Omega Constellation. Dial from a different time period or fake?

Ciausalo · Jun 29, 2020

Hi Everyone,

I came across an Omega Constellation Cal 564 made in the 60s. The mechanism, case and hands coincide with the time frame but my only concern is that the dial it's not from the same time period.

From what I can see the dial seems to be original but they only started making this kind of dials in the 70's if I am correct. Intriguingly, the dial fits perfectly into the case.

Could it be that the dial has been replaced on a later date? I tried looking it up online but I could not find a similar one.

Any information will be really useful.

Cheers

Noddyman · Jun 29, 2020

So many things wrong here it’s hard to know where to start.
As you say a cal 564 doesn’t belong with this later 70’s dial.
The case back belongs to a 60’s Constellation (probably 168.004) and doesn’t even fit the case properly.
The main case body doesn’t look like any Connie I’ve seen before, more Seamaster style.
The hands are also wrong which is a minor point in the scale of things.

On a +ve note the dial looks original.😀

Ciausalo · Jun 29, 2020

N Noddyman
So many things wrong here it’s hard to know where to start.
As you say a cal 564 doesn’t belong with this later 70’s dial.
The case back belongs to a 60’s Constellation (probably 168.004) and doesn’t even fit the case properly.
The main case body doesn’t look like any Connie I’ve seen before, more Seamaster style.
The hands are also wrong which is a minor point in the scale of things.

On a +ve note the dial looks original.😀

Thank you for your reply 😀

It's a 168.018 case reference and as far as my research goes the case seems to be fine. Can it be that a case back from a Connie fits on a Seamaster one?

I think the only thing that has been changed lately was the dial. The hands might fit the time frame, as far as I know the 168.018 came with both Dauphine hands or Broad Index hands.

Noddyman · Jun 29, 2020

C Ciausalo
It's a 168.018 case reference and as far as my research goes the case seems to be fine.

The lugs don’t appear chunky enough to be a 168.018 but I suppose it’s possible. If the case checks out as 168.018 then I agree it could just be a dial swap.

Omega Constellation. Dial from a different time period or fake?

Ciausalo

Noddyman

Ciausalo

Noddyman

Similar threads

Another piece in my collection: a rare black waffle dial from an early Constellation model

1966 Omega Constellation Review: Design, Movement and Buying Notes

I can't decide if this Constellation dial is original; a chance to learn.