- Posts
- 7,981
- Likes
- 27,943
SAS Gold Polerouter - Tore Nilert
- Posts
- 1,198
- Likes
- 3,037
Mazoue
·I'm with you on this. Never seen anything like that before.
So, if you were creating a fake would you do something you've not seen before or just follow the normal convention? The argument works both ways.
Here's another 169101/01 caseback. Very polished but what I believe to be the original circular polished finish is still visible. I believe that allays the particular concern regarding the inscription being on top of the circular polished finish.
- Posts
- 9,596
- Likes
- 27,688
ConElPueblo
·FWIW, my new Polerouter Jet (1959) also has a circular brushing on the case back. I don't see that as a problem at all... And with regards to March/No March - who can really say if there wasn't a reason for this? I certainly don't find it odd that initials were used.
@Mazoue - great to see those high resolution photos! I think it's fantastic that there is an open and honest debate 👍
@Mazoue - great to see those high resolution photos! I think it's fantastic that there is an open and honest debate 👍
- Posts
- 7,981
- Likes
- 27,943
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberSo, if you were creating a fake would you do something you've not seen before or just follow the normal convention? The argument works both ways.
I would agree with you, but only if the fake were well-executed.
Here's another 169101/01 caseback. Very polished but what I believe to be the original circular polished finish is still visible. I believe that allays the particular concern regarding the inscription being on top of the circular polished finish.
Yes, good research. It does appear that the finish was likely original. But again, you have no answer for the most problematic issues:
- How could such a heavily used watch feature a 55 year-old engraving that shows virtually no wear?
- How could a watch given to a senior staff member at UG feature the SAS logo, yet no reference to Polerouter on the dial, the very model line that defined the partnership?
Those are BIG problems.
Edited:
- Posts
- 1,198
- Likes
- 3,037
Mazoue
·I don't envisage ever being able to fully resolve those queries but here are my thoughts:
- The inscription viewed in person looks anything but fresh. The back also feels quite smooth - you would barely know that the back had an inscription by touch alone. I sometimes think that I bring problems upon myself by sharing such high resolution images.
- What is it that makes you think that the watch has been heavily used? We know that it has not suffered much, if any, polishing because the original case back finish is still present. The fact that the inscription is still quite visible does not therefore seem surprising. The depth of the original inscription also has a part to play in how visible it would be today. I agree that the inscription is more visible than the UG numbers but those numbers are actually more visible than on most UG case backs I have seen. The UG numbers are also intentionally subtle whereas the inscription would have been created with the opposite intention.
- We will never know why the particular text on the dial was chosen. Of course, this watch was created perhaps 10 years or more after that first SAS flight over the Polar route in 1954 and the significance of that achievement had presumably begun to fade.
- The inscription viewed in person looks anything but fresh. The back also feels quite smooth - you would barely know that the back had an inscription by touch alone. I sometimes think that I bring problems upon myself by sharing such high resolution images.
- What is it that makes you think that the watch has been heavily used? We know that it has not suffered much, if any, polishing because the original case back finish is still present. The fact that the inscription is still quite visible does not therefore seem surprising. The depth of the original inscription also has a part to play in how visible it would be today. I agree that the inscription is more visible than the UG numbers but those numbers are actually more visible than on most UG case backs I have seen. The UG numbers are also intentionally subtle whereas the inscription would have been created with the opposite intention.
- We will never know why the particular text on the dial was chosen. Of course, this watch was created perhaps 10 years or more after that first SAS flight over the Polar route in 1954 and the significance of that achievement had presumably begun to fade.
- Posts
- 7,981
- Likes
- 27,943
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberIt is true that high magnification can be misleading, and that it is an advantage for you to be able to assess the watch in hand.
Having said that, here is a detail from your original (large) case back photo:
It is easy to see that the watch has had plenty of use. Not to say that it is in poor condition, as I am sure that it would appear better to the naked eye. But this is not a watch that was handled with great care, nor spent decades in a drawer.
For comparison, here is one of mine with an inscription that dates to just a few years earlier than yours. There are a few things to note. First, the watches have roughly similar signs of wear, yet the engraving on mine has receded, so to speak, and melded with the case back. This is fairly typical of engravings that are decades old, and have been subject to wear. Yours, on the other hand, shows what appear to be pronounced, ridged edges. You say that it feels smooth to the touch, and I believe you. But it is quite odd that the inscription would have been dug so deeply.
Also, note the difference in quality. Yours appears to have been applied not only deeply, but crudely, while the lettering on mine is much is finer and more consistent, which is typical of corporate dedication watches.
So, even if you are correct that the engraving was executed in the 1960s, it seems odd, in addition to the question of there being no Polerouter on the dial, that someone who was presenting such a watch to an executive of UG would have employed a low quality engraver.
Having said that, here is a detail from your original (large) case back photo:
It is easy to see that the watch has had plenty of use. Not to say that it is in poor condition, as I am sure that it would appear better to the naked eye. But this is not a watch that was handled with great care, nor spent decades in a drawer.
