Hi all,
Trying to learn more and more about Connie, and owning a second 168.005 in a row, something has catch my attention.

indeed, it seems that some early 60s models (especially those with tritium but without “t” on the dial, mine is from January 64) have hour hands slightly longer than later exemple.

We are here talking about 1mm or even less!

indeed, On my own, you can see that when at noon, the hour hand is slightly above the “feet” of the omega symbol, while on most exemple we see (later version)with shorter hands it ends Just below the Omega symbol.

You can also compare with the star, while shorter hand ends in the middle of the star, longer exemple ends at the bottom of the star.

Anyone to confirm there is 2 lenght?

I’ve found some other exemple sold or shown here from the same period with the same lenght, but it needs to be at noon to be sure

I’m confident that mine is original, because it has been discussed with super members here, and the patina on the hands are marching with the dial.

So either there is in fact two different lenght according to year or manufacturer, or hands on my exemple has been swapped long ago,

what are your though on it?

 

Hi,
I’m trying to get an update on this, no interest for this ?

Maybe I’m just having to much time zooming on Connie !

 

Had some time to spent, and in order to close it, I’ve checked a lot of 168.005 from different thread, and my guess is that indeed, it may have two different length:

-until around 1963 (no « t » on dial) hour hand ends slightly above the feet of the omega symbol
-later model has a slightly shorter hour hand which ends just below the omega symbol when on 12

If it is confirmed, it may be a way to check dial / hands / consistency.

maybe some will post pictures to confirm or not this

 

Do you have any pictures showing what you come up to?

 

As it is pictures found a bit everywhere on the forum or on FB group, I’m not sure people would agree I use their pictures... that is why I only use mine and ask for people to published their one here to confirm or not.

once again I’m maybe wrong, but have spend some time looking at it and have found several similar hands

 

This would be a very interesting variation if found to be correct.
Have you looked at different case styles in that period or just doglegs?
Is there a correlation with case or dial manufacturers?
Unfortunately, I only have later pie pans and they have the shorter hour hands.

 

Hi @Peemacgee, I’ve focused on doglegs Piepan Connie.
I’ve checked at pictures on the forum or elsewhere, so do not have information of manufacturer.
Bit it seems to me there is no correlation with manufacturers, only period.
Below is another exemple (plus mine upper) of a 168.005 from 1963 with the longer hour hands.
(Picture was sent to me by a member of a Facebook group, hope he won’t mind I post it here)
Other exemple were found on different group, some time hand was not at 12 so I did have to use photoshop to put it or measure, not 100% accurate but I used picture straight in front of the dial...

 

That hour hand has the same lengh for a dome dial.

 

Dome dial dog leg has longer hour hand than the one showing on those PiePan, covering almost all the omega symbol when at 12, not ending on the feet of the omega symbol like on my Piepan or the second one shown from 1963.

Hope we will get picture from 60 to 63 dogleg PiePan to confirm what I guess.
Still waiting for some pictures, even Dome dial if you have to confirm what I think

 

For reference - later 60s dome dial dogleg
Reaches beyond the Omega symbol.

 

Thanks @Peemacgee !

so here we are so far in my guess:
- dogleg dôme dial: hour hand cover all the omega symbol (the longer one)
- PiePan Dogleg till around 63, hour hand cover the « feet » of the omega symbol, 2 pictures above so far (the intermediate)
- Later PiePan dogleg have hour hand ending below the omega symbol (the shorter one)


We are mainly looking for picture of early example, from 60s to around mid 63

 

This is exactly what I thought and even suggested it to @Gui13250
It’s a testament to his tenacity that he compared the length of the dome dial hour hand to his pie pan hour hand.

you’re welcome
I just happened to be wearing it and it seemed appropriate and relevant to post a pic.
Good luck with your research and I hope some members with early 60s pie pans will post pics of their watches for you.

 

If confirmed I guess it would be an interesting known variation when assessing an example, that is why I’m pushing to get pictures

 

So thinking it might help, I've looked at all the hands currently available from Omega for the 168005 case number. Note that hour and minute hands are sold in pairs, so you can't order just an hour hand or just a minute hand.

There were three variations shown, but they only give lengths of the minute hands, so here are those three:

065TX8137 | HANDS H.M. 013 10.3 DAUPH.FAC.D

065QH8183 | HANDS H.M.4N 013 12.7 DAUPH.FAC.D

065TZ8137 | HANDS H.M. 013 10.3

Note that the bold dimension is the length of the minute hand. So each of these were shown in a photo as well, with the hour and minute hands side by side. I can't show the photos as Omega frowns on that, but what I did was to copy and paste all three photos into Photoshop, and then do a comparison of the lengths by drawing a line along the entire length of the hands in each photo.

I then took down those dimensions and calculated the ratio of hour hand length to minute hand length. So for the two sets that have the minute hand length as 10.3 mm, the ratio was 0.699 and 0.692 - the fact that these are very close indicates the methodology is sound.

The ratio for the set of hands where the minute hand is listed as 12.7 mm was 0.717, so this indicates that the minute hand is longer in comparison to the minute hand, than on the other two. So in fact, this would confirm, that the hour hand is also longer than on the other two sets, so yes there are two lengths currently offered.

Note that the hands with the 10.3 lengths for the minute hands were associated with domed dials. Unfortunately the set with the 12,7 mm minute hand didn't have a dial listed.

Hope this provides some insight...

Cheers, Al

 

Hi @Archer,

thanks for your help and time looking at it.

the fact is that it is based on set of hand currently available.

I guess, if they have changed the hour hands length during 1963, set of hand currently available may be the last model (shorter hour hand) and not the intermediate.

I’ve got several pictures of piepan from 1958 to 1963 with this longer hour hand, but I’m a bit reluctant to post them here as I did not asked to owners.
But most early PiePan that I was able to find and assess have indeed this longer hour hand, ending in the feet of the symbol.

Still hoping to have members posting them early piepan here

 

Measuring the hands on the dome dial I posted above:
(Note: measured approximately through the crystal)
The minute hand is just short of 13mm
The hour hand is just short of 9mm

which, whilst not quite exact, isn’t a million miles from your .717 ratio but would suggest the 12.7mm hand set belong to the dome dial for the 168.005

BTW, do the lists show two references for each length I.e. lumed and not lumed (or can’t you order lumed hands for vintage Connies?)

 

Well, the shorter versions are listed with domed dials for the 1268005, so they must all be for domed dials, or maybe not - who knows.

No lumed hands shown for this case number.

 

Apologies for the quick'n dirty shots.

14900 (Arabic Cardinals, Tritium Lume)


168.005 (Onyx Inserts, No Lume)

 

Hi @Caliber561

great, thanks for your shot!

Can you gave us the year of each watch?

On the first pictures, it is exactly the same length that the one I’ve found on Connie until 1963.

On the second picture, hour hand seems a bit shorter, or is it due to the glass?

Well, I guess we start to have several exemples to confirm that there is indeed two length, one until around 1963 and a longer model then

 

One more example of early Piepan from 1959 with the longer hour hand.
Thanks @Arno (NL) for the picture