Inherited 18K Omega Constellation Ref. 14393/4 SC61 (Cal. 56

gfrier · Sat. 9:32am

Hello everyone,

I am new to the forum and I hope you can help me with an Omega Constellation that I inherited from my father.

The watch has great sentimental value, but I would also like to understand how original it is and where it stands from a collector’s perspective.

Here are the details:

• Reference: 14393/4 SC61
• Caliber: 561
• Movement serial: 18,958,618
• Solid 18K yellow gold case (0.750)
• Solid 18K yellow gold integrated bracelet
• Champagne dial
• Original Omega box

I also have an original archive confirmation from a respected Austrian watchmaker stating that Omega confirmed the movement was delivered in 1962.

The watch has never been restored as far as I know. The dial, hands, crown and bracelet all appear original to me, but I would really appreciate the opinion of experienced collectors.

I have a few questions:

Does everything appear original?
Is the integrated gold bracelet original to this reference?
Can anyone identify the service marks scratched inside the case back?
Is this considered a desirable reference among Constellation collectors?
What would be a realistic collector value today?

Thank you very much for your time and expertise.

Greetings from Austria,
Gerhard

Larry S · Sat. 9:55am

Sure looks good to my eyes.

MtV · Sat. 9:57am

Sorry for your loss Gerhard.

I’m afraid you might not like the assessment of this piece so let me say right away: Don’t let this put you off, the emotional value remains.

The major thing right away: The dial isn’t original, it’s been restored by someone who didn’t pay attention to details (Swiss Made above the minute ticks on a watch from 1960?)
That alone destroys most of the value. You‘ll be looking at gold value plus a little bit, a few hundred for the movement and hands etc.

Crown is an incorrect replacement.

The bracelet is not original to the watch and I doubt it’s actually by Omega. Goldsmiths liked to put an Omega logo on there.

Case has seen significant polishing and then some restoration work.

A dome dial Connie from the era with a date window can be a nice wearer, but it’s a very common watch. To call it „desired“ would be a bit of a stretch, and that’s for an original one.

This looks exactly like a watch that came back from Omega themselves after extensive „restoration“ work. Including the service pouch.

Would you mind posting the date confirmation you got from the Austrian watchmaker? That, too, sounds a little fishy if I’m honest…

o.m.e.g.a · Sat. 10:25am

MtV
This looks exactly like a watch that came back from Omega themselves after extensive „restoration“ work. Including the service pouch.

Are you saying that Omega service would overpolish the case?

MtV · Sat. 10:27am

o.m.e.g.a
Are you saying that Omega service would overpolish the case?

They can only work with what they get… Shiny medallion plus very present circular brushing around it show me the case has been worked on.

Peemacgee · Sat. 10:40am

Everything @MtV said above @gfrier.

I was going to be a little kinder about the case but it has been ‘refurbished’.
It was the Ns in Constellation that was the immediate tell of a redial for me.

The only thing to add is that the watch is a deluxe 14394 with a gold dial.
The vertical graining on the dial and the wide flat onyx inserts are the giveaway.

The 1962 date rings true with an 18,8m movt. serial, so it is a quite late 14394.

The watch has significant intrinsic value and I would just like to second Matt’s comment on you enjoying a rather splendid heirloom.

gatorcpa · Sat. 4:44pm

MtV
bracelet is not original to the watch and I doubt it’s actually by Omega.

I respectfully disagree on the above. The fit and finish are better than aftermarket examples I’ve seen.

The hallmarks on the bracelet look Swiss in origin, and the Omega symbol was likely used under license by whoever made this for Omega.

I do agree on the redial, incorrect crown and case refinishing.

Still, that is a very impressive heirloom watch containing a lot of gold. Sorry for your loss.
gatorcpa

dsio · Sat. 5:11pm

gatorcpa
I respectfully disagree on the above. The fit and finish are better than aftermarket examples I’ve seen.

The hallmarks on the bracelet look Swiss in origin, and the Omega symbol was likely used under license by whoever made this for Omega.

I do agree on the redial, incorrect crown and case refinishing.

Still, that is a very impressive heirloom watch containing a lot of gold. Sorry for your loss.
gatorcpa

Indeed that bracelet is a factory option I’ve seen on an identical 14393 from a local dealer

https://vintagewatchco.com.au/omega-constellation-9178.html

gfrier · Sat. 5:15pm

Thank you all for your valuable comments.

