Forums Latest Members
  1. marco Jan 19, 2016

    Posts
    1,252
    Likes
    2,991
    I have a feeling this piece has been considered before but I can't find the thread, so forgive me if we are going over old ground.

    The dial is supposedly original but with NOS replacement hands.
    Case numbers are 22242 / 1107421.
    UG 481, circa 1960
    This piece is on a dealer's website being sold on consignment for approx $3400 US.
    I was under the impression "Swiss" should be under the six position, I can't see it in these pics.

    I would appreciate your collective opinions and thank you all in advance.

    DSC07284.jpeg DSC07285.jpeg DSC07286.jpeg IMG_0992.jpg IMG_0993.jpg DSC07281-1.jpeg DSC07280.jpeg
     
    Diabolik, guillaumeabxl and Kbjohn like this.
  2. Northernman Lemaniac Jan 19, 2016

    Posts
    4,424
    Likes
    18,135
    I would assume our resident experts will chime in on this. @jordn ?
    My first impression is that the printing on the dial appears too "fat". The replaced hands might be legit UG, but the style I think does not match the dial as they are lumed, but the dial is not.
    Also the logo on the crown seems too modern compared to the rest of the watch.
     
  3. guillaumeabxl Jan 19, 2016

    Posts
    55
    Likes
    63
    Is it normal to have a signed crown on these Tri Compax ?

    Very nice watch indeed.
     
  4. Dre Jan 20, 2016

    Posts
    1,927
    Likes
    22,622
  5. Dre Jan 20, 2016

    Posts
    1,927
    Likes
    22,622
    Crown should be unsigned.
     
  6. Diabolik Jan 20, 2016

    Posts
    1,374
    Likes
    2,664
    jordn says it all ... just follow Drechristian 's link. Pointless elaborating !
     
    marco likes this.
  7. marco Jan 20, 2016

    Posts
    1,252
    Likes
    2,991
    Thanks guys.
    Invaluable advice as usual.
    It seems Drechristians opinion is spot on as the same dealer is presenting this piece again knowing full well that they have already reimbursed Hutcho. This time with pre knowledge of the watches short comings, that is the case number beingfrom 1945 but the more obvious crown being 1960's. At the same time putting the onus in the consignee.
    Caveat emptor indeed.