I’ve decided that I’m going to target a constellation for my first vintage watch purchase and came across this piece for sale in my price range. I am curious what some of your thoughts and experience tells you about its originality.

From what I can tell in my limited research I don’t see signs of work on the dial, logo and text all seem to be the right font with serifs, the ticks seem to be evenly spaced, 10 sided crown, star right side up etc.

The case back gives me some concern though as I can’t seem to find many matching examples of this dial type to the 1343 9 SC imprinted on the case back. Most seem to be pie pan dials with this reference. Any thoughts on this?

Seems to have been polished quite a bit as well. Anything else I’m missing or too green to realize?

I appreciate the help and feedback!

 

other than some aggressive polishing, looks original to me.

Someone with incorrect tools or a unsteady hand has had a go at the screws in the movement.

 

I can see from the pictures it's a watch from Closer. He declares full value so keep in mind import duties.Also looks to be a bit of rotor rub so service is probably due.

 

+1 for this.
Bezel is still reasonably well defined but lugs have lost their facet.

Lots of 14391s have the dome dials variants, so that’s ok.
Dial is a bit spotted but relatively evenly, so not unattractive.

Crystal has been replaced with non-Omega version so retaining ring is a bit tight up against the Swiss Made and indices - but that’s no big deal.

Whether it is a good buy would depend on the asking price.

 

The over polishing would be enough for me to pass.

 

Hi, apologies to the OP for hijacking this thread but I am trying to get a better understanding of vintage watches, what to look out for and what to avoid etc. as I am hoping to find something like this (or similar) as a birth year watch. Could someone explain how just by looking at these pictures they were able to see that the watch has been 'over-polished', 'aggressive polishing', 'crystal has been replaced' and finally 'lost their facet'.

I can see the damaged screws on the movement, noted that one for the future, but the others I cannot see as to my naive novice eye the watch looks great. Any help explaining these flaws on this watch would be appreciated.

Many thanks.

 

You'll need to know how an original watch should look - it really is that simple. Spend some time on the Vintage Omega Watches subforum here and you'll find a plethora of threads concerning Constellations and then you just need to find those where the consensus is that the condition is original.

Once you've got it, you won't lose it.

 

True. I still can't properply assess a Datejust or Day-Date case because I don't know how the lines of an untouched specimen go.

 

Thank you all for the replies! That’s too bad people will polish to the point of removing facets and edges. Asking price for that one is currently $700. I’m debating spending about $50 more for this piece. Which doesn’t seem to have the same agressive polishing. Also the cal 564 with quick date set is appealing vs the 561. Is there a clear choice between the two or more just personal preference?

 

The 168.010 is a very different animal to the 14391.
The round cased hidden-crown Connies are not (currently) as sought after as their earlier brethren. (Except by me )
The .010 has seen some polishing but the lug facets are reasonably intact.
It has the original slim hidden crown which is a bonus as you can’t get them anymore. (it is an absolute PITA to use to wind the watch but it looks good)
The pictures aren’t great but again it looks like an after market crystal with a deeper retaining ring partly obscuring the ‘T Swiss Made T’.
The hands have some corrosion which is fairly unusual for this late reference.
That, plus the colour of the date surround suggests moisture ingress to me.
The rotor is rubbing heavily, so requires servicing ASAP.

Re the 564-v-561, I was initially keen on having a 564 but in all honestly the semi quick set date on the 561 is only marginally less convenient than the quickset date (and there is less to go wrong. )

A fun fact for this particular version is the onyx inserts AND lume which isn’t common.

 

Thanks for the detailed reply Macgee ! That discoloration on the date box trim definitely seems a red flag. Your experience with the two calibers is also really helpful

Guess the question now is for my first foray into vintage omegas would that 14391 despite lost facets on the lugs and a replaced crystal be a good jumping off point for less than $800. Maybe worth noting what I eventually pull the trigger on will be a daily wear for me.

Martin, no worries for jumpin in the thread, this forum has been amazing for helping me start “seeing” some of the tell tales of unoriginality. Check out the “worst redials” thread and it’ll be even more apparent what to start looking out for!

 

As someone fairly new, but learning a lot thru OF, I would suggest saving up for something amazing. I have read that piece of wisdom enough times on OF for that to finally sink in. I have also been reading about the history of watch manufacturing (will post on that later on) and when you consider how many millions of watches have been made, why would I buy an "okay" one, when a beautiful one is possible. You might find a charming $50 watch at a flea market that might curb your appetite for a while, but allow $150 or so for servicing. Or, buy a $150 Seiko to see you through a year while you search for a watch that you simply can't stop looking at. At the end of the day, you will have a beater watch that you can wear in the rain. This thread can help with that https://omegaforums.net/threads/wruw-today.567/unread Good hunting!

 

The exercise I always do is try to understand/justify where the value is when/if you want to sell it.
Always study properlly the watch in question before attempting to buy, by looking to several watches of the same specific model you want to buy...sometimes there are threads where everything about that particular watch is explained...
And finally buy the buyer first...

 

FIFY

 

I realise that once you catch the bug, the urge to buy your first Connie is an irresistible force. (We’ve all been there)

I can only reiterate @DaveK ’s sentiments above about buying something ‘amazing’.
Daily wearer or not, buying something you later regret is (IMHO) not the way to go.
A bit of patience will pay dividends in the end.

 

Hi Martin
As others have said, knowing what a particular case reference should look like is just about experience.
Study as many examples as you can and keep asking questions - members are happy to help.
The references 14381 and 14393 (no date and date versions of the same case) sit bang on your birth year, so perhaps you could focus on these references.
(There are others but they are either at the end or beginning of their runs and so less common to find)

Regarding the crystal, an original would have a tiny Omega symbol in the centre above the fulcrum point of the hands.
Whilst after market crystals will fit the watch, they often have an incorrectly sized retaining ring (evidenced by both of the OP’s examples) which also doesn’t provide the waterproofing it should.
Hope that helps.

 

Thank you so much for this information, this is a big help and gives me some direction for my search, appreciate the help.

 

I'm here for years and still dont have a clue...

 

One more thing to add.
Finding a birth year watch is more difficult than you might imagine.

Firstly, you have to find a watch that is in the condition that you want to buy.
Secondly, is it
a) the year of production you are after? ( only an extract will tell you that)
or
b) the year it was sold? ( it would need to come with original papers to tell you that) but that could be years after it was produced.

It took me 5 years to find my (b) birth year watch and that was by chance, as I was buying condition first.

 

My birth year watch would be in the dark ages of omega. The mid/late 70's. Ouch...