Constellation 2852 from the classifieds - dial evaluation

Hey folks,
there is an 18k 2852 Constellation currently available in our classifieds, and while it's no piece for me, it has a dial I'm surprised about and would like to learn more. I spoke to the seller privately, as it's supposed to be done, and while he cannot be certain himself, he's supportive in having a discussion about it and says he's happy to learn, hence this thread. Should all turn out to be good, I do hope this'll even help the sale and would of course be happy to stand corrected in my scepticism.

This is the watch in question:



Here's what I'm wary about:

The serial points to 1956, which would indicate an early example of a 2852. The configuration seen here, though, looks like a later one to me, when they entered a "transitional" phase to the 60s style, without two-tone coloring for the dome dials, non-faceted hands and even with onyx inlays in this case. Here's another example of one of those late 2852s, discovered and sold here by @ConElPueblo

https://omegaforums.net/threads/1959-omega-constellation-ref-2852-16.80229/

It's a 1959 example, though. Also note how it has the -er spelling of Chronometer, which I'd expect in the late 50s, but would still assume -re for an early 2852.

Then, there's the Constellation font. It's the slightly more "edgy", especially in how the letters are connected. It reminds me of the style on the earliest Constellation references, compare with a 1952 reference 2648:


And here with another 1956 2852 (pie pan dial):

The font looks kinda like it's somewhere in between those styles. Not so easy to compare, as the ads picture is a little blurry. This one is sharper, but at an angle, print quality seems good though:


There's another detail about the font: Double crossed ts in an 2852? I haven't seen than before, which, again, doesn't mean it's incorrect - but I'd love to know if that's an unuseful rule I'm applying in evaluating the reference.

-

The seller mentioned he got it from the first owner who was not a watch guy, and thus doubts it's been messed with. Personally, I wouldnt rule out the possibility of a service dial, for example - the replacement crown (no flat foot logo) and the visibly polished case indicate that work was done at some point, and a change of the dial certainly not unheard of.
If this should be a service dial, I'd still be wondering about the Constellation font on it, as I would expect a late 50s to 60s style. I've done some googling and couldn't find another example just like it, but maybe someone here has. If so, I'd love to know about it. 😀

Thank you all - and especially the seller - in advance.

I agree there are worries there. My first impression is that is a very 60s looking dial for a mid 50s 2852. Either it is a very late one and the serial has been mistakenly dated, or the dial is not original to the case. No way it should have a -er dial on a '56 IMO. I have looked at and indeed owned a few 2852s and I haven't seen one that early with those block type indices. Should we ask Desmond perhaps? @mondodec Would you care to comment?

Sorry for the late response Troels

Crossed Ts shouldn't appear with ER or beyond the mid 50s - but I seem to recall a couple of examples where they have.

One on @iamvr 's watch in the 2887 thread
https://omegaforums.net/threads/ome...87-a-very-uncommon-case-reference.4421/page-4

and also few in the 'jumbo' thread on the very uncommon ref 14396
https://omegaforums.net/threads/sho...1-14777-14778-14395-and-14396-allowed.109416/

However, this doesn't explain why that dial should be on an early 2852.
So my guess is a very uncommon replacement dial (from late 50s/early 60s) in a mid 50s case
(or a 2852 with a very uncommon dial with an earlier replacement movt)

Thanks for your response. Sounds about right, just to be clear though, you mean "mid 50s case" I suppose?

I did - thank you for pointing it out - cross-eyed and fuzzy fingered from a long day at the keyboard.
I’ll edit my response so it doesn’t become confusing.

Thanks for the replies, and to @Peemacgee and @Noddyman for remembering where they've seen the font before. The first picture of the 2852 in question isnt of the best quality, but especially the second one does show the thin, sharp printing that, having looked at it again and again now, I'd be pretty sure is legit. I was, for a while, sceptical regarding some of the minute ticks, especially between 25 an 30, but @Wlcutter mentioned in a PM that they're all lined up correctly and the slight wonkiness might be due to crystal distortion. Adding up, I'd agree Peemacgees assessment seems likely: Either a late 2852 that got an earlier transplant movement or an early 2852 that got a later (and very uncommon) transplant dial.

@Wlcutter have you disassembled it by any chance and checked the back of the dial, if it's marked solid gold? Just out of curiosity.