I hear you. I was also thinking the P word myself yesterday, which I hate to use also, but perhaps might actually be appropriate in this case.
I still don't see an issue with the dials themselves.
The issues i see, is whether or not either of the watches are likely to have been born like this originally.
My own opinion, in light of *current* evidence, is: very unlikely, but still possible.
One is in a steel case (20217-4), and the other is in a gold capped case (20214-4).
The steel one is a 2nd execution case (168 serial), the gold capped is a 1st execution case (164 serial).
White dial SAS polarouters were all first execution cases (164 serial).
The steel one has lumed hands, the other does not.
Both "-4" subreferences should be lumed hands and dial, but neither dials have lume.
White SAS dials had their own subreference (-6), which were never advertised as being available to the public.
These two black dial examples are in cases where other dials should be - lumed black Pola (one 1st ex, one 2nd ex) dials, with lumed dauphine hands.
Without further examples, I'd guess they were either some special order modifications, or test dials that were never put into manufacturing and and eventually found in a drawer and made their way into cases.
Considering they have the same order numbers, perhaps UG ordered 100 white, and 100 black, and decided to go with white in the end for the final SAS watch.
We can all speculate as much as we want whilst we wait for more to surface. 馃榾
Both Black dial serials are later than the White dial SAS 20217-6 range.
That would exclude the watches being prototypes, but not necessarily the loose dials.
Both Black dial serials are later than the White dial SAS 20217-6 range.
That would exclude the watches being prototypes, but not necessarily the loose dials.
I'm not aware of any way to date a Cal 138ss movement but I agree that would be helpful.
The cases are definitely Polarouter cases.
- They have the relevant case reference for a Polarouter
- The serial numbers are within the (relatively narrow, say 100-150) expected range for the particular case reference
- The case backs have the six key case back seen on Polarouters rather than the later polygonal case back seen on bumper Polerouters
- Both watches have marker rings that are unique to Polarouters
Whilst I understand some of the concerns expressed about the dials, the main questions that remain for me are
1) Why were the black SAS dials produced and how many were made?
2) How long have these two dials been in the Polarouter cases in which they were found?
This has been my long held position.
You are right, I am assuming that the dials were produced by Stern but in my defence, I did recognise the concerns that you and others have.
The work undertaken by @Severin was monumental at the time and I would not want to do anything to belittle or undermine that. However Polerouter knowledge has come on in leaps and bounds in the four years since his post.
What @Severin started, @CafeRacer has taken on several steps in creating a reference website, highlighting the differences between each of the case references. Many of the differences and nuances that @Severin identified are now understood and can be explained.
I look at numerous Polerouters every single day and discuss them with other collectors most days (on re-reading, this sounds completely insane). I've owned over 200 Polerouters myself and studied thousands more. I would be the first to admit that there are probably still more questions than answers but I am certain that our knowledge has moved on a great deal in recent years.
The black SAS dials are non-standard and may not even have been intended for use. It is hardly surprising that they do not follow all of the patterns exhibited by other dials.
the geophysic full set is my personal favourite, or the seaplane Patek.
The seller has an interesting username too, windwatches 馃榾
