Took a chance on an interesting Constellation

ConElPueblo

A month or so ago I found an interesting Constellation on eBay:

This was one of the better pictures... The description was:



How could anyone resist that? 😁

I could tell from the pictures that it was most likely a cal. 50X-type Constellation, but the dial with its missing "Officially Certified" looked like something off the 14.XXX-series. I reasoned that it probably was correct, seeing that you'd have to butcher the dial off a 14.381 to make it fit on a 2852 or whatever was on the inside of the caseback, but it could be a service dial...

I got it today and got the lid of - it was a 2852-16! The movement (cal. 505) looks as if it has never been touched, which is both good and bad; I am certain it is original, but there are signs of rotor wear and a bit of dirt under the bonnet as well.


The gasket looked nice, sealing the watch properly:

...Until you realise that it has turned into a tar-like goop due to age 🤦

Anyway, I got the watch taken apart, the smashed crystal popped out and the case parts given a good, long bath. This was one of the dirtiest watches I've ever handled - dirt was everywhere.

The broken crystal posed a problem, but luckily I had one (1!) spare crystal lying around which had been returned along with a newly serviced watch at some point, and YES - it was a fit!

The end result:

As you can see it isn't a 10/10 watch, but I am delighted to have a very nice dial in a reasonable case - IMO the 2852 often look abused and worn (especially the bezel is prone to looking flat and overpolished), but this one just look honest and well-worn.

After learning about the reference number, I had a look around the web to see if I could solve the mystery of the dial. Where do you think I found another example?


🙄


On OF naturally!

A similar model was sold by @X350 XJR last year, a listing that I no doubt saw myself...



At 205 numbers apart, I am pretty certain that it isn't a service dial, but instead a transition into the Constellation text that is normally associated with ref. 14.XXX, lacking the "Officially Certified".



Thanks to @mondodec and @Peemacgee for advice before pulling the trigger and to @Andy K for assisting in getting it to me 👍👍