Another Stern dial for UG on eBay today with the Stern UG code of "94".

The order number for this dial is "387" whereas mine has an order number of "076" so is presumably earlier. Anyone have a feel for the date of this dial?

 

Let's not forget the POLEROUTER POLAROUTER link. The first sign of something being off. We can look for Stern dials all day long but that won't explain the missing link.

 

I totally agree but the Stern lead could at least prove that it's definitely wrong, if for example the dial proved to be much later. I'm only following up on the clues that are available to me.

A connection with SAS is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to prove because of the lack of records. What I really need is to see the reverse of other Polarouter dials as they could provide some useful clues. For example:

- Do non-SAS black dialled Polarouters have Stern dials? If not, that would seem to increase the likelihood of this being a special bespoke dial rather than a redialled Polarouter dial.

- Do the white dialled SAS Polarouters have Stern dials? If not, then that wouldn't necessarily prove anything but if they do have Stern dials and the order number is close to mine then that would seem to increase the likelihood that the dial is genuine.

 

I seriously admire your dedication and perseverance especially since you're being bombarded from all sides with scepticism, and I include myself in that. I will continue to follow this discussion and hope that you can find more clues that will convince us all.

 

That's very kind, thanks. I would rather know it's definitely wrong than have it sit in my safe and never know.

The scepticism is expected but that doesn't mean that it's always easy to accept.

 

Are there any known examples of a case reference 20217-4 that do not have Polarouter printed on the dial?

 

Other than the watch being a fabrication of some sort, there are a few possible explanations for the dial not having Polarouter on the dial (it is a Polarouter case, with the 6 key case back and thin hour markers on the chapter ring, rather than a Polerouter):

- it's a bespoke non-standard watch where the normal rules fail to apply. Note that there are even some inconsistencies in the text between the two known SAS dials pictured above. I'm not doubting their authenticity, just highlighting the fact that not everything need be consistent.
- there are examples of double-signed Polerouter dials (i.e. with the name of the retailer) without Polerouter on the dial

Here's a left field theory (I accept that you'll probably think that I'm clutching at straws). Perhaps UG made some test SAS black dials before deciding to use the white SAS dials? Perhaps at that point, UG hadn't even decided on the name "Polarouter" or maybe didn't want to disclose the name they had chosen?

 

Yes, the watch was initially called the Polarouter but this changed to Polerouter after a few months.

Lots of background info here https://thespringbar.com/blogs/guides/universal-geneve-polarouter

 

I was wondering if your watch could have been a presentation watch based on a classic dress watch, as opposed to a Pole/Polarouter. UG apparently reused the Genta design language in a series of dress watches such as this one...


...but the examples that I can find are from the late 50's and with different case references. My poorly worded question should have been: Are there any known examples of plain dress watches using the 20217-4 case reference, without Pole/Polarouter on the dial?

 

This is what we got:

The legends are incorrect.
The parts of the legends that are correct like the code of arms, are not well finished.
The hands are incorrect
The color is unprecedented to the SAS model and we can’t find any other version in black.

I guess there is a small percentage of chance this is a “prototype” although prototypes normally do t have unfocused logos etc because more attention is actually paid to the finished for evaluation.

I guess it could be a somewhat small production version that got lost and there are no records or other examples of it.

It could be a bad redial from someone that thought making it an SAS would add value, but it got botched.

The larger percentage of chance is on the last option I’m afraid but there’s no loss on moving forward with your research in case something comes up. Fun to read too.

 

This is not an entirely unfair summary although it would be possible to summarise with a much more positive slant.

The one thing that I would disagree with is that the hands are incorrect. The hands are exactly as you would expect for a 20217-4 Polarouter. The point is that the dial is not as you would expect for a 20217-4 and therefore the suggestion was made that the dial started life in a different case.

