Hey @LouS, while I agree that the other thread has run its course, I think the watch in question deserves a little more time. (Quoting @Diabolik): "Wrong hands The hands on watch do not correspond with a second gen polerouter sub but a first gen. Wrong case back Case back shows a reference 204615/11A. That is not a polerouter sub reference. The serial number of 2363903 places the watch around 1965. Polerouter sub references are: 20369 (early 1st gen) and later refs 869109-01, 869116, 869120 (2nd gen 1st and 2nd exec) I also have doubts on dial as it does not show polerouter sub and looks to have been relumed. Tritium dials age in a different way especially if they are kept in dark. That lume looks like luminova and very recent. The bracelet is a late 50's early 60s bracelet (can be determined by numbering inside clasp) and definitely not a mid 60s so earlier than when this particular model hit the market. Bracelet end links are too small for polerouter sub lugs (18mm?). Polerouter sub models were not sold with that bracelet type, they were sold with the diver bracelet which has a secure clasp. I would like to compare date code with watch case back (however, i think that is also wrong so we have very little to go on). I have never seen a polerouter sub dial produced in the mid sixties looking like that. One could say it is a transitional but by 1965 (going by serial number) the polerouter sub reference was well established so unlikely. Additionally, it looks like the bezel is untouched. I will leave it to the forum to decide. However, in my eyes, it does not look right and I would not consider it to be original. I have a gut feeling that watch is made up. I would like to see warranty as that usually has the serial number and reference recorded. I will hold back judgement until I have seen the warranty card." (End quote) I am not as suspicious of this watch. 204615/1 IS an early 2nd gen Polerouter Sub reference number (french speakers, any ideas as to what TA stands for?) and the bracelet is correct for this reference as well - any interested parties should get confirmation from the seller that the dates of the bracelet and caseback match. Here is another example of a 204615/1: Regarding the dial and hands, I have a healthy suspicion of the presence of any parts I haven't seen before or claims made by sellers without proof or thorough research, but it is fair to say that with the information at hand, it is not possible to refute the claims either. I have never seen first gen hands on a second gen Sub nor have I seen a Sub dial without the model name, but those two practices aren't uncommon occurrences in the UG repertoire. In fact, I have seen original finish Compax/Tri-Compax and other Polerouter dials without the model name, and the usage of hands are fairly free-flowing in between references. Again, interested parties should inquire about lume shots, but while I have been critical of Menta in the past, I am cautiously optimistic that this watch is an honest example. However, as is the case with most NOS tags, it is not justified here. Although the watch has been preserved in excellent condition, there are signs of wear especially on the caseback and the winding stem appears to be bent (and would possibly need to be replaced). Jordan
Thank you Jordn, I stand corrected. In view of the example shown, it could well be a very rare execution. I am at odds with serial as it is only slightly earlier serial (23639XX to 23641XX so only 100-200 or so apart) yet dial shows significant differences. Polerouter sub reference started at 20XXXX. However, hand set from earlier sub would fit (hole diameters are the same). As stated, although never seen before, it is not inconceivable that transitioning from the earlier first generation sub, hands and dial may have been adopted in 2nd generation subs. That would make it a very rare sub. In view of information that has come about, I think I am guilty of "jumping the gun" ... but will take this to the experts and further investigate as I still have some doubts.
From another forum member ... The TA that follows reference is the bracelet code. Between 62 and 63, it was quite a mess at UG so difficult to find specific info. After 63, we find TP, TPS, TR but no TA TP = Type Polerouter TPS = Type Polerouter Sub TR = Type Railrouter TA = Not sure but maybe Type Automatic (in which case any automatic watch could have the same bracelet) What is confusing is a serial which dates the watch at 1964-65. Is something wrong with serial numbers and how they are mapped to production dates? The model shown in thread by jordn also has another intruiguing difference; the round date magnifier. Being a later watch according to serial number and reference, implies that the crystal on the Menta Sub was replaced as the trapezoidal date magnifier was introduced after the round date magnifier.
Even if I'm not an expert, I'm a witness that in the UG Polerouter Sub family you can find pretty unique configurations. Unfortunately I think we will never know if they are all original unless finding one from the first owner to get the watch full history Here is my Sub second generation - circa 1965 - with orange hands from the asymetrical case version :
Hello all. I just purchased a sub that is similar to the one in question. it is not as clean as the one above, but it does have a first generation set of hands, a universal Genève dial without the "polerouter SUB" it has the correct reference number on the screw back case, the serial number dates it back to the first 50 produced in 1966 based on universal Genève serial numbers. The watch is at my watchmakers shop and I will share pictures as soon as I get it back. The watch has the Cal. 69 movement, the original crystal with the U engraved in the center and the internal trapezoid magnification. the major downfall is that the original crown has been replaced.
Serial points to 64-65. I look forward to seeing another one which would certainly add credence that this rare execution was produced in the 60s. Please post images.
I should have it back by next week. I will post pictures from all angles and would appreciate the feedback. How rare would it be? would it be only the 2nd ever seen?
non-taken, I purchased the watch on oct. 28th from a gentlemen who claimed that the watch was purchase by his father around 1970 in St. Thomas. I actually purchased two watches, the other being an omega memomatic and he claimed that his father bought both watches at the same time and that they were given to him in 1981. I paid a total of 1200.00 for both watches, keep in mind that I did not know much about polerouter subs at the time but since have learned quit a bit from this forum.
Yes, It would be. I, and many of the people I have mentioned and shown it to, have never seen one like that before. Unfortunately Sala could not confirm the existence of this particular variant as it is not within the sphere of his speciality. I have another guru searching the archives and so far it has been a real challenge proving or disproving originality. The TA has been explained though and it seems to disappear completely from case backs after 1963. It is related to the bracelet that matches case. Pics, serial number and reference of another would help so we eagerly await documentary evidence (in the form of pics) of the second Polerouter Sub with the above mentioned characteristics. One possibility is that it was a model destined for the US market ....
There is another possibility ... As the trade name for Polerouter Sub was well established at the time (1st gen), it could be that they are not Subs. The the dial configuration may have been adopted later for the Sub. That would explain the differences. A pic of crown and crown tube would prove that (subs have a special crown and crown tube configuration). Regardless, they would be a rare find and potentially worth a premium to a collector ...
can anyone tell me on this thread, why there is a difference between the watch on the 3rd & 7th picture? the difference being the rotating bezel numbering is backwards on one compared to the other?
@FREDMAYCOIN - We've seen both bezels before. I'm only a desk diver but presumably one type of bezel would be used to show you how long you have been diving and the other would show you how long you have left e.g. until the air in your tanks runs out or until you have completed your decompression. The other difference between the two watches you refer to is that the watch in the 7th picture has hands that are more commonly seen on the other second generation Polerouter Sub variant with rectangular lume plots for indices rather than the art deco style numerals.
here are a couple of pictures (bad qualify) of the watch. the watch is still at my watchmaker and will update with better high resolution photos when it is returned. this is to keep the conversation rolling.
Not great images and eagerly await hi-defs of case back (serial and reference), front and sides. However, one thing is clear; definitely not the same 1st gen handset. Dial looks identical apart from dots. Menta's dial shows (from what I can see but cant confirm) a dome profile with a light greenish tint (luminova usually has that shade of pastel green) while yours are pretty much white and same as hour indices.