With full understanding that we're on Omega turf here, I wanted to hear folks' opinions of the comparative merits, in terms of investment value, aesthetic appeal, and, most importantly, quality of movement of an early-60s Constellation pie-pan 561 or 565 vs. a 1950s Longines Conquest 206 cal. They're in about the same price range. I know, for example, that the 206 movements were all produced _entirely_ in-house by Longines--was this also true of the 561/565s? I'm told that Longines from this period are currently undervalued, but who knows if their value will really increase markedly, while a classic Connie seems always a wise choice by definition! I won't bother posting a pie-pan image, as you are all familiar with how lovely they are, but here's a nice example of a near-mint Longines 1958 206, ss (I'm not contemplating this one specifically, this is a long-term goal).

View attachment 68717



Thoughts?

 

I think you mean 561/4, 565 is not a chronometer.

 

My bad, chronometer movements are only 560-4 inclusive, correct? Thanks for pointing that out.

 

Every day an education. 551, on the other hand, is a chronometer movement, no?

 

There's a long discussion on watchuseek about whether or not there were chronometer-rated 562s (the consensus seems to be yes, but there is debate). http://forums.watchuseek.com/f20/odd-omega-constellation-calibre-562-help-94465.html

 

What's a 206? Never heard of it.

However, if you were talking about the 290 series - which is the caliber shown in your picture and the movement used by Longines in Conquest automatics from late 1958 through 1967 - I would choose a 29x in an 18k case with an 18k dial. IMO, the 291 is a better engineered and more durable movement than the 561.

 

551 = chronometer, no date window
561 = chronometer, date window
564 = chronometer, date window with quickset (pull and push the crown to advance the date one number)

 

There's that dyslexia popping up again! Thank you for the expert advice, and for the breakdown of the Connie Chrono movements.

 

Damn, posted on the wrong version of the duplicate thread ...