Hello everyone, As you can see this is my first post. I joined last week to PM with a seller. Now I am waiting on that Constellation to arrive at my doorstep. I'm very excited! Thank You to OF for providing the market place and the chance to learn more and to the seller for his patience.

This is my first first vintage watch, first Omega watch, first Constellation model and first gold watch, capped or otherwise. That's a lot of firsts there. At least it's not my first mechanical watch. That was an Orient Mako USA at New Years.

I've spent a lot of time reading Desmond's Constellation Collectors blogspot. I'm amazed and excited that he has amassed so much information about the watch on which I've chosen to focus my studies for a while.

As I was searching the internet for Constellations, I came across a 168.005 in an 18K case. From what I can tell, it is in very good condition for it's age (just a few years more than me). The case seems good, the edges are not polished away, the crystal has the Omega mark, the movement seems clean, the hour aperture is chiseled, the minute and seconds hands are the right length, the medallion is nice, etc.

My first impression was this is an original watch. I went with that for a while. Something kept nagging me though. I didn't really know what. So I looked closer and tried to find some more pictures of the correct dial. The trouble is, when you search the 'net for those pictures, you get results that are correct and some that are incorrect. The questions remain. Maybe Desmond answered the question already.

The more I thought about it, the more I thought something might not be right. I'd like to hear your collective opinions. That seems to be the only way for me to settle the issue.

Here's what I think is questionable:
1. It fails the MOY test. I think the "O" is a tad too far to the left and the "Y" is more than a tad too far to the right.
2. The spacing/kerning is off. The font for "AUTOMATIC" seems ok. The tops of the "A"s are cut off, but the spacing is too narrow. That word should take up the same lateral space as the applied "OMEGA". The same thing with "CHRONOMETER"; the spacing is not wide enough.
3. Shouldn't there be an hour marker at 3 o'clock?
4. There are printed black marks at the ends of the hour indices. I'm not sure they're supposed to be there.
5. The dial seems just a bit too clean for its age.

Then again, maybe all this stuff is normal variation and care. With my limited knowledge to this point, that could very well be the case.

I'm not trying to point out that a redial is being advertised as original. I'm really just trying to expand my knowledge and get better at judging originality. If I didn't have any concerns about originality, I might have bought it instead. To top it all off, the movement number is in the third group of consecutive 100K with "exceptional results". I would really like to have one of those. At least I think I would; I'll know better when my starter Connie gets here! I hope it looks as good on the wrist as I imagine it will.

Here's a link to the full listing:
http://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=tree&goto=7202200&rid=0

Thanks in advance for the discussion.

 

Not in a bad condition (looks better in the pictures below). Good thick lugs. Not 100% crisp, but still very good (especially for a gold one). Dial is a handsome chap.

 

Below is mine for comparison. Mine is 14k, which is perhaps a little tougher kind of gold.

 

BTW -- What is exactly the difference between the references 168.005 and 168.005/6?

 

So a 168.005/6 is supposed to be a Deluxe? I find that hard tot believe, because almost every solid gold 168.005 is stamped 168.005/6, even the 14k gold ones:

 

I don't understand your post Cicindela.

is the 168005/6 supposed to be a Deluxe, or a 168.0006?

 

Thanks gator, I get it now.

 

Arg why would someone polish the caseback like that. Sad.

 

Interesting conversation so far. I was wondering about the concentric swirl marks on the back. I didn't think about removal of an inscription.

Do people actively try to get rid of the texture in the sky behind the stars? So many of them have this feature completely missing. Maybe it's just from wear, but that is a lot of wear.

BartH, are both of those watches yours? Wow, they look like they just left the factory. I see what you mean.

Gatorcpa, now that is a medallion!

Allowing for this much variation is going to make it tough to judge authenticity. When I perceived the spacing differences, I thought that was a dead give away. All these "shades of gray" variances are difficult for my black/white engineering brain to deal with .

Thanks you again for all your input. You guys are great. My brain is soaking it up for future reference.

 

It's one and the same watch (albeit with two different crowns).

However, I do think the TimeZone Connie is quite attractive. But quite expensive given the condition.

 

For reference here´s my 18kt 168.006 Deluxe

 

Nice, Cristos.