A New Case Back For My Connie

U ulackfocus

The 2799 came with an inked dial? I thought the way to tell the difference between a 2699 and 2799 was whether it had OMEGA in ink (2699) or applied metal (2799).

hoipolloi

I can swap them (2782 and 2652's dials and movements) in less than 15 minutes.

mondodec

The earliest 2799s Dennis did not have the applied logo and the dials are interchangeable with the 2699s and 2700s. Sorry to rain on your parade 😀

gatorcpa

Question - Did you buy this particular watch?

http://www.poshtime.com/Omega-Constellation-KO2652-Bumper-1955_3024.065.php

It has the same caseback version, crown and dial style. So, if it is the same one, I've got some answers for Desmond. This particular piece is a 14.3M serial number cal. 354, from 1954 or so. Pretty high serial for a Ref. 2652, as well as a high production run number and later version dial. All consistent with the date, so looks like you may be onto something here.



In reading the other posts, I really wasn't sure if a dial that fit a Ref. 2652 case would also fit a Ref. 2782.

Maybe yes, maybe no.
gatorcpa

mondodec

I'm inclined to think that the clover crown is not original. Given the wear, although only moderate, of the case back medallion and generally nice patina of the case with a gentle round on the lines of the bezel and lugs, I would think the crown would not be so sharp if it was original to the watch. Also, is the crown partially pulled out in the pic? Otherwise it would appear to not be sitting as snugly over the crown pipe as it should.

I've been collecting Constellation ads for quite a number of years and I have never seen an ad showing these earlier Connies with a clover crown. Seen plenty of ads for 2852 models and beyond, and a 1956 version of the 14355. But, I think in these earlier 2648 and 2652 models there appears to be a consistency in the decagonal crown. This is not the slim decagonal, but the fatter version that fits the 2.5mm pipe size. They're still available at Otto Frei.

Cheers

Desmond

mondodec

Well, the design story would dictate that it was a decagonal, although I have seen some US retailed versions with a crown very similar. It's an old crown by the look of it, and probably needs replacing. I would source a decagonal while they're still available.

Cheers

Desmond

mondodec

Well, the design story would dictate that it was a decagonal, although I have seen some US retailed versions with a crown very similar. It's an old crown by the look of it, and probably needs replacing. I would source a decagonal while they're still available.

Cheers

Desmond

Thatguy

Hello Desmond,
About crown, does 2852 exist with this crown?

Thank you very much!
Regards
Jev

Stewart H

I can see @Archer crying when he sees the pictures of your workbench

STANDY

Can we get a close up of that black dial in the background

Thatguy

And the dial though, is it original? Looking at the font the index the cross hair and the increment?

Archer

Believe it or not, I've seen worse. I once met with a local watchmaker to see about buying a workbench from him, and the entire bench top was covered several inches thick in parts, movements, dials, etc. Not organized but just "thrown" on the bench.

If you have a parts account with any brand and all they saw was that one dial in the photo sitting face up on your bench, unprotected and exposed to all kinds of damage, they would pull your account...

This is why when people talk about finding an "old school watchmaker" I usually shake my head. Not all "old school" methods and habits were good ones.

mondodec

Well, the design story would dictate that it was a decagonal, although I have seen some US retailed versions with a crown very similar. It's an old crown by the look of it, and probably needs replacing. I would source a decagonal while they're still available.

Cheers

Desmond