Constellation pie pan rose gold 1967, some opinions please

Posts
448
Likes
845
Hi folks,

Got this Constellation in from a collector. I actually have never posted it since I have some serious doubts. Would love some expert views on this caseback. To me it is very strange. No bricks on the observatory and no notches for a caseback tool which I would expect for this era. My educated guess this casebook ain't right as well as the crown. Would love to know your options. many thanks in advance

Thanks!
 
Posts
7,912
Likes
35,892
Probably at best some kind of national production case from SA. Are those weld marks around the lugs? There seems to be some strange discoloration there. What does the gold test say?
 
Posts
1,117
Likes
1,791
The entire case looks suspect to me. Are there any gold hallmarks anywhere?
 
Posts
6,315
Likes
9,761
Probably at best some kind of national production case

This.
 
Posts
448
Likes
845
thanks for all the comments. I havent checked the piece for a while since it is in the bank vault. on all the pictures I havent seen any hallmarks. to me the whole case is indeed a bit suspicious but mainly the case-back. for this reason I did not want to put it for sale. regarding comment about weld markings, these are what I belief reflections due to the style of taking pictures since some where made in the tent. I am not happy about that way of taking pictures and now we do that differently. this will show less glare and points out all irregularities. If you have the watch in your hands its actually really beautiful.
 
Posts
6,315
Likes
9,761
thanks for all the comments. I havent checked the piece for a while since it is in the bank vault. on all the pictures I havent seen any hallmarks. to me the whole case is indeed a bit suspicious but mainly the case-back. for this reason I did not want to put it for sale..

If the case is contemporaneous with the movt and dial (around '67/'68 wish) then Omega had swapped brickwork observatories to plain observatories for solid gold watches (but typically of Omega, on some but not all watches) - this may explain why there are no bricks on the observatory.

The case is an intended local facsimile of the 168.010 or 168.018 (IIRC the latter never held a pie-pan dial) but with slimmer lugs and no recess for the crown in the mid case.
The fact that it is a snap back immediately rules it out from being an Omega case.

If it proves to be gold, then there would be no harm in listing it as a locally-gold-cased Constellation (there are plenty of English and French ones around).
However, the case is obviously lighter than the usual suspects ( you can't see the impression of the medallion on the inside of a European cased watch) and not of such good quality (it's a snap back) so it should be priced accordingly.
 
Posts
7,912
Likes
35,892
Another thing, if it was purporting to be a 168.010 then it should have a screw back. I'm not sure there were any Connie's with a snap back in this period, but it's later than I collect so I'm not sure about that.

Edit : I see @Peemacgee has beaten me to it regarding the snap back case
 
Posts
377
Likes
470
Also, what is up with the top left lug on the first picture. It seems to be leaning inwards.
 
Posts
6,315
Likes
9,761
I'm not sure there were any Connie's with a snap back in this period

No, no Omega-made snap backs at this time (was the last snap back a 2852, around '59?) only the shorty-lived stumpy-lugged .015/.025s front loaders deviated from the usual Constellation screwbacks of the period
 
Posts
6,315
Likes
9,761
Also, what is up with the top left lug on the first picture. It seems to be leaning inwards.

It could be bent but the lugs on this style of Connie case (.004, .010, .016., .018) often looks distorted when you try to photograph it (especially from the rear)

Edit
if you look at the rear shot -it's the opposite lug that looks bent
 
Posts
16,863
Likes
47,904
Also, what is up with the top left lug on the first picture. It seems to be leaning inwards.

As said above not a easy case to tell from photos.


If ever i have issues with lugs it’s always good to see/ask for the watch sitting flat, dial up without the strap.
 
Posts
377
Likes
470
It could be bent but the lugs on this style of Connie case (.004, .010, .016., .018) often looks distorted when you try to photograph it (especially from the rear)

Edit
if you look at the rear shot -it's the opposite lug that looks bent

Aah I see (y)

Still, however, the case looks very odd to me especially, as OP says, the emblem. Look at the sloppy work on the edges of the lines going across.
 
Posts
9,596
Likes
27,706
No, no Omega-made snap backs at this time (was the last snap back a 2852, around '59?) only the shorty-lived stumpy-lugged .015/.025s front loaders deviated from the usual Constellation screwbacks of the period

Some of the wonderful, early 60s Genèves are snapbacks. No Constellations though.
 
Posts
448
Likes
845
If the case is contemporaneous with the movt and dial (around '67/'68 wish) then Omega had swapped brickwork observatories to plain observatories for solid gold watches (but typically of Omega, on some but not all watches) - this may explain why there are no bricks on the observatory.
did ring a bell but forgot about that. I have other two/tones in stock that also have the no-brick gold medallion whereas a gold one with bricks...
 
Posts
448
Likes
845
However, the case is obviously lighter than the usual suspects ( you can't see the impression of the medallion on the inside of a European cased watch) and not of such good quality (it's a snap back) so it should be priced accordingly.
the watch is considerably lighter than the other golden connie I have in stock, but I didn't weigh them
 
Posts
365
Likes
453
That case back looks like a genuine fake in my opinion. Besides the ugly medallion the finish is terrible and sloppy. It also differs in colour.