My completely unscientific analysis - a perceived relative rarity of 167.005 models vs 168.005 models on eBay - would seem to indicate that the 167.005 no date model is rarer. Same for other no date versus date Constellation references. Do the actual production numbers bear this out and, if so, does that translate into higher values placed on the no date models?

 

No production numbers are known, but I would answer "no" to the question of value.

 

I’ve seen documents claiming 37,000 cal 551’s where made against 1,167,000 cal 561’s. Not taking into account the 564 this is still a factor of almost 32:1. So yes the 167.005 fitted with cal 551 is rarer.

 

I think this is what you are referring to. (below)
1.167m 561s+562s - I think there would have been many more 562s than 561s.
However, remembering that the automatic date complication was the most desirable ('anybody could make a movt without a date') I agree that the 551s are far less common.
But I also agree with @ConElPueblo that this relative scarcity doesn't necessarily translate into value as date/no date desirability is a matter of taste.

 

Also, some models simply only came with date, such as the C-cased Constellations. And who knows the numbers for chronometer-rated Seamasters? Add fifty years of attrition to the mix and it is educated guess work, at least to my mind.

 

Yes that’s the one, where is it btw? I remember the numbers but didn’t realise it included the 562. And yes I agree about value, it doesn’t seem to make much difference with or without. Only models which seem to suffer on value are the day/dates.

 

The perceived rarity of the 167.005 on ebay could also mean that the 551 is held in higher regard and thus owners aren’t keen on letting go of the ones they have.

 

Yes, I agree. Thanks for the info. Much appreciated.

 

Could be. Given the limited production number, it would be more difficult to acquire another good example in cases of seller’s remorse.

 

I've been looking for a decent 167.005 for a while and options are scarce...

 

Some collectors have a mild preference for no-date models, especially before quickset dates became the norm. If they have many watches and rotate wearing between them, the watches will wind down before they get worn again, and it's a little bit of a pain to set the date.

And some just think the date makes them look unbalanced.

 

To be honest I never even try to set the date on my watch

 

It’s in the link in the stickies at the top of the vintage Omegas page (full list of calibres)
Here’s the link.
http://users.tpg.com.au/mondodec/Offcial_Omega_Museum_Calibre_ list.pdf

 

Someone say 167.005

 

agreed, you also have the .004s and early .010s as date-only options - and there must have been quite a few of them.
To balance that slightly, the 14381 has to added to the ‘551 account’.

Excluding movts exported to be cased locally in precious metals, Omega must know how many of each type of watch they assembled - but I can’t ever remember seeing any reference material on the subject.

 

Take a look at the chart again and compare the total production of the no-date (550, 551, 552) and date versions (560, 561, 562). While I agree that there certainly are more date version Constellations of the 55X family available (from my own experience) on the market, there is simply very little foundation for the claim of a massively more uncommon variety. The numbers are 1.150.000 for the no-date versions and 1.170.00 for the date versions. That's about 1.8% difference in total production so until case reference type production numbers are known it is an exercise in guesswork and assumption.

And the 14393 to the '561 account'

 

Me too!

 

How could you not like the 551

 

My 167.005 and 14900, both no date 551s. I’m holding on to both of them like grim death.

 

We all like a 551.......