Universal Vintage: How Does It Measure Up?

Time Exposure · Apr 2, 2015

Many Universal watches are collectible: calendars and chronographs, Pol-a/e-routers, etc. Martel has earned much respect as a manufacturer of high quality movements. But a question came up as I discussed watches with a like-minded (scary!) colleague:
How does a non-complicated, non-Genta designed Universal (Martel?) movement compare to other manufacturers (like Longines)?
I was wearing a Longines automatic at the time.
I have always accepted that Universal was a quality timepiece. I have even heard of it referred to as the "poor man's Patek." I believe this was because the Henri Stern Agency in the United States distributed only Patek and Universal, but I also connected a quality factor (whether fact or perception).
I don't recall seeing much (any) awards for exceptional Observatory testing results, but I'm not certain. Of course, this may suggest that, like IWC, they simply did not submit movements for testing. I do not have access to Sala's book (which might answer my question or at least provide the basis for an opinion).
So from the Golden Age of Wristwatches (say, 1947-ish to 1966-ish), would you rather have had a time-only, three hand Universal over a Longines? A micro-rotor Universal (forgot the reference number) or a Longines caliber 29x/34x/35x?
I'd love to know your opinion of the "Golden Age" top ten, but that seems like a topic many here will not touch (maybe that "other" forum where I can ask if my Rolex Deep Sea makes me look fat...)
😀

ulackfocus · Apr 2, 2015

In the period you're talking about (1947 - 1966), there aren't many watches that I'd rather have than a Longines until you get to the Big 3 (AP, VC, PP). IWC's Pellaton automatics and their Caliber 89 were very close in quality though. Brands like UG, Girard Perregaux, and Rolex were not in the same league when it came to the quality of their movements.

Time Exposure · Apr 2, 2015

U ulackfocus
...Brands like UG, Girard Perregaux, and Rolex were not in the same league when it came to the quality of their movements.

Was Omega intentionally not mentioned due to concerns for personal safety? 😉

ulackfocus · Apr 2, 2015

Time Exposure
Was Omega intentionally not mentioned due to concerns for personal safety? 😉

Haha! Not at all. In the period you're talking about, Omega belongs in the Top 10 for sure. They got better as those years went by, eventually surpassing Longines in the 60's. Hamilton should also be in the mix - even if you only consider they only made manual wind in-house movements. The 770 and Medallion 982 calibers were excellent designs and watchmakers say they're a pleasure to work on.

I think @gatorcpa has an excerpt from an old Consumer Reports (back when they had a different name) that ranked the brands for quality.

Modest_Proposal · Apr 2, 2015

U ulackfocus
In the period you're talking about (1947 - 1966), there aren't many watches that I'd rather have than a Longines until you get to the Big 3 (AP, VC, PP). IWC's Pellaton automatics and their Caliber 89 were very close in quality though. Brands like UG, Girard Perregaux, and Rolex were not in the same league when it came to the quality of their movements.

I always thought the microrotor movements that UG produced were really admirable. Few microrotors were around (or have come since) and it was finished better than their manual wind movements.

ulackfocus · Apr 2, 2015

Modest_Proposal
I always thought the microrotor movements that UG produced were really admirable. Few microrotors were around (or have come since) and it was finished better than their manual wind movements.

Yes, they were nice - but it was Buren that filed and won a case for patent infringement against UG for this exact movement. I guess it's similar to PP, VC, and AP using JLC ebauches, except JLC didn't have to sue them to get the money. ::stirthepot::

Tony C. · Apr 2, 2015

How do they measure up? Well, compared with Certina (marketing), not very well…

AAAKK · Apr 2, 2015

U ulackfocus
In the period you're talking about (1947 - 1966), there aren't many watches that I'd rather have than a Longines until you get to the Big 3 (AP, VC, PP). IWC's Pellaton automatics and their Caliber 89 were very close in quality though. Brands like UG, Girard Perregaux, and Rolex were not in the same league when it came to the quality of their movements.

That's a nice and concise overview for those of us that don't have a lot of knowledge with respect to that era. Thanks

Modest_Proposal · Apr 2, 2015

U ulackfocus
Yes, they were nice - but it was Buren that filed and won a case for patent infringement against UG for this exact movement. I guess it's similar to PP, VC, and AP using JLC ebauches, except JLC didn't have to sue them to get the money.

True enough!

Time Exposure · Apr 3, 2015

JLC developed the caliber 920 for exclusive use by PP/VC/AP (and didn't even put it into a JLC-branded watch). Except for one weakness (prevented with regular maintenance), it is regarded as one of the all-time greatest automatic movements made.
http://people.timezone.com/library/horologium/horologium631686780396906210
So I guess it's difficult to devise a list or hierarchy over any period of time (like my 1947-1966 "Golden" period). It really seems to depend on a narrower time, or on a particular movement.
JLC's masterpiece was created in 1967, and historically they had always manufactured very good quality movements. But can anyone argue LeCoultre was better than Longines or Omega at any given time? Was JLC "better" in 1967 than 1953? Or was that 1967 caliber 920 just a show-stopper?
I think I will always be playing and tweaking my "list," especially since opinion carries as much (or more) weight than fact (which can be difficult to support). And I'm always learning (even after collector 30 years...).
Thank you to those who have offered their opinion. I hope others continue to chime in!

