Hello Everybody,

I have been a “student” of this forum for about 3 years and much of the little I know about vintage Omega watches has been gleaned from this site. Thank you. This is my first post and “cry for help’” regarding the watch I bought about one year ago. The watch I thought I had bought was as follows:

Omega Constellation “pie-pan”

Case reference: 168.005

Caliber: 564

Serial number: 2483****

Year of production: 1966

Case material: 14k gold

I did not rush into this purchase and wanted to buy a reasonably “good” example as a keeper. After a fairly long search I found what I was looking for. Before buying I checked everything as closely as I could based largely on guidelines found on this forum, the wonderful Omega Constellation Collectors blogspot and elsewhere on the internet. This is what I concluded, but I am quite happy to stand corrected:

Dial, crystal:

Minute markers are correctly slightly away from pie-pan. It passes the MOY test and the layout of the three lines of black text conforms to Desmond’s guidelines. The text has correct serifs. The champagne sunburst nature of the dial looks to be consistent and unmolested with no indication of being touched-up. The indices have no signs of any paint being added to the dial around their bases. The date window has the correct slightly crinkly effect. The star and Omega logo are applied. The crystal has the Omega logo in the centre.













Case:

10-sided crown with logo. I think it is the correct 8100/1080 2mm case tube. Dog-leg lugs with correct faceting. Lugs are attached to the case appropriately and do not protrude too much. Side view of case has correct “layers”. Gold medallion looks to be in good condition and has correct number and layout of stars and brickwork in observatory.











To my untutored eye I cannot see anything externally which causes me alarm. The only questions I have are regarding the lugs. On the back side of the 11 o’clock and 5 o’clock lugs there are indistinct markings. What are they? Are they evidence of gold testing? Are they 14k squirrel hallmarks? Next to the marking on the 11 o’clock lug there are 6 numbers scratched rather untidily into the lug - the numbers are 260805. Does this signify anything?








Inside caseback:

Grained finish inside is correct. Case makers responsibility mark is 352 is for Serva S.A. which seems correct. The squirrel assay mark is correct for 14k but does not seem very clear? There is no discernable “x” between the squirrel’s tail and back-of-head. In the “W” in Swiss the inner parts of the letter intersect which is correct. The 168.005 seems to be written/engraved differently to the rest of the writing on the inside caseback? It looks more yellowy/gold.



Movement:

The movement functions as a Cal. 564 should. The rapid date change function works well. The movement has “OXG” engraved near the swan’s neck which indicates produced for the US market which ties in with the 14k case. The case clamp seems to fit properly. There is a correct crown recess? To me the various parts of the movement seem to have a consistent metal/colour? Are there any replacement parts? I do not know. The writing on the movement seems to be correct? I have read that a yellow gasket is a sign that it has not been serviced or interfered with recently?









Since owning the watch I have also examined everything in great detail and have not seen anything to alarm me. However, a few weeks ago I decided to get an Extract from the Archives from Omega. Omega came back to me cancelling the application saying:

Dear Sir,
The available historical documentation associated to the movement you provided us leads to a watch model that does not match the one in the pictures you submitted.
In such cases we are unable to issue an EftA.

Hence my “cry for help”. Have I bought a Frankenwatch? If so, what telltale signs have I missed? Has the original movement been switched? According to various online resources 168.005 was made with Cal. 564 and released in a variety of case metals and configurations including, I assume 14k? Or, is it possible for Omega to be wrong and the watch is, in fact, genuine? Does anyone have any experience of Omega “getting it wrong”?

I hope I have provided sufficient photos of high enough quality but can provide more if required and would greatly appreciate any comments (good or bad) regarding the authenticity of this watch. Thank you very much in advance.

 

That's in essence what they are telling you...

 

May I say you wrote a impressive first post. Very good!

Anyway, dial, hands, case and caseback looks good to me. Very sad to hear about the movement. Here you can see... you can do your due dilligence and still get burned. Caliber and serial all in range but transplated from another watch. That hurts. But hey, it's still a nice watch.

Can you ask omega from which model the movement came from (probably they wont tell)?

Soon the connie experts will chime in...

Good luck!

 

That sucks, but no one will know except you and omega.

 

Haha. Your dirty little secret...

 

BTW, the rotor has been rubbing on the caseback. The wear is very light, but I would suggest getting it checked to see if it is an issue that was already corrected.

 

It's too bad that you ended up with something that was not, for all your diligence, what you thought you were getting. However, if the movement transplant was expertly done and everything runs well, you have a beautiful vintage gold watch with a period-correct movement and an added air of mystery. "Frankenwatch" seems too harsh a term.

