I already bought this Constellation on eBay but I am having some problems with the seller (they are not being clear about the shipping status and I haven't received it yet). I havent raised anything yet with eBay, but before I do I thought I could ask a couple of questions here: 1) As there are some small red-flags about this sale, I wondered if anyone here had seen these exact two photographs before ? I can't find them on Google, but part of me is wondering if the photos are just copied from elsewhere and the seller doesn't actually own the watch. 2) Then seeing as I have posted the pictures... does anyone have any comments on the condition and originality of the watch? It looks great to me, but I am not experienced enough to have a really critical eye. There were no movement shots so I took a calculated risk based on the external condition, the great dial with onyx markers, and the price.
I've never seen this dial variant before, but it seems that it's correct for the model. Case looks very sharp, but will no doubt benefit from a good clean I'm always curious about Constellation prices, as I have a pretty hard time figuring them out - may I ask how much you paid? You can write a PM, if you like, but no offense taken if you won't tell
That kind of looks like a bad redial... Maybe it's just a bad photo... Shouldn't the grey area have a more grainy look?
http://urdebatten.dk/archive/index.php?thread-77031.html Note that in addition to the example shown in the link, it pops up on the Omega database as well - though that isn't necessarily a proof of anything My first thought was that it had to a redial too...
Your link is exactly the same thread I used as a reference/benchmark when buying this one. It seems like an uncommon but correct dial type, but of course that wouldn't stop it from being a redial. I can see vertical brushing in the top picture, and as the markers look right I thought the dial looked good. But as I mentioned already I don't have the best eye for a redial, so please can others give their thought (both positive and negative welcome).
I agree that from the pictures it's quite hard to see if it is as textured as it should be. My guess was that a redial would probably not have the vertical brushing at all, and at least this dial has visible brushing on the grey centre and also the gold outer-dial (most visible between the 10 and 12 markers). Does anyone have a Constellation with the same dial ? It would be nice to have a few other photos to help make a comparison.
Dial looks OK to me. This is an uncommon variant. Most examples of this reference have a monotone dial with vertical brushed finish. @mondodec did a nice write-up on this model some years ago: http://download1644.mediafire.com/6bc4mhhxmatg/zjzxx3wwtdh/omega+constellation168.025.pdf Note that the markers are not onyx on these, they are painted metal. I've seen some that have been totally faded out. This one does not have that problem. I would pay attention to the "10" marker as it seems to be different than the rest, although that could just be a bad reflection from the camera. Maybe Desmond can give you a better idea on this dial. gatorcpa
Thanks for the link to the great write-up ! The reason I thought the markers were onyx is that they appear identical to the faceted markers on the solid gold versions of this Connie. https://omegaforums.net/threads/looking-for-an-opinion-and-some-advice.9913/#post-116314 The painted ones often seem to be more like the regular stick/baton type. I suppose it doesn't matter too much, but obviously it would be nice if they turned out to be onyx.
On a related note on the uncommon monocoque Constellations, have you ever seen a 167.025 or a no-date pie-pan monocoque? I've been on the look out for it for several years and never seen it once for sale, nor even a picture of it online.
I know absolutely nothing about Constellations but just curious about the condition of the case. What's happening underneath the gold capping at 12? Is the base metal corroding and creating a bulge in the gold overlay?
I have never had one of these in my hands, and what you point out was one of my worries when bidding. I think it is normal, something to do with the gold cap following the circular profile of the bezel from the front whereas the steel is undercut. However, I couldn't satisfy myself 100% about that, so if a 168.025 owner can confirm it's normal then that would be great. My worry is that it is damage caused by someone trying to get into the case the incorrect way (which I imagine could be quite common with these front-loaders).
Yeah, I noticed that too. One thing about this watch is that the bezel diameter is greater than the actual case, so the bezel does show from the rear at some angles. However, I do see some evidence of corrosion from the rear that may have gotten under the gold layer. That could be a problem. If it has spread to the inside of the case or movement, that could be an even bigger problem. For this reason and the questionable marker, I would recommend a pass on this example. gatorcpa
I think it was redial at some point of its life. Look at the minute marks from 9 to 10.Also word certified has two different i (different lengths). Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Those small details got distorted by the scratched up crystal. A good polish or new crystal will clear that up.
Well I already bought it, but after two-weeks there is no sign of the watch yet and the seller is strangely slow to respond to questions. Maybe they are trying to back out of the sale, or it could be some kind of scam and he is delaying until my money is unrecoverable. What I was trying to say in my second question in the OP is that if the watch is a bit of a dog then I might be quicker to complain from my side. Whereas if it was a great deal then I will stick with trying to talk to the seller for a bit longer. The watch cost in the region of 400-500 USD. I was the only bidder, which I think was influenced by the fact it was really badly described. The listing did say that it runs well so the movement is at least working.
The markers do look odd, but I was hoping it was crystal distortion as TNT watch said. The different "i"s in certified seem to be similar to the reference photos in ConElPueblos link. In combination with a scratch in the crystal I thought they were probably OK.
One of the ways in which you can determine authenticity of the dial is to look for printed 'stubbies' at each applied hour marker. The above example does indeed have the stubbies, if we can call them that, and so looking at the dial overall and considering the stubbies, I would suggest that the dial is genuine. Aside from issues identified above, the hands bother me. While the hands on these models are marginally shorter than earlier models and don't over-reach the chapter ring, in the numerous examples I've seen the minute hand is a tad longer. No real biggie I guess (depending on what you paid for it). The finish on the case middle looks okay, but there's a bit of bezel damage that could be carefully polished out. I think the marker at ten, Evan, is okay and your observation about camera angle seems correct. There is light bouncing off the facet. Some of the thinner markers on these example were painted, but I am wondering about this one, as it looks to me as though there is faceted onyx by the way some of the light is being thrown off the facets. A nice close-up would help deciding on that issue. Closeup would help too in determining if that marks at the bezel are gunk or corrosion. Cheers Desmond
Thanks so much for posting Desmond ! The watch cost under 500 USD. I can't add better images as it still isn't in my hands. Does it sound like a fair price ? My feeling is that it was still a good deal (even with the question marks and lack of a movement shot).
Yes, I dont think you paid too much at all. It's pie, it's a cal 564 hopefully in reasonable condition, and it may come together better upon closer examination. Cheers D