Please advise whether this triple is a Compax

jumpingsecond · Feb 12, 2024

F Frontfloater

Finally, " I do not know for sure" is the truth about the dial. No-one here knows for sure, and I certainly don't.

ROB

Rob I hear you. We can be a prickly bunch especially when we get hit and run type questions and we parse out knowledge developed over years of experience but you're right its a bunch of fuckin old watches at the end of the day and nobody needs to guard their knowledge like its gold in Fort Knox.

Having said that I can 100% say for sure the watch in question is a redial.

redpcar · Feb 12, 2024

A prickly bunch indeed. 😉
At least you started the auction lower (value of the parts, in my opinion) and not the typical flipper's $4K buy it now.
I'll be watching for the outcome
🍿

Davidt · Feb 13, 2024

This is the line people are taking issue with;

It has been suggested to me that the watch is a Compax but with a non-original dial, due to the absence of any model name, but I do not know for sure.

Whether intentional or not, the language; “suggested” and “do not know for sure” is soft and a non expert buyer could well infer that there’s a reasonable chance the dial is correct. We know it isn’t.

This is seen frequently with redials where sellers use language like “original dial, professionally refreshed” They know it’s been redialed, but dancing around the subject leaves unsuspecting buyers exposed. These same buyers then join Omega Forums to show off their new watch and we have to tell them it’s been redialed.

Syrte · Feb 13, 2024

thanks to @Mark020 posting the case pictures, we also know the case has heavy pitting— which to me also disqualifies the case. Even if the dial were original it would be a hard pass for me.

Syrte · Feb 13, 2024

F Frontfloater
I have this Universal triple chronograph with cal. 285 movement. All the other triples I can see on Ebay have dials identifying them as a variant of the Compax ; but mine has no words on the dial other than "Universal Geneve". The dial's patina suggests that it is original.

The case has steel sidewalls and back but solid gold bezel and lugs. The numbers engraved on the back are 8-61351 and 22464. I know from reading information here that the latter number correctly indicates a steel cased chronograph with cal. 285 movement, case style 64.

I would estimate that it was made around late 40s or early 50s, so it doesn't seem to pre-date Universal's use of the Compax name. Could someone please advise whether it is in fact a variant Compax, or any other designation which I can use when selling? I don't want to misdescribe it. Any info about relative rarity would also be useful.

Sorry for the poor image - it has a dark copper dial which is quite hard to photograph.

Thanks for any help,
ROB

Ron_W · Feb 13, 2024

Maybe the mod`s can add the case number + cal 285 in the title here so prospective buyers that Google for this reference, unfamiliar with the existence of OF maybe 🤔 , can find the facts about this watch ? Could even be made into standard practice for inquiries such as these.

and @Frontfloater , if you have the ethics to mention this in your add ; Please note that I will not declare a false Customs value - doing so is a crime.
Surely you wont mind to apply the same standard to describing your watch as having a fake dial or redial ? Now that you know i mean. I think it is also required by Ebay regulations ?

Mark020 · Feb 13, 2024

100% redial. I have this stuff a mouseclick away 😁 But I don't feel that motivated to share it with people who only come here to take (and never give).

Frontfloater · Feb 13, 2024

To put that "Googlable" accusation into fairer and more accurate terms : I took a faulty & incomplete vintage watch and spent a lot of money on parts & professional work to turn it into a functioning item with perfect timekeeping which can now be worn & enjoyed for many years to come. I described it in detail with a clear alert that it may have a non-original dial, with two large close-up photos of that dial at different angles, so that potential buyers can judge it for themselves. My starting-price is a fraction of some other listings of a working Compax, and not much more than others are asking for a movement only.

It should be obvious that if I had wanted to mislead, I would have claimed that the dial is original. I have never misdexcribed any item on Ebay, and my exemplary feedback record - including several other vintage watches - clearly shows that. Unfortunately some people here seem determined to disregard all that and be a hater.

