Hello all,

This yellow gold Tri-Compax is being offered from a private seller. I (and Larry confirmed this concern too) am concerned with the bottom subdial, to me it should have closed 6s and 9s instead of open ones right?

The reference and movement seems correct, the production number also has me thinking the black 31 and the lack of a face graphic on the moon phase disc are correct. I'm only concerned about the bottom subdial.

Let me know what you all think!

 

Looks fine to me, similar open 6 and 9 dial.

 

Looks good to me, too.

 

As far as I recall from a UG dial study I read on the Italian forum O&P (I think it may have been written up by @bubawatch ?), the open 6 and open 9 on that subdial are in fact one of the critical tell tale signs of an original dial.
The closed 6 and 9 would conversely be a problem.

 

This is correct - no problem

 

I agree, looks good to me. The faceless moon and black 31 date happened sometime in the 50s, is that right? Or is the black 31 just variable throughout?

 

I'm always really interested to know what people are paying for these, to try and get a baseline on prices. I know it may be a little forward to ask, but curious how much they want? Or pm me? I'm looking for solid gold oversized tri and hard to know how much to pay these days.

 

Good looking watch. What are they asking?

 

It strikes me as strange that there should be a mixture of styles, does anyone have a plausible explanation? On the other hand, why would any half competent re-dialler use a mixture of styles?

 

Dial seems OK to me, on the other hand, hour and minute hands are 100% wrong.
First of all you can see they are too short (especially minute hand) and also they should also be gilt (gold) color.
Gold applied numerals go with gold hands. No doubt about that.
Black 31 is way less common but can be correct.
Open 6s and 9s definitively correct with this serial number and I think it should have a moon-phase disk with face.

 

Price will greatly depends on conditions and on dimensions.
Yellow gold (everything else equal) tend to command less than steel these days (probably also rose gold but it commands more than yellow gold) and since it has a 481 caliber WITHOUT spacer it is probably on the smallish side: 34/35mm?
Given case material, size and conditions (good but nor perfect) I would expect the asking price for this to be in the 4-5k area, but I might be wrong !

 

I much prefer uniformity in numerals.

And gold sword hands would be most correct, but finding same is another kettle o' fish.

 

I suspect on a smaller subdial you need tighter script... but I also suspect there is no reason except that's how UG designed them. It is not a redial, it is original.

 

Anyone have an issue with the lower dial between 35 and 25? It looks refinished to me. Agree hands are wrong.

 

To be fair it does not look refinished to me...

 

Thanks for everyone's input! I do (now) agree the dial is original and that the hour and minute hands are not (thanks @Mlafra ).

For those who are curious, @Mlafra was pretty close on his estimate as the asking was $4,500 and through some research I've found this watch has been posted and sold a few times.

First, the watch was sold at Waddington's auction house in June of 2016 for $6,000 with an estimate of only $2,500-3,500.

https://www.waddingtons.ca/pastauction/587/lot-12

Then the watch was used in Timepiece Chronicle's 1944-1949 Tri-Compax reference guide to represent its reference number, 12283, alongside another 12283 which featured printed numerals in an art-deco style.

https://www.timepiecechronicle.com/...uide-universal-geneve-tri-compax-1944-to-1949

Interesting piece.

 

And the final update is that the watch was sold to the person who had first choice before me, so I missed out!

 

The open 6 and 9 are correct ! I think you have a beautiful example over there !

 

I lost it to someone else, I'm getting something else now!