14k Pie-pan Constellation 168.005 Cal. 564 authenticity assistance requested

zamthang · Sep 19, 2019

Peemacgee
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 ?

Here are the pictures from AJTT:

When did Omega start not using onyx inlays? These photos would indicate at least 1962? If Grand Luxe was top of the line, even above de Luxe why would this model have the "inferior" black line rather than the onyx inlay?

The watch above looks the same as my 168.005 (1966). The only difference is that mine is 14k for the US market?

Peemacgee · Sep 19, 2019

Z zamthang
Here are the pictures from AJTT:

When did Omega start not using onyx inlays? These photos would indicate at least 1962? If Grand Luxe was top of the line, even above de Luxe why would this model have the "inferior" black line rather than the onyx inlay?

The watch above looks the same as my 168.005 (1966). The only difference is that mine is 14k for the US market?

It is well known that AJTT contains some bloopers and this is evidently one of them.
That is most certainly not a Grand Luxe Connie.
A Grand Luxe was a special gold watch with gold face and bracelet.
A de luxe was a gold watch, of numerous references, with gold face ( that might have been sold with a gold bracelet but didn’t come with one)
The one above is a ‘standard’ dogleg, which to me actually looks like gold cap not solid gold. (Look at the sides of the lugs for the clue)
It definitely has painted indices and I would date it to the latter part of the 60s.
So I don’t think you can rely on anything written in that paragraph.

It seems black painted indices replaced onyx at different times.
@hoipolloi opines that doglegs lost their onyx altogether after 24m serials (But some painted indices exist in the 24m range)
Others such as the 168.010 definitely have onyx through into the 25m range.
Other later round-cased Connies (and possibly C-cases) have onyx markers (also ‘jet’ - a gemstone form of petrified coal) for a longer period.

hoipolloi · Sep 19, 2019

Your watch is not a de Luxe, not a Grand Luxe but only a normal 14k 168.005 with a late silvered dial ( same thing with a gold capped ) like the one in these photos

The de Luxe has ref 168.006 and the Grand Luxe is 168.002. They are in 18k with 18 k dials, gold hour markers with onyx inserts. (Have not found any black paint on those yet)

zamthang · Sep 19, 2019

hoipolloi
Your watch is not a de Luxe, not a Grand Luxe but only a normal 14k 168.005 with a late silvered dial ( same thing with a gold capped ) like the one in these photos

The de Luxe has ref 168.006 and the Grand Luxe is 168.002. They are in 18k with 18 k dials, gold hour markers with onyx inserts. (Have not found any black paint on those yet)

Thank you for your comment. Don’t worry, despite my limited knowledge I didn’t for one moment have delusions of grandeur and think my mere 168.005 14k was a Grand Luxe or de Luxe model. I was more interested in the picture in AJTT which showed a 14k (?) watch with a dial with painted indices. However, as you say it looks like the photo has been incorrectly labelled. Such a shame that such a great book has mistakes like this.

I hope I am not speaking out of turn by asking this. The pictures you have posted are, I think, of the watch you posted in the post linked below on Nov. 9, 2015

https://omegaforums.net/threads/onyx-or-black-paint-markers-on-vintage-constellations.31354/

In the two posts you say that the watch is a 14k 168.005 Cal. 564 in 24million series. From the pictures and what you say it looks to be the same as my 168.005 Cal. 564 in the 24million series. Mine is 2483****. As I have explained earlier in my original post, Omega have deemed my watch to be “dodgy” saying:

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.

Commenters on this forum have speculated that although the dial, case, movement and caseback look authentic and the serial number and case number match the time period, the movement and/or caseback have been switched. If the watch you posted is/was your own watch or a watch you have handled how can you or anyone be certain that the same “switching” had not happened on that or, indeed, other watches? Is it even possible to know? If I had not contacted Omega I would not have suspected that my watch was, in fact, “dodgy”. Is this a fate that could be lurking around the corner for other unsuspecting victims? I hope you do not mind me asking this question.

hoipolloi · Sep 19, 2019

The watch in my post belonged to me and I bought it from a well known member of this forum and many others.
My bad habit is never contact Omega for the record. If I think it is alright it is alright 😉.
Here are some more pics from that member which were sent to me before the sale and looking at his wrist and the watch, I miss him alot.

Who is he? How are you doing my friend?

Guess who?

Regards .

muel · Sep 19, 2019

Personally, I think you got the best of both worlds... not correct maybe but I would enjoy this watch greatly!

KingCrouchy · Sep 19, 2019

muel
Personally, I think you got the best of both worlds... not correct maybe but I would enjoy this watch greatly!

I totally agree, enjoy it. It looks nice and I would wear it no matter the issue. Just disclose it if you sell it one day.👍

zamthang · Sep 21, 2019

hoipolloi
The watch in my post belonged to me and I bought it from a well known member of this forum and many others.
My bad habit is never contact Omega for the record. If I think it is alright it is alright 😉.
Here are some more pics from that member which were sent to me before the sale and looking at his wrist and the watch, I miss him alot.

Who is he? How are you doing my friend?

Guess who?

