Dear Folks, Got a chance to purchase this 14902 cal 561: Everything looks good to me. However, would be curious to see what the community says about it. Also, just wondering how much would be a good price to pay for this given its rarity. Regards, Neal
Pricing aside, it is in very good condition and will probably will come at a premium compared to other listings you will see. What is being asked for it?
I might be wrong (it has been known!) but I am suspicious of the broad arrowhead markers, which seem earlier in style than the case. Also that cyclops over the date strikes me as incongruous. I would check this one out very carefully if I were you and be prepared to walk away. Not saying it's definitely wrong or a franken as I don't know enough about this reference, just saying it seems odd to me.
Crystal is signed Omega. Cyclops magnifier was optional. Some watches had them, some did not. I can’t see if the hands have a sharp fold in them or not. That’s important to note. The arrowhead dial is correct for this reference. Serial number is in proper range for 1962-63 watch. Crown look right for that era. If hands check out, looks like a good one. Now it comes down to price. gatorcpa
I search the forum and found a similar listing years back on this variant by @X350 XJR : https://omegaforums.net/threads/196...onstellation-all-steel-caliber-561-date.9077/ It seems the cyclops over date is something that feels amiss if I compare from the listing. Anyone has any thoughts?
Why can’t they give you a straight-on head shot of the watch? That would likely answer the questions. gatorcpa
Much better. Ticks all my boxes. As I said before, now the bargaining can begin. gatorcpa PS - Found Ref. 14902 with same dial/hand/crystal combination online, except all steel.
I think the lugs are a little soft The dial has micro-bubbling And there’s a touch of rotor rub. None of which would put me off a rather special watch - depending on price.
I have the same with no cyclops. Maybe a replacement. I don't think we should be concerned if the cyclops crystal is original in the OP's assessment of the watch?
It is a signed Omega crystal. Whether it is original or a factory replacement is pretty much irrelevant, since it is impossible to prove either way. gatorcpa
https://translate.google.com/transl....com/weixin/20180514A17A9700.html&prev=search I did abit of googling. The translation is quite bad, but I think the author is talking about how the dial might be a redial because its too perfect?
You would need a native Chinese speaker with the correct dialect to translate that. I can’t make any sense out of it. gatorcpa
I read through the original article. The author is saying he had originally thought this series to be fakes. However a friend of his had bidded and won the watch so he was able to inspect it. He concluded that watch is all original and movement is correct in his opinion. And he was happy to prove himself wrong. Hopefully I'm able to understand him correctly.