I have a Compax with thin round pushers (without ends!) and a 3 digit case back code (144)

Does anyone have any info on this please?

I suspect the back is original as I have a spare 287 Tricompax case, which should be the same size and its back both doesnt fit and mis-matches the size by a noticeable few thousanths of an inc.

I assume the 287 and 285 cases were the same size, the difference being only in the height of the case having to accommodate the extra module(s)?

Did Universal ever make experimental or prototype items (without finished or formal markings) that got onto the market that might account for this unusual 144 number?

 

Are you able to supply a few photos of the watch in question?

 

Sorry for delay in this, I have been away.

Here are some more pics of the case. To me everything looks original. The case retaining screws look correctly positioned, the back fits properly, the corrosion on the enversteel back looks exactly like the corrosion on many Universal cars I have had. Im not sure I should be looking for another case!

But there's that enigmatic three number case ID number?

 

my first question would be............are there any UG markings on the inside caseback? Can you supply a pic of the interior caseback?

 

No, that is why I am trying to show that the back is original to the watch. There are no case back markings and it would have to take a truly massive coincidence for someone to have found an exact match with the size and type of metal from someone's parts stock. Where this case doesnt seem to be an exact match in size with a 287 back.

 

I see. Huh that's gonna be tough I think. I guess the entire case is in question. I tend to lean towards the obvious, if you have a caseback with no markings, and odd pushers that don't look UG, it's probably not UG. Have you been able to match the case style with a known reference? Even that can be near impossible just based on pics, unless it's an incredibly distinctive case style.

Also your assumptions about the case size in regards to caliber are incorrect, cases with 285 are not normally the same size as cases with 287, and even more inconsistently, cases within the same caliber will also not have the same size as one another. In short, there is virtually no consistently whatsoever with anything UG, which is part of the fun. (Once you get a bit later like the 60s there's a bit more standardization).

 

Here is what I have so far: An assumption that case sizes are reasonably uniform within models. Without that uniformity, no manufacturer could make spare parts for their watches, especially steel watches.

I dont expect uniformity between different designs but this 285 watch is roughly the same vintage as the 287. And as far as I have been able to research, the first round pusher (Uni)compaxes did have those sharp pushers without the end-pieces.

Still, it would be nice to find a 285 back with proper markings and no corrosion. Yes, my spare 287 back does have the usual corrosion.

But you dont seem as convinced as I am that the case is original to the movement, - from my shots?

 

I'm not precisely sure what you mean when you talk about case sizes but the calibres themselves are different diameters. The 285 is 14''', Dm= 31.7mm and the 287 is 15''', Dm= 33.2mm.

http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-db.cgi?10&ranfft&&2uswk&Universal_285
http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-db.cgi?10&ranfft&&2uswk&Universal_287

Some more pictures of the complete watch rather than macro shots of bits of it would also be more helpful.

 

Regarding the case, would need to see photos, especially the front, and sides, and lugs, not just the few detail shots. We also haven't seen the dial and hands yet either.

All we can assume so far is it's a UG cal 285 mvmt.

As to the rest I'm not really understanding your language, it's not specific enough. By 285 being the same vintage as 287, what do you mean? If you had to make broad generalizations between things, the 281/283 will be in smaller cases, the 285 in medium cases, and the 287 in larger cases. But even within the same caliber you will find significant variation between case references.

So you can't just say you are going to find a "285" back, and expect it will fit all cases with a 285. There's no such thing as a 285 back. All you can say is you will find a case back that will fit a certain case reference, and it is unknown the interchangeability of that case back with any other case references, regardless of the caliber used. Same with pushers, correctors, hands, all that stuff. I can't tell you how difficult it can be to find the correct part, even when you think it should all work out, it rarely does. I'm not suggesting it never does, but just that it usually doesn't, at least in my experience.

 

Yes, I'll bet you are right there: Probably a good thing I didnt pay too much for it!

Some people did like it, - see https://omegaforums.net/threads/universal-chronograph-pusher-variants.10468/#post-1248150

 

Since it's a redial, incorrect hands, unknown case/caseback, and unusual pushers, odds are it's probably just franken, not an experimental/prototype. I don't think it makes any sense to put money into it, a different caseback certainly won't make any difference IMO. If you like it, just enjoy it for what it is and don't worry about swapping stuff out, that's my vote.

 

So your takeaway from all the detail in those photos is that someone has done a gigantic amount of work to fit a Universal 285 into a non-UG case and managed to get everything to fit and get all the screws etc to look right and work properly? But that if the hands may not be right and the back is unmarked, it probably isnt worthwhile finding a fitting UG back and hands? (I have a similar vintage 18ct unicompax 285 at my repairer at the moment, I should probably wait and see if that back does actually fit)

 

Yep they do look like they are parts put together.

 

Yes