Forums Latest Auctions Members

Crystal replacement for 168.005 Constellation

  1. wwhntr

    wwhntr Apr 28, 2015

    Posts
    519
    Likes
    342
    Can anyone here help with some detailed information? Need to confirm outside diameter measurement for crystal on a 168.005 Constellation. Replacing crystal because it is not genuine Omega and the reflector ring is not wide enough to cover gap between dial and case.

    Otto Frei website indicates an Omega part 5015 should fit. I had an old genuine Omega crystal in paper sleeve marked No: 5015, Size: 30.6MM, but the crystal that was on watch measures 31.55MM. (Cannot provide pictures at this time because watchmaker has watch.)
     
  2. Archer

    Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Apr 28, 2015

    Posts
    15,181
    Likes
    30,527
    You don't indicate case material (no one ever does it seems) so I'll assume Stainless. Also hard to know which 168005 you are referring to, so I'll give both (both are for 56X movements).

    For case 055ST1680005:

    063PZ5016 - GLASS PLEXI ST RING D30.62 H5.58

    For case 055ST1680050:

    063PZ5171 - GLASS PLEXI ST RING D33.12 H4.4

    Cheers, Al
     
    apsm100 likes this.
  3. wwhntr

    wwhntr Apr 28, 2015

    Posts
    519
    Likes
    342
    Al,

    Thanks for the quick reply! I figured you would be the one to address such a detailed inquiry.

    Case is stainless, but I believe the only #'s inside case back are 168.005. Has a caliber 561, serial #20,391,491. (Since the hands and markers are yellow, was going to use yellow reflector ring and yellow crown. Not sure it would have come from Omega this way?)....Opinion?

    Never have seen case ref 055ST1680005 or 055ST1680050. Are these #'s that Omega uses for parts system? (Never would have thought about same ref having different size crystals.)

    Neither of the crystal measurements for 063PZ5016 or 063PZ5171 come close to 31.55MM. Beginning to wonder if I have come upon a counterfeit 168.005.

    Kind Regards,
    Keith
     
  4. TNTwatch

    TNTwatch Apr 28, 2015

    Posts
    2,849
    Likes
    1,865
    CousinsUK indicates PZ5015 with silver ring and PX5015 with the yellow ring for the 168.005. Size 30.6mm is correct at the edge.

    PS: Does the crystal you have fit the watch?
     
  5. wwhntr

    wwhntr Apr 28, 2015

    Posts
    519
    Likes
    342
    The 5015 crystal at 30.6MM is too small. The crystal removed from watch measures 31.55MM.

    I puzzled now!!! Archer's reply above indicates two options on crystal...neither matching size of crystal removed from watch. That's why I commented concern about my 168.005 being counterfeit or could it be possible someone mismatched body of case and case back?
     
  6. Northernman

    Northernman Apr 28, 2015

    Posts
    4,212
    Likes
    16,469
    ::popcorn::Pictures please?
     
  7. wwhntr

    wwhntr Apr 28, 2015

    Posts
    519
    Likes
    342
    I know pictures might clear this up quickly, but watchmaker has 168.005. Will try to get pictures posted by weekend. Thanks for the replies!
     
  8. X350 XJR

    X350 XJR Vintage Omega Aficionado Apr 28, 2015

    Posts
    8,042
    Likes
    15,680
    I've always used 30.6 in these.

    BWT a steel case would originally have had a silver crown and silver ring regardless of the color of the hands and figures.
     
    wwhntr likes this.
  9. TNTwatch

    TNTwatch Apr 28, 2015

    Posts
    2,849
    Likes
    1,865
    Al's second option is for a completely different watch, a rather rare Seamaster.

    Not sure if you know how a 168.005 should look like, but your watch could be a 168.004 with the crystal at about 31.5mm. Pictures would say a lot.
     
  10. wwhntr

    wwhntr Apr 28, 2015

    Posts
    519
    Likes
    342
    This is only picture I have available...quick iPhone pic taken when purchased. Think I've answered my own question regarding mismatched case body and case back. The lugs on "168.005" pictured are not angled/doglegged like all other examples of 168.005's I have found. (Note gap between dial and reflector ring also.)

