Forums Latest Members
  1. BartH Follows a pattern of overpaying Dec 19, 2016

    Posts
    1,770
    Likes
    7,686
    Hello Fellows,

    I have a spare pie pan dial for I believe a cal. 561 (at least I'm told) and it measures just short of 29mm.

    I remember reading that a cal. 561 dial will also fit on a cal. 564, but I was wondering if a let's say 168.005 dial also fits into a 168.004 case (and vice versa).

    Anyone (Hello @hoipolloi @cicindela @MSNWatch @MMMD @gatorcpa @ConElPueblo :) ) able to shed light on this?

    aaa.jpg

    bbb.JPG
     
  2. MSNWatch Vintage Omega Aficionado Staff Member Dec 19, 2016

    Posts
    6,533
    Likes
    10,837
    I don't think so - case styles are different and in my experience that doesn't work out for connies - usually because of small differences in dial diameter but usually due also to other reasons.
     
    hoipolloi likes this.
  3. hoipolloi Vintage Omega Connoisseur Dec 19, 2016

    Posts
    3,516
    Likes
    5,795
    It fits on a 561 in a 168.005 case but a bit too small for a 168.004.
    And a dial from a 168.004 is too large for a 168.005 ,(some guys just grind off the rim a bit)

    Btw, that dial looks really nice.
     
    cicindela likes this.
  4. ulackfocus Dec 19, 2016

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,974
    Been down this alley with Mike / @MSNWatch a few years ago when there was 8 or 9 (maybe more) pie pan dials on eBay. They were the same size of nearly 29mm so I asked him about them. He had a very logical answer: if they would work on the cases you usually see (16x.005 and such), he'd have bought them all already.
     
  5. BartH Follows a pattern of overpaying Dec 19, 2016

    Posts
    1,770
    Likes
    7,686
    That's good and bad news

    Good News:
    The good news is that the ref. 168.005 is my favourite reference

    Bad news:
    I agreed to buy a gold 168.004 earlier today

    :)

    The good news of the bad news is the .004 has a mint dome dial. The bad news of the good news of the bad news is that I find dome dials rather dull.

    Thanks guys!
     
  6. BartH Follows a pattern of overpaying Dec 19, 2016

    Posts
    1,770
    Likes
    7,686
    Oh well, I'm off to find a sharp gold 168.005 with a less than stellar dial (and priced accordingly), or I must persuade Peemac to sell me my old one back.
     
    Brench and Peemacgee like this.
  7. ulackfocus Dec 19, 2016

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,974
    Hold on - will that dial fit on a 168.005? I though they had 27 mm dials..... ::confused2::
     
  8. BartH Follows a pattern of overpaying Dec 19, 2016

    Posts
    1,770
    Likes
    7,686
    Hmmm

    I will measure it when I come home
     
  9. Peemacgee Purrrr-veyor of luxury cat box loungers Dec 19, 2016

    Posts
    5,161
    Likes
    7,890
    But the one you sold me has a mint dial ;)
    And crispy lugs...::psy::
    IMG_0084.JPG
     
    timeismoney, ahartfie and hoipolloi like this.
  10. BartH Follows a pattern of overpaying Dec 19, 2016

    Posts
    1,770
    Likes
    7,686
    :(
     
  11. BartH Follows a pattern of overpaying Dec 19, 2016

    Posts
    1,770
    Likes
    7,686
  12. gatorcpa ΩF InvestiGator Staff Member Dec 19, 2016

    Posts
    12,206
    Likes
    15,722
    Note that the facets on the pie-pan dials for the Ref. 168.004 dials are more subtle than on the 16X.005's

    IMG_1714.JPG

    I don't they are compatible at all based on differences in the case.

    The first dial looks to be for a .005 or an earlier 14XXX watch.

    Hope this helps,
    gatorcpa
     
  13. BartH Follows a pattern of overpaying Dec 19, 2016

    Posts
    1,770
    Likes
    7,686
    Y'all pay attention now, the evil Dutchman is going to perform some very advanced mathematics.

    Since @Peemacgee has my 168.005, I cannot measure the dial. But seeing Peemac has been so nice to post the pic of the watch and I have a micrometer, the knowledge that a real life 168.005 measures 34,2mm AND a bottle of wine ... I have reached, through below documented steps:

    IMG_4690.JPG IMG_4695.JPG

    The following conclusion:

    IMG_4696.JPG

    Taken into account the wine, the distortion of measuring with a caliper on an ipad and the general idiocy of my method (my wife is looking quite perplexed at me), 29mm sounds about right.
     
    Mark020, Brench and GuiltyBoomerang like this.
  14. MSNWatch Vintage Omega Aficionado Staff Member Dec 19, 2016

    Posts
    6,533
    Likes
    10,837
    In my experience though it's not all about the dial width - you're talking about 2 different case styles - one cannot assume the internal case design is the same especially since the external case design is quite different. For starters you can check if they take the same crystal but even if they did that's not an assurance - unless you are willing to alter the dial and or case to manufacture the fit!
     
  15. GregH Dec 19, 2016

    Posts
    913
    Likes
    8,046
    @BartH If you become bored of a mint dome dial SS Connie with gold furniture that I surmise you recently purchased here on the forum, I'd like to call Dibs!!
     
    BartH likes this.
  16. hoipolloi Vintage Omega Connoisseur Dec 19, 2016

    Posts
    3,516
    Likes
    5,795
    Dial for 005 will be a bit too large for 14XXX.
    BTW, dials for 14XXX don't have officially certified.
     
  17. MSNWatch Vintage Omega Aficionado Staff Member Dec 19, 2016

    Posts
    6,533
    Likes
    10,837
    Yes about 2mm size difference.
     
  18. gatorcpa ΩF InvestiGator Staff Member Dec 19, 2016

    Posts
    12,206
    Likes
    15,722
    I thought only difference between 149XX and 168.00X was the newer case reference series. In other words, they were the same.

    Here is 14902 with the three line dial.

    [​IMG]

    http://forums.watchuseek.com/f20/vi...see-yours-547178-post5208141.html#post5208141

    Pretty sure the dial is legit for a Ref. 14902. If not, then it should prove interchangeability.

    "Official" Omega picture that used to be on database was three-line dial also:

    KO14902.jpg

    http://naligazone.com/index.php/data-watch/omega/caliber-5/cal-561/ko-14902

    However, some of the Omega pictures were redials, so one can never be too careful.
    gatorcpa
     
  19. hoipolloi Vintage Omega Connoisseur Dec 19, 2016

    Posts
    3,516
    Likes
    5,795
    Well, because you wrote 14XXX, It made me think about 14381 and 14393.
     
  20. gatorcpa ΩF InvestiGator Staff Member Dec 19, 2016

    Posts
    12,206
    Likes
    15,722
    My bad. I should have typed "149XX".
    gatorcpa