Newbie here--trying to learn nuances of subtle (and not) redialing. This was presented to me as original and not redialed--any thoughts? The dial looks very clean with only a few marks--but the hands seem somewhat oxidized in comparison:




Thanks,
mm

 

Thanks, yes--the hands and the over-polished case both stood out. I missed the crown, though, and appreciate your input--.

nb edited to add this is a watch I am considering....

 

What @gatorcpa said ... but you have to get head on (or side on, ie perpendicular) images. Look at the logo and the cross hair: has the logo been re-applied or is it just the angle of the shot? All sellers are guilty of this. Angled photos look sexier but they don't help us identify originality or rework with certainty.

 

Good point--. If a logo has been reapplied, wouldn't there be 'ghosting' from the original markings? This is the most angled photo I have:


The hands look different here--not sure how lighting affects this. Also, as for the crown, I just read an article on the Constellation Collectors forum about how most Constellation crowns were ten-sided--the color of this one doesn't seem to match the case , but again it could be the lighting....and it could be...it could be...

This foray into watches feels less like a rabbit hole and more like a minefield....

Thanks,
mm

 

This watch should date to around 1959/60 and the marker/hands will likely contain radium. Most dials in this style whether Constellation or Seamaster usually have some sign of radium burn around the marker. This one looks nice and clean. As mentioned it’s a shame the case has been so over polished.

 

FFY

Shame about the case as it looks to be a nice dial.
You might like to read this thread about crowns on this reference started by our own cunning-linguist @ConElPueblo.
https://omegaforums.net/threads/the-curious-case-of-controversial-constellation-crowns.54568/
Note the thickness as @gatorcpa pointed out.