I recently got my first two UGs, a couple of 1940s three-handers. One of them is a cal 262 with a working movement, nice oversize case, and even a well preserved fabric strap.

The dial however has some deterioration, and there are some suspicious irregularities in the printing. I don't have any experience with these watches, and haven't been able to find any comparable examples online with original dials, so am not sure what to make of it. I am hoping someone here could help out, and would in any case love to see more examples of similar UGs.

 

Hi and welcome to OF . This looks like a redial. The fonts, railroad subdial, subdial numbers, and lack of swiss are all indicators in this regard. It kind of reminds me of this one a bit, which is 34mm (what's your case size?)

 

Thanks! It is as you say, and the printing on your example looks much cleaner too.

My example seems to be 35mm, which may account for their being a bit more space for the '6'.

 

I agree with @bgrisso, this is a redial.

 

A geiger counter will likely confirm if it is redialed. The original radium should set an alarm off — but if the redialer chose to redial with radium then I suppose this is a moot point.

 

You don't often see an accent over the third "E".

 

Indeed not, thought it's hard to tell whether it's a misspelling or one of the many flecks of dried oil in the dial and movement. Now that I'm certain it's a redial, I'm rather hoping that the redialer put it there.

Thanks to everyone for weighing in. I'm a bit surprised there aren't a few more examples out there, as I wouldn't have thought there was anything rare about this watch.

 

Well ... Its an attractive old redial and lovely case and crown. So if you didn't pay to much just enjoy it. There is a pretty good data base of info building up here on Three Hand UG's.

 

It wasn't very expensive. I like it well enough as it is, and hope to add a few more things to the database in future.

 

Without my glasses it wasn’t as obvious it’s a redial