Hello,

I own a 1962 pie-pan constellation (#1906XXXX), cal. 561 and, case back 168.005. Hence, serial number, caliber and case number are consistent. But the lugs are lyre-shaped and not “dog legged” shaped and I wonder if there is something wrong with this.

Thank you for your help

 

Show us the case back please, inside and out

But i can tell you now, the watch you have shown is not a 168.005!

 

The dial has unfortunately been poorly refinished as well.

 

Unfortunately I agree about the dial, but what can I do to correct this?

 

.
I'm very confused because the case back seems to me to be a correct 168.005 with its correct original 10-sided crown, but may be you are right. Thus what kind of top case with lyre-shaped lugs could fit on a real 168.005 case back? I think that a 14902 case can fit on it but as far as I know it is a dog-legged shaped case.

 

The case is a (polished) 14393.
The case backs appear to be interchangeable for these references.

 

Thank you so much! I found another thread on the Case back #14393 for pie pan indicating that: "the 168.005 caseback fit, as it and the 14393 are the same watch. The reference was changed to conform to Omega's standardized reference system about 1963 or so. “
I hope so that my watch is not a "frankenwatch" but that it was produced during this period of change of numbering (sorry for my english, it's not my mother tongue).

 

I’m afraid that’s not quite correct.
The 14393 is the same as the no date 14381.
Both pre 1963.
The precursor pre 1963 to the dog leg lug 168.005 was the 14902. (Same as the 14900/167.005 no date )

 

In this topic http://users.tpg.com.au/mondodec//aCaseStudydefinitive.pdf, one can read (page 9) :
"In 1964, case 14393 and similar styles were sold alongside the distinctive dog-leg lug cases featuring a finer, rounded bezel lines, rather than sharply chamfered, that first appeared in 14900 cases. Later replaced by case number 167.005/168.005..." Since serial number, caliber and case number are all consistent in my watch, I doubt that my entire watch is a "marriage" frankenwatch as exaggerated by gatorcpa!

 

Dating of watches using the movt serial number isn’t an exact science but 1962 is probably just about correct for your watch.
The 168.005 didn’t arrive until 1963 and 14393s would likely still have been for sale for a couple of years overlap with the renumbered doglegs.
However, you would never(correctly) have a 168.005 case back on a 14393 watch - this would have been replaced later (either by accident at service or perhaps someone lost or removed the gold medallion from the original case back)
Difficult to tell if your watch has been put together, an extract would tell you if your cal 561 started life in a pie pan 14393 but I really wouldn’t bother spending the money if I were you.
If you like it just wear it and enjoy it.

 

Thank you! I appreciated your comment and will continue to wear my watch as it is unless I can find a 14393 case back to buy or to exchange.

 

Not sure about this last sentence - the dial is badly redialled, you have badly polished lugs, and you have the wrong case back.

You also have rotor rub inside the case back - Does the rotor also have rub?

The case back is also badly pitted on the rim - Does this align with the inner case also?

You also haven't shared a photo of the movement - We can tell a lot from a movement shot too you know

Far too many unanswered questions still remain IMHO

Ps and i think at least 2 of the hands are wrong - the hr hand is too thick, and the seconds hand is too long

 

thank you for the clarification. I also had a doubt about the length of the seconds hand. Here are the photos of the mechanism that I submit to your expertise.

 

Well, the rubbing on the rotor and movt is certainly extensive and commensurate with the marks on the inner case back.

There is also evidence of previous moisture intrusion (which is likely why the dial was repainted)
I would advise a service, if you haven't had one done, to clean the movt and sort out the rotor rub.

 

Once again, thank you so much for your advices. I only have now to find a qualified watchmaker to clean it up!

 

Thanks, agree with @Peemacgee

Also seems to be a pink hair or fibre on the regulator that needs removing when the service is carried out