Lug sharpness & polished vs. brushed surfaces in 168.010 vs. 168.016 (and 168.018)

I have a 168.010 and a 168.016, both late 1960s "round case" models. The 168.016 is in very good condition as regards the case itself, with very sharp angled lugs that are brushed on their upper and side surfaces and polished on the narrower facets. The 168.010 is not quite as sharp, and I suspect may have had some sort of light case polish at some point in its history.

But I'm not sure how "sharp" the 168.010 would have been to begin with, and whether it would ever have had brushed surfaces like the 168.016, or if they were polished on all surfaces out of the factory. I haven't seen any pictures of 168.010s with brushed lug surfaces. Did the earlier round case models (168.004 and 168.010) always have polished lugs (and bezels for that matter), with brushed surfaces only being introduced with the later 168.016 and 168.018 models?

I do think of these later models as having more of an "early 1970s" style to them (with flatter dials, wider hands etc), and I get the impression from my experience with Seiko that brushed surfaces were a late 1960s / 1970s trend in watch design generally.

Pictures of mine - with 168.016 on the left, 168.010 on the right:

Incidentally - what exactly is the deal with the hour markers on this type of 168.010 dial? Unlike on the 168.016, where the black lines are clearly painted, these are inlaid. But I don't think it's with onyx - it it just some sort of plastic?

I saw on another thread that the true onyx-inlaid markers have a "wrap around" structure, with thin metal clearly wrapped around a big bit of onyx. These ones are not like that and superfically look as it they have a black line just painted on top as well as down the front, but if you look very closely you can make out that they are inlaid. But it doesn't look like onyx to me.

Omega has different weights of polish and I think there is a difference between brushed, polished and mirror polished.
The 168.004s and .010s are polished but not mirror polished.
However, the gold capped .010s have polished bezel and lugs but a ( horizontal) brushed polished body.

Your .010 looks polished ( beyond original finish) to me

The indices are classic onyx Constellation inserts on your .010 - unless you believe the one ( outlier) source that suggests that some onyx constellation inserts are rubber
AFAIK, The .010 is the only Connie reference that has onyx inserts and lume on the dial ( your dial should say T SWISS T at the base)

Brilliant, thanks! Really interesting to know that there's a difference between polished and mirror polished. Yes, I suspect my 168.010 has had a light polish at some point although some lugs look better than others close up..

The watch is from 1967 which I read somewhere was too late for onyx.

When I look really close up the material just doesn't look like onyx - I even saw a little hole in one of the black inserts, so perhaps it is rubber! 😲

There has been lengthy discussion about the end date of onyx on Connie dials.
It was suggested that onyx on dogleg dials finished after 24m serials and changed to painted indices.
However, several later examples have turned up with onyx so it is evident that there was ( like a lot of changes with Omega) an overlap in onyx/ painted indices on dogleg dials.
Onyx definitely continued on the .010s beyond 24m serials. ( and has that peculiarity of onyx and lume on the dial)

There are later models ( apologies, I forget which at the moment) that are described as having ‘jet’ inserts (as opposed to onyx) and not painted ( jet being a semi-precious form of coal used in jewellery)

It would be really interesting to find a way to confirm that inserts are onyx. Perhaps mine are - I was peering at them with a dissecting microscope (which I happen to have for other reasons). They are sort of polished and faintly crystaline looking on the top, but in side profile they almost look fibrous with the odd gap in the structure, while as I mentioned I can see a little hole in one of them that looks like a half-open tiny bubble.. I don't know enough about onyx to know if it could have that structure. I might try to get a really close-up photo.

that would be easy:
break open a watch
take the dial out
rip an index off the dial
peel away the gold surround to the index
-and you're left with the remaining 'black stuff' to investigate

I'll let you go first though.....😁

As far as I am aware there is only one person 'on the net' that has claimed that the 'black stuff' is anything other than onyx.
I think they suggested that an example they had was something akin to galvanised rubber.
This claim was reposted on OF in a thread but I know of no evidence for this claim to be true.
Omega have always referred to the 3-dimensional black inserts in 50s and 60s Connies as onyx (both the prismatic shaped type and the broad flat inserts on deluxe dials) - and there seems no reason why they would encapsulate rubber inserts in a solid gold surround. (but with Omega, never say never)

Details photographs of an index would be interesting all the same - but may prove inconclusive of 'guilt'