Please advise whether this triple is a Compax

Dear Rob @Frontfloater ,
since it was me who put this comment here as a reaction to the wording in your ad, let me explain a little. You have asked your questions about a watch. And you got the answers. People here on the forum have done some research for you and have shown you how the watch should look and have proven that the watch you have was a redial. Many watches are redials, there is no problem with that, nothing to be ashamed of, as long as it is transparently declared and their price in case of sale adjusted accordingly. You have decided to sell the watch instead of looking for an original dial (which would increase the value of your watch maybe 5-10x). Fair enough. No problem with that either.
But in your eBay advert you do not declare transparently that the watch has a non-original dial / redial. You use wording that suggests that the dial "might be" original: "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."
What I read is: "a random guy I met in the street said that maybe the dial was not original (to some unknown extent), I don´t really believe him and don´t care what he sais, I still think it´s good, but so that no one can ever complain I include some minor level of uncertainty in the description". Why such a complicated wording for a thing that is so simple?

Fortunately, with this particular watch, we do KNOW FOR SURE the dial of your watch is reprinted.
(sure, there are UG watches where the debate about originality of the dial can last for ever... but this is not the case 😀)

Best,
Martin

Thanks, Martin, for your explanation. I accept that you and others believe strongly that you know what happened to my watch ; but it still comes down to the difference between belief and knowledge. As I said before, the only people who truly know are those who owned & worked on the watch ; plus, it now occurs to me, Universal who made it (see below).

And there is still no clarity about whether folks here think it is a complete replacement dial (which is what I would normally understand "redial" to mean) or the original dial which was repainted. If the latter, I have one last question - why would someone go to the trouble of repainting all the rest of the very complicated markings - but then omit the simple 6 characters saying "Compax" ? Arguably the model name is the second most important part of the design to replicate. That seems to make no sense at all. Why only do 99% of the job?

But we are going round in circles here, and I don't see the point of debating further. Everyone has had their say - some with better manners than others - and I'm done for the present. If the watch sells, I will ask the buyer if he has an opinion about it. Everyone here seems to be assuming it could sell to an ignorant doofus who won't know what he's buying ; but it is equally possible that the buyer could know exactly what the watch is, and what it may or may not need to be returned to period-correct. He may even know more than those here.

If it does not sell, UG's website mentions a Heritage Team - who should be able to advise me. I undertake to refer the watch to them, and to post here exactly what they say. Hopefully that will go some way to appeasing those who feel I have taken but not given. The UG webform unhelpfully doesn't allow me to upload photos, but hopefully they will respond by e-mail and I can then send some.

ROB

“The copper coloured dial is marked "Universal Geneve" and has a tachymeter scale around the outside. It appears to be old, and has several patina spots. Universal's triple chronographs were usually branded as variants of "Compax" but this dial is not. 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.”
I can’t see any mention of the word “redial “ in your eBay description. I think after all the expert opinions you have been given, this is something that you should include for total clarity.

Have you seen one with numbers overprinted? 6 on the sub over 30.

I believe in karma so my good deed today was to save a baby mouse I found trotting along a corridor in my office building. I placed my empty coffee cup on its path while 4 big guys from various maintenance departments were standing petrified, and voila.
Baby mouse was off to a new life in the bushes next door. Karma’s a bitch.

Please let this ridiculous thread die

The book may already exist in part. 😀
And a colleague suggested this evoked the film Ratatouille.

It sold!