Early Constellation 168.004 with ‘missing text’ dial

This popped up in my ‘alerts’ and since this dial variation of the reference is uncommon,I thought I’d post it to add to the collective data bank.
‘Missing text’ dials were an Omega experiment from around 1959-1962 and are usually thought of as predominantly belonging to 14381/14393 Connies with some dogleg Connies having them too.
(Most often 14900/14902 but occasionally 167.005/168.005)
‘Hidden crown’ 168.004 references are normally thought of as having the full ‘officially certified’ text dials but uncommonly appear with this dial variation.

The gold cap case on this one isn’t the best but the dial is quite clean.
The 168.004 was first produced in 1962 - so, note how the case back shows the new style case reference plus the -62 date designation, showing it to be a transitional piece on the cusp of change ( IIRC this date coding was dropped after the full change over to the new case reference system. )
It’s also quite interesting that there’s no case-maker’s mark that you usually see in these 60s Connies.
The 19,65xx movt serial fits nicely with the 62 release date of the watch and the missing text dial.

pics from the auction house

Thanks for sharing. Didn’t realize this text came on this reference. Are the dials the same size between this reference and a 14393 (and 14902 for that matter)? Trying to disconfirm that the movement and/or dial was swapped at some point, if not for this one than for future franken-evaluation.

That was why I posted it when one came up - they’re not often seen and it never hurts to reinforce scant information.
A reasonable question about dial sizes and it has been discussed a couple of times before.
( but I can’t locate the threads )
Dial sizes definitely do differ between case references.
I’m 99% certain that, because of the slightly larger diameter case and slim bezel, that a 168.004 dial is bigger than a dogleg & 14381/14393 dial.
However, as the case diameters are the same, I can’t be certain that’s the same case for 14381/14393 and doglegs.
However, , the bezels are quite different from each other on these references and so the dial sizes are likely to be different.

I can’t quite remember who had the dial sizes last time - I think it was @hoipolloi but I’ll page @gatorcpa and @MSNWatch too, to see if one of them can kindly chime in.

thank you Hoi.
I thought it was you I remembered quoting some dial measurements once before