More Constellation advice please

Posts
6,077
Likes
9,412
Good morning all,
This Connie ticks a lot of my 'like to haves'
The auction house description says it is 'original'-but I would appreciate your comments please.
A couple of things stand out to me:
Would the 'dagger' style hands (if that is the correct term?) be used on a watch of this type/era?
(they also look a bit ropey)
The dial looks good to my novice eye -but the star is crooked
From all the posts or advice I've read, isn't this usually a sure sign of the dial being messed around with?
here is a link as I'm not sure that the image is good enough to look at in detail (Lot 275)
http://watchesofknightsbridge.com/view-auction-catalogues.html

Philip
 
Posts
6,077
Likes
9,412
Sgt Bilko's post reminded me about this Constellation
I realise that it is a pain for folks to go to an auction house web-site -and then to have to find the lot
so I've managed to get an enlargement of the face.
The site says original dial, 1961, Cal 561
Same comments as before from me -are the hands correct for this kind of watch and is the wonky star a tell-tale to someone messing about with the dial?
I'd love some expert feedback please
 
Posts
2,219
Likes
4,947
The auction says it's a 168.004. Have a look at this link:
http://omegaforums.net/threads/jumbo-omega-constellation-168-004.6060/

I don't have one but in my opinion, the hands are wrong but the dial looks OK although the wonky star is worrying. These are really tricky and I've been wrong before so take this as me bumping your thread in the hope someone with better knowledge comes along.😉

Cheers, Chris
 
Posts
6,077
Likes
9,412
The auction says it's a 168.004. Have a look at this link:
http://omegaforums.net/threads/jumbo-omega-constellation-168-004.6060/

I don't have one but in my opinion, the hands are wrong but the dial looks OK although the wonky star is worrying. These are really tricky and I've been wrong before so take this as me bumping your thread in the hope someone with better knowledge comes along.😉

Cheers, Chris
thanks Chris
 
Posts
7,225
Likes
24,428
Agree with Chris, hands should have black inserts matching dial...case looks polished too.
 
Posts
6,077
Likes
9,412
Agree with Chris, hands should have black inserts matching dial...case looks polished too.
thanks
all opinions are most welcome
for novices-what is and isn't a polished case is very difficult to tell until you seen many many of the same type (ref your post on dials)
 
Posts
6,077
Likes
9,412
Look at the Constellation Sgt_Bilco just purchased in the following thread (bottom of page 1), see how sharp the facets are, the one you're looking at has had these polished down to a rounded edge. Look at the bezel and lugs specifically.

http://omegaforums.net/threads/very-proud-new-owner-of-my-first-omega.22494/

His also has correct hands.
got you -the one above has rounded edges -hence being over polished
-and the hands on his Connie are really nice and in excellent condition
I didn't know if the one above -being older- might have had different hands from later models
-so if this one is a 1961 version would it have had dauphine hands or did Omega use hands like the one in the link from the early 60's?
The whole hands thing -and when they started/stopped using certain styles -has me a bit baffled
 
Posts
522
Likes
2,563
Unpolished vintage watches in great original condition are rare for obvious reasons. It's just hard to find something around 50 years old that still looks really fresh if it has been used. This is one of the reasons I often look for new old stock items that have never been worn like this Dynamic I picked up a while back. You will note though that a Geneve from 1973 lacks the quality finish that you would associate with a 60s Constellation. The 1481 movement, though reliable is not something you would see in a Constellation either but Austin Powers would probably love it.

geneve-dynamic-auto.jpg
 
Posts
6,077
Likes
9,412
Unpolished vintage watches in great original condition are rare for obvious reasons. It's just hard to find something around 50 years old that still looks really fresh if it has been used. This is one of the reasons I often look for new old stock items that have never been worn like this Dynamic I picked up a while back. You will note though that a Geneve from 1973 lacks the quality finish that you would associate with a 60s Constellation. The 1481 movement, though reliable is not something you would see in a Constellation either but Austin Powers would probably love it.

geneve-dynamic-auto.jpg
another great watch....
as I also posted recently -it was an early 70's Tissot Seastar Automatic with the sister movement of the 1481 (both of which I believe are great movements) that got me into vintage watches last summer -and then looking at Omegas because of that -and the rest as they say is history.....
 
Posts
522
Likes
2,563
I have another Geneve from 1971 with a 1481 movement shown below. I have worn this practically every day for the last year and it's a good reliable movement with a rather quirky but wonderful system for changing the date. I know this isn't a flashy watch but it's eminently practical for normal daily use.

Over the last year I have generally alternated between this Geneve and a Cal 861 De Ville Prestige that I'm wearing now. There is also an 18ct gold Eternamatic from 1967 that I now consider my "lucky watch" and I've never had a lucky anything before. The Eterna is away being serviced at the moment and I'm in a cold sweat waiting for it's safe return.

The problem with all these watches is that over time you form a real obsession and you always want one more watch. Now I have my Constellation but I still don't have that Polerouter... On that note I had better get back to some work. I am desperately behind schedule writing a book with a deadline for the end of this month and if I just had lousy digital Casio it would have been finished ages ago... Vintage watches are an addictive pastime.

33745550b.jpg
Edited: