Universal Geneve Watches On Ebay

Posts
1,384
Likes
2,929
Comments on this bracelet please ....

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/23396381...-53481-19255-0&campid=5338788128&toolid=10001

s-l1600.jpg

Another one has popped up ... slightly different band but half price !

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/UNIVERSA...ersal+Gen%E8ve&_trksid=p2047675.c101195.m1851

s-l1600.jpg
 
This website may earn commission from Ebay sales.
Posts
1,167
Likes
4,181
I do have some doubts though.
May I ask what doubts exactly?

I am asking because I don't understand what the serial should tell us?
Very close serial: 203 (vs 211 of the watch pictured)
 
Posts
947
Likes
3,592
serial number is not related to dial configurations, in UG watches from 40s.
 
Posts
1,167
Likes
4,181
serial number is not related to dial configurations, in UG watches from 40s.
That's why I am asking.
 
Posts
5,654
Likes
8,776
Well I'm not fully convinced about that. I think dials were very easily swapped at UG but in the end they will have come from the factory with the same dial if the have the same reference and were in the same batch...
Edited:
 
Posts
13,058
Likes
52,038
I don’t doubt that this is a UG dial. I do wonder what “factory overhaul” means in the provenance.
 
Posts
3,280
Likes
7,766
Well I'm not fully convinced about that. I think dials were very easily swapped at UG but in the end they will have come from the factory with the same dial if the have the same serial and were in the same batch...

Interesting topic, I've always assumed there is no link between serial, case reference, and dial/handset in the 30s/40s. Although it makes sense that factory techs might assemble the same exact configuration at least a few times in a row, I could just as easily see them doing whatever they want, with no rhyme or reason.

How are you defining same serial and same batch? Have you been documenting/researching this?

Aside from the archival pic configurations, I'm not sure how anyone could prove a factory configuration vs a combination that was made after it left the factory.
 
Posts
13,058
Likes
52,038
Interesting topic, I've always assumed there is no link between serial, case reference, and dial/handset in the 30s/40s. Although it makes sense that factory techs might assemble the same exact configuration at least a few times in a row, I could just as easily see them doing whatever they want, with no rhyme or reason.

How are you defining same serial and same batch? Have you been documenting/researching this?

Aside from the archival pic configurations, I'm not sure how anyone could prove a factory configuration vs a combination that was made after it left the factory.
Not to mention the fact that dealers could configure watches too customer specs as I understand it.
 
Posts
5,654
Likes
8,776
How are you defining same serial and same batch? Have you been documenting/researching this?
Apologies: for serial read 'reference'. I am in the proces of doing so (basically I am collectiong the combination of serials and movement numbers) and I am more and more convinced that a reference was produced in a batch of 250 or 500 examples.

I posted this earlier in this thread:
I think 22258/9 were made in multiple batches. I have more records - again only: if I have both serial and movement number - than the 6 I mentioned.

However the first batch is all in the range I posted above. So:
Batch 1 946k
Batch 2 1.043m (around)
Batch 3 1.066/1.067m
Batch 4 1.156/1.157m

Total records: 12 of which 9 22258 and 3 22259. The one in Sala is also 946.xxx but unfortunately Sala rarely shows movement pics.
Edited:
 
Posts
3,280
Likes
7,766
Apologies: for serial read 'reference'. I am in the proces of doing so (basically I am collectiong the combination of serials and movement numbers) and I am more and more convinced that a reference was produced in a batch of 250 or 500 examples.

I posted this earlier in this thread:

very cool that you are compiling this, getting solid data is obviously the starting point. I assume you are getting combinations of case serials and case references? (movement numbers seems less important and many are not numbered)

it is very unfortunate that the UG archival pics only record the case reference and not the case serial, as this information would be crucial to this project.

all that being said, I am very skeptical that UG would have produce 250 to 500 of a given reference in the exact same configuration, as this does not reflect the real world examples I have seen, which are completely all over the map. Just going on my gut, I don't think that such large majority of examples would have been altered by a dial swap after they left the factory.

But I could be completely wrong. Anything that moves the research and understanding forward, is great IMO !
 
Posts
5,654
Likes
8,776
Reference, serial and movement number. I now have almost 800 combinations.

We know that UG was (extremely) easy with swapping dials. However: it seems unlikely to me that they did not produce their watches in a certain combination and that the watches were shipped in this combination. Even today this is basically what Rolex does with datejusts: sold with standard dials and if required the dial can be swapped.

Given that the watches which I am looking at have serials between (say) 800k and 1,6m they are at least 70 years old and the number of original dials will be very limited. Of the thousands of watches I have seen a high percentage had obvious redials.

Anyway. I will be posting about the data. Don’t yet know how and what but the conclusions will be interesting.
 
Posts
5,654
Likes
8,776
Aside from the archival pic configurations, I'm not sure how anyone could prove a factory configuration vs a combination that was made after it left the factory.
To avoid any confusion: I think so too.

However: there are IMHO 2 ‘certain’ starting points 1) period catalogues and 2) the design pictures from the Sala book. Of course it will be almost impossible to prove in which configuration watches left the factory but we know for sure there are examples which 1:1 match the catalogues and Sala pics. To me that indicates that they have left the factory in this configuration. The other option would be that they would leave the factory as a kit i.e. a watch without dial and hands and that they were mounted in the shop after the customer has made a choice. If this was the case I then don’t understand why UG would have bothered to produce dozens of different references.....
Edited:
 
Posts
856
Likes
2,344
Posted before in some other post but will post again here- Some pages from an old 1930's UG catalogue with their Cal 285s. It reads on the 2nd page in English: All pieces are guaranteed to be interchangeable.

I'm not sure how they were shipped out from factory- maybe @Mark020 you are correct that they came in 'standard' dials and then were customizable at the dealer. Another possibility is that they were custom ordered- you go in to the dealer, pre-select the case, dial, etc. and wait until the factory shipped and delivered it to your dealer.

Catalogue Page 28: translated into English from google:
When ordering chronograph-computers or dials, indicate the reference numbers and the paint diameter of the dials