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!

 

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?

 

The entire case looks suspect to me. Are there any gold hallmarks anywhere?

 

This.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

Also, what is up with the top left lug on the first picture. It seems to be leaning inwards.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

Some of the wonderful, early 60s Genèves are snapbacks. No Constellations though.

 

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...

 

the watch is considerably lighter than the other golden connie I have in stock, but I didn't weigh them

 

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.