 

As someone who owns several Constellations, looks like a very nice watch from here!

 

As I wrote on many forums, many gold 168,005 have their movements (561) swapped (by 564)
Some owners just love the convenience of 564 and don't care much for the authenticity of the watch.
As shown in your photos, looks like your dial has black paint on top of hour markers, not onyx inserts(?).
If this is the case, it is less desirable than the one with onyx.
Regards .

PS. Some picky collectors prefer to have a small hour marker next to date window, too.

 

By the time the painted markers were introduced the watch should have been wearing a 564.

A 24,8xxxx serial could easily correlate with the introduction of painted markers.

Why (or how) anyone would swap a movement for one of pretty much the exact original timescale is anyone’s guess.

@zamthang
If you are able to, for this watch, I’d be tempted to gamble the submission fee and submit only the serial number for an extract to see if they come up with a different answer.

 

Is it possible to get a extract nowadays without sending the rest of the info (pictures, modelnumber)? I did it a couple of weeks ago and I think omega mentioned serialnumber is insufficient.

 

Aberrations abound with Omega and I’m sure they exist but must be quite uncommon.
I think it reasonable that you would still expect to see a 564 inside a painted dial dogleg.

I really don’t know @Shabbaz I've never applied for one.
I guess my point was that the movt is so close to the correct period, that Omega may have made a mistake.
I think I’d still be tempted to ask them to take a closer look.

 

Thank you for your reply and your suggestion regarding Omega and the Extract from the Archives. Last time I submitted as much information as possible and as many photos as possible (including the movement and inside caseback). I have just checked the website and it is possible to apply for an extract by only submitting the Movement Serial Number and an exterior photo of the front and back of the watch. I have not done it yet but assuming the Omega online system accepts the “second” application it will be very interesting to see what they say.

Regarding the hour markers. On page 367 of Omega A Journey Through Time watch # 2224 is described as follows:

“Omega Grand Luxe Constellation, 1962: Automatic chronometer caliber 561 with date, twelve-sided silvered dial, inner minute circle with strokes, polished and riveted gold hour markers with a black line, gold date window, polished gold Dauphine hands, water resistant case in 18-carat gold with broken lugs, reinforced crystal, screwed case back. (ref. OT 14.902 which became from 1965 ref. BA168.005 on the calibre 564)”.

Thus this 1962 model had painted markers. This can also be seen from the accompanying picture in the book.

When I was searching for a pie-pan Constellation this was the model that I really wanted. I could not find the 18K version but eventually found the 168.005 14K version which I bought. My watch had a 2483**** serial number (1966 production date), 564 movement and thus seemed to fit (I thought) with the information in the Omega book (if the calibre in the 168.005 was changed at a similar time to the BA168.005). This further supported my belief at the time that I was buying a genuine watch.

I understand that the onyx inlays markers are “more desirable” but personally I find the “markers with a black line” to be more discreet than the onyx inlays. I was not concerned that the lack of onyx inlay markers in my watch was a sign of inauthenticity because the Grand Luxe 18K version of the OT 14.902 / BA168.005 produced in 1962 had “painted markers” so it is would seem entirely feasible that a “lower level” 14K non Grand Luxe 168.005 produced in 1966 would have or could have painted markers. Subsequent research on this forum also indicated that by the mid 1960s (2.4 million serial numbers) Omega was phasing out the onyx inlays.

The BA168.005 in the Omega book also has a dial without the shortened hour marker next to the date window. Again, it seems that the version with a shortened date marker at 3 o’clock is “more desirable” but I actually personally prefer the aesthetics of the dial without the shortened marker as it seems somewhere cleaner.

I have attached some photos of my “gold markers with black line”.

 

To my knowledge the Grand Luxe versions from this period (14903 & 168.006) all have onyx inlaid markers.

 

Thank you for your reply. I am going to try again with Omega (see reply below) and see if they shed more light on the matter. Actually I am extremely happy with the watch: it keeps good time, the Cal 564 quick date set is very useful for me as I do not wear the watch every day, it is in good condition, it looks great (to me), it is everything I thought I was buying...except of course it is not! However, nobody on this esteemed forum has yet flagged any telltale signs that the constituent parts of the watch are not authentic so what's not to like!

 

Were these not ‘simple’ de luxe versions?
Either way, I'm not at home so can’t check AJTT but I would agree with you about the onyx inlays on all ‘black line’ earlier Connies.

Any pictures of the one in AJTT @zamthang ?

 

Yes sorry my bad, I read Grand Luxe and brain was thinking de Luxe.