First of all forgive me for writing about an active sales listing -- you'll soon see I'm doing myself no favors and I think this kind of interesting to the broader community...

I like to write Longines' excellent heritage department whenever I get one of their vintage watches because, hey, it's free & it's fun to find out more about these cool old timepieces! So I wrote them about this RG Conquest caliber 291 and model 9025-6, a reference we are all (theoretically) pretty familiar with:



So I sent along the pertinent info and it took a while but I finally heard back. And this is what they wrote:

Originally, the serial number 11'631'xxx identifies a wristwatch in 18ct rose gold bearing the reference 9027, part of the Conquest collection. It is fitted with a Longines mechanical self-winding movement, caliber 291. It was invoiced on 1 February 1962 to the company Perusset, which was at that time our agent for France and Argentina.

So we can deduct that some transformation have probably been done after the watch has left the company. Here the case back may have been replaced.

Well, obviously that's not what I wanted to hear! So then I thought since this is clearly a 9025 maybe the back hadn't been changed but rather perhaps the movement or bridge was swapped out at some point? And then I Googled and searched around for this ref. 9027 that Longines came back with. But I came up with bupkis, nada, nothin' -- no real world examples of a 9027 that I could find. Except for one search result, rather indirect. From, you guessed it -- here!

Here are two pictures from an old thread by BartH (still hosted on Omega Forums so hope it's OK to post them again -- thank you Bart in advance):





And again from some other old catalogs that were posted here the distinction between the deluxe dial and standard dial between 9027 and 9025 is made:





So as we can see by these old catalog photos what we call the 9025 is referred by Longines as "9027" with "with a luxurious gold dial, gold hours and spheres" (translated from the Italian). Meanwhile the 9025 is pictured as a more conventional Conquest 'Railroad" dial albeit in gold and with "gold spheres" (maybe that really means "track?").

I also finally did find what the seller says is a 9025-1 in 18k with standard dial on chrono24:



OK you might be saying well then clearly the "de Luxe" version should be a 9027 and the standard gold should be 9025. EXCEPT -- essentially all deluxe versions have 9025 written in the inner back and I have never seen a 9027 inside a back of a deluxe (or anywhere else for that matter). Obviously I haven't seen everything and this is complicated by the fact that many people do not open these watches before they sell them so maybe a 9027 back is lurking out there somewhere and is more common than I think. However, to the best of my (admittedly limited) Longines knowledge, all of these deluxe 18k Conquests with their distinctive dials bear the reference 9025 and not 9027, whether the date is at "3" or at "12."
So this is one instance where I think Longines have actually got it wrong and maybe their records are indicating a distinction without a difference, i.e., Longines may have referred to the deluxe dials as 9027 internally and in promotional literature BUT they are still marked 9025 inside the backs.
What say you learned Longines aficionados -- has anyone seen a deluxe 9027??
All thoughts and opinions welcome & thanks for your input,
Tom

PS: I note also in this previous thread, the one with the helpful English catalog pics, there also seems to be some confusion about ref 9027 between the OP and the museum representative...
https://omegaforums.net/threads/a-question-of-conquest-crown.20390/page-2

 

I would now contact Longines with the serial numbers of a couple more deluxe-dial 9025's and see if the archive also refers to them as 9027's.

 

P.S. It does seem that you are correct and Longines is mistaken. And "spheres" refers to hands.

 

In any case, it's a beauty!

 

Thanks for your input!
I have written back with about 6-7 other examples of Deluxe Dial Conquest for their perusal all of which have 9025-x in the back & never 9027. So we'll see how open they are to being "corrected."
Thanks again & all the best,
T.

 

They are certainly helpful with info if they have it in writing. Unfortunately, there is no person to ask today, who worked at the factory around 1960, they are probably dead. They helped me a lot when I had questions why my 291 had a 294 movement. It was a great surprise that it was rebuilt in the factory to a 291 from a power reserve with 294.

 

I have never seen a 9027 stamped caseback, only 9025.

Some goes for the 9023 (the no date deluxe), only 9021.

I have a feeling 9027 and 9023 are inhouse deluxe references, but not stamped into the case (which it shares with the non-deluxe 18k Conquest).

 

What @BartH said.

For what it's worth, it seems that Longines heritage is swamped with many requests now and the new hires may not be up to mark as of yet. The replies I've gotten for recent enquiries have been quite odd - accepted wisdom (e.g. above) that wasn't challenged by Longines in the past are now seemingly wrong.

