Hey guys, this watch is 1 of 3 constellations that our grandfather passed down. I've been doing some searching and I've only seen 2 photos of this exact watch on Google which led me to think that this could be a redial or possibly fake and essentially worthless? My brother posted photos of the 3 Constellations last year (using this same account) and some people in that thread suggested that this exact watch could be a redial. Would like some feedback or confirmation on its authenticity. Thanks guys!



Sorry for this photo my phone camera's focus acted weirdly and only noticed when I got home to check the photos


EDIT: here's a photo that shows the Swiss Made at the bottom. The crystal is after market


Thanks!

 

At first glance, there are certainly some reasons to be skeptical about the dial. But to receive the most reliable opinions, you should probably post a well-lit straight-on view of the dial.

 

Hey Dan yeah sorry about that, I actually edited the post right away and added a straight on shot. Thanks!

 

At minimum, a redial (the "n"'s in Constellation should have different loops" and MOY is off) plus severe rotor wear


but other things bother me, too......it could be a total fantasy dial. It just doesn't have the look of a Flagship dress watch.

 

There are some real experts here, but I'll just throw out a couple of things that jump out at me. First is the failed MOY-test. I know this is not universal, but I can't help noticing it. The second is the apparent mis-alignment of the Omega symbol logo and the 12 o'clock marker, unless that is an artifact of the angle of the photo. There are also some subtle font issues.

 

I also would say redial. Apart from moy, n-loops, etc., the dial looks off. The swiss made does'nt looked to be positioned well either. And the spacing between the 'tel' in constellation is kind of off too. I've took two pictures of the fond of a domed 168.005 and yours:

 

I think this would be a very odd dial for this reference.
The style is replicating the later ‘flat’ dials (e.g. 168.0018) but they were post ‘69 IIRC.
(However, the movement has the earlier swan regulator so shouldn’t be that late - do you have the movement serial number?)
The fonts are wrong and no serifs.
MOY is way out.
Minute ticks are too long.
The indices caps have chamfered corners - should be single chamfer to the ends.
The ‘jet’ inserts looks too clumsy. (Spilling out wider than the end caps and not sharp enough)

So, it’s either a rare transition experiment or a reasonably well done fantasy dial.
I vote for the latter, I’m afraid.

I’d still happily wear it as a momento of my grandfather.

Hope that helps.

Example of similar flat dial for reference (not mine)

 

I have to say that I fail to see much wrong with this dial.

I believe it is in the wrong case, but it is an unmodified dial, IMO.

 

I'm on a mobile which I due to my luddite ways cannot get around properly, so no links I am afraid, but do a Google search for "Omega Constellation Deluxe" and you'll find 4-5 other, later, Constellations sporting this dial.

One of them is with our Austrian friend, but this may be the one watch he hasn't brutalised

 

https://www.vintage-portfolio.com/d...ga-constellation-solid-gold-automatic-de-lux/

 

That wasn't even the one I found on his page... @QT31416 - what is the serial number of your Constellation?

 

I was going to say that I could only find two dome dial versions of this dial - both in later round cased Connies
but neither with chamfered indices caps.

However, the one that @Shabbaz shows is pretty much the same watch (but not) in every detail
MOY out of whack
limited serifs
long minute ticks
chamfered indices caps

- and if there are two of them like this in a dogleg case, there are likely more.

I still find it odd that a watch containing a 561 from around '66/'67 would have such chunky indices and a wayward MOY -but as is often said, with Omega, never say never.....
I guess it was just down to the dial manufacturer.

so to quote myself

looks like it could be the former

 

this was to be my next question -would be really interesting if they were a near match.

 

For what it’s worth, Omega’s vintage database shows a pie pan dial for both references.

Tom

 

The MOY alignment looks acceptable to me. I would want to see different "N"s on earlier Constellations but this is getting towards the 712 style and that rule may not apply.

 

Hey that looks like the watch I have. Could that one possibly be a redial as well?

What is a transition experiment? Sorry I do not know anything about watches.

Hey, I apologize this is my only photo of the serial number and I do not have any tools to open the watch right now. I hope it's legible enough. The red is from my phone case's reflection.



https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...M7jAhVU-WEKHXIRBrsQMwhCKAIwAg&iact=mrc&uact=8

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...jp57HbgM7jAhUOfnAKHQwICvQQMwh3KCcwJw..i&w=455

These are the two I saw on Google when I searched.

Thanks for all the replies guys!

 

I was being a little facetious at the time but what I meant was that it could have been an experiment by Omega, trying out chunky-indices dials, before releasing them on later case references. (where they are usually found)

 

Interesting that we now have four examples but no obvious correlation between them:

#1 cal 561 23,81xx
#2 cal 561 24,49xx
#3 cal 564 24,28xx
#4 cal 546 24,84xx

if the serials are correct then it just goes to show how irregular Omega were, with movt number of a 564 having an earlier serial than a 561

Pics from Collector's square aren't great but #1 looks like it has straight Ms - so a redial in my book - but the others do seem to have the same out of whack MOY.

Oh well, another anomaly to log in the cerebral data base.

for reference

 

Morning Guys:
A newbie and novice as well. What does "MOY" mean? TY

 

http://omega-constellation-collecto...02/its-all-about-moy-except-when-it-isnt.html