    Well, at least I got a really nice 14381 with super clean "rail" dial in this deal!

    Omega Constellation pic.JPG
     
  11. TNTwatch

    TNTwatch Apr 28, 2015

    Posts
    2,849
    Likes
    1,865
    Looks more like a 168.004. Case backs are not interchangeable here.
     
  12. X350 XJR

    X350 XJR Vintage Omega Aficionado Apr 28, 2015

    Posts
    8,042
    Likes
    15,680
    I think its a Seamaster top, its not a 168.004.

    168.004 on left.

    IMG_3611.JPG
     
  13. TNTwatch

    TNTwatch Apr 28, 2015

    Posts
    2,849
    Likes
    1,865
    You meant right? Agree that lugs are too thick, but I just want to give some benifit of the doubt on the "camera distortion" along some hope for him. :)
     
  14. X350 XJR

    X350 XJR Vintage Omega Aficionado Apr 28, 2015

    Posts
    8,042
    Likes
    15,680
    Yes, right.:oops:
     
  15. wwhntr

    wwhntr Apr 28, 2015

    Posts
    519
    Likes
    342
    Sorry about my picture quality, but the watch, 168.004, you have pictured on right, has different lugs than the one in my picture.
     
  16. X350 XJR

    X350 XJR Vintage Omega Aficionado Apr 28, 2015

    Posts
    8,042
    Likes
    15,680
    Yes, that is correct, the one in my photo is a 168.004, this is the hidden crown model.

    The one in your photo appears to be a Seamaster case top, I don't think its for a Constellation.
     
  17. mondodec

    mondodec Editor Constellation Collectors Blog Apr 28, 2015

    Posts
    825
    Likes
    771
    Agree, it's certainly not a Constellation case, which is the cause of all the confusion. Case backs for a range of Omega cases are interchangeable, hence the 168.005 case back fitting what does appear to be a Seamaster case. Hmmm, watch is franken and so I would be careful about how much you invested in the piece.

    Cheers

    Desmond
     
  18. wwhntr

    wwhntr Apr 28, 2015

    Posts
    519
    Likes
    342
    Should have caught the difference in lugs. I have about $350USD in watch. Need recommendations...do I part out watch? If so, what is 561 mvt (just had serviced/cleaned), dial, and hands worth? Any value to case back, etc...?
     
  19. Archer

    Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Apr 29, 2015

    Posts
    15,181
    Likes
    30,527
    Hi Keith,

    Omega has changed case numbering systems over the years to add another digit. This is why when you look on the Omega vintage database, you often have to add an extra zero. I can look up cases with with 168005, or 1680005, and get completely different results. Sometimes using the original number comes up with no result at all, so then it's easy to know what you are asking for, because there is only one option. For this one I get a result for both 168005, and for 1680005.

    I gave you both options because the obvious one (055ST1680005 so just adding the extra zero before the 5) didn't have the diameter crystal you said the watch case needed, so I looked up the other and included that for your information.

    Now it seems others have determined the case is a franken, so that explains why it's not working. Coincidentally, I also a 168005 here that I am having a similar problem with, but for mine the normal crystal 063PZ5016 is too large for the opening in the case, not too small as yours is. I suspect mine also has a franken case, and identifying the case frame so I can get a new Omega crystal will be difficult...

    Cheers, Al
     
  20. wwhntr

    wwhntr Apr 29, 2015

    Posts
    519
    Likes
    342
    Yes, it appears the case body and case back are a mismatch on my watch. (Have you tried a 5015 crystal for your 168.005? Measurement is 30.6MM.)

    Can you help with this question I posted earlier?
    "Should have caught the difference in lugs. I have about $350USD in watch. Need recommendations...do I part out watch? If so, what is 561 mvt (just had serviced/cleaned), dial, and hands worth? Any value to case back, etc...?"

    Regards,
    Keith