Regards .

zamthang · Sep 21, 2019

Thank you for the pictures which indicate that my watch is about 2000 “younger” than yours. I did not for one second mean to cast aspersions on your friend. Indeed I also "bought the seller" when I purchased my watch. I bought it through the online store of a bricks and mortar shop in Europe and both the online feedback and the testimonials about the shop itself seemed to be legitimate. The watch also came with a one-year parts warranty and a Certificate of Authenticity which guaranteed a no-quibble money back guarantee if any part was found to be fake in the future. There was also a 30-day no-quibble returns policy. As the shop was the other side of the world from me I had no choice but to buy sight-unseen. I did not enquire about the watch’s provenance but I assume they, as watch dealers, had bought it themselves from somebody and checked it out before reselling.

The ironic thing is that I waited on getting the Extract from the Archives until I was certain as I could be in my own mind that everything was OK with the watch as I did not want the “humiliation” of being told by Omega that my watch was not what it should be.

Hold on – news flash. I have just received an email from Omega. Last week I applied for an Extract again. This time I omitted the case number (168.005) and only told them the serial number and caliber. Here is the reply (I have added the stars):

Sorry, your order for an Extract from the Archives has been cancelled by The OMEGA Heritage Team due to the following reason:

Dear Sir

Due to the nature of vintage archives in certain cases information has not survived, is unreadable or even missing.

We regret to inform you that unfortunately the provided serial number 2483**** falls onto that category, so we are unable to issue an Extract from the Archives. Therefore we will issue a full refund of your payment.

We are sorry for the inconvenience.

The first time I submitted the full details of serial number, caliber and case number with photos and they replied thus:

Sorry, your order for an Extract from the Archives has been cancelled by The OMEGA Heritage Team due to the following reason:

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.

Has anyone had a similar experience? Obviously I understand what the emails say but what do they mean in relation to each other and the difference responses elicited when different information was supplied?

Would it be worthwhile contacting Omega and asking whether they can provide any further insight on the matter? Are they open to such enquiries?

Shabbaz · Sep 21, 2019

Haha. Two different answers! So your movement could be right and probably is! I would be surprised if omega would answer your question if the serial belongs to another model or the serial is unknown. But hey, just try! I'm intrigued as well!

Dan S · Sep 21, 2019

Shabbaz
Haha. Two different answers! So your movement could be right and probably is! I would be surprised if omega would answer your question if the serial belongs to another model or the serial is unknown. But hey, just try! I'm intrigued as well!

Very confusing.

TNTwatch · Sep 21, 2019

Z zamthang
Thank you for the pictures which indicate that my watch is about 2000 “younger” than yours. I did not for one second mean to cast aspersions on your friend. Indeed I also "bought the seller" when I purchased my watch. I bought it through the online store of a bricks and mortar shop in Europe and both the online feedback and the testimonials about the shop itself seemed to be legitimate. The watch also came with a one-year parts warranty and a Certificate of Authenticity which guaranteed a no-quibble money back guarantee if any part was found to be fake in the future. There was also a 30-day no-quibble returns policy. As the shop was the other side of the world from me I had no choice but to buy sight-unseen. I did not enquire about the watch’s provenance but I assume they, as watch dealers, had bought it themselves from somebody and checked it out before reselling.

The ironic thing is that I waited on getting the Extract from the Archives until I was certain as I could be in my own mind that everything was OK with the watch as I did not want the “humiliation” of being told by Omega that my watch was not what it should be.

Hold on – news flash. I have just received an email from Omega. Last week I applied for an Extract again. This time I omitted the case number (168.005) and only told them the serial number and caliber. Here is the reply (I have added the stars):

Sorry, your order for an Extract from the Archives has been cancelled by The OMEGA Heritage Team due to the following reason:

Dear Sir

Due to the nature of vintage archives in certain cases information has not survived, is unreadable or even missing.

We regret to inform you that unfortunately the provided serial number 2483**** falls onto that category, so we are unable to issue an Extract from the Archives. Therefore we will issue a full refund of your payment.

We are sorry for the inconvenience.

The first time I submitted the full details of serial number, caliber and case number with photos and they replied thus:

Sorry, your order for an Extract from the Archives has been cancelled by The OMEGA Heritage Team due to the following reason:

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.

Has anyone had a similar experience? Obviously I understand what the emails say but what do they mean in relation to each other and the difference responses elicited when different information was supplied?

Would it be worthwhile contacting Omega and asking whether they can provide any further insight on the matter? Are they open to such enquiries?

Looks like bad job on Omega's part. For your peace of mind, their second answer supercedes their first. Your watch looks legit, just like that of Hoi, so go on and enjoy it.

Peemacgee · Sep 21, 2019

I’m so glad you that you went for a second comment from Omega, as whilst unfortunately it doesn’t give you a positive definitive result it does completely negate the previous negative comment from them.

It is most certainly a poor show from Omega and I think, if I were you, I would be politely writing to Omega to highlight the cock-up.
They can only improve their services if they’re made aware of any shortfalls.

I was always ready to believe that your watch is legit, so now as @TNTwatch says, you should just get on and enjoy your really nice Constellation.

14k Pie-pan Constellation 168.005 Cal. 564 authenticity assistance requested

zamthang

Peemacgee

hoipolloi

zamthang

hoipolloi

muel

KingCrouchy

zamthang

zamthang

Shabbaz

Dan S

TNTwatch

Peemacgee

Similar threads

New SS Pie Pan Constellation 168.005 Acquired

INCOMING - After Ebay Auth 14k Pie Pan Cal 561 Box Papers 1966

SS 168.005 pie pan Constellation.

Omega Constellation 14393 61 SC Black Pie Pan

Opinions about this beautiful Constellation 2852 pie pan

Pie pan with cross hair. 168.005/564.