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
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.
It is definitely not a 168.0010, but you can probably find the reference number inside the case back.
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.
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.
So is the above image a redial or correct? I've seen both the dauphine and stick hands used with the stick indices.
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.]
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.
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.
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.
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)