Neither of them are redials. Crooked hand indeed.

 

I'm probably not a fair judge on what a desirable example of this looks like, so would you mind expounding upon that? (for the people interested in this exampple)

 

The reason I classed it as desirable, is because it is (IMHO) a nice looking classic with a clean dial, original hands and lume (stand to be corrected), original crystal and crown, nice clean movement and NOS bezel. From what I can see, the case looks good and there is also a reference and serial on back so making it straight forward to identify and date. It is also the first version of the later subs which in my eyes is the nicer looking one out of the two with a classic 60's futuristic font. The term desirable implies that it would would be something that many people would like to own. However, desirable to one, may not be desirable to another. Therefore as always, it is down to taste, in some cases budget and preference or in a nutshell, desirability is relative. Hope that helps!

 

http://m.ebay.com/itm/UNIVERSAL-GEN...SE-CHRONOGRAPH-WATCH-/321911093158?nav=SEARCHPurchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

Not bad if not bothered by the female springbar. Also I don't understand Spanish so not sure if the discs are correctly worded or not (I don't mind patina)

 

This one is mine, and actually on the wrist this morning:

Berthoud is the family name of one of the UG founders. I have not been able to make out why UG used this name on some deliveries. It seems however that they did that for some military/commercial series.
I agree that the logo on the watch in question is a bit rough, however I would be surprised if someone re-dialed it Berthoud?

 

Yours is awesome, +1 . On the one I questioned, I actually think that maybe the logo was no longer readable for whatever reasons and a bad touch up was done....

 

Thanks!
The relative obscurity of the Berthoud name even enabled me to actually purchase it at a very decent price. In these times of UG-mania I would think Berthoud can be a brand to look for. Basically same watches, but not as hyped.

 

I am really bad at changing the straps for those . I won't consider myself a collector though, more like hanging around and randomly picking up what I like. Last but not least, my Favourite UG for strap changing is this one.....

 

Out of curiosity and general self enlightenment; Is there a specific year or period when UG went from female to male spring bars (in general).
My 1938 waterproof and 1947 tri-compax does not have female spring bars.

 

Tri compax 18k. Waterproof is steel.

 

Ref 12253. Cal 481.

 

And some of these cases too apparently.

 

Perhaps someone have modified the female springbar mounts into male during a service?
I personally do not like the female springbars as they are a pig to work on when installing a strap.
I guess filing down the stud, and then drilling a new hole is not very hard to do?
If the stud breaks of I guess that may also be an easier (stronger) fix rather than trying to solder in a new one??

 

there is a reason for female springbar mounts ...

They are usually found on cases made of easily malleable metals such as brass gold and silver. Rarely on steel. Soft metals will eventually distort and wear due to stress that male steel pin puts softer metal hole which eventually leads to failure. There are some other factor at play such as galvanizing due to different metals coupled with a fluid medium (sweat, rain and moisture) which leads to the gradual oxidation and wearing away of the less reactive metal (in this case gold).

... I miss my student days at UCL studying biochemistry !

 

Maybe I just read you wrong, but I assume you are saying Gold is not reactive?
We often use gold plating on contacts in order to minimize galvanic corrosion on our electronics contacts. I have seen for myself system failures costing several million dollars caused by suppliers not paying attention to this.

I have a 1943 IWC in stainless with female springbars. My only one with such construction.

 

No, not at all. You are correct. Gold is NOT very reactive. It is the softer metal that is attacked by the reactive metal. That is why Gold is used in expensive electronics and lasts a long time (Gold artifacts do not eventually crumble to nothing like other metals). It does not oxidize!



Similar to Hydrogen, on its own it is harmless. Coupled with oxygen, you have a highly explosive Gas !

 

Good! Then my chemistry lessons from back in the days still does not fail me