- Posts
- 9,596
- Likes
- 27,711
ConElPueblo
路
The one you picture there is a 168.053...
advice on 1971 constellation please
The one you picture there is a 168.053...
- Posts
- 2,451
- Likes
- 7,053
Deafboy
路路His Holiness Puer SurdusThe one you picture there is a 168.053...
- Posts
- 40
- Likes
- 18
Gb2cv
路I've read all comments with interest and looked on google images as suggested - is this the way the watch should look? Currently on ebay uk at 拢1995 (18k gold)
- Posts
- 40
- Likes
- 18
Gb2cv
路then again this one seems to lack the bezel and has the swiss made above the indices with a slightly different dial design
All very confusing and a can of worms.
All very confusing and a can of worms.
- Posts
- 40
- Likes
- 18
Gb2cv
路seller has provided me with images of movement if this is of help. Has he cannily avoided showing the numbers of am I just paranoid?
I
I
- Posts
- 9,596
- Likes
- 27,711
ConElPueblo
路then again this one seems to lack the bezel and has the swiss made above the indices with a slightly different dial design
All very confusing and a can of worms.
Ask yourself why a watch without tritium has a "T<25" marking on it 馃う
A marking that wasn't used by Omega, btw 馃う馃う馃う
It is NOT confusing or a "can of worms". The watch you show three posts above this one is a 168.017, which I wrote previously is a completely different watch with a movement from a completely different family of movements!
Well, it sure looks like the OP's watch... lol
Deafboy, you show a watch that you claim is called 168.0056, right? It is NOT a 168.0056, it is a 168.053 - of course it looks like the OP's, it's the same reference!
- Posts
- 15,048
- Likes
- 24,057
cicindela
路路Steve @ 惟FCouldn't we just say it's an ugly watch and let it go at that 馃榿
- Posts
- 2,451
- Likes
- 7,053
Deafboy
路路His Holiness Puer SurdusDeafboy, you show a watch that you claim is called 168.0056, right? It is NOT a 168.0056, it is a 168.053 - of course it looks like the OP's, it's the same reference!
Please don't get me wrong, I wasn't claiming it was 168.0056; it is just what others thought the reference was from the other OF post. In fact, I was in agreement with you when I wrote "Well, it sure looks like the OP's watch... lol". Just a misunderstanding.
- Posts
- 9,596
- Likes
- 27,711
ConElPueblo
路Sorry @Deafboy I got all hot and bothered 馃榿
@cicindela - agree wholeheartedly... An expensive, ugly watch!
@cicindela - agree wholeheartedly... An expensive, ugly watch!
- Posts
- 2,451
- Likes
- 7,053
Deafboy
路路His Holiness Puer SurdusI have a lot of free time so I improved your avatar.馃槣
- Posts
- 15,048
- Likes
- 24,057
