Purchased this one from another member here. I found a period appropriate strap and buckle. Just need to decide what to do about the crown. Some have said early 2852s can be found with seamster crowns. Others have said "replace it". Omega was no help

 

Better pics. If it is not anough let me know, I'll try then better with my cam

 

There is no official Ω pictures of Constellations with Seamaster "clover" crowns. The clover crowns have probably been more abundant and cheaper to use if the original decagonal crown was lost. However, the original shallow decagonal crowns are now unavailable, so you will still end up with a slightly different appearance compared to the original, as the replacement decagonals are taller.

 

thanks for this.
I've copied a close up of my dome dial dogleg fonts so that you can see what both of your watches should look like (pics courtesy of watch guy.co.uk)
first mine -note the clear serifs on the lettering:



now your dome dial upper text -note the more modern Omega symbol and lack of serifs:

next your pie-pan upper text -note no serifs and slightly odd Omega lettering

pie pan lower text -note the sloping cross bar to the first T and the shape of the Ns, which are the wrong shape and should differ from one another:


I hope this helps to explain the differences.
however, it doesn't stop you enjoying wearing both watches as they're still a good looking pair.

 

Thank you so much for your expertise. These are details I wasn't looking for, I didn't know them.

As I wrote, these two Connies are keeper

Thank you!

 

I am sure I remember seeing some in contemporary adverts which have been posted on this forum.

 

You may be right. Desmond thinks that even if clover crowns was fitted in advertising, they always left the factory with decagonals.

 

That's a very interesting article. But he's a bit more cautious than that; he says that decagonals were supposed to be the standard but that "the use of the so-called Seamaster crown and other crowns on occasions was a deviation from the standard design specifications of the Omega Constellation" and that they "may or may not have been fitted to the advertised watches when they left the factory".So the question remains open.

In view of the several Constellations posted over the years on here with early Seamaster crowns and in otherwise perfect condition, it's my opinion (and it's just an opinion) that some were made that way. I think it's even more likely with the 143** series and the later Seamaster crown. There are just too many of them in seemingly original and unserviced condition for all those crowns to be replacements.

 

It is mine

 

2852
168010
14393
2x 168001
1680065
168010
168004
168019

 

DIBS on 2852

 

Sounds very reasonable to me. My favorite 2852 was bought with a clover crown!

Is there any way we can get more info about this question? The Ω staff working in Bienne in 1960 will soon all have left us.

 

So... you would leave it be?

 

I changed my clover crown to a shallow decagonal. I am not particularly fond of the modern tall replacement decagonals, so in lack of a shallow type I would have kept the clover crown.

 

One of my favourite 14381s came with the full set and in virtually show room condition, fitted with the clover crown. I would not replace it with a shallow decagonal (even if I could find one) without more persuasive evidence than seems so far available proving it was wrong.

 

This is great leaning for me. Thanks felsby! Is the shallow/tall difference the rounded vs flatter shape on the top of the crown? Does anyone have photos of both styles?

 

My 14381 61sc

Sometimes it is a keeper for me and sometimes I have already included the value of it in the purchase of another watch

 

Found this on ebay, item no 391601137835, looks like mine. Also a redial? From the facts I learned from you - yes.

Look at the omega Logo. So I am not alone

Edit: or this one - no 153265274898

 

What day you

 

1st one looks fake.
2nd one looks good and possibly a later service dial.