Late Aero-Compax typology

Dear OF friend,

thanks for your further investigations. The fact that there were some Ref. 890101/01 with this set up make it more reasonable that this was a special offer for that ref. by UG. But the dial and handset configuration still does not match the watch and dial design of the 890101/01. IMO it is not possible to read the watch for an third party and the day/night design of the dial doesn´t match the silver only 24 hours bezel by contrast of the (black and white) bezel of the Ref. 890100/01. So this "special" versions of the Ref. 890101/01 still make no sence to me.

May be, there will be some more informations about that Myth some day ...

Best Hajo

I agree with Hajo (chronoboy64) and still remain of my opinion.
These dials were prototypes, there are quite a few out-there still waiting to find a watch to be mounted on, I have seen them myself and the "right" watch to be mounted on would be a Ref 890100/01. The reason why you usually see them mounted on Ref 890101/01 is because it is slightly more common than reference 890100/01 (even though they are both rare and both have been produced in a close serial numbers range respectively). The old style logo does not make any sense as that alone would be a massive anomaly in the UG line up at the time the Ref 890101/01 was around. And the point regarding the matching day/night bezel as well as the length of the sub-dials hands.

Hi @Mlafra - This is intriguing to me. Do you have any hard proof or are you just speculating based on what you think/feel should be right for the manufacturer's designs?
Anyway to explain the close range of serial # in the examples I've seen and the 1 minute counting movement function matching the day/night dial's 3'o'clock subdial which you initially thought would be the major indicator to prove your line of thought?

The old applied logo was still around in the 60's no? Why would that be such a dramatic anomaly?

Basically you are saying whoever installed the day/night dial on these serials (all within close range of each other) also modified the movement to count 1 minute ticks instead of 30 sec ticks. So a guy got a hold of a number of them within a close Serial range of 2583xxx and then mounted these day/night dials and modified the movements and brought them to market. I think that is what you're saying but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Any other members with thoughts and more importantly facts please chime in. One of the draws to the brand is the mystery, not everything is cut and dry, and debating them is part of the fun.

*edit - member contacted me and said he didn't understand our discussion re. the movement and 3 O'clock subdial differences on the references so added a photo explanation:

Greetings UG nuts-
I did some more homework and I appreciate the members who have helped me dig into this so far and also apologize to @Mlafra if my last post sounded sarcastic - wasn't intended I just get excited with the investigation.

1st Update-
I made a mistake - I put the 1st Day/ Night dial shown very early in this thread back when it started in 2014 within serial range of the 3 others that I mentioned (mine, sothebys and Bernadini) but that one is a 2538xxx not a 2583xxx so about 5 thousand off the other 3 examples.

Also confirmed by the owner of that watch that it does not function in accordance to its day/night dial- its chrono counts to 15 minutes in 30 second increments - the same way the all white dial 890100s and 890101s were designed and not the way it should given the Day/Night dial presently mounted. Possibly this is one of the watches that have added confusion to the day/nights by throwing people off and giving credence to doubts...

2nd point- I was able to confirm that the Sotheby day/night watch's movement was marked for US import. So mine, Sotheby and Bernadini - all less than 100 digits serial range (mine and Sotheby within 10 of each other) - were all 3 marked for US import. That's important because its possible this day/night version was only distributed to the US.

Here is also what Sotheby said of the watch they sold:
"This was either a full on prototype made in a small number, or simply a variation (also made in small numbers and possibly only for the American market)."

3rd- I reached out to Sala showing him my watch, and it's ref/ serial and asked him A) Has he ever seen one before and is it a legit variant or a transplant/franken from the all white dials 890101s.
His response:
"About your question, I can say that the typology of your dial I had already seen on a serial 25837XX refs. 890101/01.
Then if the quoted serial is 2583xxx, I would say that it holds up the varying dial, and also the white and black fanlights...etc...I don't have anymore deepened the matter....because I don't was interested in these typology of production."

My guess was he was using google translate but either way- he's seen one before and his considerations clear. It is now the 4th day night dial with serial 2583xxx.

I also reached out to Universal asking them if they had any advertising or any kind of documentation really that would shed light on the difference of this day/night ref from its white dial brethren and they came back with a standard archival report that is a an emphasized fwiw which isn't much but I'll keep the data recorded. The main thing of interest is the Date of manufacture: 1967. I have seen Nina's with that manufacture date and the applied logo.

