Forums Latest Members

MUST a 168027 case be a Constellation or Seamaster?

  1. DManzaluni May 5, 2016

    Posts
    386
    Likes
    165
    Was the 168027 case ever used on a lower grade watch? I cant find any reference to a plain (564?) automatic or Genève made in this style in the late 1960s?

    I just got an SS Connie with a 168027 case back but with no logo on the back. I dont think one has ever come off it and am wondering if this back must be non-original? I have seen some Seamasters with pretty minimalist Seamaster logos on the back but I don't suppose Omega would ever have sold the Constellation with e plain back?

    (FWW it has a 1068/654 bracelet)
     
  2. TNTwatch May 5, 2016

    Posts
    2,876
    Likes
    1,949
    Yes. Can you post some pictures?
     
    STANDY likes this.
  3. DManzaluni May 5, 2016

    Posts
    386
    Likes
    165
  4. DManzaluni May 5, 2016

    Posts
    386
    Likes
    165
    (sorry, the orignial photo appeared to be the 168017 back which I bought for this case which doesn't fit! )
     
  5. TNTwatch May 5, 2016

    Posts
    2,876
    Likes
    1,949
    Nothing visible so far is right for a constellation (except the bracelet). Do you have pictures of the movement?
     
  6. DManzaluni May 6, 2016

    Posts
    386
    Likes
    165
    Does this make it look any more like a Constellation? I figure the movement could look like this and be just a 565 and come out of a a Geneve but it does say 564 and have more adjustments. 20160413_094435-1.jpg

    Do we have any member of the al franken monster accusation brigade prepared to say that this isn't original or is it more probable that it has just lost a logo and had the back polished?
     
  7. TNTwatch May 6, 2016

    Posts
    2,876
    Likes
    1,949
    The movement could indeed come from a Constellation or a Seamaster Chronometer. But it doesn't matter really since everything else, including the case, dial, hands and crown, doesn't represent any part of any Constellation at all.
     
  8. micampe May 6, 2016

    Posts
    1,626
    Likes
    6,171
    The case looks very different indeed. Look at the tips of the lugs for example, they should not end with a point but faceted. The top of the case is also rounded but it should have an edge.
     
  9. ulackfocus May 6, 2016

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,968
    Yes. Me. The caseback would be paper thin if the "logo" were polished off.

    frankenstein.jpg
     
  10. dpadmore May 7, 2016

    Posts
    2
    Likes
    0
    There is a precedent for Constellations without fancy casebooks. There were several early 70s F300 models branded Constellation which had plain casebacks so I guess it is possible that an auto model came similarly unadorned.
     
  11. CanberraOmega Rabbitohs and Whisky Supporter May 7, 2016

    Posts
    5,570
    Likes
    6,208
    Have you got any photos/precedents/evidence of auto Connies like this?
     
    cristos71 likes this.
  12. dpadmore May 7, 2016

    Posts
    2
    Likes
    0
    No. The clue was when I used the phrase 'I guess it is possible that an auto model came similarly unadorned.' My point, which I thought was clear is that there were watches branded as Constellations which had plain backs. If this was unwelcome or irrelevant I will happily jog on.

    That said, a very quick search on the case ref threw this link up which rather suggests that this model did have an Observatory back:

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/231879539830?limghlpsr=true&hlpv=2&ops=true&viphx=1&hlpht=true&lpid=122&chn=ps&googleloc=9045529&poi=&campaignid=207297426&device=c&adgroupid=13585920426&rlsatarget=aud-133395220626:pla-131843260386&adtype=pla&crdt=0&ff3=1&ff11=ICEP3.0.0-L&ff12=67&ff13=80&ff14=122&ff19=0

    No affiliation, not my auction, only posted it to show an example of a 168.027 back
     
  13. DManzaluni May 7, 2016

    Posts
    386
    Likes
    165
    Before posting I did numerous searches on numerous different browsers in numerous operating systems and none revealed any 168027 cases in anything other than a Constellation or Seamster, so I wondered whether anyone else has seen one. Or whether an early 564 might have had an attached logo which could have come off. (Obviously no one would have taken a sunken Observatory logo and thought HEY, I HAVE GOT A GREAT IDEA: ITHINK I WILL MACHINE IT OFF)

    But has no-one seen this case on a Constellation either?
     
  14. micampe May 7, 2016

    Posts
    1,626
    Likes
    6,171
    In my opinion this case doesn't look like any Omega case, and the problem is not just the back.
     
  15. DManzaluni May 8, 2016

    Posts
    386
    Likes
    165
    Yes, but I am a bit of a newbie to this forum and obviously I am wrong in thinking this but I get the impression that certain members just like to say that any watch which has a manufacturer's original replacement part will always be, to them, an Al Franken watch.

    To you, this dial, movement, case, crown, back and everything else looks suspect. For my part, I am not so sure that anyone would go out of their way to fake up the numbers 168027 on the inside of the case. Where it cant be seen. Equally, to me, when a back fits precisely on the caae, my first instinct is not to say "what a massive coincidence, that it fits so perfectly"

    20160413_094640-1_resized_2.jpg
     
  16. TNTwatch May 8, 2016

    Posts
    2,876
    Likes
    1,949
    Franken is when incorrect parts from different models are put together. Yours is a perfect example.

    And that number is 166.027, which is not a Constellation. It's a Seamaster 120 which does not look like what you have either, so the case alone is already made of different parts - a franken case.

    It's now obvious that Omega movements and case backs can fit different models. Just something you have to learn and always watch out for when looking at a vintage Omega.
     
    ConElPueblo likes this.
  17. DManzaluni May 9, 2016

    Posts
    386
    Likes
    165
    Are you saying that there could be Seamaster 120s out there which do not have the Seamaster logo on the case back?

    Thanks for your clarification: I had received the impression on this and certain other forums that Al Franken meant that someone had identified any watch belonging to someone else which anyone had ever made complete or got running by replacing any part with a part used in some foreign market which the forum member didn't recognise.

    I had thought likening it to the extremely clever Senator was a reaction to manufacturer's propaganda, eg when someone owns a Patek Philippe which they love because it has been in their family for ten generations. But it needs some minor part which Patek wont supply without charging the owner for complete re-bushing and for all new parts all over the movement which aren't needed. When that owner chooses not to pay twice the new retail (price) for their watch and doesn't want to be without it for three years, they might use a repairer who uses a Bestfit or Ronda part: The threat of having a supposedly Al Franken watch was what the manufacturer holds over their head in the hope of strong-arming them into overpaying for something most of which they don't need?
     
  18. TNTwatch May 9, 2016

    Posts
    2,876
    Likes
    1,949
    The 166.027 case back all have the seahorse logo at the beginning, but it's a thinly engraved logo and can easily be worn out, or on your case back it's been polished away.

    The rest of your case doesn't look like the real 166.027. Does that ring any bell to you? How about the dial, does it say Seamaster 120?

    Franken as in Frankenstein, nothing to do with the US senator (unless he sells put-together watches).