- Posts
- 2,464
- Likes
- 2,837
Cal 561 vs 564 desirability in a 168.005
- Posts
- 3,609
- Likes
- 6,066
- Posts
- 772
- Likes
- 2,423
tamura
·Are there 168.005/564 Connys with onyx inlays? That would be important to me.
- Posts
- 5,436
- Likes
- 8,465
Peemacgee
·Are there 168.005/564 Connys with onyx inlays? That would be important to me.
Almost certainly (I don't have one to show you so I can't say absolutely - although I'm sure someone will have one)
the 564 was released as early as 65 but lets say it was used in production watches from 66.
There is quite an overlap of the use of 561s and 564s.
Although the exact cut off time for onyx in a 168.005 is somewhat contentious, it was no earlier than say 67 (IIRC there have been uncommon examples later than that - which is why I say the cut off time is contentious )
- Posts
- 16,138
- Likes
- 34,092
- Posts
- 27,315
- Likes
- 69,672
- Posts
- 27,315
- Likes
- 69,672
- Posts
- 604
- Likes
- 1,132
TIMElyBehaviour
·The real quickset is Cal 551, laziness maximised
- Posts
- 498
- Likes
- 407
- Posts
- 29,295
- Likes
- 35,295
dsio
··Ash @ ΩFI was thinking more 70’s with the 1011. Bi directional quickset. Epitome of lazy with style.
- Posts
- 1,039
- Likes
- 507
spacemission
·I was thinking more 70’s with the 1011. Bi directional quickset. Epitome of lazy with style.
I like the 1002. It's a real robust calibre.
- Posts
- 604
- Likes
- 1,132
TIMElyBehaviour
·A real pain in the rump quick set is the tissot 2481/omega 1481. It’s the one where you have to depress the crown like a button to get it to change. They get stuck quite frequently.
