Hidden crowns

D

Posts

6

Likes

0

DavidOmega

·Jul 27, 2020

As someone relatively new to the wonderful world of vintage Constellations, I wonder if anyone could tell me if the early 60's hidden crown version would have had a 10 sided crown originally? Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks

 

Posts

17,597

Likes

36,800

JimInOz

·Jul 27, 2020·Melbourne Australia

D DavidOmega

As someone relatively new to the wonderful world of vintage Constellations, I wonder if anyone could tell me if the early 60's hidden crown version would have had a 10 sided crown originally? Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks

I seriously doubt it as I've never seen one. Will stand corrected if one does pop up though (one with impeccable provenance that is).

 

Posts

670

Likes

675

kpaxsg

·Jul 27, 2020

Almost hidden

 

Posts

107

Likes

154

Lacazema

·Jul 27, 2020

I think the question was about the 10 sided crown belonging on a "hidden crown" constellation, not if there were hidden crown constellation references.

 

Posts

2,760

Likes

6,815

seekingseaquest

·Jul 27, 2020

JimInOz

I seriously doubt it as I've never seen one. Will stand corrected if one does pop up though (one with impeccable provenance that is).

Agreed. I don’t think so.

 

D

Posts

6

Likes

0

DavidOmega

·Jul 27, 2020

That helps. Thank you for your responses -appreciated

 

D

Posts

6

Likes

0

DavidOmega

·Jul 27, 2020

kpaxsg

Almost hidden

 

D

Posts

6

Likes

0

DavidOmega

·Jul 27, 2020

Nice watch! Is that a 62/63 peice?

 

Posts

6,065

Likes

9,379

Peemacgee

·Jul 27, 2020·Purrrr-veyor of luxury cat box loungers

D DavidOmega

As someone relatively new to the wonderful world of vintage Constellations, I wonder if anyone could tell me if the early 60's hidden crown version would have had a 10 sided crown originally? Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks

welcome @DavidOmega

It would have indeed been truly perverse of Omega, who, having invented the exceptionally user-unfriendly decagonal crown then placed one on the hidden crown case, making it even more difficult (impossible?) to use. 😵‍💫

It is thought that the ‘hidden crown’ reference has a couple of options for crowns.
This going on what has been seen/reported to date. (And referring to both .004 and .010 references)
All are round and knurled.
‘Fully hidden‘ where only a very tiny bit of the crown sticks out of the side of the case.
‘Semi-hidden’ where a significant part of the crown is exposed but most of it is hidden
‘Dome-ended‘ crown where the end is not flat but domed and sticks out significantly but most of it hidden.
‘replacement‘ crown, which is much ‘longer’ than the original crowns and sticks out much further.

hope that helps

 

Posts

324

Likes

639

1jansen

·Jul 29, 2020

kpaxsg

Almost hidden

Another example in 18K gold.

 

Posts

6,065

Likes

9,379

Peemacgee

·Jul 29, 2020·Purrrr-veyor of luxury cat box loungers

1jansen

Another example in 18K gold.

stunning

is it .004 or .010?
do you know what serial/year this is ?
not seen an OM dial on either reference (they generally came in later)

 

Posts

324

Likes

639

1jansen

·Jul 29, 2020

Thank you and your remarks on OM dial.
No sure of the ref. It is an England case. From the markers, I would say it is a later ref. 168.010 of 63.
Any other insight ?

 

Posts

6,065

Likes

9,379

Peemacgee

·Jul 29, 2020·Purrrr-veyor of luxury cat box loungers

1jansen

Thank you and your remarks on OM dial.
No sure of the ref. It is an England case. From the markers, I would say it is a later ref. 168.010 of 63.
Any other insight ?

Ah!
I should have remembered this watch.
Not only for the remarkable case but also for the ‘vexing’ hallmark.

I’ve never quite understood why, if the .010 being a “replacement for the .004”, Omega give both the same first year of production date. (1962)
however, there are are relatively few 561 .010s, the majority being 564s, whilst it is the other way round for .004s
so I think it reasonable to suggest one followed the other.
Being an English case, it’s difficult to know whether it’s a ‘facsimile’ of an .004 or .010.
I suppose if it has a 19mm lug spacing it would be the latter, if 18mm the former.

do you have the movt cal and serial number?

 

Posts

324

Likes

639

1jansen

·Jul 29, 2020

You are probably right.
I do know the lug size cuz I do not have the watch with me. It is now at the bank vault.
It is cal 564 and serial no. 26,972k.
Thanks for your insights.

 

Posts

6,065

Likes

9,379

Peemacgee

·Jul 29, 2020·Purrrr-veyor of luxury cat box loungers

1jansen

You are probably right.
I do know the lug size cuz I do not have the watch with me. It is now at the bank vault.
It is cal 564 and serial no. 26,972k.
Thanks for your insights.

This starts to make a lot more sense. (Or at least some sense)
A 26,97xxx serial, cal 564 would place the date around ‘68/‘69, which is much more in keeping with the OM signed dial.
Now, watches were frequently sold years after their production date but if the case was made ‘64/‘65, it’s just a question of why it was kept hanging around for three or four years waiting for a movt.
So, either the movt (and dial) were replaced but given the condition of the case, I can only think it’s to do with it being a locally cased watch being assembled long after the case was made.

 

Posts

324

Likes

639

1jansen

·Jul 29, 2020

Appreciated!