C Case Constellation Question

Posts
5
Likes
5
Hello, first post here. Looking for a vintage Omega and I really like the “C” case Constellations but would prefer one in a larger size like 37mm, wondering what some of the larger reference numbers are? I did my best to search jumbo constellations between google and the forum but I mainly come up with the 168.001 and the 14777. Thanks!
 
Posts
296
Likes
788
As far as i know,“C” case Constellations are 34-35mm
 
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,981
As far as I have seen, the C-shaped were all the same size for the run. The larger watches of this era were the ones like 168.022 Seamaster’s....I’m sure others can chime in with the specific references that were over 36mm.
Have you worn on a 34-36mm Omega? Many new-comers to vintage watches shy away from the smaller watches as they don’t have enough exposure to them, but after donning one for a few days, fall in love with the form factor and sleek sizing- much lighter and easier to wear than modern bulky watches.
 
Posts
5
Likes
5
Thanks for your help. I did own a 34mm Rolex Oyster which just didn’t work for me but for some reason I love the look of my 34mm Marathon GG-W-113 on my wrist. I’m looking for an Omega to fill the void of the Rolex now that I’ve sold it. I tried on one of the larger vintage Seamasters and absolutely fell in love with the fit, unfortunately there were some issues with the watch which I was thankfully able to return and now trying to avoid making the same mistakes again have been reading lots on this forum. I can’t really say as to why I want a Constellation over getting a legit Seamaster that I already know I like but I just do. The 168.001 and 14777 are beautiful and it’s more than likely they are my answer. I just prefer the “C” case but if anyone has any other 36mm+ Connie refs to share it would be greatly appreciated. Looking forward to sharing more on this platform, thanks everyone.
 
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,981
The c-shaped Connie’s wear a bit bigger than the 34 Rolex’s- I have 2. Plus they are cheap in comparison to their older siblings so not as painful if they don’t work for you. You could easily pick one up for a song and if you don’t like it- just flip it for no money lost. They wear perfectly IMO and I have watches from 30-44mm, and appreciate each for their own merits.
Here’s mine on my 7.25” wrist for reference.
 
Posts
323
Likes
1,132
Hi there @nslosh welcome to the forum! The C-case's are lovely and some of the dials are very striking so have good wrist presence. I have been down the Connie jumbo rabbit hole, there are a few threads on here about them you can read about:

https://omegaforums.net/threads/japanese-constellation-37mm-jumbo.98726/

As you've already mentioned 168.001 & 14777, here are some more 14395, 14396, 14747 (i think) - those are from memory from my previous research.

During my hunt for a jumbo Connie I stumbled across the Jumbo Seamaster's & as luck had it managed to bag a 2976 model which is no date.

Here is a couple of pics:

C-Cased 168.029:


Seamaster 2976:

 
Posts
5
Likes
5
Thanks everyone, beautiful Omega’s all around. @JwRosenthal we have the same wrist size and looks great on your wrist, that gray dial is beautiful! @DJG2645 likewise on your gray dial and thanks for the link and extra references. I love The look of vintage no dates, that Seamaster is awesome! @Panjo with a gray dial too... those hands form a very nice contrast with it. Thanks for all the pics and refs they will be very helpful in my search for my own piece.
 
Posts
323
Likes
1,132
Thanks everyone, beautiful Omega’s all around.I love The look of vintage no dates, that Seamaster is awesome!
I have a 7" wrist so the Seamaster has a lot of wrist presence at 37mm (w/out crown)
 
Posts
9,596
Likes
27,691
You should definitely find a Omega Seamaster ref. 168.034 - that's the chronometer-rated day/date version, but the same case/dial setup is available as a day-only version too called the 168.035.

Carries a lot of the same c-case-esque design cues and is a lot bigger. Same movements as the Constellations and come in a couple of interesting dial tones.

455895-621d4e73b0a21a43f22464c36572471c.jpg
 
Posts
5
Likes
5
@ConElPueblo awesome suggestion, just checked out the 168.035 and I think I’m in love. I might need several Omegas now...
 
Posts
747
Likes
10,059
The C-cased Constellations do wear larger than their 35mm would suggest - my 168.017 from ~1968

Good luck on your hunt!
 
Posts
5
Likes
5
@jB1128 I’m not generally a gold watch guy but I would rock that one any day, beautiful man thanks for sharing.
 
Posts
747
Likes
10,059
@jB1128 I’m not generally a gold watch guy but I would rock that one any day, beautiful man thanks for sharing.
You and me both! There are some spectacular examples out there, be patient, and keeping doing what you're doing. Thanks for the compliment, she's a great watch.
 
Posts
909
Likes
4,359
Fair to say that @jB1128 has a stunning example above and if that doesn’t convert you to the cause, @malilis has helpfully bumped up the C-case thread so that you can look at the range out there. The C-case Connie is a great watch.

I think the length and case design itself helps it have more presence on the wrist than its diameter, as others have said. It still has a fresh, modern look.

for your purposes, @DJG2645 probably has the best of both worlds with his jumbo Seamaster and the C-case!

Stick around, read widely in the vintage forum and look at the WRUW thread in Open Discussion to see what others have on their wrists!

My C-case: