I am interested in buying this Universal Genève Compax Chronograph 22523, may I have your thoughts about it?

Everything ok? Anything should I be concerned about?

Thank you

 

Case was polished, gilt dial looks okay. Swiss at bottom of dial ?

 

Pretty amazing compax, my only question is the lume. The sales info states the dial and hands have been relumed. If you focus in the 8 for example, it does look quite "unsteady". The example of this dial from archives pic in Sala is in the same exact case ref, so that is encouraging, however that one has no lume on the dial and no lume stick hands. Anyhow, long story short, my only question is on the lume, but it already states as relumed, so not sure there is anything else to know definitively. I think it's a really cool UG.

 

Hi there!
I would like to help you, because this is my ex-watch. I sold it to this famous german dealer because I needed funds for a pretty expensive incoming.
This watch is really exciting, it's - for my knowledge of course - the only surfaced example of that rare reference.
Dial is mezmerising. Two level of paint, the lower one matt black with gilt graphic, the upper one mirror silver with white graphic. In real life is crazy, and impossible to shoot properly!
The lume is an old relume. I founded like this and never touched, and the previous owner had it for like 30 years never touching it too.
Here there's a pic of it in "real life", to let you understand better how warm and fascinating the watch is.
I hope this will help you.

 

Here’s the archive pic

 

Thank you guys!

At the beginning I was a bit scared, but if serial number and reference are correct for you experts then I am confident to pull the trigger on the watch!

 

I can't hardly wait to see your new incoming.
You always find/have great watches.
Cheers

 

Is it reasonable to assume, based on the archival photo, that this watch did not start its life off lumed? Which would also mean that the hour and minute hands are not original.

We all know that UG was no stranger to variation. And they certainly could have offered a similar dial with lume. That being said, the lumed script is thin and exactly the same font as in the archival photo.

 

Hour and minute hands are 100% original, maybe they could be not "native", but of course are original.
That said, as you correctly said, UG accepted some variations for orders from their customers.
This dial - this ref of course - is more than rare. But I can't say this is an unique piece! Probably there were some without lume, and some others, like this, with lume. Same thing for every other UG ref.

 

What makes you 100% convinced that these hands are 100% original, and that this dial started its life with lume?

I'm operating off of the archival photo, which appears to not be lumed. Are you under the impression that the archival dial is lumed? Or is there something else convincing you?

 

In the archive there's ONE example of this ref. In UG, untile mid-50s, reference numbers were related only to case design and not to other factors. So usually you can find many combinations for the same reference.
Plus I have a modest experience in UG chronographs and I can assure you that these hands are 100% original. I can't understand why dubting that.
In the end, I bought it from a a collector that had it for like 30 years never touching it.
Hands as said were relumed in the past, but from an all-original handset.

 

I am aware that archival records are not the end all-be. There are many variations that we don't have archival evidence for. I am also aware that this hand type was used by UG.

However, my observations still stand:

We have exactly one known established example of this dial as far as we know. And that dial is not lumed. Furthermore, the font of the lumed watch and of the non-lumed watch are identical in style and width. This is possibly because the person who applied the lume followed the lines of the original script.

We know that the watch was untouched for at least 30 years, and I can believe that. It may even be the case that the watch was sent to UG many decades ago and given lume by the factory, and new hands. This is not unheard of. These are all just possibilities.

I do not claim to know if this dial is original or not. But I think, considering my observations and the lack of clear evidence in either direction, being 100% confident either way is really not an option.

 

I don't understand these two sentences about the same watch. Please explain how modified hands = 100% original.

 

Is the serial number correct?

I mean Universal Geneve correct, not rewritten or anything?

 

The case/dial combo appears legit. Take a look at the archival photo and you'll see the same pairing. It's the lume and hands I'm concerned about.

 

Ok, I was told that the reference numbers looks strange, like it was rewritten.

 

I had these same questions. Anyhow I'm not sure anyone is really saying anything different, perhaps it comes down to semantics. @vujen says the configuration may not be native, but is original, you would have to get exact definitions from people what they mean.

I see several possible scenarios....

1) current configuration is factory original, but relumed (how is this known, due to previous owner stating it has been relumed?)
2) current configuration is factory configuration (or reconfiguration) at customer request, but relumed
3) current configuration is due to someone other than the factory luming the dial and adding lumed UG hands

I think you can make plausible arguments for any of these scenarios, ultimately it cannot be answered, and it would just be a guess to try and pick one.

Since this dial is so rare, and the seller already states the lume has been redone, I don't think trying to justify any one of the above scenarios has a major impact on value.

I guess the owner, could consider to remove the lume from the dial (since it has already been redone), and source a pair of stick hands, and go after the configuration example in the archives pic, however, this could just as well be heading in the completely "wrong" direction, and I quite like the lume hands, so I might just as well enjoy it completely in its current configuration.

With UG, these are unanswerable questions, unless you can find the exact correct archival pic, or unless you can find enough other same examples to justify your opinions.

My (complete) guess, just based on my gut, is that both lumed and non lumed examples of this dial/hands exist. I hope we see more examples in the future !

 

who says this? I don't see any evidence to support this at all

 

Sorry, I don't have any evidence, as I was doing some research I was told that by some collectors that the reference numbers looks odd like it was rewritten.

Since for all the experts here look correct I apologize for my comment.

I didn't want to discredit the watch.

 

The answer lies beneath the surface of the lume, if any trace of what was beneath remains.

I would expect the answer, if found, would have a major impact on value. Not that that's going to happen.