I also see the other points members have made re. the watch and its idiosyncrasies/mysterious origins. It all brings me to what styggpyggeno1 said in another thread once that stuck with me: "For me it often comes down to probability x execution x price/"who would gain" math"
Yes the hands are inconsistent, and the records extremely limited, but for someone to have snapped up a handful of these watches, the ones investigated in very good shape and within short serial range of one another- take the risk of removing the perfectly beautiful white dial, adding a day/night dial, then modifying the movement to match the new dial's counter, then bring it into market- seems like a very big and difficult risk to take. Its not like the white dial ones are going cheap. Couple that with Universal's known penchant for the inconstant re. their dials, handsets, case combos, etc.- that logic just doesn't add up for me. I think it's more reasonable that some people have been transplanting these day nights into legit all white dial 890101s and that is where the confusion and doubt has come in- for the very few legit day/nights that are around

Sala had one more tidbit for me that I'll paraphrase because the translate was screwed up:
"However this period has been a particular period for Universal, if you agree, infact in this period anything could have happened....."

I think in the end- whether this confirms or doesn't for you, this is the best part of this hobby. You either will believe or you won't and this is what makes the brand awesome for me. My theory is the simplest of all. Universal would've been dumb af not to use this dial once it was made because it's just too damn pretty.

It's fascinating to look at Universal Geneve in context of its time as a business and not through the lens of today's manufacturing habits. 60's was crazy for them- early 60's they lost the Pont Martel factory. Then in 67 they were acquired by the Bulova Group. All the while UG scrambling to catch up with their rising demand and popularity, slapdashing creations together from crates. Bulova with space aspirations- trying to become what Omega became. But in 65 Bulova was rejected by Nasa. These 2583xxx's have a 1967 production date according to UG. Maybe Bulova's influence to try and trump up a space looking flight watch or maybe UG exhausting their coffers of all their supplies before packing up and heading off under new ownership. Or maybe some asshole stole a crate of these dials, held them for a good long while, and then started methodically placing them into the 890101 cases. The more I learn of UG- nothing is out of the world of possibilities.

Bringing up this old, but hopefully not dead thread:

I love this wonderful day/night dial and I am collecting every bit of information I can get a hand on. Too bad that Mr. Sala is not interested in these models, but it has been a nice Email communication with him, nevertheless.

I did not expect to find most of the information about this specific UG dial in the Omegaforums, but hey - we are not narrow sighted, right?
There is a chance for me to buy a nice 890101/01 with the Bat dial in a good condition. Knowing that there is no final answers about the original provenance of this dial, but two things make me think about it:
First of all, there's the Reference number. /01 means that it should be a white dial, but obviously it is black and white.
And second, there's the minute counter at 3 o'clock: The dial has the 30 minutes counter, but the clockwork is counting in 15 minutes. Obviously, no changes have been done to the clockwork to fit this dial.

Any thoughts about the chance that we are not talking about a Franken watch?
And is there e valid chance to buy an original white dial with matching hands to revert it to it's as-delivered condition, just in case?


Regards
Andreas

Adding an additional pic from the clockwork, as I somehow can't edit my previous posting.
How do I identify charges for the US market?

Regards
Andreas

You have already answered your question imo..Still a nice looking watch but it will be hard to convince a buyer if you wanted to re-sell it later..

Fantastic thread!

Have been looking at the “ying-yang” aero compax for a little while - not sure I quite understand all the subtleties about the jumping sub-dials. From what I gather (and maybe I read it wrong), is there any definitive proof of what a “correct” 890101/01 should look like?

I was looking at this one thats up for sale from a dealer down in Florida:


I’m concerned about three things looking at this particular watch:
- which subdial hand combination set is correct? Thin black as seen here, or the fatter lumed black hands, like on the similar all white version?
- the hour and minutes hands are black + lume but ive seen on other versions silver, black and lume hands (much prettier imo). Which one is original? Which one isnt? Based on convos in this thread it looks to me like nobody really knows.
- should i ask if the subdial jumps in 15 second increments, or 30 seconds - to determine if this is not a readaptation of the white dial version?

to me it looks like this could be someone who bought the similar white dial version for $3k-5k, bought the yinyang dial and bezel on ebay (there are some currently available for cheap), and then is reselling it as a $12k watch.

in advance, thank you for your comments!

It does indeed look as if there is not much in-depth expertise on this very special model.

Most watches have the "thick" hands on the totalisers, just like the model with the white dial, the 890100/01. The narrow hands of the totalisers and hour & minute with the small amount of tritium are probably the big exception. I've rarely seen them.
Do not forget: Many watches from that time have minimal deviations from the factory, they were simply produced using what was available or on stock. Or maybe a watchmaker used available hands during a revision.

The equally rare model 890100/01 is not really much cheaper than the even rarer model 890101/01, so a counterfeit would hardly be worthwhile. Especially as the feature 15 minutes vs. 30 minutes makes it easy to differentiate.
So, ask the seller about it.

Thank you good sir, much appreciated.

You're welcome.

This thread is the best source of information about the UG I've found so far 😉