Hi there, Comments on this if you please. I can't tell if the damage round the date window is because of a redial or wear and tear. Movement is pretty shot, but then again seller is not asking silly money.
Those are two different watches... The first one is a totally shot, worthless dog-legged version (well, it had dog-legged lugs once...) the other is a knackered 168.004 "hidden crown" model.
...Why does the watch on picture 1 + 2 have different crowns?! Also - is that glue around the date window? Less than $5?
Now now, be fair. The minute and seconds hand on the first one is still usable. Perhaps a screw or two could be reused as well...
the seller is selling two knackered Connies and mixed up all the pics in the listings!! one has mysteriously disappeared.. 173263805768 item no...
I am tempted to believe it is the same watch with a new crown and different light source: Look at the misplaced 6 o'clock marker, the date window disaster, the missing minute markings at 11-2.
There are two different Constellations in the three photos; one of them with two different crowns for some reason.
@ConElPueblo - do you mean the back shot is a 168.004? Because the two dial shots are of the same overpolished 168.005 dog leg lug. @chipsotoole - it is the same grossly overpolished 168.005, just with different crowns. Ignore the movement shot as it is not the same watch. The stuff around the date window is excess glue that was used to resecure the date window surround after the redial. That watch is a total piece of shit and pretty much worthless.
Wasn't this what I wrote? Two different watches, one with dog-legs (no way to tell if it's a 168.005 or an earlier iteration, which is why I didn't write that ref.) and the other is a 168.004...