Hi Guys

Been reading this thread with some interest as I’ve been given a 1st generation Polerouter Sub to review. Opened it this morning and have been comparing to the information here. All these photos taken under my microscope with the movement de-cased. As I work on a lot of vintage watches, I see a lot of dials from this period but only like to say they are original if I have the watch on my bench – never sure with photos but, I think these are good enough for the UG experts.

First off, the UG writing with even spacing on the Genève and proper serifs – looks spot on to me.


Here’s the Automatic and again, looks fine to me -sharp and with serifs – note it’s a different colour but same serifs as above. The colour change doesn't concern me based on this comment in this thread


And the Swiss text. Again, this looks absolutely fine to me.


The guy is thinking to sell and wants me to confirm all is well with the watch before committing himself. So far, I’ve only looked at some of it as there is a lot to read in this thread (that I haven't got completely through yet) and I’m fitting it in between other work. For me, this is definitely an original dial but, there are some variations (that I’m not showing) from what I'd expect with a 1st generation Sub. I’m taking it part by part as it may be a very early watch.

Any opinions are very welcome, thanks.

Cheers, Chris

 

Hi Chris, the text you show looks great! I would love to see the whole watch. Best regards, Eric Wind

 

I've owned four good original examples and still have hi-resolution photographs with which I've compared these.

The text above is entirely consistent with the text on the dials of my watches. I have owned examples where the Automatic text was in gold and others where the Automatic text was more silvery as above.

So based on my experience, I would have little doubt about the text above.

I note that you didn't include the Polerouter Sub text. I wondered whether that is because you are going to surprise us and tell us that the Polerouter Sub text is missing?

I would also love to see the rest of the watch.

 

Many thanks Guys for the really fast responses.

Yes, one difference is the missing "Polerouter Sub"... I just grabbed a few shots this morning but I'll try to take some more tomorrow (Sunday and I don't usually work). Before flooding you with questions and comments, I wanted to check the basic fonts.

By the way, this is an excellent thread.

Thanks again, Chris

 

Feeling quite smug that I saw that coming

The dial is unusual but that doesn't make it wrong. It does perhaps mean that I'd want to apply an even higher degree of scrutiny to other aspects of the watch before deciding it was original and correct.

I'd love to see the rest of the watch and in particular I would want to scrutinise the rest of the dial including the hour markers, the bezel, the crowns, the case and the case back (inside and out). It would be very helpful if the serial and case reference numbers were still present too.

 

I've come to the conclusion that it's this watch from last October. This guy enjoys the hunt more than the catch! By the way, he's not a member here but I'll point him to this thread later. I think these comments have really helped me @Mazoue , as well as the interest from @georgetownhoya

Having read this thread now, I can see why you want to see these aspects (my bold highlight). So, better photos of the whole watch - I'm not really working so will look at bezel and dial today and case tomorrow, sorry for that. There's a lot of info to take in here as well.

Whole watch:

Close up of dial and bezel all the ticks look original and equally spaced to me. Hands lume looks consistent with the dial lume.

So, we see full lume on the markers which is not typical for these but, seems to agree with this advert - thanks @Woops. Here are some close up microscope pictures of the lume. To me all of these look like typically aged radium from this period - a bit grainy and with "shrinkage"..






Moving on to the bezel, I usually look at the 40 marker as this seems to be where the font is most obviously correct or not. Microscope of the 40 but, through the crystal. This appears to be exactly the same (looking especially at the droop on the horizontal leg of the 4) as the one on @LaurentBxl watch shown here and others. That's a very nice watch by the way!


The tick marks on the bezel are sharp and well defined. Only the triangle is lumed which does seem odd. It's the same as the Tiffany watch which Lou thinks has a 1st generation bezel. This is definitely decades old lume but it seems to me that it may have been added a little later, as it has aged a little differently. I'm probably mistaken and it has just aged differently because it's in a different place on the watch...


At the moment, I believe there are no red flags with any of this information and it looks like another variation in these - it's possibly an early watch as the quality looks right to me, but your thoughts would be appreciated.

