I don’t have a micrometer or callipers but I’m pretty sure they are only a tiny bit bigger than a 14381 or a dogleg. (Like 0.5mm bigger)

I’ve seen both 168.004s and 168.010s incorrectly described as ‘jumbo’ (even by supposedly experienced collectors) but as @Shabbaz correctly says only the references he quotes qualify as jumbo Connies.
I think once something gets quoted on the web the phrase runs around and around and is re-quoted by those who don’t know any better or are trying to make their watch sound more desirable.

however, as I mention earlier in this thread, they do both wear larger than other references, especially the 168.010s, with the 19mm lug spacing - and I rather like them.

Added another ‘twin’ 168.010 to the stable


And a brace of 168.004s

 

I will measure them when i get home from holiday. I have a callipser at home. Hope I'll remember.

 

14396, too

 

Yes. I think you even could say they are rarer then the 14395. You have one right? Is it 37mm or 37,5mm?

 

Maybe I should start a "show me your jumbo connie" thread.

 

Thanks for all the info...very interesting and love the knowledge and clarification. Also loving the new thread for jumbo Connie's

 

Hello, Hope all is well!

Lovely watch, I just bought this model myself! I was wondering if you can do me a favor, I just wanted to check that on this particular model and dial configuration (pie pan and dauphine hands) that the Seconds hands are slightlyyyy longer than the minute hands?

IF you can confirm that, it would be great!

Thanks!

 

welcome @yuch006

yes, very slightly longer (perhaps by only 1mm or 2mm)

pics of your watch please

 

Thanks soo much for your answer,

This stops an OCD that ive been having!

Here is my example,

It is not in prestine condition, but the charm is there

 

The dial may not be pristine but it has vintage charm as you say - also it has a good case, original hidden crown and the less-than-common 19mm end piece BOR.

congratulations!

 

Thanks a lot!

 

Hello sir,

I have one last question after looking at some of the connies here and on forums. The applied Logo that states ''OMEGA'' the letters are slightly attached to each other at the bottom kind of like if it was cursive, right? Its soo faint I cant determine with certainty!

Thanks!

 

yes, the letters in ‘Omega’ are joined together.
Not so much cursive i.e. flowing script.
More like recessed little blocks of metal to hold the letters together but allowing each letter to be seen individually.

 

Thanks for the confirmation!

This applies for both silver logos and gold tone logos right? there is no difference in those logos except the color/material tone?

Thanks again for your time and info!!!

 

yes, that’s correct.

 

Thanks alot for the info!!

 

Sharing my Omega 168010/11

 

Is this a 168.010? Is the strap original? 1964?

 

Well, it can’t be 64 as they didn’t produce the .010 until something like 66 by which time the Omega straps had Omega logo buckles.

A @gatorcpa says, the case is polished and has lost definition.
The top left lug has suffered some damage.
The dial has some bubbling which is very common with this reference.

Whether it is worth pursuing is down to price.