Opinions on this 1962 Constellation

Hi Everyone - I am new to this forum and to the world of vintage Omegas. I recently came across a beautiful 1962 Constellation at my local watch shop (see pictures below - please excuse my amateur cellphone photography). I have not purchased it yet, but am on the verge of pulling the trigger.

Desmond (from http://omega-constellation-collectors.blogspot.com/) was kind enough to take a look and tell me that it has a refinished dial but is otherwise in good condition.

I am curious to know what everyone else thinks. Is it still a nice watch to get (even though its a redial)?

Thanks in advance for reading this post and weighing in.

Thanks for your response! Here are all of the other photos of the dial that I have. Again, I apologize for the quality, these were hastily taken with my cell phone.

I know part of the scripts is still covered in these photos, but do they help any?

I just don't know if I can go back to look at this watch again if I'm not prepared to buy it on the spot. I have already spent significant time in the store looking at this watch on three separate occasions in the last few weeks, and if I do it again, the owner might think I'm crazy. 😀

If a redial it’s a good one, I really don’t see anything suspect with this dial.

The case, especially the back, have been significantly polished. Are you sure the screwback is fully closing?

And looking at the movement, this watch maybe didn't have the best available service in the past.

The redial doesn't look good to me. And I'd expect to find an 'OFFICIALLY CERTIFIED' under the 'CHRONOMETER'.

I don't know what's the price, but I would pass on this one.

Not necessarily, could be a transitional model from 14902 to 168.005.
Also poor photos are making the case back and movement look worse than they are.

More opinions would be useful, I don’t think the OP should be so quickly put off this watch.

OP my advice would be go back to the shop, get some better shots and repost.

Thanks, OMEGuy and Noddyman! I appreciate your review.

I agree the case (especially the back) has seen a fair amount of time on the polishing wheel. However, the bezel edges seem decent and the medallion still shows all 8 starts (which I understand are sometimes polished off). The caseback does screw down fully. It just wasn't tightened down in the pictures because I was taking pictures with the case open.

With regard to the screws on the movement, are you referring to the scratches and tool marks on the screw heads? I hadn't really noticed this until you mentioned it. Thank you for pointing that out! Below are a few more close-ups of the movement showing the damaged screws (and other scratches on the edges of the mainplate of the movement).

This shop said they performed the service themselves and they provide a 1-year warranty on the work. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if these guys were the ones who did this damage. I saw the shop owner use the tips of a caliper to open and re-screw the caseback of this watch... seeing that made me cringe.

As for the dial text, the missing third line of text which says "OFFICIALLY CERTIFIED" was of concern to me as well. I have found examples of other Constellation models without this text, but not any 168.005s. However, some information I received indicated that Omega had used dials without the "OFFICIALLY CERTIFIED" text prior to the release of the 168.005s and some of those older dials may have been used on the early 168.005s. From what I've been told, by 1962 (the year of this watch), one would not expect to see a dial without the "OFFICIALLY CERTIFIED" text, however, there does not appear to be a definitive answer on that.

Lastly, if the price was under $800, would that change the analysis?

Thanks again. I truly appreciate all of your input.

Well, thank you for your very nice feedback as well... 👍

As I said, I wouldn't buy this one. There are better Connies around and I would go for genuine vintage and unpolished condition and I'd be willing to pay a little bit more for that.

But that's just my very own point of view.

Good luck - whatever you will finally decide to do! 😀

I have this one so maybe you are still no nearer.

Well, the pics aren’t great and 999 times out of a 1000 I’d defer to Desmond (@mondodec ) but I’m tempted to agree with @Noddyman.
The OP’s watch must be an early .005 and all sorts of jiggery-pokery went on in that ‘62/63 period.
-and I’m sure that in a previous ‘two-line text’ discussion a long-standing member chipped in with an .005 with a ‘missing text’ dial.
Better, straight on, pics would help to discern if the dial is correct.

Thank you all for your feedback. I will try to get better pictures and repost.