Forums Latest Members
  1. mikechi22 Aug 11, 2017

    Posts
    921
    Likes
    730
    IMG_2137.PNG IMG_2138.PNG IMG_2139.PNG Spending time on this forum leads me to trust no one, NO ONE on eBay. And here is this really beautiful Constellation. I can't believe it's real. The case and movement and serial number all jive. The lugs have chamfering...I think. Bulgey below the bezel...sorta. It's hard to see if it's got the MOY thing going on. Is the print on the dial too dark? Minute markers not painted correctly? This can't be bona fide, can it?
     
  2. ConElPueblo Aug 11, 2017

    Posts
    9,587
    Likes
    26,961
    Mike, the condition of this one isn't that fantastic and Constellations aren't really rare watches - why shouldn't it be real? Hundreds of watches in similar condition has gone though eBay over the last few years.

    The movement is rather dirty, the lugs polished too much and the crown a later replacement.
     
    Noddyman and GuiltyBoomerang like this.
  3. No Mercy Aug 11, 2017

    Posts
    1,090
    Likes
    2,134
    This is must be frankenstein watch. 17 mil movement cant be in 168005. "Officially Certified" and "Swiss Made T" cant be in this 17 mil, too.
     
  4. mikechi22 Aug 11, 2017

    Posts
    921
    Likes
    730
    Well, that's the interesting thing...according to the Desmond blog, these are some of the most counterfeit models. As the next post shows, it isn't a for-sure that finding real ones is a slam dunk! My motive for posting was to start a conversation about what experts like you do see when you take a look. The condition of the movement didn't jump out to me at all, but I'm surely going to take a look now! Also, I want to recheck my homework now to see why I thought case and movement and serial were all kosher! I really like these old Connies and I'll be so happy when I get to wear the old beauty that @No Mercy resurrected from the dead for me! Anyway, thanks so much for eyeballing this for me!
     
  5. mikechi22 Aug 11, 2017

    Posts
    921
    Likes
    730
    I could swear that this did show up on Omega vintage database when you check the 561/564 movement. Given what you said, though, this must be a redial then?
     
  6. X350 XJR Vintage Omega Aficionado Aug 11, 2017

    Posts
    12,424
    Likes
    29,475
    Its not the caliber, its the serial number which is to low for the reference.

    Movement is a mess. Lots of colors going on there.

    s-l1600-3.jpg
     
  7. ConElPueblo Aug 12, 2017

    Posts
    9,587
    Likes
    26,961
    More likely a partial or full movement swap.


    But none of the markers that would tell that this could be a counterfeit is there!
     
  8. mikechi22 Aug 12, 2017

    Posts
    921
    Likes
    730
    Yes, I see those different shades now...
    I'm still stuck on the serial number question, however. 17m puts the watch to 1959 and if you ask the Omega DB, it says that this particular case had that movement in 1958 onward. Unless I'm misreading...
     
  9. mikechi22 Aug 12, 2017

    Posts
    921
    Likes
    730
    Interesting about the movement swap, but I'm not sure I would ever spot that on my own if those data points check out in the Omega database. I couldn't really find evidence of counterfeiting the case, so that tells me I could be looking for the right things. It's probably good that I'm not in the pie pan market any more! I've got an old one and a dog leg one, so that should hold me. Still, it's so fun to look and see what's available! So, no comment about the dial on this one? Or does your silence indicate that being a redial is a given
     
  10. ConElPueblo Aug 12, 2017

    Posts
    9,587
    Likes
    26,961
    Do you mean that you have found some place where it says that a 168.005 was available in 1958? ::screwloose::


    Do you imply that since no-one has said that it is legit, it must be a redial? ::confused2::

    Would you like people to make a list of all components in this watch that are okay? Or should we just point out the items that are problematic as usual? You have already been told that it isn't a fake, but there are serious issues with the movement.
     
  11. mikechi22 Aug 12, 2017

    Posts
    921
    Likes
    730
    Well, yes, I'm about 90% certain that on the Omega database, when you click the 561/564 caliber choice, that case reference appears and it says 1958. But, I will double check to be sure that I read it correctly.

    https://www.omegawatches.com/planet-omega/heritage/vintage-details/15085/

    Now, as for what I am seeking from other members, it's more just to learn what a person should be spotting in these for sale items. My intention is not to burden anyone but to learn from conversation. I won't do that again as I don't wish to impose on anyone. Thank you for taking time to respond. I do apologize for abusing the access, though this was not my intention. Sorry.
     
  12. Noddyman Aug 12, 2017

    Posts
    1,116
    Likes
    1,771
    The 561 was in production from around 1958 but they only started using it in case ref. 168.005 aroundabout 1963.
     
    mikechi22 likes this.
  13. tdn-dk Aug 12, 2017

    Posts
    1,717
    Likes
    14,547
    168.005 was introduced in 1962 as a model Omega's international collection

    Cal. 561 was introduced in 1958 (used in other references also)

    168.005.JPG
     
  14. mikechi22 Aug 12, 2017

    Posts
    921
    Likes
    730
    Wow - very confusing! On this page (not visible) heading, it has a spitting image photo of this watch and this case number, but at bottom of page, it lists this 561 movement and indicates a 1958 date.

    What I'm interpreting you to say then is that if it's a 561, it would need to have a serial number from 1962. But how's a guy to know this?!? I think you're also suggesting then that this eBay seller has a 1962 case filled with an older movement, yes?
     
    IMG_2141.PNG
  15. cicindela Steve @ ΩF Staff Member Aug 12, 2017

    Posts
    15,047
    Likes
    23,789
    Correct.
    As to how is one to know this, the answer is you're not. Omega does not maintain the database in order for you or me to buy watches. It is there just provide some information, but it is far from perfect and has many omissions. You can not connect or imply one piece of data to another as a linear verification. Omega may picture a watch as an example of a model with a movement even if the movement was used for 10 years and the watch used it for only the last. The data base can be very imprecise and even wrong at times.
    The bottom line is that you have research all of the sources you can, participate in forums, buy many watches to study and familiarize yourself with and spend years in the hobby.
    Or you could just have the sense enough to come here and politely ask like you did :)
     
    Ritzwatch, mikechi22 and noelekal like this.
  16. Peemacgee Purrrr-veyor of luxury cat box loungers Aug 12, 2017

    Posts
    5,125
    Likes
    7,822
    If you go to Desmond's site there is an easy case and caliber page.
    This will show you when the 168.005 came in.
    If the OP movement was legit it would be a 14902 case.
    Hope that helps.
     
    mikechi22 likes this.
  17. mikechi22 Aug 12, 2017

    Posts
    921
    Likes
    730
    That's a good tip! I'll dig through there and find it...I spent a lot of time on that site earlier and don't remember this, but glad to know it's there!