Yeah, the Valjoux 72 thing was that tipped me off. UG at the time was using it's in house mvmts.

But seriously, who goes to that much trouble in frankening a watch? I guess there's huge profits to be made, but who spends that much before being sure of authenticity?

 

Well happens all the time.

 

That is one messed up watch. Dial is all wrong, serial has nothing to do with watch, movement is a jumble of parts ... it is just a complete abortion.

https://page.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/v540427497

Stay well away.

 

Guy had a beautiful fake 2499 on his hands. Ruined it by putting UG on the dial. Such a waste, tsk, tsk.

 

Any thoughts, ideas, comments, complaints about this one?
https://www.ebay.it/itm/Universal-Geneve-tricompax/222830018113?ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

Thanks!

 

It is a put together watch. Dial from later period than case. Some hands are not original.

 

Thanks!
What makes you think it´s a put together watch?
The dial with applied numbers is (referring to Sala... but honestly I am not at all happy with the Tri-compax section of the book... ) quite OK for a 1945 Tri-compax...
Ref. number is 22279 - the case/movement seems to correspond to that ref. number. Serial number 1155793 dates the watch (or at least the case) to late 1945...
Hour hand definitely seems inapropriate.

 

The moonphase/day of the month should not be in recess for a 1945 watch.

 

Looks like late 40s dial and hands should be lumed sword hands. Looks like the dial has been messed with to remove old lume from indices.

 

For sure I do not want to defend the seller of the watch but here I have to disagree.
The indices are "applied"(in relief) and in gold, which is quite correct. So I would rather say that to be a proper 1945 dial, the hands should be leaf hands (like the minute hand) and most probably gold as well (though I have seen 100% original UG watches with "black" leaf hands and golden numbers). Or at least that´s what I see on the photos.
That said, there is still something suspicious about that dial...

 

Thanks, yes, this makes sense.
Although in Sala, page 335, there is a Tri-compax ref. 22502 serial 1105** from 1945 which has a recessed moonphase subdial as well and there is no comment about the dial being a redial or replacement. But as I said before, the Tri-compax section of the Sala book kind of does not satisfy me...
I went through a few Tri-compax discussions here and I am not certain of anything anymore...
Also - 1945 was the year with the most UG watches produced... so god knows what could happen.

 

If you see applied indices here you have better eyes than me. Watch is franken.

 

The photos on eBay are not too good... but here´s a little close-up:

 

Yea ...You are right...Moved from I PHone to 27" I MAC

 

I would think that on page 335 dial is a suspect.

1) it looks brand new compared to all other salas blown up examples in the tri-Compax section
2) the subdial hands were changed, why change them? Combining 1) and 2) a logical explanation would be the watch has been serviced with serviced dial and hands changed
3) the only other blown up sample that has recessed moonphase subdial only surface in 1951

That said I do agree with you that the Tri-Compax section is far from complete.

Picture from page 335

 

Also I should correct this, “put together watch” is too extreme a description. Should be the watch was probably serviced at some point in time with a later dial and hour hand and crown changed.

 

This is a redial

 

the diameter of lower subdial track is too big and should fit in his place, the numbers of this subdial are too small, and fonts of the two others subdials are unknow. This + wrong subdials hands + what @ELV web said, for sure a redial

 

Good one :


Redial