For comparison, here is one of mine with an inscription that dates to just a few years earlier than yours. There are a few things to note. First, the watches have roughly similar signs of wear, yet the engraving on mine has receded, so to speak, and melded with the case back. This is fairly typical of engravings that are decades old, and have been subject to wear. Yours, on the other hand, shows what appear to be pronounced, ridged edges. You say that it feels smooth to the touch, and I believe you. But it is quite odd that the inscription would have been dug so deeply.
Also, note the difference in quality. Yours appears to have been applied not only deeply, but crudely, while the lettering on mine is much is finer and more consistent, which is typical of corporate dedication watches.
So, even if you are correct that the engraving was executed in the 1960s, it seems odd, in addition to the question of there being no Polerouter on the dial, that someone who was presenting such a watch to an executive of UG would have employed a low quality engraver.
- Posts
- 511
- Likes
- 1,914
- Posts
- 1,427
- Likes
- 3,006
Diabolik
·That looks like it was chiseled out. However, it looks correct as it seems to have marks and wear that are consistent with rest of markings and no burs indicting a recent chiselling ...
I have to agree with tony. The inscription does not look the part but biggest no-no is inscription on dial (apart from the other issues that have been raised). Far to shoddy !
I have to agree with tony. The inscription does not look the part but biggest no-no is inscription on dial (apart from the other issues that have been raised). Far to shoddy !
- Posts
- 1,198
- Likes
- 3,037
Mazoue
·I believe that the dial engraving is actually one of its most convincing features. It was not created to be scrutinised under x20 magnification but to look beautiful to the naked eye and it certainly does that. I would argue that it even stands up to scrutiny under a x10 loupe. The engraving is intricate and complicated, albeit done by machinery in the 1960s and so it therefore has tiny flaws when greatly magnified.
The bit I find hard to believe is that a faker found someone with the skills to carry out this engraving on a thin gold dial and then also had access to original UG cliches in order to create the text below it. This fakery must have taken place years ago, as there is no way you could obtain a gold polerouter and arrange for all of this work to be done for a price that was even close to what I actually paid for the watch. I'm not sure there has always been a demand to warrant all of that work; it's not as if they set out to fake a 1954 SAS Polarouter. In fact, that might have been easier as there is no engraving to do.
Trying to put forward a balanced view for once, the aspect I find most puzzling is why the inscription seems to predate the case and the typeface. If the table of serial numbers that we all reference can be relied upon, then the case is from 1964/65 and the typeface from slightly later and yet the inscription refers to 1961. If the watch had been awarded to Mr Nilert when he left SAS in 1970, that might have made sense but why an inscription that references 1961?
The bit I find hard to believe is that a faker found someone with the skills to carry out this engraving on a thin gold dial and then also had access to original UG cliches in order to create the text below it. This fakery must have taken place years ago, as there is no way you could obtain a gold polerouter and arrange for all of this work to be done for a price that was even close to what I actually paid for the watch. I'm not sure there has always been a demand to warrant all of that work; it's not as if they set out to fake a 1954 SAS Polarouter. In fact, that might have been easier as there is no engraving to do.
Trying to put forward a balanced view for once, the aspect I find most puzzling is why the inscription seems to predate the case and the typeface. If the table of serial numbers that we all reference can be relied upon, then the case is from 1964/65 and the typeface from slightly later and yet the inscription refers to 1961. If the watch had been awarded to Mr Nilert when he left SAS in 1970, that might have made sense but why an inscription that references 1961?
- Posts
- 7,981
- Likes
- 27,943
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury member
It is true that some engravings - typically the more crude ones - are deep. But yours show none of the odd ridges that appear on the OP's watch.
- Posts
- 925
- Likes
- 2,274
Carlton-Browne
·- How could a watch given to a senior staff member at UG feature the SAS logo, yet no reference to Polerouter on the dial, the very model line that defined the partnership?
Those are BIG problems.
Just because it doesn't have Polerouter on the dial doesn't mean it's not a Polerouter. Pages 478 and 479 of Sala have what appear to be official UG adverts showing pictures of a Polerouter Geneve, a Polerouter Date and a Polerouter Jet Date respectively without the magic word on the dial.
I have no dog in this fight and am really enjoying the discussion. (I do secretly want it to be real though 😀)
- Posts
- 7,981
- Likes
- 27,943
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberJust because it doesn't have Polerouter on the dial doesn't mean it's not a Polerouter. Pages 478 and 479 of Sala have what appear to be official UG adverts showing pictures of a Polerouter Geneve, a Polerouter Date and a Polerouter Jet Date respectively without the magic word on the dial.
I have no dog in this fight and am really enjoying the discussion. (I do secretly want it to be real though 😀)
Yes, and there were Omega Seamasters that did not have "Seamaster" printed on the dial. Etc.
The problem, however, is that this dial is not an early, "pre-Polerouter" dial. In fact it has features of a much later dial. So, if the watch had actually been given as a present to a UG executive, and was a special SAS version, how could it not have the model name that defined the very relationship between the two companies?
(I would also like to be real, though my skepticism may mask the desire.)
- Posts
- 1,198
- Likes
- 3,037
Mazoue
·SAS was only formed in 1946 but prior to that Tore Nilert worked for the Swedish government owned, AB Aerotransport (ABA).
