Unfortunately Dr Ranfft's site - although the most comprehensive on the web - doesn't have every movement ever made. He mainly puts on the movements which pass through his hands. I can't positively ID the movement - but it looks good to me. It has a high standard of finish and the markings look authentic. Hopefully someone else can be more positive.
The movement is certainly OK, and original to the watch. There were many similar movements produced by various manufacturers during that period, and most were based on (or quite similar to) the ETA 1100 series.
you were pretty close with the Universal 56. I have some variants of this calibre in the
pipeline, but hesitate to publish them, because the designation system of Universal is pretty
confusing, and the differences between some calibres are not visible.
Anyway, it appears that the Univesal 56 is equivalent to the the 1105 (11.5''') and the
smaller 1005 (10.5'''). Redesigned versions got either a suffix or a prefix in the form 1-, 2- etc.
I can't read it in your photo, but I suspect, it is a Universal 1-1105 or 1105-1, with the
version prefix/suffix 1 indicating a movable stud carrier, thus actually the same features as
the 56.
The same movements (with minor optical differences) were available from Movado, and I
have no idea who actually produced them.
So I got the watch in this week and finally had a chance to open her up and take some more pics of the movement and some of the blemishes.
Overall it seems to be running both fast and slow. Probably just needs a good oiling and cleaning, which I have on my to do list. But after all the feedback from all of you and taking a closer look at the movement, I feel I did snag a great deal on an authentic Universal Geneve.
And the movement is marked "1107-1," anyone know much about that particular model? Probably a variant as Roland Ranfft suggests. Just curious.
Without further ado, here are the mess of photos:
(crystal needs a polish)
(there are some spots on the dial)
(plating has worn off on the one lug)
(not sure what these numbers on the back of the case signify)
thought it looked similar this but my zodiac balance bridge is diamond shaped and there are other subtle differences too. I guess this is the same 1100 as mentioned above?:
nothing to doubt. The Universal has a long line of successors with minor modifications, and
the 1107 is the last. I didn't notice the date, else I'd identify it immediately as 1107-1,
because this is the only member of this family with date.
For the decision whether this calibre was made by Movado or Universal, I'd lke to know how
the date is set on your Universal. Can it be quick set by repeating pulling the crown?
Hi DaBaeker,
the Zodiac 1100 is an ETA 1100 without noticable mosifications. If you compare Movado
345/348, Univerasl 56 (1105, 1106, 1107) you'll see that the first two have almost all details
common, while the ETA is completely different except the rough shapes of the bridges:
Last not least, the Movado/Universal is a relatively slim design, 3.35mm high, while the ETA is a more rugged design, 4.5mm high.
For the decision whether this calibre was made by Movado or Universal, I'd lke to know how the date is set on your Universal. Can it be quick set by repeating pulling the crown?
The date can be quick set by pulling the crown. How cool is that?
Not sure who that signifies as maker of the movement, but it's good to know when I need to set the watch!
And thank you again for all your information and resources.
What would this forum be without you?!?
this makes Universal more probable to be the manufacturer. From Universal this calibre was
used in several generations, and only the last included a variant with date. From Movado just
one generation was used: The 345 without date and the 348 with date. As the date assembly
appears to be the same for both brands, the last generation from Universal (1107, 1107-1)
is equivalent to the only generation from Movado (345, 348).
sorry, can't agree. The Universal/Movado has nothing common with any ETA design. Compare also the dial views of the Universal/Movado (left) and ETA 1100 (right):
I'm chiming in here as I just purchased a UG without date. Roland thank you for your considerable input on the 1107-x movement discussion. I have a question. Above you say the non-date version of the 1107-1 is a 345. Looking at the pictures on bidfun of 345, the regulator and support seems to be different, from mine, at least in appearance. I am still very much in learning mode. Is this a material difference? Mine seems more like a U56/M347. An image of mine, the 345, and 347 respectively are below.
I'm chiming in here as I just purchased a UG without date. Roland thank you for your considerable input on the 1107-x movement discussion. I have a question. Above you say the non-date version of the 1107-1 is a 345. Looking at the pictures on bidfun of 345, the regulator and support seems to be different, from mine, at least in appearance. I am still very much in learning mode. Is this a material difference? Mine seems more like a U56/M347. An image of mine, the 345, and 347 respectively are below.
It looks like you may be referring to a fixed vs mobile stud carrier, which is a relatively common variation/upgrade. It's still substantially the same movement. Do you have some specific question, or are you just trying to identify the movement out of curiosity?
I was looking at other watches for sale and found this no date complication UG which is stamped 56 on the movement. There is no 1107 reference. Visually it is virtually identical to the one in mine (1107).
Thanks Dan S. I think I do. I am very,very, much still in learning mode. As a novice I look for visual differences which in some cases are material. The pictures of my movement and the U56 on bidfun as well as the one I saw for sale (stamped 56) are virtually identical. Per RR's post I would expect all including the 345 to be similar since all of these were variations on the same movement, however, wouldn't you go with the most similar (visually) versions? Or are there subtle internal differences I cannot discern? Thank you for your patience with my naive questions.
I'm not sure I understand your question, but you may be over-thinking it. My reading of the thread is that the Movado/Universal calibers are basically identical, but it is not known which company actually made them. It's possible that the difference between the 345 and 347 is the mobile stud carrier, although Roland doesn't indicate that to be the case in his archive. If you found photos of 50 movements, perhaps the mobile and fixed stud carriers would be evenly divided in both 345 and 347 movements. You really can't draw too firm a conclusion from two images.
That's the information I needed. I probably was over thinking it. The watch world seems very rule bound, disciplined, and structured. As I learn, I want to understand the watch world from that perspective so as I ask experts such as yourself I have some confidence I've done my homework.
In the early days of watchmaking there was often a blending of talent, ideas and engineering between watchmakers similar to the nascent days of personal computing. Unfortunately, as with any industry with a long history, business relationships and economic fortunes change. Founders die or move on. At the time, I'm sure the reasoning for the many movement variations was self evident but records were lost so the history is incomplete. Thanks again for your patience.
I don't know how well you understand the basic parts and operation principles of these movements, but the better you understand them, the easier it will be to distinguish between things that are minor upgrades (or features) vs. changes that indicate different movements. The mobile stud carrier is a common upgrade that allows easier adjustment of beat error. Similarly, you may also find small variations in the regulator design. You will find variations like these over time, or even in movements made at the same time but meant to be used in more vs. less-expensive watches.
What can be trickier is to identify variations of the same movement that have different bridge shapes, or even has one bridge/plate broken up into multiple smaller pieces. It's the same movement, but could look very different to someone who is just looking at it in a naive way.
Dan S Admittedly my movement knowledge today is rudimentary at best. Though I have a long way to go I've mostly concentrated on niche brands and their lineage. My movement knowledge has been primarily visual comparisons of the whole unit (bidfun) without knowledge of subtle internal differences that are important. My introduction to incabloc is a case in point. Fortunately there were some very kind and patient members that stuck with me until I understood what it was and where to look for it.
Can you or others recommend any books or sites as primers? Also, I've found a web site that has a very basic course to get me started (TimeZone Watch School Home). If you or others can share any experience with this course or alternatives would be appreciated. I don't see myself ever being a watchmaker but having some basic skills will give me a greater appreciation for these incredible devices.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
WatchUSeek Watch Forums
22.5M posts
575.5K members
Since 2005
A forum community dedicated to watch owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about watch collections, displays, watch winders, accessories, classifieds, and more! We welcome all manufacturers including Casio G-Shock, OMEGA, Rolex, Breitling, Rolex and Tudor, Seiko, Grand Seiko and others.