Without wishing to step on anybody's toes - What does a completely NOS version (i.e. unpolished..) of one these look like? (...cue MSN-watch's pic...) My concern with this particular example is the top right lug. It may just be the pictures. Answers or pictures on a postcard please...
Alex's example as you have pictured clearly has some wear and age on the case as does the dial. Overall, I would say it is an ok example and the price has to reflect that. It depends on what you are looking for and of course what your budget will bear.
The double chamfer is still evident I guess. I was just concerned with the top right lug..I can't tell if it's slightly bent inwards. It may just be the way it's pictured. The lugs on this were meant to be slimmer anyways, right?
Probably a little fish-eye effect from macro mode. On a watch like that, I'd want bevels and facets so sharp you could slice tomatoes on them. This one isn't making the grade.
Lugs look ok - could be crisper. Don't think that lug is bent but ask Alex to clarify that point if you are interested in the watch.
Issue is price - crisper will be more expensive sometimes a lot more expensive and more and more of these examples are now safely tucked away...
Don't we know it. At least we share pictures. Sometimes they get snagged by those secretive non-forum-joining stealth WIS and you never see the watch(es) again.
I'm not really interested in this particular watch. I think there are better examples still to be had. Maybe not on par with slicing oranges but maybe making a dent ! I'm just trying to decipher the original constellation case shapes of the 50's..starting around 2782's and around that period. Most of the solid 18k seem to of melted away...
A "secretive" friend of mine claims he has seen a OT 14.311 example in his fathers collection...I'm skeptical! (Hope he's not on here..lol)
With the current recession you might not be far wrong. As a student, my brother used to buy gold in shopping centers (you know the kind of stalls...) and one day had some chav wanting to cash in the case from a solid 18ct vintage Rolex. My brother patiently explained to him that the steel stuff inside the case actually adds quite a lot to the value...
I'm sure it happens all the time with Rolex's...I can't stand the thought of them melting one of these beautiful Constellations...If people only realised about the intrinsic value and micro masterpieces In their grasp...!
Not sure about these 14.311 connies. Easy enough to put a dial and movement into that case - I think the case housed a 352 and perhaps 354 chronometre rather than being a constellation. Would also be wary of a 351 chronometre - again, easy enough to assemble the movement parts. Would probably buy the 351 in a 14.311 case is a connie if you have a certificate from omega saying the 351 was a chronometre movement belonging to that case and if the caseback had the typical constellation observatory with the 14.311 stamped in the inner side.
Isn't the font for 'constellation', especially the second n, suspect, given the period of the watch? I do seem to get some of these wrong, and am wrestling with a phone, but....
I think the dial is original. The script is like Mikes rose gold variation. The 'automatic chronometer' is smaller than on other Constellations..
Is Omega sure that it was a cal 351 chronometer movement? Never seen one before. I know that the OVD has had comments saying "some are chronometers" or something like that on a few case references that had both cal. 351 and 354 inside. Desmond did a writeup on one of these a while ago: http://omega-constellation-collectors.blogspot.com/2009/03/rare-14311-globemaster-surfaces.html That one had a cal. 352, and I'm wondering if there isn't just a typographical error in AJTT. Omega did advertise the Ref. 14311 as Globemasters though: My understanding is that there is no observatory on the back of this case reference. gatorcpa