Also , aligning Mikes 2 photos for overlay at the 12 marker (markers are the same size)

 

I have, Omega used (or contracted) several methodologies for fastening the markers on dials. This is has been discussed a few times in the past. Here Desmond touches on it in this post.

http://omegaforums.net/threads/are-...big-enough-for-a-29-6mm-dial.7731/#post-91492
Jan 9, 2013
"Just caught up with your post, and thanks for the shots. This is an interesting discussion. As far as I'm aware, there were a number of base metals used in Omega dials: quite commonly thin brass and a kind of bronze in earlier dials, which is why we see these colours of metal on the rear side of the dial at the point where the rivets are brushed on dials where the rivetting method has been used. (Interestingly, some dial contractors particularly for two "tone" dials had a system of machine crimping that did not require brushing and are identifiable by a circular machine mark around the rivet, but one can still see the base metal.). Also some Omega dials were made of pressed steel and we recognize those by the rust marks we see on degraded dials."

 

Thanks Steve, this is what I was looking for. OK, so it seems that the dial for sale is slightly larger than the dial in MSN's watch.

So we have not really answered the OP's original question. Which case reference will this dial fit?

Having exhausted other options, I think we are left with two possibilities:

1. It goes with one of the other non-DeLuxe Constellation case references which used the cal. 505, possibly the Ref. 2887, although I think there were others.

2. Perhaps there were small variances in some of the Ref. 2852 cases. I have seen iteration numbers (that's the "-X" after the reference on the caseback) going up to 14 on these. Omega was known to make slight differences in dimensions as running changes on occasion.

I only know of one collector who owns enough different Constellation examples to make such comparisons, and he had already replied to this thread.
gatorcpa