It should also be clear, to anyone who puts some thought into it, that if every watch which ever had any replacement part in the past 100 years was removed from the market or broken up for parts as some here advocate, there would be VERY few remaining watches out there for any of you to buy. Some vintage watch fans might have celebrated the re-commissioning of a non-runner into a wearable and accurate watch. Sadly, not here ...

ROB

Mark020 · Feb 13, 2024

It does not may have a redial: it has one

Frontfloater · Feb 13, 2024

To be clear - my Ebay description says "with a non-original dial".

The wording tells people that it MAY be a Compax
(and)
WITH a non-original dial.

It does not say that it IS a Compax which MAY have a non-original dial.

That is an important distinction.

ROB

Dan S · Feb 13, 2024

OP, this would be a good time to remember the first law of holes: "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."

TexOmega · Feb 13, 2024

When it takes a paragraph to obfuscate when 4 words are needed…..”it is a redial”, I move on quickly to the next auction.

Ohmeguh · Feb 13, 2024

If you had to guess what percentage of watchers are from this forum? My guess >50%. 🍿

Frontfloater · Feb 13, 2024

Nonsense - I am not in any hole, and I have done nothing wrong. But if some people here are going to behave like "keyboard warriors" and sling mud, I will respond and defend myself. Some of the behaviour here has verged on bullying, but if you expect me to roll over and play dead doggie, think again.

" I move on quickly to the next auction.". Great ! I would expect nothing else. If people don't like it, nobody's twisting their arm to bid.

Say, did anyone spot that 100% positive feedback in all this rumpus? Oh my, I must be SUCH a bad seller ....

ROB

Bruce235 · Feb 13, 2024

Davidt
It has been suggested to me that the watch is a Compax but with a non-original dial, due to the absence of any model name, but I do not know for sure.
.

OP
You write like a very intelligent person. Perhaps your wordsmithing got away from you in the contorted sentence in your ebay sentence. How about editing to:
"The dial is non-original. The watch model may be a Compax, but I am unsure because of the altered dial."

Mark020 · Feb 13, 2024

Bruce235
OP
You write like a very intelligent person.

If he would have added ‘as is, where is’ I’d have thought he was a lawyer

Dan S · Feb 13, 2024

Bruce235
OP
You write like a very intelligent person. Perhaps your wordsmithing got away from you in the contorted sentence in your ebay sentence. How about editing to:
"The dial is non-original. The watch model may be a Compax, but I am unsure because of the altered dial."

Actually, it's fine as it is, IMO. Such obvious BS should be an clear red flag.

However, given that the OP appears to be about 14 years old, based on his constant whining and grievances, I do agree that he writes pretty well.

gatorcpa · Feb 13, 2024

OK people. Let’s stop the petty swiping.

The bottom line is that the collective is not afraid of your description, @Frontfloater. The issue here is what happens when your buyer decides to become a seller. If you are not clear in your description, how can anyone expect the next seller to be clear, when all they have is your less than explicit information? Especially when you have been given the truth about the dial.

On the other hand, I do appreciate the fact that you were able to rescue a watch that was left for the parts bin.

Hope this helps both sides.
gatorcpa

TexOmega · Feb 13, 2024

Always be thinkin' out there people!

Frontfloater · Feb 13, 2024

Bruce235 - your suggested alternative wording would involve me saying twice, that as a fact the dial is non-original ; when I do not know that for certain. The only people who know for certain what has happened to this watch in the past are the previous owners, and the watchmakers who worked on it. Everything that people have written here is opinion, not fact or truth. That, again, is an important distinction.

And even among those whose opinions say the dial is not correct, there hasn't been any consensus about whether it has the original dial which has been repainted, or a complete replacement dial. So I'm certainly not going to talk down my own watch when no-one knows for sure what the situation is.

I have alerted people that it may be wrong ; I have provided clear, close-up photos ; and my description also says "Please ask any questions before bidding". That is certainly enough for any potential bidders to be able to educate themselves about this item.

Gatorcpa asks what the next owner will do in the event of a future sale. If he keeps the watch as it stands now, he can say the same as I did. If he doesn't like the dial and swops it for another, he will say that. There really is no dilemma involved there.

ROB