Ebay purchase Omega Constellation seems fishy??

[Neilo]

Just bought this of ebay does not add up what do you think?

Omega Constellation dial with gold observatorium on the back

Think dial is a redial which would not be a problem but inside it has a 565 movement serial number 31175*** which I think was never put in a connie or a chronometer?

and a 166.002 case back which I thought was a Seamaster model?

[Si]

If you happy with a redial, why does the movement swap to a non-COSC bother you?

At the end of the day, the seller provided zero info and minimal photos, and the watch went for considerably less than market rate for these. It's still a nice enough watch with a decent quality movement if you are not too concerned with originality.

Personally, if I had bought it thinking that it was a genuine Constellation, I'd be disappointed, but (and this assumes that I am looking at the correct watch! Shoot me if I'm not) the seller did not describe it as such, merely that it was working.

[walkerwek1958]

Something doesn`t add up. A 565 movement with a 310......... serial number has to be early 70s, which makes it one of the very last 565s. The watch is early 60s IMO. I think the caseback will be OK unless the Constellation logo has been swapped, which seems unlikely but not impossible.

Looking at the dial, the hands look slightly too long. Hands to fit these dials are usually shorter.

Unfortunately the markings on the movement are on two separate bridges, so it's easy to swap things about. Off the top of my head, I can`t resolve this; I`d have to do a lot of digging around to try and pin it down. Parts do get swapped around on these, but it isn`t clear what's original on this one.

Paul

[aldfort]

The 31 xxx,xxx dates the movement to approx. 1969. The case does look early 60's and the dial is right for that period IMHO. The movement is of a good quality consistent with those used in higher end Omega's

It's probably a bitza but it's still a nice enough watch.

[aldfort]

If you happy with a redial, why does the movement swap to a non-COSC bother you?

At the end of the day, the seller provided zero info and minimal photos, and the watch went for considerably less than market rate for these. It's still a nice enough watch with a decent quality movement if you are not too concerned with originality.

Personally, if I had bought it thinking that it was a genuine Constellation, I'd be disappointed, but (and this assumes that I am looking at the correct watch! Shoot me if I'm not) the seller did not describe it as such, merely that it was working.

Yeah - we all know what it looks like at first glance but it's not. However it is still a nice watch. If I'd given A few hundred for it I'd be happy enough.

[walkerwek1958]

Yeah - we all know what it looks like at first glance but it's not. However it is still a nice watch. If I'd given A few hundred for it I'd be happy enough.

Agreed; it's probably a nice watch for the money but it isn`t 'collector's grade'. That's fine provided the OP hasn't paid too much.

Paul

[cristos71]

Looks to me like a 565 Seamaster or Geneve that has had an awful redial, Conslellalion!? Dial itself looks like it has been pressed into a piepanish shape, I'm sure the medallion is not original to the case back, wrong hands, etc, etc.

Try to return if possible.

[aldfort]

Agreed; it's probably a nice watch for the money but it isn`t 'collector's grade'. That's fine provided the OP hasn't paid too much.

Paul

Totally agree with you Paul. If I'd paid around £1000 for this I'd be very upset. It will be of no interest to a vintage collector at all. (It's probably worth a couple of hundred as it stands IMHO) but the seller made very little claim for the watch other than to say it worked.

[aldfort]

Looks to me like a 565 Seamaster or Geneve that has had an awful redial, Conslellalion!? Dial itself looks like it has been pressed into a piepanish shape, I'm sure the medallion is not original to the case back, wrong hands, etc, etc.

Try to return if possible.

On what basis would you return it? It was not sold as a "1961 Omega Pie Pan" as far as I can tell. It was sold as an "Old working Omega watch".

[Neilo]

On what basis would you return it? It was not sold as a "1961 Omega Pie Pan" as far as I can tell. It was sold as an "Old working Omega watch".

It was sold as a "Omega constellation watch"

There was very little description good or bad on the auction so you can only buy per the picture and what you can see that acts as the description.

Picture shows Constellation Chronometer which it is not.

[Si]

Tricky one. The seller made no claims about the watch that you can contest (description: "good working order, keeps good time , will add more details soon"), and you received what was in the pictures.

It would be worth a try for a refund, full or partial, on the grounds that the watch is a collection of parts and a redial and the seller may be reasonable about it, but I'm sure he would be entitled to refuse.

[aldfort]

It was sold as a "Omega constellation watch"

There was very little description good or bad on the auction so you can only buy per the picture and what you can see that acts as the description.

Picture shows Constellation Chronometer which it is not.

Ok fair point. Did you specifically ask the seller if it was indeed an Omega Constellation Chronometer and if all the numbers matched up? After all this is E-bay we are talking about, we all know that there is the odd gem, an incredible amount of tat, and loads and loads of outright scams. The question is did you pay a fair price for what was delivered to you? As I mentioned earlier we all know what this watch looks like at first casual glance but if it was genuine you'd expect it to have attracted a lot more interest surely? I assume it was a private seller so surely caveat emptor should have guided you?

I think it looks like quite a nice vintage watch.

[cristos71]

On what basis would you return it? It was not sold as a "1961 Omega Pie Pan" as far as I can tell. It was sold as an "Old working Omega watch".

I would return on the basis that this is now not and has never been an Omega model, it is at best a Frankenwatch, with a cal 565 non-chronometer movement, made to deceive the inexperienced buyer into thinking he has bought a flagship chronometer Constellation.

[studly]

Date window does not look correct (i could be wrong), also is the crown original?, the Omega applied logo is too close to the word Omega. The real bummer if i am seeing this correctly is the "t" in constellation is an "l" so reads Conslellalion. The "Swiss made" looks bad.

[watchmad]

eBay = caveat emptor = never buy off eBay.

[aldfort]

I would return on the basis that this is now not and has never been an Omega model, it is at best a Frankenwatch, with a cal 565 non-chronometer movement, made to deceive the unexpected buyer into thinking he has bought a flagship chronometer Constellation.

Well you could try. I doubt the seller would be happy and I doubt e-bay would side with the buyer if the buyer raised a dispute.

[cristos71]

Well you could try. I doubt the seller would be happy and I doubt e-bay would side with the buyer if the buyer raised a dispute.

The seller being happy or not is hardly relevant, the watch is a frankenwatch, a fake Constellation. I have not seen the original listing, but a put together is a put together. The only value is really in the movement +/- 100 euro. I think Ebay will side with the buyer if a reasonable explanation is given.