Constellation 167.005 and 168.005

[HadgeBadge]

Hello all, I was wondering if the learned hive mind on here would care to comment on these two dog-leg Constellations in as found condition.

The one on the left is a 167.005, 551 calibre, and the one on the right is 168.005, 561 calibre. So no problems there, yet.


At first glance it is interesting to note that one of the differences between the two, besides the date function of course, is that the 165.005 has a big star and the Omega symbol is closer to the Omega badge, whereas the 168.005 has a smaller star and the Omega symbol is further from the Omega badge. As has been noted here before on the forum, and according to me staring at a lot of photographs of other Omegas, this variation appears to be correct?

I suspect though, according to the text on the 167.005 dial, that it has been refurbished. However, I am not entirely sure though as the text on Constellations does seem to vary to some degree, and I noticed that some of the late '60's Connies seem to have a less serif like text (of course I could be looking at other refurbished dials maybe)

This seems to be quite similar in text to my 167.005 - https://www.chrono24.co.za/omega/19...tch-in-stainless-steel--14892--id35378328.htm

The 167.005 has a serial number for 1967, and the 168.005 has a serial number for 1966.

Other issues are that both have the incorrect crowns, and the 168.005's seconds hand is too short. Also, the automatic bridge on the 168.005 does not have the 'Adjusted for Five Positions and Temperature' on it so either that part was replaced at some stage or the whole movement was. The calibre is correct though so I suspect just part replacement.

The crystal also needs replacing on the 168.005 as it has several cracks. Neither crystals are original.



Mostly, I'd appreciate to hear what others think of the dial on the 167.005. Thank you for looking.

Edited: Sep 10, 2024

 

[Zman4eva]

I'm going to say redial on the first one as well.

I think both watches are in poor condition. Lugs are way too polished with noticable scratches and gouges. Crowns are not original as you stated and there's a crack in the crystal in the second one.

I'll be interested to see the condition of the movement and the medallion in the back.

Both are easy pass for me if you were thinking of purchasing one or both.

Edited: Sep 10, 2024

 

[BAJJ]

I agree with your assessment, the first, I’m fairly sure, is a redial, however it’s a good one but the text looks ‘worn’ to me, the second looks original but there’s patina and damage and that dial in my opinion is damaged, both crowns are not the original. The second case is better than the first. I would pass on those two.
My 167.005 close up below showing the crisp text

 

[HadgeBadge]

Thank you to both of you for your thoughts.

I am not buying them but was interested to note that these two watches that have the same case design and dial indices, but have a different layout as I mentioned in my original post - the differences between the big star and the little star.

I was not aware of this until comparing these two watches side by side that different size stars exist on Constellations dials, and slightly different positioning of the Omega symbol.

Also, sometimes staring at a dial over and over again wondering if it is a redial can drive one crazy so much appreciated to get other opinions.