Omega Constellation 168.010 - redial?

T
Posts
2
Likes
1
Hello,

I found this Constellation for sale at a good price. Was considering buying it but I am not sure about the dial. Is it original or a redial? The seller says the dial is original but if you look at the "Constellation" font and compare it with other Constellation dials from the same era, it's very different. What do you think? Your help is appreciated.

dial.webp
 
Passover
Posts
2,035
Likes
2,794
Redial, "Chronometre" instead of "Chronometer", font is very thin and wrong

The lugs also don't look attractiv as far as I can see
 
myouss
Posts
13
Likes
23
Passover Passover
Redial, "Chronometre" instead of "Chronometer", font is very thin and wrong

The lugs also don't look attractiv as far as I can see
The spelling of chronometer is not an indicator afaik, there are definitely Omega dials with the spelling 'chronometre'.

But this one is absolutely a redial.
 
Peemacgee
Posts
6,008
Likes
9,301
myouss myouss
The spelling of chronometer is not an indicator afaik, there are definitely Omega dials with the spelling 'chronometre'.

But this one is absolutely a redial.
It’s the spelling of chronometer relative to the particular Constellation reference that @Passover was referring to.

A ‘hidden crown’ Constellation should never have the ‘re’ spelling.
1950s Constellations (with late 50s exceptions) will have the ‘re’ spelling.
 
TIMElyBehaviour
Posts
702
Likes
1,242
I also believe it’s a redial but for me the telling sign is the writing under omega is not just thin but also more pronounced in areas. This unevenness almost always tells you it’s a reprint.
 
Sign up or log in to reply...