- Posts
- 1,262
- Likes
- 1,752
DIV
·Thanks Al....you are always so helpful!
My latest acquisition: an Omega Seamaster 166.010
- Posts
- 1,262
- Likes
- 1,752
- Posts
- 27,702
- Likes
- 70,404
- Posts
- 491
- Likes
- 2,332
Paulomega
·I received it! Beautiful. It was only very slightly polished and works like a charm. The spots on the dial that were visible on the first photos are hardly noticeable under normal light condition. It indeed has the quick date feature. Only the crystal is not an Omega signed one, but I have a mint spare crystal from Omega (with lens, which I personally prefer).
- Posts
- 1,882
- Likes
- 2,565
Passover
·Beautiful watches shown here, really like this style...
Thanks for sharing...
Thanks for sharing...
- Posts
- 1,262
- Likes
- 1,752
DIV
·Thank you all for your comments. Next may be a chronometer version 168.024.
Looks like they share the same caseback...
Edited:
- Posts
- 3,639
- Likes
- 6,135
hoipolloi
··Vintage Omega Connoisseur....looking at the 166.010 and the 168.024, they are VERY similar. In fact, are they not identical? What's the difference? Is the 168 the later replacement of the 166?
Looks like they share the same caseback...
The 010 powered by a non chronometer 562 or 565.
- Posts
- 4,949
- Likes
- 18,345
Shabbaz
·These models are beautiful. I have three of them. Every time I s
This is the 168.024.
....looking at the 166.010 and the 168.024, they are VERY similar. In fact, are they not identical? What's the difference? Is the 168 the later replacement of the 166?
Looks like they share the same caseback...
- Posts
- 1,368
- Likes
- 835
watch3s
·beautiful! been hunting for one of these myself for some time actually
- Posts
- 491
- Likes
- 2,332
Paulomega
·Kingsrider got me into this lust of Companion and Technical dial Omegas. Here is one I got the other day (thanks to Kingsrider) being modeled by my buddy Luca (Luca Brassi). I am very happy this one.
- Posts
- 1,262
- Likes
- 1,752
DIV
·The 024 powered by a chronometer 564.
The 010 powered by a non chronometer 562 or 565.
Like this one:
https://www.chrono24.com/omega/seamaster-date-chronometer-cal-564-rice-bracelet-watch-166010-bf311198--id6973768.htm
And this:
https://www.chrono24.com/omega/seamaster-automatic-ref-168024-circa-1970-exceptional--id7559794.htm
I believe the 166 and 168 share the same case?
Edited:
- Posts
- 455
- Likes
- 773
Vicke
·Yes, the double ref. caseback is confusing, but if you know what the numbers represent, you know witch reference is the correct one for different watches. The 8 in 168 is for chronometer, making cal.564 watches 168.024's and cal.562/565's 166.010.
See http://www.old-omegas.com/omrefcod.html
Same case, yes.
See http://www.old-omegas.com/omrefcod.html
Same case, yes.
Edited:
- Posts
- 9
- Likes
- 95
Clarky
·OP that looks like you have yourself a cracking looking watch there.
Very nice 👍
Very nice 👍
- Posts
- 1,262
- Likes
- 1,752
DIV
·Yes, the double ref. caseback is confusing, but if you know what the numbers represent, you know witch reference is the correct one for different watches. The 8 in 168 is for chronometer, making cal.564 watches 168.024's and cal.562/565's 166.010.
See http://www.old-omegas.com/omrefcod.html
Same case, yes.
- Posts
- 1,617
- Likes
- 8,652
Jerseyhammer
·Hello,
I have just bought this Omega Seamaster 166.010. It is in reasonable condition. The dial shows some spots, but nothing serious (can this be restored by a professional watchmaker?). The case doesn't seem to be polished too much. The 'S' in Seamaster is already the later style with more rounded curves, but the crown is still the ealier one.
I haven't received the watch yet and the pictures came from the seller. I don't have a photo of the movement, but the watch was serviced in 2015 and apparently runs accurately. The description mentioned a quick date set feature, so I assume it is a Cal. 565 (or 563?).
Roger
A nice example . The dial cross hairs look good . Gets my vote . Enjoy it
- Posts
- 3,220
- Likes
- 6,315
fskywalker
·From what can see 166.010 / 168.024 cases top lugs and bezel are supposed to be polished from factory while the day date sibling (166.032 / 168.023) are brushed?
Edited:
- Posts
- 1,262
- Likes
- 1,752
DIV
·From what can see 166.010 / 168.024 cases top lugs and bezel are supposed to be polished from factory while the day date sibling (166.032 / 168.023) are brushed?
- Posts
- 419
- Likes
- 184
snunez
·Agree with everyone here. I just got one of these back from the shop and the great thing about it is that it is still modern enough to wear to the office; i.e. pretty much a timeless design.
Say, in practice, does the chronometer version make much difference? I'm getting about -3s / day after a week, whilst wearing it about 10 hours per day (though this is with a fresh service).
Say, in practice, does the chronometer version make much difference? I'm getting about -3s / day after a week, whilst wearing it about 10 hours per day (though this is with a fresh service).
Edited:
- Posts
- 3,639
- Likes
- 6,135
hoipolloi
··Vintage Omega ConnoisseurThe chronometer version does not get any better than that. The difference is the feel of something "officially certified" on your wrist .
- Posts
- 1,262
- Likes
- 1,752
DIV
·I would say the biggest difference is the cost/resale value
