Constellation 168005

Sa Calobra · Feb 10, 2022

Dear OF, thanks for the advice on other watches so far. I did want to discuss another one, so opening up a new thread - hope that's the right way.

The watch below. I'd say case is quite polished, even the crown. At first hand, the dial seems correct to me, do you agree? The hands seem ok, I was only doubting about the seconds hand, as it seems too long to me. The movement seems correct for this reference.
I'm tempted to pass on this one as well, given how polished the case is. But I'm hoping to learn specifically about this dial, as I'm looking for a model like this with a steel bracelet.

la_lusigne · Feb 10, 2022

Hello 😀

The dial is repainted : the font isn’t correct and the minute markers are off as well
The case is heavily re polished.
I would definitely wait for a better one

Sa Calobra · Feb 10, 2022

la_lusigne
Hello 😀

The dial is repainted : the font isn’t correct and the minute markers are off as well
The case is heavily re polished.
I would definitely wait for a better one

Aah wait..the minute markers - they should have been positioned closer to the border, where the dial 'slopes down'? Then the seconds hand would align.

In terms of the font - are you talking about 'Chronometer' font, or the other part?

BAJJ · Feb 10, 2022

Hi, you are correct, it is overpolished, also I think it is a redial. The minute markers should be closer to the indices / pie pan chamfers. The chamfers also look 'soft', these should be more defined. The serifs are missing from the text under the omega too, see photo. There's better out there.

Davidt · Feb 10, 2022

Dial is certainly not original. The minute track is too far from the edge. The font is also all wrong, too large too inconsistent, quality is not there

Sa Calobra · Feb 10, 2022

BAJJ
Hi, you are correct, it is overpolished, also I think it is a redial. The minute markers should be closer to the indices / pie pan chamfers. The chamfers also look 'soft', these should be more defined. The serifs are missing from the text under the omega too, see photo. There's better out there.

Thanks for sharing the comparable picture. I must say when looking at the text under the omega, the main difference is see is the spacing which is wider on your picture, and the font in itself which is different. The 'serif' I find more difficult to detect, on what letter do you really see that difference?

Can we also conclude the final 'n' on Constellation is wrong?
The more you look, the more things appear.. also the position of the star should be closer to the word Constellation, and aligned with the minute marker below.

Thanks everyone. Should have spotted it from the minute markers from the start, very obvious.

BAJJ · Feb 10, 2022

@Yves86 , serifs are the little 'ticks' at the ends of the letters in the text on the dial, I think common on all constellations, certainly on the 3 I have, pic below of one of them courtesy of @MtV . Hard to see from general photos so if there is doubt ask the seller for hi resolution close ups.

Screenshot_2022-02-10-10-26-54-310_com.android.chrome.jpg

Sa Calobra · Feb 10, 2022

BAJJ
@Yves86 , serifs are the little 'ticks' at the ends of the letters in the text on the dial, I think common on all constellations, certainly on the 3 I have, pic below of one of them courtesy of @MtV . Hard to see from general photos so if there is doubt ask the seller for hi resolution close ups.

Thanks for explaining - I had to google 'serifs' as well! I must say that I do see it clearly on this last picture that you've added. - but less visible on your earlier photo. But that is probably the resolution.

MtV · Feb 10, 2022

Yves86
The hands seem ok, I was only doubting about the seconds hand, as it seems too long to me.

Everything important regarding this specific watch was mentioned above, but a little remark on the length of the second hand: It seems too long here as the minute track was misplaced by the redialer. These can seem too long on original dials, too, though, as they were made to exactly overlap with the 5-minute-ticks, so at the edges of the pie pan dial. If a photo is taken with the second between two 5-min-ticks and maybe also at a bit of an angle, it can seem too long by a tiny margin, despite it being correct.

iamvr · Feb 10, 2022

Hi @Yves86

Have you come across this thread yet:

https://omegaforums.net/threads/show-me-your-167-005-or-168-005-connie.124329/page-4

Great examples as reference points posted in there.

I‘ve been looking for a pie pan 167.005 (or its predecessor 14900) for a year or so. Most I’ve seen were overpolished or had crappy dials. So patience is key.

Sa Calobra · Feb 10, 2022

iamvr
Hi @Yves86

Have you come across this thread yet:

https://omegaforums.net/threads/show-me-your-167-005-or-168-005-connie.124329/page-4

Great examples as reference points posted in there.

I‘ve been looking for a pie pan 167.005 (or its predecessor 14900) for a year or so. Most I’ve seen were overpolished or had crappy dials. So patience is key.

Yes this is a great thread, thanks. And agree with being patient!

Sa Calobra · Feb 10, 2022

MtV
Everything important regarding this specific watch was mentioned above, but a little remark on the length of the second hand: It seems too long here as the minute track was misplaced by the redialer. These can seem too long on original dials, too, though, as they were made to exactly overlap with the 5-minute-ticks, so at the edges of the pie pan dial. If a photo is taken with the second between two 5-min-ticks and maybe also at a bit of an angle, it can seem too long by a tiny margin, despite it being correct.

Thank you for explaining. This was my biggest aha moment indeed - when I realized the minute track was placed to much towards the inside, I knew it was not the seconds hand.

Constellation 168005

Sa Calobra

la_lusigne

Sa Calobra

BAJJ

Davidt

Sa Calobra

BAJJ

Sa Calobra

MtV

iamvr

Sa Calobra

Sa Calobra

Similar threads

Omega constellation 168004/14 - Real Dial?

Confirming new (to me) Constellation 168.004 details

Omega Constellation 168.005

Omega constellation 168.015 pie pan

Omega Constellation 168.010 - redial?

Constellation 168.016 end link question