OK . . . so I have narrowed the search parameters for my first C-Shape Constellation.

This dream watch must be stainless steel (not gold or bi-metallic); will be preferred if it is date-only (rather than day-date); should be from 1964-1969 production.

The one shown below checks all the boxes, but I am wondering (a) does the dial look original? and (b) what about the hands? The hands seem to be a different style compared with most of the silver / light dialed C-Shape Constellations.

Here is the eBay listing for this watch -- http://www.ebay.com/itm/371420042331Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

Thanks in advance for any information.

Jeff Stein
Atlanta, Georgia

 

I wouldn't bet on that that dial is original. My gut feeling tells me it's a redial. Hands look as they have been painted in white at the same time the dial was redone

 

I would bet that it is a redial
- the star is much too close to the 'Constellation'-lettering
- 'u' in automatic is not on same line as the 'a' (or vice versa)
- failing MOY
- 'M' in automatic not balanced (like in te 'chronometer' which is even not that well done either)
- all the 'e's seem to have different length of horizontal 'lines'
- I am not sure, but the hands might not be original neither.......

You might want to wait for the really real thing!!

 

Nearly forgot: price.....

 

As an aside, having looked for these C-Shaped Constellations on a daily basis, for the last couple of weeks, it is surprising:
-- how common it is to see damage to the dial / hands in rough condition . . . difficult to say whether these Constellations, as a group, are really better or worse than on competing brands, but it does make it difficult to find a nice one.
-- how few have stainless steel cases
-- how few are being offered in the United States
In any event -- the search will continue!!
Jeff

 

Jeff, I would venture that the dial is original and is quite evenly patinated. The hands have been replaced with hands from a Geneve Dynamic or such like. With the thin jet line markers, the hands that originally came with the watch would be thin, rhodium plated stick hands with thin black inserts. This seemed to be the design story on black dialled C Shapes that were not luminous.

The case seems to have lost a lot of its original finish, which should have brushed upper and sides with a thin black polished slither on the case edges.

Cheers

Desmond

 

Thanks, Desmond. I really appreciate all the information provided on this great forum.
While I have everyone's attention, could I get some views on the originality of this one?
Thanks again,
Jeff

 

Both are redial.
Let't have a look at the t and compare to the original.



The second one does not have Swiss Made

 

Hoi, the T is within the know variations of fonts styles, usually present when the cursive style is more linear than rounded.

 

I'd say that the lettering on the second posted (the C-case) is to uneven and the font too thick - though it might just be the quality of the photos. Great looking watch otherwise.

 

This puzzles me quite a lot, although I would not dare to contradict @mondodec 's opinion.

Still: Do not understand the closeness of star and Constellation, neither the different E types on the dial, not the unbalanced M or failing MOY.
Suppose I should read up again on Desmond's blog.

Love the dial btw!

Edit: I meant the patina...

 

What do you have to say about the placing of the star so close to the lettering in "Constellation"? Doesn't seem odd to you? The black one.

 

I have checked all the C cases in your essay and none of them has that strange connection between that s and t.

 

When all is said and done the best we can do is express an opinion. Note the bigger star on this model, explaining to a point the closeness of the Constellation lettering, and the perfection of the chapter ring. We're looking at a black dialled Connie made by one of Omega's contract dial makers - one, which I suspect did quite a few of the out of MOY dials of this period.

Hoi, you're probably right in respect to there being no example of the s-t cursive in that essay. All I can say is that I've have seen over time quite a few of these and in one instance a dial reverse that showed no signs of refinishing. Would I stake my life on it? Not necessarily, but I like the notion of a dial being innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Cheers

Desmond

 

The most glaring issue with the first one is, IMO, the date-surround. How come it is so degraded, while the rest of the dial is immaculate?