# Late 60'S Constellation



## stefano34 (Sep 27, 2009)

Had this a while but only just got around to fitting new glass, it's a family piece saved from the dreaded gold scrapman by yours truly.

Ill let the pictures do the talking time keeping as you'd expect is pretty good.


----------



## stefano34 (Sep 27, 2009)

and a few more pics;


----------



## Billtr96sn (Jun 15, 2011)

That is a thing of beauty


----------



## aroma (Dec 11, 2009)

Hi

I have one identical to that but it is Dennison cased (yours is David Shackman & Sons). DS&S seemed to take over the Dennison design when Dennison's went out of business in Feb 1967. So I'd guess yours is late 67 or after. It's a lovely watch - I tracked one of these through ebay recently - it went for Â£1502!!

Take care of it - they will be a lot more expensive in the coming years

Cheers

Andrew


----------



## stefano34 (Sep 27, 2009)

Here's another pictrure of movement from a different angle;


----------



## andyclient (Aug 1, 2009)

Simply stunning :thumbup: Serial no dates to 1968

cheers

Andy


----------



## stefano34 (Sep 27, 2009)

Cool that's my birth year!


----------



## andyclient (Aug 1, 2009)

stefano34 said:


> Cool that's my birth year!


Perfect :thumbup:

cheers

Andy


----------



## Steve's Dad (Dec 19, 2007)

Beautiful.


----------



## aroma (Dec 11, 2009)

This is mine - a Dennison cased Connie from 1965.





































To me these watches are pretty much unbeatable - the finest mass produced movement in the finest case.

Cheers


----------



## martinzx (Aug 29, 2010)

Stunning watch/es, a true thing/s of beauty 

Cheers martin


----------



## rolexgirl (Jul 17, 2010)

Wow, very beautiful.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## cogtocog (Nov 6, 2010)

I'm in love...........


----------



## aroma (Dec 11, 2009)

If the Omega Constellation in solid 18kt gold is too much to contemplate then perhaps a Seamaster in 9kt gold would suffice. Compare the following watch to the Connies above and you'll see what I mean.










It has the same dial with the same gold baton hour markers with onyx inserts. The same gold hands with the same onyx inserts. A very similar movement (cal 552 non-chronometer compared with the Constellation cals 551 (no-date), 561(date)or 564 (quickset date) - though after 45 years, the chronometer/non-chronometer performance will be similar).





































The case is still made by Dennison and is very similar to the Connie - you can't go wrong really.

Cheers


----------



## stefano34 (Sep 27, 2009)

Nice watch aroma, if I am completey honest I prefer my 68? all steel Seamaster that came free off freecycle to my Constellation...I prefer it's chunky style and to be honest I prefer silver as a colour to gold though I could be persuaded into Platignum I suppose given the option!









not the best pic and it still needs it's dial redoing and the auto date change over, well doesn't change over at all anymore but it still keeps within 30 sec a day.


----------



## aroma (Dec 11, 2009)

Well a couple of points: Don't re-do the dial of your watch as it will devalue it by as much as 40%. OK, it has had a life and it shows but to re-paint it would be just tarting it up. As for gold vs steel - yes this is a personal thing - I just think that gold watches look fabulous and so 'special'.

Enjoy them all

Cheers


----------



## stefano34 (Sep 27, 2009)

Perhaps a NOS dial would be the best...if I can find one or a good secondhand one!


----------



## Dr.f (Jun 29, 2011)

Well here's another constellation. My first serious watch, the dial is lovely. It still keeps very good time and is a joy to behold.


----------



## aroma (Dec 11, 2009)

Looks like a gold-capped 168.004 hidden crown. I had a steel one as well as the gold one shown here. There's something about the hidden crown design - it makes the dial look so much bigger

Thanks for sharing

Cheers


----------



## stevieb (Feb 12, 2010)

I can't see whats wrong with reprinting the dials.

Especially if a watch is a family peice or you love it so much you never want to part with it. Value is irrelevant.

This applies even more so to watches that look so bad there not worn.

To use the Seamaster as an example it would look really good and probably get far more wrist time, you could then look for a NOS original to maintain the value.

Edit for typo


----------



## aroma (Dec 11, 2009)

Well it's a personal thing - I would always want a watch with an immaculate dial but I'd rather settle for something original with a bit of patina than a re-dial. If I'd got a 'family' piece then I think I'd rather keep it as it was than tart it up. The watch says so much more that way. BUT it is a personal thing as I said

Cheers


----------

