Can someone tell me if this is genuine omega constellation 168 005.

 

Movement and case are real. The dial??? Need a picture.

 

Note there is a question about a 564 in that case though. Hopefully someone else can comment that knows better.

 

Looks promising: Old springbars, yellow gasket

not to forget correct crown and tidy movement!

 

Thank you. I will take a photo later.

 

I saw this one in net there is 564 mark.not sure if reliable article

 

It looks like a real and complete 564. Sometimes you see movements made from chronometer grade and non chronometer grade parts. This appears to not be one. The question is if that’s the movement that came in that case.

I’m also not 100% sure a swan neck regulator came on that movement. But again I’m sure an expert like @ConElPueblo can comment.

 

Initially 168.005’s where fitted with cal 561’s and then later around 1966/67 changed over to cal 564’s. Serial no. 24324589 is quite an early 564.
A dial shot would be good?

 

Case back

 

Well I’m sure that dial will spark a conversation. As there is an aspect to it that is debated.

 

I’m not seeing any red flags, but I’m an amateur compared to many on this board.

 

Someone is selling it to me for 400$,is it a good price for its condition?no bracelet also

 

From this photo not sure if it passes MOY test.

 

I’m guessing you’re referring to the single T when it has fully lumed indices and hands?

I have an SGR cased dome-dial 564 dogleg with a single-T dial.
Admittedly, it only has lume pips and lumed hands - but whilst there has been speculation about the amount of Tritium used, I don’t think there has yet been a definitive explanation regarding single Ts and double Ts and it may just be a dial-supplier thing.

The pic isn’t very good and the scratched crystal doesn’t help but I don’t see any issues with the dial.
The fonts appear correct.
The hands look pink but I think that’s just lighting as the date surround and star have caught the same hue.
Fully lumed indices often look minty compared to the hands’ lume.

The dial has got quite a bit of spotting but I think a new crystal will improve the overall look considerably.

Welcome to the forum @Dy Akino

The case has ‘had a life’ but the facets are still there on the lugs and I suspect it looks much better on the wrist than the pictures imply.
It’s never going to be a top-grade collector’s piece but with a service, a sonic bath and a new crystal, it could be a nice watch and $400 wouldn’t be a bad price (IMHO).
Try to bargain them down on the basis of dial patina and requiring a service and crystal. (Which might cost as much as the watch - but you should always account for a service when buying vintage)

Hope that helps.

 

I think you can just see the edge of the Y peeking out from under the tail of the second hand.
looks OK to me

 

I'm quite shure that it is in a very good unmolested genuine condition.
It will be a beautiful piece after - as pointed out before - cleaning and servicing and with a new crystal.
If it is your starting point into the vintage watch scene I can recommend it.

@Peemacgee nailed it: "
The case has ‘had a life’ but the facets are still there on the lugs and I suspect it looks much better on the wrist than the pictures imply.
It’s never going to be a top-grade collector’s piece but with a service, a sonic bath and a new crystal, it could be a nice watch and $400 wouldn’t be a bad price (IMHO).
Try to bargain them down on the basis of dial patina and requiring a service and crystal."

Good luck!

 

Thank you so much. I will keep in mind your advice.

 

@Peemacgee i don’t see a lumed dial. Just lumed hands but yes that’s the feature.

 

Is it the photo or marker 12 is misaligned? Also, do lumed hands go with (apparently) non-lumed dial?