UG Tri-compax Dial " evolution, varience, service dial & redial referece guide " READ ENTIRE THREAD

Denis321 · Jun 12, 2024

Larry S
Yes … Crowns are a wear part so it was changed at service. I personally don’t view crowns as a deal breaker. Logo crowns appeared in the 50s. Dial has the right Telephony lines and open 6. Good enough for me.

I’ve done my homework’s. Here are the details telling me that perhaps this dial is older ou service : black not blue tachymètre, 31 black not red, no circle around subdate dial, subdate dial not centered (21 goes over date guichet), minute circle not centered (10 non in front of the marker)

Larry S · Jun 12, 2024

Denis321
I’ve done my homework’s. Here are the details telling me that perhaps this dial is older ou service : black not blue tachymètre, 31 black not red, no circle around subdate dial, subdate dial not centered (21 goes over date guichet), minute circle not centered (10 non in front of the marker)

I think you are searching for orthodoxy when there is none. But …I will wait for interested parties to weigh in.

banders · Aug 20, 2024

Here are several tri compaxes with very similar dials. They share the following:
- No ring around the dates
- Black 31
- Flat-bottomed Vs
- minutes subdial counts by 5s (0/5/10/15/etc)
- Silvered dial

Given that most of these watches have later serials, and the watches with early serials have service parts, it follows that dials with the above characteristics are likely from the 50s and late 40s. I find it less likely that the same dials were produced from the early 40s through the mid to late 50s OR early 40s dials were put inside mid-50s watches.

If true, this would mean the dials on the two 12552s are service dials. I think the watches are still lovely and have some of the most attractive dials I've seen on a tri-compax.

ref: 122101 | case: 1,723,xxx | circa: 1955
https://www.watchnet.co.jp/en/item/view/2018

Screenshot 2024-08-20 at 10.32.14 AM.png

ref: 12552 | case: 1,074,758 | circa: 1944 | service moon disk and crown
https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-6185739

x1827581-472f3987bbc501bf90bb9f6a455df190.jpg.pagespeed.ic.0Jpw4smYBw.webp

ref: 122101 | case: 1717912 | circa: 1955
https://forumamontres.forumactif.com/t273889-avis-ug-tri-compax

ref: 12268 | case: 1,41x,xxx | circa: 1949
https://omegaforums.net/threads/universal-geneve-tri-compax-18k-yellow-gold-ref-12268.78987/

x590960-cc9774a00376e79da625d7840a076e07.jpg.pagespeed.ic.UsjxoSobQa.webp

ref: 12552 | case: 1,1x9,497 | circa: 1945| service crown
https://cartellino.be/en/vintage-watches/universal-geneve/1086-tri-compax-pink-gold-287-caliber

ref: 122101 | case: 1768545 | circa: 1955 | Some debate over whether the caseback is legit
https://omegaforums.net/threads/universal-geneve-tri-compax-481-french-cased-who-can-help.72680/

Mark020 · Nov 15, 2024

Another interesting thread on early tri's: https://orologi.forumfree.it/?t=80465802

I have recorded 19 examples of this first series tri compaxes. Using the tank formula and after some puzzling with the numbers I think I can conclude the following:

Ref 22258 was made in 100 pieces. This number is based on the tank formula
After this first batch another - probably - non chronograph without movement serials batch was produced
Then a combined total of 240 others references (22259-22263 & 12253-12254) were produced. This number is based on the tank formula
All watches do have a numbered movement but these can not be used for the tank number approach because the have 3 different serials (188k, 212 & 220k)

- The big question is whether references 22260 and 22262 were actually produced. Assuming these references were not produced I made an alternative table. To fit in the current known examples I needed to assume a total production of 210 instead of 240 pieces.