Vintage Omega on ebay - re-dial all?

Posts
45
Likes
13
Hey guys, I'm not going to buy the watches, but I want to know if anyone can share he's thoughts on those watches.
I think it's a re-dial, am I wrong? never saw a cross hair like that on the text and the 2nd watch is a bit weird?
I want to train myself to distinguish between redail and fakes...

s-l1600.jpg


s-l1600.jpg s-l1600.jpg
s-l1600.jpg



s-l1600.jpg

s-l1600.jpg
 
Posts
45
Likes
13
I see two, the 246 and the 600. Everything else appears correct to me.
really? even though the cross in on the text?
 
Posts
5,636
Likes
5,810
really? even though the cross in on the text?
Yes, Omega never used DELUXE and No.. 246 on a dial.
 
Posts
5,636
Likes
5,810
Yes, Omega never used DELUXE and No.. 246 on a dial.
Oh perhaps I misunderstood you. Yes, the crosshairs intersect the text. That's how they all are.
 
Posts
45
Likes
13
Oh perhaps I misunderstood you. Yes, the crosshairs intersect the text. That's how they all are.
I saw many cross that doesn't touch the text, so either can be correct historically?
 
Posts
13,202
Likes
22,960
1, 2, 3 and 6 are certainly redials. I don’t know about the rest as they’re out of my comfort zone.

Two in particular is so wrong it’s ridiculous
 
Posts
5,636
Likes
5,810
I saw many cross that doesn't touch the text, so either can be correct historically?
The ones that don't are likely refinished.
 
Posts
45
Likes
13
1, 2, 3 and 6 are certainly redials. I don’t know about the rest as they’re out of my comfort zone.

Two in particular is so wrong it’s ridiculous
What makes you think 6 is redail?
 
Posts
45
Likes
13
Two in particular is so wrong it’s ridiculous
haha yeah, it made me laugh. I hope no ones gonna buy that...
 
Posts
5,636
Likes
5,810
Woah, I didn't know that.
That's mine, what do you think?
Probably, though they did a pretty good job. It wouldn't bother me too much if I liked it.
 
Posts
45
Likes
13
Probably, though they did a pretty good job. It wouldn't bother me too much if I liked it.
I actually prefer it that way 😀
 
Posts
13,202
Likes
22,960
Woah, I didn't know that.
That's mine, what do you think?

s-l1600.jpg

That’s original. The crosshair not touching the text rule doesn’t apply to the late 60’s/early 70’s.
 
Posts
13,202
Likes
22,960
What makes you think 6 is redail?

The seamaster 600? It’s a poorly executed fantasy redial in completely the wrong case.
 
Posts
45
Likes
13
That’s original. The crosshair not touching the text rule doesn’t apply to the late 60’s/early 70’s.
I see, how can you tell what's the year of the watch just by looking at it? Interesting
 
Posts
45
Likes
13
The seamaster 600? It’s a poorly executed fantasy redial in completely the wrong case.

s-l1600.jpg I mean, the main thing that screams at me its a redail it's the orange lume (? is that what it is?) that too bright imo, am I right?
 
Posts
13,202
Likes
22,960
s-l1600.jpg I mean, the main thing that screams at me its a redail it's the orange lume (? is that what it is?) that too bright imo, am I right?

Its just a terrible, poor quality, miss-matched, fantasy mess.

No SM600 dial belongs in this case.
This style of dial is a commonly used template for redials.
The quality of the print is poor.
 
Posts
13,202
Likes
22,960
I see, how can you tell what's the year of the watch just by looking at it? Interesting

It’s more the reference/dial style. Ie yours looks like a 136.011? The ‘Technic’ version of this dial only appeared on the watch mid/late 60’s and the broken crosshair is correct.
An earlier Constellation on the other hand should have an unbroken crosshair.