- Posts
- 50
- Likes
- 93
midcentury
·The placement of the text under the Omega wordmark looks off to me...
Redial?
Redial?
Evaluating this Constellation dial
- Posts
- 1,981
- Likes
- 3,557
CaptainWinsor
·It looks slightly off center
- Posts
- 5,508
- Likes
- 9,416
BlackTalon
··This Space for RentHonestly a better photo would be helpful, especially if you could orient the watch better vertically. It is hard to tell if the text issues are due to the crystal, the dial being cleaned, the camera/ phone moving slightly while the shutter was open, or it being a redial. The minute track seems pretty consistent and it doesn't look like glue is seeping out from any of the furniture, which are two of the frequent redial 'tells'.
- Posts
- 50
- Likes
- 93
midcentury
·Honestly a better photo would be helpful, especially if you could orient the watch better vertically. It is hard to tell if the text issues are due to the crystal, the dial being cleaned, the camera/ phone moving slightly while the shutter was open, or it being a redial. The minute track seems pretty consistent and it doesn't look like glue is seeping out from any of the furniture, which are two of the frequent redial 'tells'.
I wish I could, but it’s the most straight on photo I’ve got of the dial. :-/
- Posts
- 118
- Likes
- 126
alex10
·Looks redial to me
- Posts
- 50
- Likes
- 93
midcentury
·Looks redial to me
I think I agree. The word “AUTOMATIC” is just too wide.
- Posts
- 13,186
- Likes
- 18,123
gatorcpa
··ΩF InvestiGatorDial looks OK to me. The watch looks to be a Ref. 168.004.
https://web.archive.org/web/2016110...data-watch/omega/caliber-5/cal-561/st-168-004
Here is a close-up of another example:
The printing looks to be in a similar position. This watch is not the same as the classic Ref. 168.005. There is a little more room on the dial to take up.
I would be more concerned with the spotting on the dial.
gatorcpa
https://web.archive.org/web/2016110...data-watch/omega/caliber-5/cal-561/st-168-004
Here is a close-up of another example:
The printing looks to be in a similar position. This watch is not the same as the classic Ref. 168.005. There is a little more room on the dial to take up.
I would be more concerned with the spotting on the dial.
gatorcpa
- Posts
- 1,605
- Likes
- 6,478
Dero13
·Looks fine to me but not a watch I would chase for any significant amount of money
- Posts
- 9,596
- Likes
- 27,700
ConElPueblo
·I don't see any signs of restoration either. The blistering on the dial would put me off buying it though.
Similar threads
- Posts
- 35
- Views
- 3K
- Posts
- 51
- Views
- 5K
- Posts
- 19
- Views
- 618
- Posts
- 6
- Views
- 676
- Posts
- 1
- Views
- 338