The privately owned SILA (Swedish Intercontinental Airlines) became the Swedish part of SAS in 1946. SILA was merged into ABA in 1948, which meant that ABA-SILA became the Swedish part of SAS.
Tore Nilet worked for ABA in Paris from 1937 and then moved to New York in 1941 to be head of ABA in North America, eventually becoming Head of SAS in North America after the merger.
The 1941 date therefore potentially has some meaning as it is the date from which he was responsible for North American operations.
Just a theory though.
The privately owned SILA (Swedish Intercontinental Airlines) became the Swedish part of SAS in 1946. SILA was merged into ABA in 1948, which meant that ABA-SILA became the Swedish part of SAS.
Tore Nilet worked for ABA in Paris from 1937 and then moved to New York in 1941 to be head of ABA in North America, eventually becoming Head of SAS in North America after the merger.
The 1941 date therefore potentially has some meaning as it is the date from which he was responsible for North American operations.
Just a theory though.
- Posts
- 3,478
- Likes
- 8,072
bgrisso
·I love vintage watch nerds. 😀 👍
- Posts
- 1,931
- Likes
- 22,752
Dre
·Have you asked the seller regarding the watchmaker service mark in 2012?
Seems unlikely for the seller’s father who passed away recently, to had the watch serviced only a few years back, for a watch that he most likely purchased in a flea market decades ago. As the service cost in 2012 would probably cost way more than the amount that he paid for the watch.
Not that I’m saying that’s a fake service marking, because the watch has definitely seen a watchmaker’s table based on the replaced hands and glass alone. But I’m more curious about the seller’s story about the watch itself.
Seems unlikely for the seller’s father who passed away recently, to had the watch serviced only a few years back, for a watch that he most likely purchased in a flea market decades ago. As the service cost in 2012 would probably cost way more than the amount that he paid for the watch.
Not that I’m saying that’s a fake service marking, because the watch has definitely seen a watchmaker’s table based on the replaced hands and glass alone. But I’m more curious about the seller’s story about the watch itself.
- Posts
- 1,427
- Likes
- 3,006
Diabolik
·This SAS saga is becoming far to complex for my unicellular brain ...
- Posts
- 1,198
- Likes
- 3,037
Mazoue
·Have you asked the seller regarding the watchmaker service mark in 2012?
Seems unlikely for the seller’s father who passed away recently, to had the watch serviced only a few years back, for a watch that he most likely purchased in a flea market decades ago. As the service cost in 2012 would probably cost way more than the amount that he paid for the watch.
Not that I’m saying that’s a fake service marking, because the watch has definitely seen a watchmaker’s table based on the replaced hands and glass alone. But I’m more curious about the seller’s story about the watch itself.
That's a good idea, I've sent the seller an e-mail to ask whether they know anything about the service or indeed can remember anything else about the watch.
The hands are interesting. In my opinion, they are original UG hands. They are the correct size and shape and they also have the same characteristic fold along the length as shown in the attached photo of another 169101/01 with gold hands. This fold is less apparent because the black paint that has been applied has blunted this fold to some extent.
The hands on my watch were also gold once; under a loupe it is possible to see evidence of gold underneath the black paint along the edges of the hands. The hands do not appear to be new, there is evidence of the black paint ageing and also a tiny dent on the minutes hand near the centre.
The question for me would be were the hands painted black at the outset, perhaps to match the text and make the watch distinctive and unique? Or were they painted at later point in its life, perhaps because the wearer needed greater contrast with the dial in order to be able to tell the time more easily?
- Posts
- 1,560
- Likes
- 4,419
MaiLollo
·That's a good idea, I've sent the seller an e-mail to ask whether they know anything about the service or indeed can remember anything else about the watch.
The hands are interesting. In my opinion, they are original UG hands. They are the correct size and shape and they also have the same characteristic fold along the length as shown in the attached photo of another 169101/01 with gold hands. This fold is less apparent because the black paint that has been applied has blunted this fold to some extent.
The hands on my watch were also gold once; under a loupe it is possible to see evidence of gold underneath the black paint along the edges of the hands. The hands do not appear to be new, there is evidence of the black paint ageing and also a tiny dent on the minutes hand near the centre.
The question for me would be were the hands painted black at the outset, perhaps to match the text and make the watch distinctive and unique? Or were they painted at later point in its life, perhaps because the wearer needed greater contrast with the dial in order to be able to tell the time more easily?
- Posts
- 9,596
- Likes
- 27,688
ConElPueblo
·I know of a dealer who painted the hands of a Rolex 6238 preDaytona black from the original silver because the owner thought the watch was hard to read (silver on silver). My guess is that the same happened here, with Gold on gold difficult to tell so the owner painted them in black ?
I have two watches were the hands are painted black. One of them has no sign of being serviced at any point, so it was either done very early or from the factory (unlikely).
- Posts
- 431
- Likes
- 632
GordonL
·I love threads like this!
Similar threads
- Posts
- 18
- Views
- 2K
- Posts
- 5
- Views
- 1K