 

I asked Longines factory about this and got the response that deluxe will have 9027. Very strange. I have not seen a single 9027 caseback. I post the reply with pictures tonight
Br
Anders

 

Hi Anders,
I think it comes down to their looking at their records and seeing "9027" clearly written down for Deluxe dial models. But in the real world Longines did not actually mark that distinction inside the casebacks. Hence the disconnect when we try to point out our real world experiences vs. what their archives say.
In any case here are some examples I sent to them -- as we can see all are marked 9025 inside despite the deluxe dial making it highly unlikely IMO that all these backs have somehow been switched:

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f405/v...onquest-deluxe-please-check-over-2733514.html

https://www.chrono24.com/longines/l...9025-7-pie-pan-291-singer--id4003482.htm#gref

https://www.chrono24.com/longines/c...kt-9025-11-pie-pan-singer-rose--id7825377.htm

https://www.chrono24.com/longines/c...gold---dial-automatic-box--id5722252.htm#gref

http://styleintime.com/Vintage-Watc...ose-gold-longines-conquest-automatic-sold/169

https://www.ebay.com/itm/vintage-lo...007195?hash=item3f9c869c5b:g:FtMAAOSwIs5a9u1TPurchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

Thanks for your efforts & best regards,
Tom

 

Hello again

I wonder why I only see these deluxe with 9025 caseback. Where are all the casebacks with 9027. If there had been a deluxe 9027, I should have seen someone. Have you seen anyone? That's why I was wondering if it was incorrectly named in the directory / wrong information about what it would be. Many thoughts left. I think I need to contact Longines again

 

IMO, it is unlikely there are any backs with "9027" inside. As this was a dial-only distinction Longines may have not felt it worth the bother of stamping backs to indicate a different dial (that would be fairly unusual in the watch world back then for any brand, really). So their records may say 9027 to denote a Deluxe dial as it was leaving the factory (and in promotional materials) but from everything I have seen that distinction was never marked in the back. And unfortunately they probably don't have anyone still working there who was alive to witness this anomaly and so they can only go by what their records say. Bit of a Catch-22 really.
Best,
T.

 

Another one marked 9025 in the caseback, though Longines stated it should be 9027.....

 

This was my question and the answer I received

 

And a follow-up from Longines to my follow-up, which contained the links I posted above of multiple examples of 9027 with 9025 backs:



And this was supplied as their evidence:


So again when presented with real world examples they default to illustrations and their written archives. I think we simply have a disconnect between what Longines have written down and what we actually find in the real world. It wouldn't be the first time that collectors discover something in the real world that a watch company believes is incorrect because all they have to go by is their archives, whereas we get to handle and see multiple examples in the metal and on the interwebs.
Still and all, tremendous kudos to Longines Heritage for their responsiveness and willingness to engage. It is highly unusual and commendable among today's watch manufacturers, as least for non-VIPs like me.
But in this rare case and barring further evidence to the contrary I think we have to treat the 9025-9027 issue as one where we collectors know the score better than the mother company.
Best,
T.

 

Yeah, I think they're mistaken.

 

A little sad actually that Longines Heritage are so bombastic about the 9027 caseback's
as they by now have gotten multiple request about this issue

 

I don't see how it's sad. It's not like they can necessarily prove it came out of the factory with those casebacks, so they probably think it's safest to just go with what's written in their own archives. They could probably spend some time collecting more data and examining several different examples to confirm, but I feel like they're barely keeping up with extract requests as it is.

I'm certainly grateful for the service they provide and the fact that they take their brand heritage so seriously. Maybe someday we'll get a Conquest Only book or something to allow for some more extensive research...

 

sorry to revive an old thread but I thought you would find this interesting.
I recently contacted Longines for archive information on my 9027 and here's what was said:


"We thank you for contacting us and for your interest in Longines watches.
Further to your request, we are pleased to provide the information contained in Longines' handwritten registers.

Originally, the serial number 12'53x'xxx identifies a wristwatch in 18ct rose gold bearing the reference 9027, part of the Conquest collection. It is fitted with a Longines mechanical self-winding movement, caliber 291 and was invoiced on 17 June 1964 to the company Ostersetzer, which was at that time our agent for Italy.

In addition, please note that it is plausible that transformations have been made after the watch left the factory, whether it is a change of the case back. Indeed, your case back is referenced 9025."

This is what I said in response to that:

"With respect to the case back - model ref: 9027 and model ref: 9025 have the same case (and 291 movement) but different dials and hands. Therefore all model 9027 watches have case backs which are engraved with reference 9025. I have seen many 9027 watches like mine and they all have 9025 case backs.
I have never seen a case back engraved with 9027 - if you have a photograph of one please email it to me!"

And here's the reply I got from Longines:

"Regarding the reference of your watch, we have analyzed the subject with our watchmakers and we conclude that both references are the same. So, it is probably that the case back of your watch was not changed.

We hope this information will be of help to you and remain at your entire disposal for any further information you may need.

Truly yours,

Cayetano Selfa
Brand Heritage"

So Longines are now acknowledging what we thought all along; 9027 deluxe watches were originally fitted with a 9025 caseback.

 

Well, better late than never and I imagine the overwhelming number of "9027" configured watches with 9025 model numbers plus their inability to track down a real world 9027 except in vintage advertising media finally convinced them. Good for Longines for making this pivot.
And thank you very much @COYI for sharing this recent development -- very cool of you and a neat little bow on this subject.
All the best,
Tom