Omega Constellation 168.010: Redial or Original Dial?

Posts
16
Likes
5
Hello,

I found this Constellation for sale at a good price. Was considering buying it but I am not sure about the dial. Is it original or a redial? The seller says the dial is original but if you look at the "Constellation" font and compare it with other Constellation dials from the same era, it's very different. What do you think? Your help is appreciated.

 
Posts
2,298
Likes
3,154
Redial, "Chronometre" instead of "Chronometer", font is very thin and wrong

The lugs also don't look attractiv as far as I can see
 
Posts
98
Likes
109
Redial, "Chronometre" instead of "Chronometer", font is very thin and wrong

The lugs also don't look attractiv as far as I can see
The spelling of chronometer is not an indicator afaik, there are definitely Omega dials with the spelling 'chronometre'.

But this one is absolutely a redial.
 
Posts
6,707
Likes
10,353
The spelling of chronometer is not an indicator afaik, there are definitely Omega dials with the spelling 'chronometre'.

But this one is absolutely a redial.
It’s the spelling of chronometer relative to the particular Constellation reference that @Passover was referring to.

A ‘hidden crown’ Constellation should never have the ‘re’ spelling.
1950s Constellations (with late 50s exceptions) will have the ‘re’ spelling.
 
Posts
899
Likes
1,723
I also believe it’s a redial but for me the telling sign is the writing under omega is not just thin but also more pronounced in areas. This unevenness almost always tells you it’s a reprint.