What can you tell me about this Constellation from this on-the-wrist image?

Posts

40

Likes

25

CSG

·May 27, 2018

9/19/20 UPDATED LATER IN THREAD

I bought this watch from a local jeweler/watchmaker about 15 years ago for $500. I know the dial was refinished some years before and the lettering seems wrong on about everything but the applied Omega logo and name. However, I have seen the Constellation font similar to this one on other dials. IIRC, it has the 561 movement. Gold capped lugs and a 14k bezel. Dial looks gold in the image (white balance off) but is actually silver with gold indices and hands. The lume works but fades quickly and the medallion on the back case has been incredibly over polished. You can see the observatory and one star but everything else is soft.

I've wondered about trying another dial refin but they seem so iffy and the watch isn't going to be for sale in my lifetime so I'll likely live with this dial. I think the hands, crown, and everything else is correct.



The watch is awfully similar to this one on Omega's website. It's been so long since the caseback was opened, I just don't recall the ref number.

https://www.omegawatches.com/en-us/watch-omega-constellation-omega-ba-168-0010

Edited: Sep 19, 2020

 

Posts

1,499

Likes

2,564

Caliber561

·May 27, 2018

Edited for ignorance 🙄
My bad

Edited: May 27, 2018

 

Posts

8,698

Likes

14,601

efauser

·May 27, 2018

Caliber561

Redial + Polished Case = Avoid

Did you read the OP? He bought it 15 years ago and is well aware of the issues you mentioned.

 

Posts

1,499

Likes

2,564

Caliber561

·May 27, 2018

efauser

Did you read the OP? He bought it 15 years ago.

Oops

Admittedly I thought this was just another "does this look good" post.
If the OP is looking for a new dial, they could try scrounging around on eBay or looking for a professional dial refinisher to fix the text. Personally, I'd do the latter as the dial prices for constellations on eBay have been getting higher and higher for no apparent reason, pie pan or no.

 

Posts

1,116

Likes

1,777

Noddyman

·May 27, 2018

Caliber561

Redial + Polished Case = Avoid

A bit late to avoid, OP has owned the watch for 15 years 😀

 

Posts

20,113

Likes

46,772

Dan S

·May 27, 2018

It is definitely not a 168.0010, but you can probably find the reference number inside the case back.

 

Posts

1,116

Likes

1,777

Noddyman

·May 27, 2018

CSG

I think the hands, crown, and everything else is correct

Unfortunately not, the hour & minute hand are wrong, the second hand may be correct, - not sure on that one. Again the crown may or may not be correct depends on the model reference number.
EDIT: On reflection I don’t think the crown is correct regardless of reference.

Edited: May 27, 2018

 

Posts

40

Likes

25

CSG

·May 27, 2018

It's not a redial, it's a refinished dial. I looked around some years ago for an original dial but as I'm not a collector (although I have a collection of watches), I bought the watch because I liked the way it looked and wanted a vintage dress watch I could afford and this watch fit the bill. I don't wear it often; I wear my Speedmaster Pro or one of a couple Rolex's (16610 and 16710) about 90% of the time. I just pulled it out the other day to exercise it a little and that piqued my interest on what I have here.

BTW, I wasn't suggesting that it was the ref. number that's shown on Omega's vintage side of their site but it looks awfully close (although that watch is a different case). To those who say the hands, etc. are incorrect, tell me, please, how you can determine that without seeing more than the dial and front of the case.

 

Posts

4,939

Likes

18,333

Shabbaz

·May 27, 2018

Is it a 2943?

 

Posts

4,939

Likes

18,333

Shabbaz

·May 27, 2018

Like this

 

Posts

8,698

Likes

14,601

efauser

·May 27, 2018

CSG

It's not a redial, it's a refinished dial.

What ever makes you feel better. Either way, it's not the original design.

 

Posts

4,939

Likes

18,333

Shabbaz

·May 27, 2018

Hmm. Different lugs. Sorry. You're on your own! Good luck!

 

Posts

40

Likes

25

CSG

·May 27, 2018

efauser

What ever makes you feel better. Either way, it's not the original design.

Please tell me how you know so I know too. No need to be snarky. What is the "original design"?

 

Posts

8,698

Likes

14,601

efauser

·May 27, 2018

CSG

Please tell me how you know so I know too. No need to be snarky. What is the "original design"?

Redial and refinished dial are usually one and the same.

 

Posts

40

Likes

25

CSG

·May 27, 2018

So is the above image a redial or correct? I've seen both the dauphine and stick hands used with the stick indices.

 

Posts

20,113

Likes

46,772

Dan S

·May 27, 2018

Just throwing out a possibility, it could be a ref 2782.

[Edit: Sorry, this is completely wrong. I was looking for a gold-capped Connie with the right case shape. But the movement is wrong. Ref 2782 has a bumper and no date. I'm out until we see photos of the inside.]

 

Posts

40

Likes

25

CSG

·May 27, 2018

I was going to stop by the jewelers this week to see about regulating the watch and looking at the insides. It probably won't be until Tuesday or Wednesday but I will revisit this thread with some additional photos of the movement and inside case back.

 

Posts

5,449

Likes

8,477

Peemacgee

·May 27, 2018

CSG

Please tell me how you know so I know too. No need to be snarky. What is the "original design"?

I think there is a simple misunderstanding here.
The term redial is usually coined for a repainted dial rather than a replaced dial.

It looks like a 561 14393 Calendar but with a polished case - and the fat crown is an incorrect replacement.
But as the Calendar may have been added, only looking inside will tell for sure.

 

Posts

40

Likes

25

CSG

·May 27, 2018

Peemacgee, that looks pretty dang close. I can see the hands in all the images I've seen are dauphine and not stick hands. Also, thanks for explaining that in the collecting world, refinished = redial. I'm OK with the stick hands as I prefer how they look.

On the crown, it's funny - the watch was sold with the other style crown but when I was looking into it some years ago (and the internet was younger with much less content than today), I became convinced the decagonal crown was correct and asked the watchmaker to switch the crown (which he did at no charge). I'll tell you, the decagonal crown is a PITA to wind when you need to start the watch up. As I think about it, I *may* have asked him to switch the hands to stick hands but it was long enough ago that I really don't remember. I bought this watch as a dress watch because I couldn't bring myself to spend what it would take to buy a new dress watch of the brands I was looking at. I wear it rarely.

This image, pulled from the web, shows the same lug design and lettering content (but, obviously, incorrect size and fonts) and, of course, the hands and crown are different.

 

Posts

5,449

Likes

8,477

Peemacgee

·May 27, 2018

Yep - they should be dauphine hands.
The crown you have is the fat decagonal crown
If you think that is a PITA you should try the slimmer version this reference generally came with.
(It also came with a knurled version - there is a dedicated thread by @ConElPueblo about this)