Thoughts on UG Compax 22498

Posts
3
Likes
2
Hi all,

I've really been learning a lot quickly from all the detailed work done by folks on the forum. I'm looking at this Compax and there are a few things leaving me with questions. I'm pretty new to this, so maybe the questions are just natural with UG given the nature of the solid primary documentation that's available.

Main one really is the dial. Is this a re-dial? Would love a point to some good threads or further reading to get a bit better at assessing dials. I haven't found similar examples dated to the mid-40s as the serial on this case back suggests. There's one Hodinkee had back c. 2018, different dial, Compax is curved over the sub dial and it's sporting different hands. The lugs on the Hodinkee example look more angular to me than these, but wondering if that's lighting. The seller (apparently used to be here 👀) has an ad showing the watch. I've seen a date of the 1950s put on this and 1948. Funnily enough just noticed compax is curved over the subdial on the watch in the ad so am I answering my own question here ...

Finally bit really is dating it. Did UG produce these watches over multiple years (or even a decade) such that you get a serial number dating it to 1944ish and an ad that may be from 1948 or even the 50s showing the watch? Or is that suggesting that it may have been pieced together from different parts?

Thanks for any thoughts in advance. Really keen to keep learning more about these.

 
Posts
13,857
Likes
53,931
I’m gonna vote redialed … subdials look odd and the dial indices have clearly been removed for repaint.
 
Posts
3,664
Likes
8,459
The dial looks good to me, (I don't think those are applied indices, I think they are part of the dial).

If you search 22498 on this forum you will see two other examples with straight compax writing and similar case serial (1945, or 125XXXX).

However I would think leaf hands would be more likely, and both examples on this forum are leaf.......I usually associate stick hands with earlier time period. So I'm not sure about that.

As to whether the dial, hands, case started life together at the factory is much more complex question and would require more research, and may not be possible to definitely answer.
 
Posts
6,777
Likes
10,576
Redial IMHO. Tomorrow I’ll tell you the rest
 
Posts
6,777
Likes
10,576
1.25m is 1949. Ads can not be used to date exactly. 22498 was made in 4 batches of which 1.25m is the last
 
Posts
6,777
Likes
10,576
Funnily enough just noticed compax is curved over the subdial on the watch in the ad so am I answering my own question here ...
I think 1.25m should not have curved Compax
 
Posts
3
Likes
2
Great stuff. Thanks all. I’m not sure how I got the early date in the 40s.

Is it common for compax from this era to have a mix of open and closed “6”s for example? I was looking more at the numbering and felt there were differences between the subdials like this.
 
Posts
273
Likes
570
Great stuff. Thanks all. I’m not sure how I got the early date in the 40s.

Is it common for compax from this era to have a mix of open and closed “6”s for example? I was looking more at the numbering and felt there were differences between the subdials like this.
Dial is original UG imho, but perhaps it could be a service dial.

Yes, you can sometimes find a mix of open and closed 6s on original dials from that era.
 
Posts
6,777
Likes
10,576
I stand corrected. Comparing these 3 (all within 100 numbers) and the 55 (which I often use) seems to be correct

 
Posts
3
Likes
2
Thanks @Mark020 Those comparisons are great help. Can see some of the variations too @Tohz mentioned which you reckon can be on factory/originals.

Think I need to get one of these reference books and start looking at the dials more to work on my eye.
 
Posts
1,867
Likes
5,440
The hands are too long and don’t match this dial. So if the hands were changed, what else ?