Received my watch back from a service yesterday. Here's a wrist shot similar to those of the white dialled versions above. I do not agree that there is a discernible difference in the quality of the printing based on the two photos below. If I have a concern about my dial then it is not the quality of the printing. Gold print on black UG dials is typically thicker than black print and therefore I am not worried that the SAS emblem on my watch is not perfectly clear when greatly magnified. I have compared the gold Universal Geneve printing with another black dialled UG with gold print and the text is practically identical in terms of colour, how reflective it is, texture, font etc. My concern is therefore not the quality but what it is that has been printed. I do not know why my watch does not have "Polarouter" on the dial and I do not know why my watch does not have "Swiss" on the dial. Without these two anomalies then I would be convinced that it was genuine.
I would be concerned about the lack of centering of the text, as shown in your useful grid-overlay image.
I'm not saying you are wrong but I couldn't see any significant issue there Tony. I don't think that my mid line goes perfectly through the centre of the dial and all it takes is for the camera lens not to be parallel with the dial or not exactly above the dial for the analysis to be thrown off.
ProCadran were unfortunately unable to help date the dial. They were of the opinion that it had been turned black using an electrolysis process (similar to the galvanised description provided by the Phillips source I guess) and that the text and emblem had been pad printed. If anybody with an SAS Polarouter or a black dialled Polarouter is going to get their watch serviced, I would be very interested to see the reverse of their dial. And of course if @Lucas were to change his mind about sharing a picture of his dial, whether on the forum or with me privately, I would be very interested to see it. But for now, with no further avenues to investigate, I shall leave you all in peace and bring this thread to a close.
Indeed it is. I had a very positive reaction to the first image below on Instagram and so decided to follow it up with another and offer the watch for sale.
As long as you disclose everything discussed about this watch to the buyers objectively, I think it’s fine.
I agree. I am more of an enthusiast/collector than I am a dealer and I suspect I have been far more open and honest than most dealers would be and than was probably wise.
I agree and - your attitude, under fire, in this thread has been impressive. There is reason to question the dial but there are also a lot of things regarding UG that are still not known - and maybe never will. A lot of almost "one off: s" and some that may be right and some that may be not. For this whole thread I have hoped that your investigations would prove it right - and I still do. For me it often comes down to probability x execution x price/"who would gain" math. Your one, from what I have understood, have its merits in that respect. UG wise I have something similar. I have a NOS UG Polerouter Sub dial that no one else, I dare to say, has. The way I found it, the context, in relation to its price and the execution gives that it is genuine and probably a prototype/test run or one off. I will never be able to prove it though and I can live with that. If I would sell it in the future the buyer would have to also "buy" my story. If so it is valuable. If not it is almost worth nothing. https://omegaforums.net/threads/ug-treasure-found.5175/#post-60872
Here are the results of a comparison of the SAS logo and lettering on my watch with that of an accepted SAS Polarouter with provenance. The two images used are those below. I've superimposed the second image over the first and compared using an online comparison tool. It is not an exact science (the two photos ideally need to be higher resolution and taken using the same camera set-up) but I think the comparison is useful. I'll leave you to make your own conclusions but in my opinion it shows that: - the SAS logo and lettering on the two watches is very similar - the size of the logo relative to the lettering is the same on both watches - the position of the logo relative to the lettering is the same on both watches It suggests to me that the logos and lettering were created using the same process, only one uses black ink and the other gold. My understanding is that it is difficult to print complicated designs with gold ink because it is difficult to ensure the correct consistency.
Further to the analysis above comparing the printing of the emblem on my watch with the white dialled SAS Polarouter above, here is a second image showing a comparison of the printing on the two dials. The black text can be seen superimposed on top of the gold text. I believe that the results of the two superimposed images are conclusive. The printing of the SAS emblem and SAS text in gold print on my dial is identical in size and design to the printing of the black text on the SAS Polarouter above and is located in the same place on the dial. When you also consider the following, then I think there is a weight of evidence supporting the authenticity of my watch: - apart from the dial, the watch in every other respect is as you would expect a 20217-4 Polarouter to be i.e. case back, chapter ring etc - the serial number is around 200 less than another known SAS Polarouter - the dial was made by Stern for UG and is stamped as such For my watch to be a fabrication then someone would have had to take a genuine UG dial, wipe clean the front of that dial, print the SAS text and emblem in exactly the same way as a genuine SAS Polarouter and then add the Universal Geneve text to the bottom half of the dial in a UG typeface. This fabricated dial would then have had to be combined with an early Polarouter case, which happens to have a serial number very close to that of another SAS Polarouter. Although I have always maintained an open mind about this watch because it is the only known black dialled version and it is missing the Polarouter text, in light of the evidence I now have very little, if any, doubt that it is genuine.
How do you feel about the hands? Are they replaced or have the dial been cleaned of the luminous compound? Or is it normal for UG to combine luminous hands and non-luminous dials?
I had the hands relumed because the original lume was disintegrating. The hands are perfectly correct for a 20217-4 case reference. A 20217-4 dial would usually have lume but this is not an ordinary dial.
Did UG use different case references for dials with luminous plots? I note that the other one is a "-5". EDIT: after a few minutes of research, I guess the answer is "no". I'd venture that the hands are replacements then.
I see no reason why the hands should be replacements. A standard 20217-4 has a dial with lume and hands of this type with lume. As I said above, apart from the dial, the watch in every other respect is as you would expect a 20217-4 Polarouter to be. For info, the SAS Polarouter above I compared against mine is a 20217-6 and not -5. There is lots of information about the various different references here https://thespringbar.com/blogs/guides/universal-geneve-polarouter
Thanks for that! Interesting that UG case references dictate whether or not the dials should be lumed or not
Having offered a great deal of detailed evidence, it seems rather unfair that you dismiss the watch as a franken without explaining why you think that is the case. Just because this is the only known example with a black dial, it does not mean that it is not genuine.
