- Posts
- 3
- Likes
- 2
Dr time
·I spotted that the ll on constellation word has a little ink splatter outside.Is it possible that someone refinished it? Or it just normal things for the vintage watch.thanks you guysđ
Refinished Dial? Omega 157.0001 Gold Plated Model
- Posts
- 61
- Likes
- 50
WatchBreaker
·A tiny ink spot by one letter isnât proof of a redial on its own. Factory pad printing in the 1970s wasnât perfect, and small blobs or a slightly heavy letter do turn up on original dials. What gives a refinish away is usually several signs together:
printing that looks thick, fuzzy or slightly off-centre, or a font that doesnât match ther examples of the same reference;
SWISS MADEâ missing, crooked or in the wrong spot (yours is there at 6);
a fresh-looking dial surface with wear or marks around the index feet and the dial edge;
once the movement is out, refinisher marks or numbers scratched on the back of the dial.
From this photo the print looks crisp and the applied markers sit cleanly. Nothing jumps out as a redial, but one angled photo canât settle it.
For reference, Omegaâs vintage database lists 157.0001 (1972) as a Constellation chronometer with cal. 712 and a press-in back. If you can post a sharp straight-on macro of the âConstellationâ and âOMEGA CHRONOMETERâ print, side by side with another 157.0001, itâs much easier to call.
printing that looks thick, fuzzy or slightly off-centre, or a font that doesnât match ther examples of the same reference;
SWISS MADEâ missing, crooked or in the wrong spot (yours is there at 6);
a fresh-looking dial surface with wear or marks around the index feet and the dial edge;
once the movement is out, refinisher marks or numbers scratched on the back of the dial.
From this photo the print looks crisp and the applied markers sit cleanly. Nothing jumps out as a redial, but one angled photo canât settle it.
For reference, Omegaâs vintage database lists 157.0001 (1972) as a Constellation chronometer with cal. 712 and a press-in back. If you can post a sharp straight-on macro of the âConstellationâ and âOMEGA CHRONOMETERâ print, side by side with another 157.0001, itâs much easier to call.
- Posts
- 35,758
- Likes
- 40,037
dsio
··Ash @ ΩFLooks pretty normal to me, these were made in the time period where Omega was starting to cut costs a bit and they were using a lot of different dial suppliers of varying quality, still a very cool ultra-thin and quite visually attractive as a dress watch, I'm sure it'll look great with a suit.
- Posts
- 3
- Likes
- 2
Dr time
·Looks pretty normal to me, these were made in the time period where Omega was starting to cut costs a bit and they were using a lot of different dial suppliers of varying quality, still a very cool ultra-thin and quite visually attractive as a dress watch, I'm sure it'll look great with a suit.
- Posts
- 3
- Likes
- 2
Dr time
·A tiny ink spot by one letter isnât proof of a redial on its own. Factory pad printing in the 1970s wasnât perfect, and small blobs or a slightly heavy letter do turn up on original dials. What gives a refinish away is usually several signs together:
printing that looks thick, fuzzy or slightly off-centre, or a font that doesnât match ther examples of the same reference;
SWISS MADEâ missing, crooked or in the wrong spot (yours is there at 6);
a fresh-looking dial surface with wear or marks around the index feet and the dial edge;
once the movement is out, refinisher marks or numbers scratched on the back of the dial.
From this photo the print looks crisp and the applied markers sit cleanly. Nothing jumps out as a redial, but one angled photo canât settle it.
For reference, Omegaâs vintage database lists 157.0001 (1972) as a Constellation chronometer with cal. 712 and a press-in back. If you can post a sharp straight-on macro of the âConstellationâ and âOMEGA CHRONOMETERâ print, side by side with another 157.0001, itâs much easier to call.
