Edit for clarification, because I was clear as mud with my first post: I'm beginning the hunt for a Conquest and plan to use this thread to try and learn as much about these beautiful watches as I can before diving into a purchase. While I was offered the first one indicated here I really am not yet looking to buy. While perusing Longines on Ebay and watching a few to see what they sell for I was made an offer on one. I wasn't really looking for a watch with a date, but I have always found the Longines with the date at 12 to be visually interesting, and I love the Conquest line. Anyway, I was watching this one and the seller has offered it to me for $600. It has a 291 movement and the owners says it's a reference 9024. My biggest concerns lie with the dial. It has ugly lume points on the dial that look like it was relumed by a guy with some lume on a q-tip. Then the hands lack lume, which strikes me as odd, but the dial has 'T' marks on each side of 'Swiss Made.' The minute markers look fairly consistent, the "Longines" script looks alright to me, I'm not sure about the script for "Conquest Automatic" though. The crown is missing the flying hourglass, so I suspect it's a service crown. In short, I'm not knowledgeable enough about Longines to make an informed decision about this one on my own. Any assistance on this one would be greatly appreciated.
I'm also looking at this one and it looks much better to me overall. All the fonts look good to me, I love the linen dial. It has a signed crown. The only negative is that, to me, the lugs look over polished on the side shots.
They both have some issues; I would probably keep looking. As noted, the first one has a re-lumed dial and either the hands are wrong or have very dark lume, I can't tell. The crown is generic and the crystal is missing the magnifier. The second one is just unappealing, I would not be happy with the condition of the dial or case, and the back is very bad. The fish's face is completely gone. @seekingseaquest knows a lot about these. Here is mine as another data-point.
I do believe in passing on both. I'm trying to be more measured in my entry to the world of Conquests than I was with my first Connie some years ago. I don't feel like paying a newbie tax twice. @Dan S the lugs on yours look very keen. I have a pair of questions for you. What is the number on the lug? And what's up with the enamel on the fish? I don't belive I've seen a single example that didn't at least have the fish head showing through.
The number on the lug should match the number inside the case-back. The fish head is supposed to be uncovered by enamel, as if the fish is breaking the surface. But the rest should be covered by enamel. Mine is almost intact, but not completely.
My biggest recommendation to you is to wait for a nice example (enamel in particular). These watches can still be had in very nice condition below $1k.. be patient and one will come along.
Oh, I am. I'm mostly trying to gather as much information about these watches as I can before I buy one.
Yeah! I thought it was joining of 2 words “confusion” & “question” but it turns out it’s all about the Conquest…
These linen dial ones are often heavily discolored. My example is a good reference of what you should look for, imho. Some pics below in various lighting conditions. Longines at the time was top of the bill and the finishing of their watches was accordingly. Don't settle for a mediocre example. The other day I put it on a Bonklip-style bracelet with dimples matching the hour markers, which I thought was a cool match.
So this one has a rather tatty dial but the case looks pretty sharp. I'm guessing that this is what a really good medallion is going to look like with just the fish head exposed. The lugs are missing a batch number on this one though, if I were looking at it to buy would that be a concern?
I currently own two Longines ref. 9000 and the 9020 shown above. Below is a pic of the two 9000 case backs, left one is rather worn and/or polished and the right one retains factory finish. That is what the medallion should look like (the rest of the case back is different, though, for the 9000 has a scalloped one). The number on the lug is not a big worry on itself, but it is an indicator of (over)polishing. In my opinion, any polishing is overpolishing, though
Sorry, I mis-spoke when I wrote "batch number" and edited my previous post. It is just a specific number for that particular case; the batch number (aka order number) is the 5-digit number. I have heard people claim that this practice of marking cases and case-backs came from military watches originally, where a watchmaker might have many similar watches on his bench at the same time. I don't know if that is true, but ironically, military watchmakers often seemed to ignore the markings when reassembling the watches.
I wouldn’t worry about it. If the caseback reference is correct for the case, then it’s probably fine IMO. If the numbers don’t match between the case and caseback, that’s another story as there was definitely a swap. This is a tired looking watch, though.
Well I took the dive and bought this circa 1960 9026. I am not usually a fan of gold capped watches but this one just popped when I looked at it. The lugs are nice and sharp, and while there is some evidence of wear, a ding to one lug, a scratch to another, and the loss of enamel to the fish, I feel it isn't a bad example.
Gorgeous... I think I'll hunt for such reference in the near future to diversify my Conquest collection