- Posts
- 89
- Likes
- 63
Clelow
·Great Find!
My first jumbo 168.001
- Posts
- 408
- Likes
- 619
river9
·As @hoipolloi pointed out previously I too think AUTOMATIC seems a bit larger than the rest of dial wordings. Am I too much anxious or it is really a concern? Please share your thoughts.
Below are some more dial photos
Below are some more dial photos
- Posts
- 631
- Likes
- 785
Olhenry56
·Could you work out in detail "minute markers not consistent" for my education.
- Posts
- 4,949
- Likes
- 18,342
Shabbaz
·I believe if this is a fake or a put together watch with a repainted dial it's been unbelievable done and with eye for detail. Even the serial of the movement is spot on with the 24xx. I would advise the maker to go work for omega.
I believe this watch to be genuine. Even though the crosshair is strange for the reference. But hey, I've been wrong before...
I believe this watch to be genuine. Even though the crosshair is strange for the reference. But hey, I've been wrong before...
- Posts
- 4,949
- Likes
- 18,342
- Posts
- 408
- Likes
- 619
- Posts
- 1,070
- Likes
- 3,715
krogerfoot
·I believe if this is a fake or a put together watch with a repainted dial it's been unbelievable done and with eye for detail. Even the serial of the movement is spot on with the 24xx. I would advise the maker to go work for omega.
I believe this watch to be genuine. Even though the crosshair is strange for the reference. But hey, I've been wrong before...
That said, I don’t have a crosshair dial to compare. Is this one a little rough? Possible that only the crosshair was added later? (But why?)
- Posts
- 408
- Likes
- 619
river9
·I believe if this is a fake or a put together watch with a repainted dial it's been unbelievable done and with eye for detail. Even the serial of the movement is spot on with the 24xx. I would advise the maker to go work for omega.
I believe this watch to be genuine. Even though the crosshair is strange for the reference. But hey, I've been wrong before...
This is what I think as well. It’s Occam’s Razor—is it more likely that Omega made a crosshair dial 168.001 or that a forger in Vietnam got every detail right but that one? A brilliant forgery would almost be more worth owning than the real thing.
That said, I don’t have a crosshair dial to compare. Is this one a little rough? Possible that only the crosshair was added later? (But why?)
- Posts
- 4,949
- Likes
- 18,342
Shabbaz
·What did desmond say?
- Posts
- 408
- Likes
- 619
- Posts
- 3,628
- Likes
- 6,122
hoipolloi
··Vintage Omega ConnoisseurA 001 dial with sunburst effect for your reference.
- Posts
- 7,914
- Likes
- 57,234
TexOmega
·I'm a bit unhappy with the OPs dial............1st "n" in Constellation and the up top script as mentioned.
Parallax? Maybe...... Is it an Omega crystal for that ref or a generic?
Parallax? Maybe...... Is it an Omega crystal for that ref or a generic?
- Posts
- 408
- Likes
- 619
- Posts
- 408
- Likes
- 619
river9
·More macro shots
- Posts
- 788
- Likes
- 3,232
qazwsx1
·Agree with @hoipolloi that it might be the redial.
I add more pic of the ref.168.001 but the version without crosshairs.
I add more pic of the ref.168.001 but the version without crosshairs.
- Posts
- 1,258
- Likes
- 2,728
harrymai86
·To be honest I have never seen a jumbo 168.001 with crosshair
- Posts
- 408
- Likes
- 619
river9
·@qazwsx1 @harrymai86
Tks for sharing thoughts. I like OF for that.
A fellow OFer has another gold (solid/capped?) one with crosshair dial. Link to that gold example above.
Honestly in my search there are so far ONLY 2 crosshair on 168.001 jumbo dial. That's why I created this entry.
It's really disturbing to have such a good looking dial on a approx. 50 year old watch (24M serial range)...
A known expert in Connie history to whom I wrote already advised me to look at the dial underneath, especially dial feet to ascertain.
Waiting for next watch servicing to check out dial authenticity I enjoy it first.
Tks for sharing thoughts. I like OF for that.
A fellow OFer has another gold (solid/capped?) one with crosshair dial. Link to that gold example above.
Honestly in my search there are so far ONLY 2 crosshair on 168.001 jumbo dial. That's why I created this entry.
It's really disturbing to have such a good looking dial on a approx. 50 year old watch (24M serial range)...
A known expert in Connie history to whom I wrote already advised me to look at the dial underneath, especially dial feet to ascertain.
Waiting for next watch servicing to check out dial authenticity I enjoy it first.
- Posts
- 93
- Likes
- 342
- Posts
- 93
- Likes
- 342
- Posts
- 408
- Likes
- 619
river9
·That's my example with crosshair and zoom in close-up😀
Incidentally I just saw in local FB watch group an 168.001 (gold capped, 20m serial, etc). Here we go with watch pics.
To OFers please share your thoughts. Does the dial look legit in your opinion? The crown (not decagonal one) is correct?
Thanks in advance
PS: I hopefully send out mine for servicing. Then in watchmaker shop I will take clear pics of my dial without crystal and especially will take photos of dial underneath (out of curiosity of assessing its genuineness)
Edited:
