models in the mid 40s that, for reasons we will probably never know, deviated from the accepted cliche and escaped quality control. I find them more precious for that fact, not less!

Very interesting points... Maybe we’re looking at the idea of service dials through too much of a modern lens. Instead of following strict replacement policies, UG might have simply used what was available to meet demand. This could explain the variations and lack of consistency we see today, but I guess we'll never know