aroma
521
I'm no expert but ..........
Firstly let me say that I’m no expert but I do try to learn from looking at such pieces and listening to the comments made here by others – I’m sure that there will be someone along soon who will be better informed than me.
However, my first thoughts are that it looks a little strange and not like the ‘C’ shapes that I am used to seeing. I would always be suspicious of anyone presenting photographs where important aspects are hidden. The hands obscure the dial so that the MOY is difficult to establish – also the orientation of the photo inhibits establishing the MOY. If there was nothing to hide then why not just show it all clearly. From my perspective, it looks like the MOY doesn’t line up – but it is difficult to tell.
The date window surround doesn’t look to be bevelled enough – there should be a strong chamfering – almost to a point on the long edge of the window.
I have never heard of ‘C’ shapes using a white gold bezel or hands or hour markers – in any case, the hour and minute hands look wrong – they’re too wide
Case ref 168008 is not on the database – this is not a problem in itself but I would have thought that most watches from that era were recorded and so I’d be suspicious about that as well. The stamping on the case back looks strange also.
The 564 movement looks to be OK but there are some rub marks on one of the bridges which can only have come from the rotor (bearing wear?).
Personally, I’d leave it be – if that’s the best photography the seller can do for such a watch then to my mind, there is something to hide.
This is just my humble opinion.
Cheers
Andrew
Omega Constellation: genuine, franken or fake?
I'm no expert but ..........
