Hi all, I wanted to add to this thread, as I’ve recently picked up a 2852 Constellation with two lines and “chromometer” spelling. I was satisfied it was a genuine and correct 2852 based in part on this thread and
@hoipolloi ’s example mentioned above.
Having the watch in hand now I’m not quite sure what to make of it. It’s a 2852-16 SC with 505 movement and 16,517,xxx serial no. I have another 2852 (with a knackered dial) for comparison and it was immediately obvious that it’s not only the text that differs but also the case is noticeably different.
The other watch is 2852-9 SC with 15,835,xxx serial no.
Below is some photos for comparison with the two-line watch on the left in each:
Just looking at the cases. The first thing I notice on the two line watch is that the lugs are longer (~44mm vs 41mm Lug-to-lug). The watch on the right (and most 2852’s I’ve seen) has drilled lugs while the two-line watch does not.
The crowns are identical in shape/profile but the Omega logos differ. The crown on the two-line feels a bit off to me.
The case backs differ in profile with the steps/facets being of differing depths and diameter. The medallions appear identical apart from level of wear / polish.
Looking at the text itself. The printing is slightly heavier on the two-line watch than most 2852’s I’ve seen, but it compares well with 14381 examples. I.e.
My New Omega 14381
And the casebacks and movements of both:
2852-16 (two-line):
It appears the rotor is a replacement and not correct for cal 505.
2852-9:
I don’t have great knowledge of the 14381, but it seems to me these two-line, “Chronometer” 2852s are very late in the run for the reference, and design elements that would be carried through to the incoming 14381 had started to show up. My watches aren’t the finest specimens though, so I would accept it could also just be a bit of a Frankenstein 🤷♂️. I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of more seasoned members.
