Hi fellow watch lovers,

As I mentioned in a post from a couple of days ago, I have my mind set on a vintage Omega 18ct solid gold. I have saved up and am ready to pull the trigger, should the right watch arrives (budget is 4500 euros). I have been checking out the listings and research various constellation references from the 50's.

Today, I came across the following listing.

https://www.chrono24.com/omega/constellation-deluxe-18-ct-gold--id9941835.htm

I am not considering it since I envisage my first luxury watch would have the arrow head markers but I inspected the dial and the finish of the case out of interest.

To my untrained eye, it looks like the case has not been polished to death, the lugs not so much as there are practically no sharp edges left, but what I found most striking was the dial. It seems like it has been repainted, as the font does not match the one found on other Constellations.

The seller has a very good rating on Chrono and claims in the ad that the dial has been untouched, but my intuition is tell me otherwise.

On another note, the crown is not even the scalloped one which appeared on some Constellations. This looks like the run of the mill SeaMaster crowns.

Could you please chime in and give your 2c? It would really help me sharpen my skills and knowledge when inspecting watches.

 

Please post pic,s instead of links.
It helps for future members when the listing is sold the pictures stay.

 

Apologies about that. Pics attached

 

Looks like an original solid gold dial to me from the pics shown.

 

Wooow!
4k?! Why?

Also, can you tell us why do you think it is a redial?
I don’t think it is a redial myself.

35mm is not considered jumbo in the vintage world.

 

No its not reprinted, nothing wrong there.

 

Look authentic to me. If it would be a redail I would have expected the tiny "cracks" on the right to be removed / hidden

 

I only went by the font. The font is different to the other Constellations I have seen. ie. The edges on the horizontal line if the T should have vertical lines protruding a bit. But that is the only criteria i went by.

Please refer to this post:
https://omegaforums.net/threads/introduction-first-big-purchase-advice-needed.103108/#post-1347912

Ya, 4k seemed *way* too steep, considering the prices arrow head pie pan deluxes go for on omega forum.

 

Omega dial print pad graphics were very thin, very hard to reproduce or reprint. Many dial restorers dont do lines thinner than 0.05mm. Also, the reason why some characters are a little "drunk" is because the pads got worn out.

 

Don't compare dials across references as they're all slight different and evolved over the years. Even within the same reference you can find differences depending on who manufactured the dial.
The one you link looks like a 168.018 with a solid gold dial.

 

Reference is likely 168.018
Lugs are severely polished
Crown is correct for reference.

not really my area but this reference has a couple of correct font styles as it’s a transitional period.
Likewise It has variations in hands styles.

ignoring the failed MOY test, As it happens I don’t like the proportion of the upper fonts (especially the A’s) but pics aren’t good enough to be sure.

neither do I like the hands.
they are Connie hands (seen on 168.010) so could be correct but the Minute and second hands are too short and should reach the minute ticks.

Price asked is crazy.