I have taken some additional macro photos. One thing I noticed is that the crystal still appears to have an old protective film on it, which may be causing reflections and optical distortions in the photos.

Before drawing any final conclusions about the dial or case, I’d appreciate it if you could have another look at these new close-up images.

I’m also waiting for an independent written assessment from a vintage Omega specialist.

aprax · Sat. 5:56pm

dsio
Indeed that bracelet is a factory option I’ve seen on an identical 14393 from a local dealer

... and it bears the stamp "MR" which is the maker's mark of Reinhor. Reinhor was also the manufacturer of those distinctive grand luxe Constellation brick bracelets. This is a different design but seems to be heavy and of very good quality.

Cartesian · Sat. 5:57pm

I'm also sorry for your loss, Gerhard.

Thank you for including the additional photos. However, I'm afraid that the macro-photos confirm that the watch has been re-dialed. The 'n's in 'Constellation' are off (particularly the second 'n'), and the text is missing serifs in a way that is particularly apparent on the 't's and 'l's.

GeorgiosK · Sat. 5:59pm

Adding to the equation of possible value(s) for this watch, I’d like to mention that men’s gold watches, especially yellow-gold pieces, have made a comeback in recent years (GQ has highlighted the trend, while high-profile appearances such as Timothée Chalamet wearing a smaller yellow-gold watch have helped make the look feel contemporary again). What might once have seemed slightly old-fashioned now looks elegant and very much in style again, making an inherited watch like this both meaningful and surprisingly contemporary.

gatorcpa · Sat. 6:03pm

You can compare the dial from the example posted by @dsio and see the font differences:

However, looks like the crown matches on both examples. Could be original, I’d need to see more examples.
gatorcpa

MtV · Sat. 7:08pm

Thanks @gatorcpa @dsio , I stand corrected re the bracelet and the new pics indeed give a much better impression when it comes to the logo in particular. On the blurry initial pics the feet of the Omega logo seemed to have different length.

The crown might have been a common service item for a while.

JimInOz · Sat. 7:41pm

I agree with the above assessments, all I can add is that the case was made for Omega by Serva SA, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.

wagudc · Sat. 11:20pm

G gfrier
The watch has great sentimental value, but I would also like to understand how original it is and where it stands from a collector’s perspective.

The first part of this sentence is the most important part. Have the movement serviced and wear the watch to remind you of your father. It is a beautiful gold watch.

theluckyluke · Sun. 12:54am

Sorry for your loss. This is a nice watch, enjoy with care!

G gfrier
I’m also waiting for an independent written assessment from a vintage Omega specialist.

Please share their assessment when you get it, especially if it differs from the replies above. Not to send flowers or anything, but folks who replied above are some of most experienced vintage Omega people 😉

Peemacgee · Sun. 1:40am

Since I commented earlier, I can confirm my previous thoughts that the dial has been repainted.
Both watches above have the modern replacement crown that Omega supply in place of the original decagonal (or sometimes thin knurled) crown.

For comparison, here is my no-date version 14382 of your watch.

padders · Sun. 1:43am

It’s a very good redial, but it’s a redial. The T serifs don’t just fall off. Perhaps it was an in house Omega resto. That would tally with the replacement crown and signs of a case refurb.

For clarity I mean the OP watch!

gfrier · Sun. 2:24am

Thank you all for your kind words and condolences. They mean a great deal to me. This watch will always have sentimental value because it belonged to my father, regardless of its originality. I truly appreciate everyone taking the time to share their knowledge and help me better understand its history.

I’m also looking forward to sharing the independent written assessment here as soon as I receive it. It will be interesting to compare it with the thoughtful observations and expertise that have already been shared in this discussion.

Inherited 18K Omega Constellation Ref. 14393/4 SC61 (Cal. 56

gfrier

Larry S

MtV

o.m.e.g.a

MtV

Peemacgee

gatorcpa

dsio

gfrier

aprax

Cartesian

GeorgiosK

gatorcpa

MtV

JimInOz

wagudc

theluckyluke

Peemacgee

padders

gfrier

Similar threads

18K Omega Constellation 168.018 Legit Check & Reference

help identifying my 18K Omega Constellation Ref.168.010

Omega Constellation ref. 14393 Cal. 561: Authentic?

18k Omega Constellation Pie Pan Cal. 564 Gasket Help

Real or Fake 18k Omega Constellation Pie Pan Dial?

Omega Constellation - Ref 14393 - Black Gilt Dial - Box & Papers