168.005 Analysis (Learning Opportunity for me)

Hello All,

I am not buying this watch, but wanted to do a "test" for myself and see if I am learning anything. As I continue to learn how to distinguish refinished vs original pieces I wanted to present my analysis for criticism as a learning experience. I welcome your feedback so I can continue to learn.

DIAL - This is a 168.005 that is showing some natural looking patina on the dial. The onyx markers seem to have been replaced as I cant see any shine to them. Hands seem to be correct for the hour markers. Text seems to be slightly off as it doesn't pass the MOY test on the letter O, however that could be consistent with the O being oval shaped per some of the articles. The "Is" on officialy certified do not fall in line to where the O and A of Omega start and finish. Hour markers seem to be odd sizes relative to other examples I have seen. Minute markers are not touching the "pie pan" line. Constellation and star spacing seems a bit off. The font on Constellation doesnt have the parallel slants or the serifs front what i can see. The Calendar window seems okay.

CASE - Incorrect crown (not 10 sided crown that came with the model, but not a major deal breaker as that can be replaced). Dog legs don't look very sharp which means it has had its fair share of polishes. Same with the bezel.

CASE BACK - medallion is off. 7 stars instead of 8. no bricks on observatory is consistent with the model as that only came in solid gold models.

I’d agree with your analysis but I’d take a step back and say this watch is a bit of a dog due to the unattractive dial patina/damage and massively overpolished case. As such, I wouldn’t bother wasting time considering it for purchase.

Thanks! It makes me feel a bit better that I am in fact learning lol. I agree and was not planning on purchasing but I feel this is the only way to see if I am looking at the right details when evaluating watches. I appreciate you taking time to read my analysis and providing feedback.