- Posts
- 967
- Likes
- 3,022
Florent
·Your thoughts should be considered. I will do tomorrow , it's too late right now 😲
Universal Geneve Deco Numbers
- Posts
- 66
- Likes
- 103
Lucas
·Though 650xx and not 84xx but check how much nicer this UG sig is:
- Posts
- 2,926
- Likes
- 6,226
Modest_Proposal
·DETAILS IM REFERING TOO. look at the sub-dial, how the line crosses it a little bit. These print errors were not made in original dials!! this is my view.
The UG I posted in this thread also has a bit of the numeral not filled in (which for this dial process is certainly not unexpected). With regards to that and the slight overlapping of the inking - dial errors and inconsistencies were common all the up until the 50's and 60's for UG.
- Posts
- 66
- Likes
- 103
Lucas
·The UG I posted in this thread also has a bit of the numeral not filled in (which for this dial process is certainly not unexpected). With regards to that and the slight overlapping of the inking - dial errors and inconsistencies were common all the up until the 50's and 60's for UG.
no, not late 40s early 50s. late 50s yes. this example is in the glory years of ug.
also, you are free to think what you want! its not my watch, so im just giving you food for thought!
- Posts
- 2,926
- Likes
- 6,226
Modest_Proposal
·This watch was not produced in the late 1950's.
Check the serial number. And the logo design within the caseback.
Check the serial number. And the logo design within the caseback.
- Posts
- 66
- Likes
- 103
Lucas
·This watch was not produced in the late 1950's.
Check the serial number. And the logo design within the caseback.
I never said it was,. I said late 40s. Actually 849XXX (serial of watch in question) dates it 1941-42, I just checked here:
http://www.wristchronology.com/watch-guide/serial-numbers-by-year-2/universal-geneve-serial-numbers/
My point is, in those years it was hard, almost impossible, to see mistakes like the ones I mentioned.
- Posts
- 2,926
- Likes
- 6,226
Modest_Proposal
·...late 50s yes. this example is in the glory years of ug.
I was confused by this statement of yours.
Still, I disagree that this was made in an era with perfect dial quality control/precision. The 1930's and 1940's are full of them.
- Posts
- 66
- Likes
- 103
Lucas
·Alright, glad you understood now. let's not diverge topic. Two tone dials are very complicated to understand, form my experience. even some insanely beautiful look Patek dials are a clear 'redial' or restored to the expert eye, whereas most people are too stunned by its apparent beauty to see the issues.
Interested in seeing what you guys think. I have empirically laid out my concerns, so I urge you to do the same!
Interested in seeing what you guys think. I have empirically laid out my concerns, so I urge you to do the same!
- Posts
- 1,195
- Likes
- 1,979
rolokr
·Were is Lou"s opinion ? Dre ?
- Posts
- 1,320
- Likes
- 7,886
- Posts
- 2,671
- Likes
- 24,901
ELV web
·I actually saw this watch as well, was interested in it but I also have doubts. It does look more like a very well done redial with all the correct cliche, I think Lucas’s point are quite compelling. The very early universal’s do have that inconsistencies though. But with the doubt in mind I elected to stay away.
- Posts
- 3,092
- Likes
- 23,791
aap
·I actually saw this watch as well, was interested in it but I also have doubts. It does look more like a very well done redial with all the correct cliche, I think Lucas’s point are quite compelling. The very early universal’s do have that inconsistencies though. But with the doubt in mind I elected to stay away.
I'm interested to know and clarify these things. To my mind, UG inconsistencies would be in terms of practices like using different hands across watches of the same references and time period. What @Lucas is pointing out though is quality of printing (i.e. the overextending lines and smudged print).
Edited:
- Posts
- 1,171
- Likes
- 2,996
Mazoue
·look at the number 10 how it touches the inner two tone circle, compare that to say the 4 which hovers better in the circle. there are a few spaces in the numerals that are not fully coloured in. I mean, IMHO redial. Should have stated that. Just seen a lot of these, almost to nice to be true. Plus not a really UG Art Deco, and the UG signature is too new. also the texture of the dial itself is too new. IMHO. always. Let me know what you guys think, am curious too!
I don't agree that the texture of the dial is too new. When viewed closely there are bubbles under the surface and brown foxing to the surface where corrosion under the surface is breaking through.
I'm less concerned by the imprecision of the numerals. They have been drawn in an almost comical style and the fact that some numbers brush the line, some are proud of the line and the 12 was clearly intended to cross the line, does not look out of place to me.
I also wonder whether we should be judging all UG watches produced during the same period with the same exacting standards. This dial could have been produced in very small numbers or even be a one-off. It could have been produced by a different team or by an entirely different process to say a tri-compax dial from the same period.
Finally, when the conclusion edges towards a dial being being a very well done redial produced using the correct cliche then I am minded to think that in all probability that it is original.
- Posts
- 464
- Likes
- 1,165
10H10
·Here is an art deco dial mirror effects, made at the time, they were indeed very professionally done and precise...
- Posts
- 2,671
- Likes
- 24,901
ELV web
·I can’t disagree more, to me if the doubt is there then it is just always going to be there until proven other wise. And in the world of vintage the time taken to do so is just too long. So if I were to pull a trigger, I just have to admit I bot the unknown.
I don't agree that the texture of the dial is too new. When viewed closely there are bubbles under the surface and brown foxing to the surface where corrosion under the surface is breaking through.
I'm less concerned by the imprecision of the numerals. They have been drawn in an almost comical style and the fact that some numbers brush the line, some are proud of the line and the 12 was clearly intended to cross the line, does not look out of place to me.
I also wonder whether we should be judging all UG watches produced during the same period with the same exacting standards. This dial could have been produced in very small numbers or even be a one-off. It could have been produced by a different team or by an entirely different process to say a tri-compax dial from the same period.
Finally, when the conclusion edges towards a dial being being a very well done redial produced using the correct cliche then I am minded to think that in all probability that it is original.
- Posts
- 967
- Likes
- 3,022
- Posts
- 464
- Likes
- 1,165
- Posts
- 967
- Likes
- 3,022
Florent
·
- Posts
- 1,171
- Likes
- 2,996
Mazoue
·I can’t disagree more, to me if the doubt is there then it is just always going to be there until proven other wise. And in the world of vintage the time taken to do so is just too long. So if I were to pull a trigger, I just have to admit I bot the unknown.
I'm not sure our views are that far apart. You are talking in terms of certainty, whereas I am talking about probabilities. I agree that any doubt remains until proven otherwise but proof is nigh on impossible to obtain.
- Posts
- 2,671
- Likes
- 24,901
ELV web
·I'm not sure our views are that far apart. You are talking in terms of certainty, whereas I am talking about probabilities. I agree that any doubt remains until proven otherwise but proof is nigh on impossible to obtain.
Similar threads
- Posts
- 7
- Views
- 5K
- Posts
- 2
- Views
- 5K
