Ah the case of the inconsistent UG dial printing strikes again. I think UG's QC was inconsistent at best. There's another thread on similar issues between dial marker and sub dial printing, bleeding, general unevenness etc. between similar models. UG made some pretty pretty watches with unique and creative designs and robust, flat-out gorgeous movements. But the QC dept. must have taken those long lunches at the pub before heading back to work back in the day...
Leaving us collectors today to fret worry and agitate over these old machines..

 

So I am assuming this one is a redial or a dial swapped from another ref?

 

That’s new!

 

I’ll probably let the experts chime in on this!

 

This is not the same dial.

This usually come with 22297 but this exemple could be correct with that dial

 

It would be interesting to see the reference number of that watch !

 

This is a ref 222100/1

 

Sorry folks, it is a tri-compax, but not as we know it ...


I would need a good close up of dial to determine if it is original. However, that case and dial variation is not how it left UG. Hands are late 50s early 60s and would not have been issued with that dial.

reference and serial please ...

 

Which one?

 

The one you posted, ref is 222100/1 and serial ?

 

I know the ref only, it is not mine but it was offered to me.for a trade... I declined

 

Is it correct but just missing the bezel, but that would mean hands are wrong

 

Just wanted to revive this topic and would like to know if what @Fost asked about the black dial variant for a 222100-1 case existed? I chanced upon a watch that matches Fost's picture and description but it does not have reference number nor serial so impossible to identify but it has bombay lugs so i believe it is a 222100.

Because the only evidence that this black dial variant exists for the 222100 is
1) the picture Fost provided
2) this listing here from an italian dealer
3) this other piece i chanced upon

I am 99% sure that all 3 pieces are different from each other due to the markings and stains on the dial...

The only black dial variant of a bezeless tri-compax I have seen is the example of the 22297 from acollectedman but this is a curved lug variant which is unlike the 3 examples i've found.

Just very curious if a 222100 ever had a black dial variant or if it is just a dial replacement from a possible Eric Clapton Tri-Compax. Because although there could coincidentally be 3 unique/different examples of 222100 with franken Eric Clapton black dials, it may be a possibility that UG did actually have a very rare black dial variant of the 222100 which is undocumented somehow. From what i know, it is not easy to get a standalone Eric Clapton dial, so i find it puzzling that there would be multiple different examples of a franken watch with the same combination.

Would love to hear the opinions of the experts @Florent @Diabolik/anyone has Sala's UG book to reference or better yet, own a black dial variant in 22297 or 222100 to help shed some light on this topic.

 

Please add pictures.

 

Added the photo to my original post

 

Wasn't this on ebay for a while? I had the same questions but didn't really dive into it since I wasn't serious about buying it.

 

Yep, the seller indicated the wrong reference it seems. He mentioned it was a 22297 but the case has bombay lugs of a 222100. A little confused.

 

Is 222100 the only SS twisted lugs reference without a bezel? I can't think of others offhand, but have not researched.

Sala has a 22297/1 example similar to the Collected Man link above, although collected man example has blue chrono sweep which is almost impossible to read on black dial, doesn't seem such a likely combination? The Sala example has a silver sweep that does not look factory, so not sure what to make of that. I don't know if either of these examples are original factory combos.

Anyhow back to twisted lugs, I would tend to think people are just swapping out dials, but short of finding UG materials that show a black dial in a twisted lugs case, without a bezel, not sure its possible to definitely prove this either way.

Since the only difference between 222100/1 and 222100/2 is a tachy, seems like a black dial variant would have warranted it's own /X designation?

 

I’d question why this variation has painted indices while other variations in the same reference do not. Are there any other tri compax references that came in both painted and non painted indices? Seems like a significant change that could warrant its own reference number as UG did with the 881101.

Since there are more questions than answers about this piece, I’d say you’d have to buy with the underlying notion that’d you’d be okay with it being a possible Franken. Between google and sala’s book, we’re all working with the same historical information — new information would need to come from someone who was alive to remember what UG offered in the 50-60s.

 

on a side note, I got a 222100/1 last year, so I will shamelessly post it here, unrelated to the black dial discussion.....