Cal 561 vs 564 desirability in a 168.005

[norb1967]

I was just wondering about people’s input on this. Are dog leg Connies with cal 564 (quick set) considered more desirable than their 561 counterparts, or is there not really any difference? I understand that some like quick set but are there any other factors at play?

Edited: Jul 13, 2023

 

[gatorcpa]

I don’t consider them “more desirable”. I have a few 564/751 movements and the quick change date can be problematic if not serviced correctly. Good news is that 564 date can also be advanced through the 9pm-1am cycle, similar to 561.

I’d say no difference price-wise, but watch out for the quick date.
gatorcpa

 

[norb1967]

gatorcpa

I don’t consider them “more desirable”. I have a few 564/751 movements and the quick change date can be problematic if not serviced correctly. Good news is that 564 date can also be advanced through the 9pm-1am cycle, similar to 561.

I’d say no difference price-wise, but watch out for the quick date.
gatorcpa

Watch out for the quick date meaning be wary of them if not serviced properly?

 

[AlexD]

I also do not call it more "desirable" but i prefer the quick set function.

 

[Peemacgee]

When I first started collecting - having read extensively about Constellations I was somewhat obsessed about having a Constellation with the ‘zenith’ of Omega’s movements, the cal 564.

Even when the forum grandees lauded the 561as the finest movement, I would be confused and think “why don’t / aren’t they praising the ‘better’ 564?”

Eventually I realised that the 564 isn’t better, just different. ( think of it as having an additional complication)

In fact, due to its perceived fragility some avoid the 564 - but taking on board the advice of watchmakers like @Archer it shouldn’t present any issues if treated carefully.
I haven’t had a single quickset mechanism break on me (yet!)

The 564 was seen as a development with the quickset date but in terms of quality it is not necessarily better or more desirable.

Edited: Jul 14, 2023

 

[gatorcpa]

norb1967

Watch out for the quick date meaning be wary of them if not serviced properly?

Yes.
gatorcpa

 

[norb1967]

Peemacgee

When I first started collecting - having read extensively about Constellations I was somewhat obsessed about having a Constellation with the ‘zenith’ of Omega’s movements, the cal 564.

Even when the forum grandees lauded the 561as the finest movement, I would be confused and think “why don’t / aren’t they praising the ‘better’ 564?”

Eventually I realised that the 564 isn’t better, just different. ( think of it as having an additional complication)

In fact, due to its perceived fragility some avoid the 564 - but taking on board the advice of watchmakers like @Archer it shouldn’t present any issues if treated carefully.
I haven’t had a single quickset mechanism break on me (yet!)

The 564 was seen as a development with the quickset date but in terms of quality it is not necessarily better or more desirable.

Thanks for this - interesting to hear your take.

 

[hoipolloi]

564= cannon pinion saver.

 

[norb1967]

hoipolloi

564= cannon pinion saver.

But isn’t cannon pinion wear not that common? Or does it happen a lot

 

[hoipolloi]

norb1967

But isn’t cannon pinion wear not that common? Or does it happen a lot

I have heard complaints about worn cannon pinion on 561, 562 but nothing from 564, 565.
From my own collections, I have some loose cannon pinion on 561, but not on 564, 565.

 

[norb1967]

hoipolloi

I have heard complaints about worn cannon pinion on 561, 562 but nothing from 564, 565.
From my own collections, I have some loose cannon pinion on 561, but not on 564, 565.

Okay. That’s interesting. How easy are cannon pinion issues to solve?

 

[Archer]

I would take a quick set date version any day, over a non quick set date...

 

[TIMElyBehaviour]

Archer

I would take a quick set date version any day, over a non quick set date...

I have a 564, accurate and works fantastic. Quick set is perfect. I’d want this function over the non. If the quickset stops working then you still have the option of reversing to 9pm then to 1 am till you get it sorted out.

 

[dsio]

The real quickset is Cal 551, laziness maximised

 

[sonicosa]

hoipolloi

I have heard complaints about worn cannon pinion on 561, 562 but nothing from 564, 565.
From my own collections, I have some loose cannon pinion on 561, but not on 564, 565.

Anecdotal on my end, but I have a 565 in the service queue with a loose canon pinion.

 

[hoipolloi]

norb1967

Okay. That’s interesting. How easy are cannon pinion issues to solve?

You need to remove the dial and hands. Get access to the cannon pinion and this tool.

 

[TIMElyBehaviour]

hoipolloi

You need to remove the dial and hands. Get access to the cannon pinion and this tool.

Agreed, to be honest I’d rather fix a quick set date issue. Most of the time it’s just a misaligned part etc.

 

[norb1967]

Archer

I would take a quick set date version any day, over a non quick set date...

Just because of the convenience?

 

[Archer]

norb1967

Just because of the convenience?

Yes

 

[Archer]

hoipolloi

You need to remove the dial and hands. Get access to the cannon pinion and this tool.

Bergeon will make a tool for just about anything, even turning a simple job into a complex one needing a special tool like this...🙄