Omega

I've just come across this piece:

It is a ref 2699 Con but I can't find it on the Omega database - what do you think about the dial? 

Apart from the second hand being too long, do you think the dial is original?

It certainly doesn't pass the MOY test and the 'M' in Chronometer doesn't have sloping sides. 

Also shouldn't the 'OMEGA' be in a cast gold moulding?

I'm not intending to buy but I often view these offerings as a way of brushing up on my knowledge base.

Any comments are appreciated

Cheers

Andrew

...and I think the watch is correct, but for the flaws you mentioned.

Desmond did a write up on this particular model here:

http://omega-constellation-collectors.blogspot.com/2008/07/cases-2699-and-2700-featured-very-first.html

If you follow the link there is a nice close-up of a Ref. 2699 dial to compare.

Hope this helps,

gatorcpa

Here is my 2699.

  Caliber 354 with screw caseback.

So for the early Connies, the 'M's in Chronometer were not sloping and the 'OMEGA'  is just printed (not cast) and the line through the MOY doesn't have to miss the Y entirely.  I'll look at the watch again in a new light!!

Great stuff - thanks guys.  All this info is put to good use

Cheers

Andrew

Hi Aroma

I can see the "Constellation" on that dial is not correct  (the t's are wrong style)  it was printed in later style and the Omega logo has sharp edges instead of round edges .

The A in OMEGA has a pointed top, my A has a flat top. I guess it was reprinted at some time in the past.

   Here 's a close up on mine.

This is the sort of MOY alignment, flat topped 'A's and Sloping 'M's that I look for to authenticate Connies.

and I thought it applied to all - evidently not then.

Cheers (again)

...which is just about to close.

The watch is a frankenwatch, without question.  The rotor is from a standard non-chronometer bumper automatic.  I cannot tell if the rest of the movement is original to the watch or not.

I can see that the font is slightly different, but cannot tell if this is a known variation or that the dial was lifted from another, similar Constellation model, possibly a 2799 (also with cal. 354 movement).

Larger pictures are always better,

gatorcpa

I hadn't spotted that the rotor wasn't right.  Yes it's a shame about the photo not being clearer as it is difficult to tell from the script whether it is genuine or not. 

Cheers

Andrew

...Only had a question as to whether the dial was correct for this particular case.  I think many of the subtle dial changes made by Omega during this period were done "on the fly" and were not limited to a specific case reference.

You don't see too many refinishing jobs on these solid gold dials.  Most of the time the patina is only in the lacquer. 

My guess is that this one was a total frankenjob. Questionable dial, seconds hand, crown, and rotor.  Funny thing is that it wouldn't take much to obtain the correct parts.  And I could live with the dial the way it is, if the price was right.  In this instance, it was not.

The watch ended up selling for about retail,  so the buyer is probably upside-down on it from the beginning.

Take care,

gatorcpa

for the buyer as he parted with nearly £1700 for it.  I'd love to own one of these early gold Connies but the gold price has now pushed the cost of these watches to such a level that I would feel uncomfortable without some degree of provenance and a genuine guarantee of its originality.  It really puts me off chasing something like this.

However, on the plus side, every one of these suspect Connies increases my knowledge base and it is thanks to some of you and Desmond in particular that I have the limited knowledge that I have.

Cheers

Andrew