More tomorrow, case and back (there is a gap to lock in the screw thread...), crowns and so on.

Cheers, Chris

 

The possibility that an early version of this watch was not labeled "Polerouter" reminds me that I've always wondered why it was ever called a Polerouter in the first place.

 

From what you've shown us so far - This one is legit imho. I think @Mazoue assessment it could be a very early model based on the serial seems reasonable.

 

I'm not sure why it's called Polerouter either. That advert from @Woops I linked to says "Poleuroter" in the title but there is nothing on the dial, like this watch. I suppose it's to link across to the well known established model?

Thanks @jumpingsecond , I think the same.

Quick note as I'm gardening and will be in the bad books if I stand here typing on the phone ...

Cheers, Chris

 

Based on the 2,034,xxx serial number, this would make this watch the earliest known example and it would seem to be earlier than 1961, when the model was thought to have been introduced.

I've also not seen an example with drilled lugs before although this could have been done after the watch had left the factory.

I think we can be fairly confident that it is not one of the Australian fakes that we have seen in recent years. What is uncertain is whether it left the factory like this or whether it has been amended in some way.

The unusual aspects for me remain:
- On the bezel, only the triangle has been lumed
- The fully lumed hour markers
- The missing 'Polerouter Sub' text

In my opinion, the only possibly genuine example that displays any of these characteristics is the Tiffany's example (pictured below for convenience). That is perhaps where the similarities end though. The lume on the hour markers looks very different in texture and also the Tiffany's watch had a later 218-9 movement, which does not suggest it was a particularly early example (I don't know the serial number). I've not seen any other images of the Tiffany's watch and so couldn't comment on its originality.

 

It was presumably just for marketing reasons. The Polerouter had been a great success and UG were just using the Polerouter brand name to market a new variation - a dive watch. By this stage, they had already introduced the Polerouter De Luxe, Polerouter Date, Polerouter Jet and Polerouter Geneve.

 

I presume that about every product with a name that isn't purely descriptive! It's just so unlike every other Polerouter. Maybe if they'd had a prototype aboard the USS Nautilus in '58...

 

I know exactly what you are saying but it is a time only watch that uses a microtor movement so I suppose there are similarities even if it's a bit different aesthetically.

 

Hi Mazoue

Many thanks for your inputs, which are greatly appreciated. I'm finding this research interesting as I don't do a lot of it usually and have some thoughts to see what you think (and anyone else). Thanks in advance for any responses but, I'll put some case and back photos up when I'm back at the bench tomorrow if you prefer to comment then.

I see what you mean that this seems a bit early for this model but am sure this is the right case back. It's in the correct range for a calibre 215-9 but I see that the 2.0 to 2.1 million numbers are usually indicated as 1959. I know there is some leeway in those serial charts and that might be the reason for this so, I'll advise my customer to try contacting UG.

I thought these aspects were odd but, just sat down and finally found the @CafeRacer site which is easy if you click on his avatar... it is here for anyone wondering like I was - https://universalgenevepolerouter.com
He has a pair of adverts there at this link - both of these are missing the "Polerouter Sub" text on the dial although, the right hand one has it in big letters at the top of the page. I wonder if the first batches didn't have this writing as leaving it out would be a major omission from the advert for me.

There is also the comment in French beginning "La seule montre...". I translate this as "The only watch with a luminous index on a rotatable ring". For me, it says that there is only bezel lume on the triangle and not the low numbers as we would usually see. The illustrations certainly don't appear to show any lume on the numbers either. I'm inclined to revise my comment above about the bezel triangle lume possibly having been added later, as I now think it's original.

Neither of those adverts show the small lume dots but, that doesn't particularly surprise me. I understood from Lou's text that he regards the Tiffany watch as second generation and, as you point out, the lume is completely different so, I wouldn't read anything across from that. The full lume remains an anomaly at the moment - I wonder if the early batches had this variation and the missing "Polerouter Sub" text - I'll dig around but am not likely to find anything you won't have already seen.

Many thanks for your help with this - it's an interesting discussion. A few other things to do this afternoon/evening so I might miss any responses until much later.

