Hello OF!

I have stumbled upon this watch and the seller told me that he had the watch redial-ed.

Upon inspection and under the loupe, it looks original to me. Lume on the hour markers are still present as well. I’m not sure if it’s a terrific redial or the seller was confused. What are your thoughts?

Just for educational purpose, crown is wrong, case heavily polished and hands are relumed.

 

Polished case, relumed hands and wrong crown .... with an untouched dial ? Very unlikely but possible. If you trying to find a complete watch, why even bother asking ?

 

There is a different space between the letters "OM" in Automatic and in "OM" in Chronometer. The letter "T" in Automatic is larger than "T" in Chronometer. The scale of seconds is a little twisted and is not equal to the opposite sides.

 

Looks like a ref 14393, but the font for "n" in the constellation does not seem correct. As the ravineman had mentioned, perhaps you can hunt around for a better conditioned piece.

 

Not shure but MOY test could be failed, from first impression I would say redial

 

I only own one black-dialed Omega, so not a very large sample group, but I seem to remember that the black should be on top with the fonts showing from underneath (negative printing I think it's called). Not sure if it's a rule in all cases or not, would love to hear from others.

If it's a redial....find out who did it!

 

Did I state I was looking for a complete watch? When you assume, you make an ass of u and me. Also, my question stated above is very specific to the dial.

Jokes aside, the asking price itself is very reasonable if the dial is authentic. It could be used as a parts watch (movement and dial).

I’m struggling to find a domed dial in a 14393. Comparing the font to other black piepans or the domed dial I have, it does look quite different but they are either piepan or a different era so I’m not sure if they are good comparisons. I would appreciate if any members can share their domed 2 lines black Connie photos.

Also, could you kindly show me the correct type of “n” in constellation for my learning purposes?

Yes. It appeared to be negative printing on the loupe but I can’t be 100% sure now.


Here are my examples for comparison but like I said, they are either piepan or different era. So I’m not sure if it’s even comparable.

 

Looking at my 168.010, I see what you mean by the difference in the spacing between “OM”. Perhaps that’s the most convincing telltale sign for me.

 

That would be tough to duplicate and if it shows to be negative printing, well...I'd be sold.

 

Sometimes viewing specific details from the dial could be difficult due to lighting, angle of the shot. So I may not be 100% correct.



Can you notice the difference? The 2nd "n" should have a sharper curve at the end of the stroke. The second "O" also has a large spacing that is more apparent when placed side by side. (Top: from Omega Connie collectors blog, Bottom: Your shot)

The comparison shot is from a pie pan, so it may not be fully representative. However from what I see, the fonts used is quite consistent across the connies.

 

Hoarding all of the black dialed Connies I see!

 

Here’s one for you

 

@kreyke
Here’s another -image courtesy of Watchguy
The Ns in Constellation do look a little tighter on yours
Can you take magnified shots of the upper font -
Through a loupe perhaps?
Both of mine are distinctly seriphed and from your current pics they don’t seem to be.
The Rs are a different shape too.

So unless it’s from a different dial maker or gold script on a black dial is different I’m going to vote nice redial.

 

Like you

You're right. The serif's aren't present on the dial. Unfortunately I am not near the dealer to make a quick trip to take loupe photos. I guess it was a decent redial after all.

 

Yes, it is a nice redial but you still can tell if you have an original 14381 near by to compare (and an eagle eye.)