MMMD · Apr 3, 2015

U ulackfocus
In the period you're talking about (1947 - 1966), there aren't many watches that I'd rather have than a Longines until you get to the Big 3 (AP, VC, PP). IWC's Pellaton automatics and their Caliber 89 were very close in quality though. Brands like UG, Girard Perregaux, and Rolex were not in the same league when it came to the quality of their movements.

I agree for the most part with this assessment, but let me put on my fanboy hat for a moment.

We're talking about the Golden Age of Ephrem Jobin at Zenith, i.e. pre-Martelization. I would lump Zenith with Longines, above UG/Rolex/GP riff-raff. The cal 135 is well known for accuracy and quality, but the cal 71 is the one that my watchmaker, who has seen his fair share of high-end vintage, really gushed over, (mainly in terms of design... he also likes the Longines cal 291, BTW).

Cal 135:

Cal 71:

Cal 133.8:

But let's face it... in the 50's, even Enicar could finish off a Schild movement pretty nicely. What an era for the wrist watch.

ulackfocus · Apr 3, 2015

Time Exposure
JLC developed the caliber 920 for exclusive use by PP/VC/AP (and didn't even put it into a JLC-branded watch). Except for one weakness (prevented with regular maintenance), it is regarded as one of the all-time greatest automatic movements made.
http://people.timezone.com/library/horologium/horologium631686780396906210

You'll get no argument from me!

MMMD
We're talking about the Golden Age of Ephrem Jobin at Zenith, i.e. pre-Martelization. I would lump Zenith with Longines, above UG/Rolex/GP riff-raff. The cal 135 is well known for accuracy and quality, but the cal 71 is the one that my watchmaker, who has seen his fair share of high-end vintage, really gushed over....

I knew if I left the door open one of you Zenmasters would walk in. Took you long enough! Zenith actually might have been the apex of manual wind calibers back then, mopping the floor with all who sent calibers to the chronometer competitions. Didn't they win more than the overall second (Longines) and third (Omega) place manufacturers combined during the years they held those contests?

MMMD
(... he also likes the Longines cal 291, BTW)

As do I - for it's incredibly efficient and near bulletproof engineering. 👍

Time Exposure · Apr 3, 2015

DIBS on Dennis' AP. Hopefully by the time he's fool enough to sell it I'll have some watch money saved up. And @ulackfocus, if it's coming to market anytime soon, PM me so I can unload some of my "odds and ends" in a desperate effort to get that.

ulackfocus · Apr 3, 2015

Time Exposure
DIBS on Dennis' AP. Hopefully by the time he's fool enough to sell it I'll have some watch money saved up. And @ulackfocus, if it's coming to market anytime soon, PM me so I can unload some of my "odds and ends" in a desperate effort to get that.

I never say never, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. 😉 😜

Allant · Apr 3, 2015

Thanks, this is the sort of discussion that provides an educational experience for us newbies.

Time Exposure · Apr 3, 2015

Allant
Thanks, this is the sort of discussion that provides an educational experience for us newbies.

It's discussions like this that I love. Sadly, I don't see them as often as I would like. I think people are either shy or disinterested in sharing their opinions or knowledge when it comes to "x is better than y." That, and sometimes the discussions spiral into asinine arguments about Rolex versus Omega.
I hope all can rest with their Rolex versus Omega opinions and not try to shove them down our collective throats. I am more interested in comparing the quality of, say, LeCoultre to Zenith to Universal to Longines to other manufacturers that collectors appreciate for their quality (and the reasons why).
I have already formed my opinion on who I think the bests manufacturers were during the period from first place (Patek), second and third (can't decide if VC then AP, or AP then VC), and fourth (IWC). My fifth is Omega or Zenith or Rolex or Longines, depending on the opinion I subscribe to that day. Next is Le Coultre or Universal or Movado or...ah, heck. Why sort the list when it will change with the next well-thought post? 😀

GoldenHour · Apr 3, 2015

Allant
Thanks, this is the sort of discussion that provides an educational experience for us newbies.

Most definitely ! A fountain flowing with tremendous information.

STANDY · Apr 4, 2015

The classic era where the cars that won races were rushed out on production lines
The watches that had the new movement were marketed with gusto.

Who would have thought that we would still be wearing some of these beauties today and comparing brands like yester-year.

The manual winds and early automatic,s will always have a special place for me even though i don't get a chance to wear them that much with my work and climate

Time Exposure · Apr 4, 2015

STANDY
...The manual winds and early automatics will always have a special place for me even though I don't get a chance to wear them that much with my work and climate...

Indeed, an entire collection could be comprised of award-winning or technically significant (for the time) movements and models from the "era."
At different time over the last 30 years, I have considered collecting chronometers (a la Zenith/Omega/Longines), exceptional automatic movements (where do you draw the line?), automatic chronographs...
At least (possibly to my disadvantage) I have always preferred only mechanical watches of Swiss origin.

woodwkr2 · Apr 7, 2015

I guess I'll throw a wrench into this discussion.

I never really think about great movements as being brand specific. That is, I don't think that every movement the Big Three developed was a classic just because their name was affixed. Rather, I like to pick off the classics from different brands. We can get into discussions of fit and finish, but if we're talking about pure horological engineering delight... well, then I think it's hard to do better than an IWC calibre 89 or a Zenith 135 or a Longines 13ZN or a Universal/Martel 281/481 or a Valjoux 88, or the JLC 486/A or the Victorin Piguet/Patek PPM 394, or the Universal/Hamilton/Buren/whatever calibre 69 or a Zenith calibre 3019... or even an A.Schild 1475 or a Rolex 1570<gasp!>