Best regards, Chris

 

Mine has holes on the lugs. These are beautiful watches ! Installed dive band for a change.

 

Interesting. Thanks and a gorgeous watch.

Bit of an occupational hazard for me is wanting watches that pass across my bench - I'm lusting after two at the moment and this is one of them!

Cheers, Chris

 

Moving on to the next details for review as noted in bold here.

Crowns look good to me with the correct hatching style. No UG symbol on the upper one though and it's not significantly bigger like some of those above.


Drilled lugs as the @rolokr example above - this seems to be a valid variation and I think I've found another with drilled lugs.


Case has a quality finish but it's sixty years old so has some marks obviously... If it has been polished, it was lightly and decades ago so the slight blurring of the edges may just be wear.



Rear of case back and this also looks well finished plus has the case number 20369/1 and opposite that the serial 2034xxx. There is a very clear triangle on the case back and on the case (directly between the crowns and just about visible). It looks as if someone saw those triangles lined up and thought that indicated where to put a case knife to remove a snap back... There is a little damage to the case back there because of that.

Inside of case back and I reckon this is the same finish and symbol as these ones from @Mazoue . Note the extra ring marks so I suspect it has had rotor issues

But, you don't see a gap in the ring... It's very hard to see the gap in the photos of other watches but it seems to be there because in those cases the threaded portion of the case back is a separate piece, and it has a tang that fits in the slot, plus you should have a spring so that the case back is compressed against the case as that is part of the super compressor design. This one also has a separate screw ring and if we look in one area, we see this in the top left:

Zooming on on the top left and we see that it's not a gap on this case - it's a slot and it has a retained wire spring (green arrow) with the tang shown as a red arrow. This is a much nicer design than having a gap (if I understand those photos correctly) but far more expensive to make for both the case, screw ring, spring and the assembly. To me, this indicates that all the cases with a gap are after a "production easement" to save money and this is just an early case with a more expensive construction (but the same style and function of parts).

Well, I'm not sure there is much more I can show and it's been interesting to see some of these variations from the norm. Enjoying this investigation and I'll do some more, out of interest.

I looked again under the microscope and I can't see any indication of the small lume dots having been replaced so, as that's an outstanding question, I think the lume was full size on these early batches. Let's see if there are any other examples with full lume but with a correct dial, case, bezel etc (that is, not one of those Australian watches which this is clearly not).

Thanks for the help, Chris

 

Thanks Chris, it's been fascinating to explore the watch in the hands of a knowledgeable watchmaker.

In the absence of any definite red flags then your conclusion seems a very reasonable one i.e. that the watch is a very early example with some variations to what later became the norm. I'm glad I was able to help.

I think it is ironic that over a relatively short period the consensus has shifted from 'first execution' dials having the lume dots and 'second execution' dials having fully lumed hour markers, to the belief that very early models may have had fully lumed markers and the later genuine examples had lume dots.

 

Thanks to you @Mazoue - you've been a huge help with this from your comments plus your (and others) posts in this thread. If your watchmaker happens to have one of your watches open and can show how that case back gap is working, I'd be interested.

I am wondering if the guy in Australia copied an early watch when doing the lume... I'd struggle to do those little dots myself if I was re-luming but I know a man who could do them with one eye closed, so it wouldn't put me off if I was making those dials (I'm not, promise!). Still looking to see if I can dig anything else up about the lume and I'll hang on to the watch for a couple of days more, in case anyone thinks of anything else.

Cheers, Chris

 

Hi guys!
I just finished to read this very interesting discussion, but there are things that are not so clear to me.
I have seen this piece on auction in Catawiki:

https://aste.catawiki.it/kavels/23539105-universal-gen-ve-super-compressor-uomo-1960-1969?

And I am not sure about it. I mean, watch appears to be relumed - this is quite clear - and dial appears to be an "Australian" one.
But what about the perlage finish of the caseback? And case appears to be in good health, with not "black signs" on the lugs. Movement is a 215-2.

What do you think guys? Thank you for your help.

Some pics: