I've just come across this Tri-Compax. The watch is supposedly all original, 35mm, with the case being polished only a few times. The watch looks clean to me, and is at a good price. I just wanted to see everyone's opinion before I made a decision.

Here are some photos of the watch.

 

Also, if anyone has any estimate on what they think the value of the watch should be, let me know! I'd like to compare it to the price I was offered.

 

Looks to me to be a redial. Some tells being:

1. The hour subdial inking is not centered and encroaches the upper edge of the subdial.
2. The general minute markers are not clean. Look at how the minute marker ink at 3, 6, and 9 o'clock jam up against the walls of the indices. And how the ink is a bit messy between the two 12 o'clock markers.
3. The inking is not clean on the calendar subdial. Clear example being the "1" in "31".

 

Agree

 

+1 Redial....

 

Hi,
Remarks are true, but if you don't buy it, tell me who the seller is, I need parts
Cheers.

 

Good catches, I assumed it was too good to be true. It's disappointing finding redials!

So in everyone's general opinion, does this make this watch totally worthless? I understand original dials are the most sought after, but does a redial totally destroy its value?

 

Not total worthless, no.

10H10 was pretty explicit in his posting.

 

+1 very nice parts watch

 

What would you say would be a good price for this as a parts Watch?

 

$2-3k. Perhaps as high as $4k. I say this because I've been bidding on NA parts watches for another forum member and have never won! Bids always exceeded budget. There is a lot to like here.

 

I'm just trying to find a good Tri-Compax! It seems that's becoming harder to do because of how much traction they're gaining, making them more likely for redials, etc. If there's a honey hole then let me know, cause I haven't found it yet. I'll
Be going to Switzerland and Italy this summer though and I'm partially hoping to wait until then.

 

Ah.... my watches are getting busted all too often on OF

I would be interested to hear more concrete and objective arguments. You can't really refer to uneven thickness of ink talking about UG dials. For instance, look at this dial:
1. The hour subdial inking is not centered and encroaches the upper edge of the subdial.
2. The hour subdial is not centered and is closer to 5 o'clock hour marker
3. Date scale is not centered
4. 31-1 printing is off
5. The signature at 12 o'clock is rough

 

What do you mean by that? Correct cliche is UG cliche.

 

Okay, after additional examination and disassembly I have to admit that it is most likely a redone, though very convincing

 

To me, the major sign of redial are the hour markers, in the hour subdial, that touches the edges. They shouldn't, should be a space between the hour markers and the edge, like shown in the second example.

But is pretty good, actually

 

The only 2 things that are clearly wrong about the watch of the OP are the crown, that in this second half of the 40s Tri-Compaxes should still be unsigned (hence this is actually a very easy fix) and the central chrono hand (which is going ot be harder to find). Perhaps also the minute chrono subdial hand, that looks black instead of blued (like the other 2 subdials hands) but again it might be the lighting and also if it is not correct i wouldnt call it the end of the world at all.
Now onto the dial.
I agree with Vintagecaliber that on UG not perfect centering of the subdials printing or very slightly un-even thickness of the inking is not necessarely a sign of a redial: UG was manufactoring A LOT of watches back then, inconsistency in the production quality are a known issue.
The telling signs for me are all in the date subdial at the top: first of all the 31 is in black while it should be in red on all 40s Tri-Compaxes. Also, there should be a black ring that circumferences that subdial, also something present in 40s Tri-Compaxes. Finally, even though I don't know how to properly put it to words, the font is very much slightly off.
That being said this is one of the very best redial I ever seen on a Tri-Compax, if not the best ever. Though times for us collectors!

 

What is your point? Are you saying this is or is not a redial?
Just trying to learn, no offense meant.

 

Hey vintage caliber!

I'll try to address these as I can:

1. When I say that the ink "encroaches" the upper lip of the hour subdial in the OP, I am referring to the fact that the ink actually rides up the slope at 12 o'clock and 9 o'clock AND 3 o'clock and perhaps even 6 o'clock. I can't see from the photos. Your new example might be slightly off center - but it still sits entirely within the subdial and quite convincingly so. Secondly (and importantly), you must focus on the fact that the subdial ink in the OP encroaches on 3-4 sides! If an original UG subdial ink has been applied there, the bottom and right sides of the subdial would have been much farther receded towards the center if their opposite sides encroached. If all the sides encroach (or even just 3 out of 4), it means the applied subdial ink was not sized for that specific diameter. Making the encroachment a matter of necessity rather than error. And we know UG was better than that.
2. Especially in the 1940's, subdials don't need to be ultra perfectly centered, as you know. That wasn't the observation I was making.
3. ^
4. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that it is "off". It looks fine to me.
5. Are you referring to the actual UG signature or the "12" o'clock index? Because the UG signature looks fine and the 12 o'clock index looks fine, accounting for age.

As for the minute track inking - the same goes. It doesn't need to be perfectly centered - but I have not seen indices so blatantly violated from a minute track before on an original dial. Where the ink rides up the sides of them. And you'll notice that the ink at 12 o'clock isn't even clean. It sort of splotches when it goes between the two indices. And if those indices are applied, than I would have expected them to have been applied after the ink had already been applied. If not, the rest still stands.

Something else I should mention is the fact that the moonphase is noticeably more aged than the dial. Which indicates on the outset that at the very least the dial or moonphase disk is replaced. But that is just one more observation to add to the pile.