Connie 2852 cross hair arrow head

Posts
1,524
Likes
1,679
Hi Omega Friends,
This one just poped up to me, I am about to pull the trigger but want to seeking for your opinion first.
This is a Connie 2852 with cal 505, serial 15mils
What I am concern is about the dial originality ( seller claimed it is)
It looks perfect under my untrained eyes, but the fact that the dial is in such a good condition kinda scare me a bit. I owned 1 like this b4, but this dial is another level compare to mine.
So seeking for your thoughts, thank you OF.
Apologize for my bad english.
Stephen
 
Posts
13,339
Likes
18,490
I can’t tell if the dial is original because the picture is out of focus. The only way to tell on some of these is to see it in person.

The crown is from a Seamaster, but you may be able to replace it with a correct 10-sided version.

Good luck,
gatorcpa
 
Posts
1,524
Likes
1,679
I can’t tell if the dial is original because the picture is out of focus. The only way to tell on some of these is to see it in person.

The crown is from a Seamaster, but you may be able to replace it with a correct 10-sided version.

Good luck,
gatorcpa
Yes my previous actually has 10 facet crown. Here are some more photos from the seller.
 
Posts
2,170
Likes
2,966
Dial looks legit IMO:

MOY as expected for that reference, different Ms in "Automatic" and "Chronometer", Star, crosshair I can't see any red flags...
 
Posts
1,117
Likes
1,791
I am with @gatorcpa on this one. Nothing immediately stands out but the dial is almost too clean for my liking. I would want clearer pics or better still see in person if possible.
 
Posts
13,339
Likes
18,490
Second set of pictures are better. The fonts and placement of printing look correct.

The surface of the dial seems to be somewhat granular.



It could be that someone cleaned the dial and took off the original lacquer.

This is a tough call.
gatorcpa
 
Posts
9,596
Likes
27,708
Second set of pictures are better. The fonts and placement of printing look correct.

The surface of the dial seems to be somewhat granular.



It could be that someone cleaned the dial and took off the original lacquer.

This is a tough call.
gatorcpa

There are some bubbling on the dial too. IMO definitely a cleaned dial.
 
Posts
503
Likes
736
Looking at the kind of « brush » between arrows markers, would say at least heavily cleaned... would need better pictures of the font
 
Posts
1,502
Likes
5,697
The dial looks cleaned to me, but would need better Pictures of the dial to be 100% sure.
 
Posts
1,524
Likes
1,679
There are some bubbling on the dial too. IMO definitely a cleaned dial.
The dial looks cleaned to me, but would need better Pictures of the dial to be 100% sure.
Looking at the kind of « brush » between arrows markers, would say at least heavily cleaned... would need better pictures of the font
So a cleaned dial is consider original or redial, would it effect the collectinf value of the watch?
 
Posts
13,339
Likes
18,490
If that is all, then it is considered an original dial, but cleaned.

To most collectors, not the same as truly original and should be priced less.

Hope this helps,
gatorcpa
 
Posts
432
Likes
334
The bent top left lug would be enough for me to walk away even if the dial is original
 
Posts
1,258
Likes
2,736
Case looks quite soft. I saw it on facebook and it was sold to someone quite fast, maybe it has some problems but price was quite good