 

The SAS Polarouter was only produced in a very small batch (maybe 20?) and over a very strict timeline (1954). However, the 20217 case reference was around for far longer so there are many Polerouters with that case.reference.The gold SAS examples were presented to:

Hans Hedtoft (Denmark)
Erlander Day (Sweden)
Oscar Torp (Norway)

The standard Polarouter SAS were presented to the crews of that very special flight when the polar route was opened. here is a timeline of the polarouter and polerouter models (courtesy of polerouter.de)



Concerning all of the other scenarios like prototype, non production, test and so forth that may have given rise to the "black" SAS polerouter (so made after the polarouter), it is mostly assumptions and guess work all of which introduce further doubt as to the genuinity of the dial and watch. It should all be taken with a pinch of salt considering the following:

1. no other examples of a black SAS apart from a claim which cannot be verified
2. back painted black (indicates a redial)
3. condition of dial is very good (recent re-dial?) but poor print
4. incorrect script and many inconsistencies when compared to a known original SAS dial
5. silver hands (may be correct for original SAS but not on black and gold)?

It is wrong all over when compared to the real McCoy ...



I understand your reasoning on the dial. I would have thought that the manufacturer would have expanded on the meaning of the numbering. I don't think they indicate a production date, they are likely to be the model that they pertain to as it is likely that there are many different versions of that dial (colour and script etc). I have never seen an age related mark or serial number on dial.

 

I honestly remain as sceptical as you are - there is just a greater incentive for me to prove that it is genuine and therefore I am coming from a different perspective.

I would like to pick you up on two points:

- It is not just one of many Polerouters with a 20217 case reference; it is a 1954 Polarouter as evidenced by the 6 key case back (rather than the dodecagon case back), the thin hour markers on the chapter ring and of course the serial number of 1,684,xxx.

- I am still hoping/expecting to hear further from the dial manufacturer. I know for certain that the three digits after the star indicate the order number for the particular client i.e. "94*076" indicates that the dial was made for UG and that it was UG order number 76. This is why I am hoping that it will allow me to date the dial.

 

@Mazoue , You’re really going at this with a great attitude, specially considering all the tide of comments and feedback you’re getting. I really appreciate your extremely mature approach as many these days would be pushing back or taking our comments personally... so bravo on that point!!!

On the rest I am secretelly hoping you find a key somewhere that unlocks this mistery to your benefit. Good luck!!!!

 

The reason why the dial is black on the reverse is apparently because it was galvanised. This is also why the front of the dial is very glossy and has survived well because a layer of lacquer is typically applied to the front after the galvanising process.

I'm still hoping to date the dial itself although that is unlikely to answer the key question of who applied the SAS logo and text and when it was done.

 

Although the dial printing is not perfect, it is at least straight, with the SAS text, the SAS logo and the UG text all parallel with each other.

 

Galvanising protects steel or iron from rust. The process involves dipping iron or steel in zinc. Dials are usually made of brass, silver and rarely in more expensive watches, gold plated or gold (which does not rust). Galvanising leaves a silverish tint, not black. Additionally that dial shows what looks like a blob of paint ...



It is definitely not galvanised or anodized come to that (only used on ally) ....

Sorry to be so skeptic about it but it does not convince me in any way. The very least I would expect from a redial, is centering !

Apart from all of that, you seem to be convinced and I admire your persistence. However, in my eyes it is mutton dressed as lamb (old english saying).

 

I'm with @Diabolik

A limited run dial of exclusive dials with an anomalously low-quality special logo and lettering well off-center? Almost impossible to imagine.

 

I was just passing on the opinion received from the expert consulted by Phillips regarding the galvanised dial.

I understand that dials produced using the galvanic process would usually have a back showing the same black galvanic bath and a very glossy dial as shown here.

I'm fairly sure that galvanising was used to produce "gilt dials" with recessed golden lettering. I'm not in any way comparing my dial to a "gilt dial" (the printing of my dial is not recessed) but just pointing out that a black galvanic bath was used to produce glossy black watch dials with brass plates.