Lets see your UG Tri-Compax

G
Posts
17
Likes
14
SN is like 1244...
I hear that on the value. I feel like it looks really nice and is kinda put together in a way where it's only obvious to those that understand the distinctions in what was done in each time period. I feel like I'd prefer an original in worse condition, but maybe not by THAT much. First vintage watch so I'm really struggling to figure out what I value most
 
Larry S
Posts
13,457
Likes
52,945
It’s not a collector piece but it ain’t crap either. Is it 35mm?
 
G
Posts
17
Likes
14
No it's advertised at 36.5 and that seems to be accurate. Funny enough I was using an example for sale at Matthew Bain that's a similar mid 40s SN with no face on the moon, a signed crown and the same missing circle around the moonphase dial and they are asking like 17k! So maybe it's not that bad a scoop at the right price.
 
Larry S
Posts
13,457
Likes
52,945
MB is a very optimistic pricer. He has nice stuff though. That’s an odd size and now We need the reference. I’m no where near 17k on this.
 
Larry S
Posts
13,457
Likes
52,945
37mm ... three part case. Overall $7 - $8.5k ......Certainly not $17.
 
Larry S
Posts
13,457
Likes
52,945
B.Frost B.Frost
I thought all 37mm refs serial numbers started with a 2...?
No...see Dre’s UG info sticky at top.
 
Larry S
Posts
13,457
Likes
52,945
There are so few watches out In the market. Most are not 100% original. It’s very hard to peg value anymore.
 
MarktheTime
Posts
836
Likes
3,572
As for the ring around the date/moon, an emphatic “no”, they are not required in order to be perfectly original Tri-Compax from the era. There is a thread on this very topic elsewhere in the forum if anyone can easily find it,,,
In the meantime, this was mine, and now in the good care of OF member @calalum :
 
3E3ED621-0DFE-483E-ACCB-CB908D2F02E8.jpeg
G
Posts
17
Likes
14
Awesome example. I definitely am on the same page that the lack of a ring is legitimate, I just don't know if it's legitimate for a SN number that indicates a mid 40s vintage, which I guess I'm trying to figure out. I think I found the thread you are referring to where you found an ad in black and white without a ring and that's sort of the point where it left off without discussing exact years
 
Larry S
Posts
13,457
Likes
52,945
G Goldchronolove
Awesome example. I definitely am on the same page that the lack of a ring is legitimate, I just don't know if it's legitimate for a SN number that indicates a mid 40s vintage, which I guess I'm trying to figure out. I think I found the thread you are referring to where you found an ad in black and white without a ring and that's sort of the point where it left off without discussing exact years
The watch in question is a 40s case with a 50s dial. It also has a 50’s crown and at some point the spring bar posts were removed. Given the weathered condition on the original moon disk (a big plus) the original dial was in rough shape. It could have happened during a service or the watch was rebuilt from parts. Either way, it’s not original but it’s pretty dammed nice. The fact that it’s all UG and not a redial is good. The case work again is a fault although I hate female spring bars as do most of us. It is a good watch but not a great one. ( would have to be all original and minty to be great, a big ask for a 40s watch) . My point is buy at a price that reflects all this and you won’t be hurt.
Edited:
 
321Only
Posts
424
Likes
688
What a great thread, keep posting please. I want to see more beauties 🥰
 
386 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...