In my quest to find a proper, timeless UG Tri-Compax, I've come across 2 distinct references that are to me models that are the quintessential Tri-Compax models. I don't mean to imply that these are the only ones or the most sought after, but that they encompass everything about the "look" that drove me to find the Tri interesting in the first place. What I mean is that you have essentially two variations (that I can think of or find): 1 - The earliest versions, from the mid-40s, that I believe were meant to be proper dress watches. They usually have an elegant look and for the most part, have the following features: - Sword hands with plenty of lume (I assume, given the age, this is Radium) - Moon with a face - Square pushers The most obvious reference I have come across with the above features is probably the 22279. 2 - On the other end, are the version from the 50's (and I would say beyond) where the Tri became a bit more sportier with the following features now evident: - Dauphine hands (not exclusively, but this is what I've found most commonly) - Round pushers - Moon without face The most obvious reference I've come across with the above features is probably the 22297 For me, I tend to oscillate between loving either look depending on the condition of the watch but for the most part feel that the later references (eventually leading up to the famed 222100 and Eric Claptop etc.) are more timeless which is reflected in their prices. Personally, if made to choose between the two, I'd probably settle on the 22297 over the 22279 but wanted to know what the views of others members was. So I've created a poll that's anonymous and doesn't require any login (since the forum, AFAIK, doesn't allow us to create one). https://take.quiz-maker.com/poll4266689x0C994855-134 Once (if) you've voted, please feel free to air your opinion (even if you haven't voted) just so that we can collect the thoughts of members here.
I’m a 40’s/50s classical dress chrono guy when it comes to this model and UG in general. 35mm. I have em in SS and gold. I own one 37mm with moon. I admire the Nina / Clapton, handled a few but never felt the pull that the early models exerted. I own a 22242 and a 22297 so I can’t really pick.
Agree the early model Tricompax have more charm with the exception of the Clapton, I absolutely love the 881101.
Thank you for your thoughts, everyone, I too prefer the "vintage" look of the square pushers but it seems the sportiness of the later models makes them (from a market point of view at least) both more desirable and more accessible. Result for now:
Agreed, though we've had more responses since (14 in total), with the 40's look clearly leading the way. Direct link to the responses in case anyone is interested: https://take.quiz-maker.com/results4266689x0C994855-134#tab-2
Interesting that most people seem to prefer the dress watches. When you think about the sudden rise in value of Cartier watches, I think people in general have gravitated to dress watches. I know I don’t care weather I’m going out or not for some elegant event. I just love the look of a dress watch and I just like having one on.
The results have widened even more....I think we can now safely declare the older, square pusher look the clear winner for a classic Tri-Compax, though curiously, those are more affordably priced in the market today (if you can find one that is) than their later sportier incarnations. The dress watch curse I guess when it comes to valuation.
I’ll be a bit of a contrarian here…my first entry into UG chronos was 1960s, and my first Tri was 1950s. I really like the modestly sporty look, with pump pushers and less dressy case styles. I’ve looked from afar at the earlier styles. The abundance of radium is a bit unnerving (id hate to have those lovely sword hands flake apart because my toddler swatted my wrist too hard!). I think I’ll eventually seek out a nice dressy non-lumed example. Larry - fantastic example there!
I actually prefer the later, sportier variants. Love those steel cases in combination with dauphine hands.