I've been reading advice here about buying watches on eBay and observing auctions there for several weeks now. I've been looking for a decent, attractive watch that I can wear on a day to day basis rather than the gold dress watch I've been using. I decided I wanted a stainless steel watch and settled on looking for either a Seamaster, a Cosmic 2000 or a Constellation. I wouldn't describe myself as a collector (yet) and while I thought a pie-pan would be preferable if I were starting a collection, I didn't want to spend the required amount for a decent looking one.

I bid on a few watches but lost out, being quite conservative about how much I would pay. I was careful to only bid on watches where the seller looked trustworthy, and where there were plenty of pictures. I tried to spot fakes but realised that the fakers are probably better at this than me, so I went on instinct as far as dials were concerned. "Does it look right or is there something, anything, about it that seems odd?" If I had any doubts I left it alone.

I also didn't bid on watches that were being re-listed, even if the seller said it was due to a time-wasting buyer. It may have been true but I wasn't to know, and nobody's going to re-list saying the watch was sent back because it's a wrong'un. I was looking for sellers who had sold a good number of watches, preferably high end, with useful feedback (i.e not "Super seller A++++++") and who wrote what I considered to be thoughtful details on their listing.

I didn't bid if there was no other interest in the watch.

In terms of images, I wasn't interested if there were no pictures of the movement.

Then I saw this and I liked it. The listing was, I thought, honest, but there were no images of the inside. I decided to take a risk on the basis that if the watch was wrong the seller would not be difficult if I wanted to send it back. Now I've had it opened up and I think I've got a decent example. I know it's not a super-collectable watch but it will be a nice watch for daily wear. There's a small crack in the lens below the surface which is hardly noticeable. The seller pointed this out. As the lens has the Omega signature I think I shouldn't change it.

Here are some pictures. It's a Constellation "c" 168.017 cal. 564. I'd really appreciate being put right if there's anything wrong about the watch. I paid £500 for it. Is that reasonable?

 

To me it looks like a redial and wrong hands. Should be without lume dots and lumed hands. And if it came originally lumed I‘m missing the T for tritium.
But please wait for the experts opinion.

Kind regards Max

 

Absence of the T is fine, just look online for this model. Hard to tell if the dial is good from that photo. Hands and fonts look ok but markers look relumed - final S in Swiss Made shouldn't be blotted out.

 

Like @Edward53, the lumed out 's' in Swiss stood out for me, as did the seemingly off kilter lume plots at 12 o'clock and elsewhere. @Hijak has a killer 'C' case for sale on the private Sales Forum. Not $500, of course, but a gorgeous specimen nevertheless (that would be on it's way to me now if I weren't in Canada!)

 

Yes that does seem weird to have the lume plot on top of the S. The Swiss Made looks a bit off altogether, the E looks kinda cooky unless it's just the pic or the UB edge warp.

Other than that it looks good to my non expert eyes.

 

Incorrect assumptions! Sometimes the light can play tricks with the color of hands, I’d would want to see better pictures before making any claims.

 

Flat indoor light makes for not very good watch pictures! The hands and Lume on dial should be there on earlier versions (564 movement versions) like this but at least on dial may have been relumed. You did well @Engee at $500 for this, a picture taken in better (outdoor sunlight maybe) would give us much more to go on. Here is a picture of my c-case for comparison...



Here in Wisconsin haven’t seen the sun in a bit so this picture isn’t the best either. but you can see from this that yours looks pretty good from an originality standpoint! Also your crystal seems to be an original Omega based on Omega logo in center.

 

Except he paid 500 pounds.

 

What’s that like $620 U.S., still did well in my opinion!

 

Waiting for better pictures but seems to be a good deal for me too!

I think the dial is legit. There are several tritium examples without the T marking. Plus AFAIK no 168.0056 has the T, so it is fair to assume that lates 017 do not have it either. It may have been relumed at one point but it is correct to its specifications given it also have the lumed hands instead of the thin black ones.

The gold bezel is brushed as it should be, and difficult to tell but it seems the case still has its radial brush. The end of the lugs look also sharp so I guess it will look good overall

Do not worry too much about the crystal, it is not a huge scratch. If it bothers you in the end, for sure you should look for an original and not a replacement (or find a very good replacement but keep the current one in case of a resell one day)

 

Since you flagged your noob status and this hasn't come up yet, did you get any assurance that the watch was serviced recently? You'll want to have that done sooner than later, and perhaps that will be a good time to address a new crystal if one is needed

 

Many border towns have mailbox services where US shipments can be sent to await pickup by happy Canadians.

 

Thank you everyone, I'm encouraged by and grateful for these replies. I will post some pictures taken with a decent camera in daylight tomorrow.

 

Oh yes! I have had one in Blaine, WA for years (30 minutes from home). I'm just tired of the combination of CDN/USD exchange rates, attendant taxes and duties, and the overbearing demeanor of border agents.

 

No, the seller didn't say it had been serviced recently and I was planning at least to have it properly cleaned but I will send it for a service as well. I don't feel the need to change the crystal - it doesn't offend me, in fact it reminds me that this watch is over 50 years old and actually in such good shape.

 

Thank you Lurk41. Just for clarification, it's all SS, no gold. That must be the artificial light the picture was taken under.

 

I see what you mean about the lume. Mine is rather blobby compared with yours. I wonder if it's realistic to have the lume re-done?

 

Many Omega authorized watchmakers will insist on replacing the crystal if they're going to guaranty their work. Fortunately a replacement crystal is inexpensive.

 

A couple more pictures, these taken under natural light.

 

Having looked at mine at home, [EDIT: and the new OPs pictures] I'm not shure anymore that it is relumed:



On the OPs watch the second S of Swiss is only half hidden by the lume dot, exactley like on mine (of course mine could also be relumed), I will post a picture of mine later

EDIT: Other examples with half hidden 'S'