Polarouter + Polerouter = confused

CR,

as far as I know, the Polarouter was a 1954 introduction - the SAS Helge Viking made the flight that gave the model-line its name in Nov 1954. That makes it possible for Genta to be involved from the beginning. How are you dating your pieces? Could your serial number tables be off?

I hope that you received some guidance on that second DeLuxe. Not loving that dial. Should be a Polerouter DeLuxe, unless I'm missing something here.

The serial number of 1.8M would put the date of the watch around 1956 based on the charts I've seen.



Take care,
gatorcpa

I believe that this is partially correct. The "DeLuxe" design (Ref. 10234) was likely already being made (whether designed by Mr. Genta or not) at Universal when the Genta-designed Polarouter with the bombe lugs was introduced in late 1954. They just started to put the "Polarouter" name on them at that time. Here is an Italian advertisement from 1954 that mentions the Ref. 10234 without picturing it:



Look way down at the bottom left.

Source: http://www.polerouter.de/frameset-advertisement.htm

Another thing I noticed on the above webpage is that there seems to be a period during 1956-57 where both the Polarouter and Polerouter names were used in advertising, depending on the model and market. Once the micro-rotor movement was introduced, the Polarouter name was allowed to die out as the remaining bumper cal. 138SS watches were sold off.

My belief is that the citizenrich's first watch with the 1.8M serial number is a DeLuxe produced after the introduction of the Polerouter name. This one (same source as above) seems to be a pre-Polarouter version of the same watch, produced around 1953-4:



However, the story surrounding citizenrich's second watch just doesn't seem right to me. The serial at 1.8M would put it right around the changeover from Pola- to Pole-router, although I've seen some Polerouters of this style with 1.7M serial numbers. The fonts on the dial seem rather crude and non-uniform, as compared to the above example. Also, I've not seen the cross-hair dials on this particular style before, although they very well may exist.

I would recommend that you go over the paperwork very carefully on this watch, so be sure that all the numbers match and the 1953 date on the bill of sale isn't really 1958.

One last note...the steel Polerouter with what looks to be a 1.6M serial number looks like a redial to me. It possibly could have started life as a Polarouter. The redial rate on these watches is very close to that of Omegas of similar vintage, at well over 50% based on my unscientific observations.

Hope this helps,
gatorcpa

You've raised some good points here. I like where this is going.

It could be that the "10234" is a reference number, but only for the case back. Generally, this would not be true for Omega or Rolex, but UG is a different company.

They all seem to be similar in terms of the shape and location of the slots for a wrench. So while the casebacks of all of these watches could be interchangeable, but the dials, tops and lugs might be different. The numbers after the reference, such as "2" or "1 TL" might have something to do with this, or they might not.

I agree that production of cases and movements were usually done in batches with the company matching movements to cases as demand warranted.

Take care,
gatorcpa

Good thread. ...Very valuable

Great research. thank you so much for making it available to all . beautiful pictures.