The serial number dates it from 1941-1942 and it has a 262 movement. I have not found a similar one anywhere on the internet. It appears to have been refinished (you can faintly see the top of the "6" in the sub-second dial) and everything else is super crisp. The dot in the sub-second hand almost appears intentional, as it is perfectly centered. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

 

horrible ...

However, all is not lost. dials come up every now and then on the Bay so could be the foundation for a nice sub second UG!

 

I can't say that has a lot going for it - or indeed anything. The tip about loose dials might come good but remember, unless there's a movement attached to it, you may never find out what calibre it's for. Obviously trial and error is fine as long as you don't mind picking up a collection of loose dials along the way.

 

The case number is 21259. Funny, all my watch friends seem to love this one. Other than the fact that it might be a completely new creation, what is so "horrible" about this watch? I've heard nothing but praise from everyone who sees it and I quite like it myself.

 

By the way that top of the 6 is really only visible at close range or in a photo like that, nearly impossible to see with the naked eye.

 

The only thing I can add to that is that old saying ....

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (or in your case beholders).

In your post, you asked for help; what sort of help were you expecting?

 

Any kind of identification, not necessarily a judgement. I *did* think it was peculiar that I couldn't find an exact match.

 

But I understand. I collect late 50's-early 60's Constellation Pie Pans and even the most true-to-the-original refinishings I've seen kind of turn me off.

 

Could 116934 be the case number? The watchmaker gave me this number in case I ever wanted to do further research into the watch.

 

But again, what is so "horrible?" I am asking honestly because I am not familiar with UGs. Is this dial completely apocryphal? Is it just a bad attempt at re-making an existing dial design? Without any details your statement is somewhat meaningless to me. Please explain.

 

So here is a photo of the back of the case. When I asked if he knew more about it (it came from a local estate, was serviced at the shop, and that's all). He assumed it was from the late 50's, although that serial number places it at 1941-1942. Then he wrote down the numbers "116934" and "262" (the movement) for me to do further research.

 

When, in your own words, "you can faintly see the top of the "6" in the sub-second dial", what should be the apropriate word to describe it?

 

Faint things tend not to be "horrible," usually, but if you insist. I did not notice it myself (and I have excellent vision until I took a loupe to it). Everything else seems crisp and even, perhaps the logo is not 100% sharp. I just find the reactions strange because as anonymous as it is (and I agree with that -- one reason why I appreciate it, cf. my various Constellations like in my avatar), it is an intriguing little thing that somehow keeps absolutely excellent time and has received more positive attention than any other watch I own. I enjoy it for its simplicity. I'm only curious about authenticity in the sense of the accuracy of the refinishing, etc. I'm pretty familiar with looking at refinished Constellations and can spot every little nuance, but without specific differences from the model that it is being produced off I have nothing to go on.

 

I struggle equating 'authenticity' with 'refinishing'. I am very new to the vintage watch world, but that dial screamed 'redial' to me as soon as I glanced at the photo. While it is always harder to see with the naked eye, the blow-up photo shows the inconsistencies in the line weights and the general lack of sharpness in the lines and text. It basically strikes me as done with a felt tip marker.