MUST a 168027 case be a Constellation or Seamaster?

DManzaluni · May 5, 2016

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)

TNTwatch · May 5, 2016

Yes. Can you post some pictures?

DManzaluni · May 5, 2016

View attachment 234387

DManzaluni · May 5, 2016

(sorry, the orignial photo appeared to be the 168017 back which I bought for this case which doesn't fit! )

TNTwatch · May 5, 2016

Nothing visible so far is right for a constellation (except the bracelet). Do you have pictures of the movement?

DManzaluni · May 6, 2016

TNTwatch
Nothing visible so far is right for a constellation (except the bracelet). Do you have pictures of the movement?

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.

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?

TNTwatch · May 6, 2016

DManzaluni
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.

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?

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.

micampe · May 6, 2016

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.

ulackfocus · May 6, 2016

DManzaluni
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?

Yes. Me. The caseback would be paper thin if the "logo" were polished off.

dpadmore · May 7, 2016

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.

CanberraOmega · May 7, 2016

D dpadmore
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.

Have you got any photos/precedents/evidence of auto Connies like this?

dpadmore · May 7, 2016

CanberraOmega
Have you got any photos/precedents/evidence of auto Connies like this?

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😜la-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

DManzaluni · May 7, 2016

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?

micampe · May 7, 2016

DManzaluni
But has no-one seen this case on a Constellation either?

In my opinion this case doesn't look like any Omega case, and the problem is not just the back.

DManzaluni · May 8, 2016

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"

TNTwatch · May 8, 2016

DManzaluni
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"

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.

DManzaluni · May 9, 2016

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?

TNTwatch · May 9, 2016

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

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).

MUST a 168027 case be a Constellation or Seamaster?

DManzaluni

TNTwatch

DManzaluni

DManzaluni

TNTwatch

DManzaluni

TNTwatch

micampe

ulackfocus

dpadmore

CanberraOmega

dpadmore

DManzaluni

micampe

DManzaluni

TNTwatch

DManzaluni

TNTwatch

Similar threads

Need Your Advise Constellation or Seamaster?

Ploprof 0 or Seamaster 1000 Prototype...

Constellation or seamster conversion

Help Determine Constellation Chrono or Seamaster Authenticity

Advice for a vintage omega geneve or seamaster

Omega Seamaster solid 14k gold or Seamaster. Please help!!