Nice UG on chronocentric... What's the consensus on "prototypes"?

Posts
50
Likes
74
Good day!

The chronograph is completely original.

The combination of hands and indexes is rare, but used and conforms to the standards.

The mirror indexes were often combined with light steel balls.

The watch is from the '40s ((Serial estimated from 1,000,000 to 1,200,000)

No matter the compur or unicompax issue.

Correct caliber 283 (both 281 and 283 were assembled)

It would be interesting to look for the number of movement on the dial side.

Even the bridged bridge leads to no sooner than '46 -'47

Universal case already looks at other tricompax or compax models

Unfortunately you have forgotten to serialize it.

Impressions, interesting reference.

Sorry for the usual automatic translation

If there is anything not understandable, please translate

Ciao Dean!

Alberto
 
Posts
13,078
Likes
52,060
Case closed. Buy with confidence!
 
Posts
976
Likes
3,090
I am actually considering this purchase and I was about to create a post to ask about this watch until I saw that OP has started it.

The seller provided me with photos of the photos and there is no serial number on it as well.

Are there any other explanations as to why it wouldn't have a serial number on movement/case if it is not a prototype? It is a calibre 283 on the photo he sent me.

I'm not sure if I will be violating any copyright or privacy laws if I post the photo he sent me? lmk if I can post it and I'll happily do so.

Are you happy with your purchase Craigven ? 😀 I already miss this watch 🙄
 
Posts
626
Likes
844
Are you happy with your purchase Craigven ? 😀 I already miss this watch 🙄
trying to figure out how to fit a strap on...