Hello,

I came across a nice looking 168.001. The dial and font looked original to me, but after I had a 2nd look, I noticed that the "Officially Certified" is missing. I guess this means that it is a redial. But if someone produced new dials and forgot to add "Officially Certified" that's quite a big mistake, especially considering that it otherwise looks like the real deal (at least to my untrained eyes).

What is your thought?

Thanks,

Roger

 

Just read elsewhere in this forum that there was a short period at the beginning of 1960s where the "Officially Certified" was not added. So, seems to be a genuine example then in my opinion.

 

Not just genuine, it looks as if its in good condition as well. Of course you will need a better, in focus, hi res, picture to verify the dial, but if it checks out, congratulations on a nice watch!

 

The missing text usually appears on the 14xxx versions jumbos from what I've seen
But given the change in case references was around the tail end of the missing text it could be correct
As above - clearer pictures and pics of the inner case back and movement number would help
Looks like a nice watch from the one blurry picture

 

That looks very nice. This particular case type is one of my favourites with its bevelled bezel and lugs that are fuller than the dog leg tupe that is usually favoured. This one looks very nice and if the price was right I'd go for it. Notice how sharp that bezel is and how the lugs seem very good too.

 

Thank you all. I'll post better pictures once I have it. I would have to get the back opened by a watchmaker as I don't like to scratch it, but am curios to see what the serial is. The watch is currently not working, so it is a bit risky to buy it without having seen the movement, but since it otherwise looks so clean, I took the risk.

 

If you want to compare, I found this one too a long time ago :



I also own a very similar model, no date and redial but I still love it =)
Definitively worth some money !

 

I cannot tell anything with a poor pic like that. Make sure the dial is original before you buy.

 

Unfortunately, that was the best picture I could get. If the dial of Henri68's constellation is really a redial, it may very well be that the one I showed is also a redial I am afraid. I will know...

 

I think you may have misunderstood his post
(his own is a redial not the one in the picture)

BTW how do you know it's a 168.001?
info from the seller?

 

I meant that if there is such a good redial as in Henri68's watch, it may be that the one I showed is also a redial.

No, I assumed that it is a 168.001, but it now seems to be more likely that it was one of the two 5-digit ref jumbo constellations.

 

Peemacgee, now I understood The one in Henri68's picture is actually not a redial but the one he owns.

 

This is my 14900 cal 551. I am still looking for a correct crown.

 

Shouldn't be too hard to find a "cog" crown as also used on the 60s Seamasters, which by this date is just as correct as the impossible decagonal crown.

 

Those crowns appear (sometimes) on the 14381/14393 cases and are considered equally correct but don't think I've ever seen one on a dog leg case where the decagonal crown is considered de riguer

 

Good point, me neither. I have only seen them on the models with more conventional lugs.

 

Exactly, the picture I posted was from ebay with a dial that seems original.

However, the watch I own has an obvious redial : https://omegaforums.net/threads/my-precious-first-omega.42215/

 

dibs.......nice watch, if your not interested I am.

If you get it, welcome to the club. Here's one I got a few weeks back from Bangkok.
Shot was taken just before sending of for service.

 

Bezel is sharp but already cracked/broken. Impossible to find replacement.

Could be either late 14777 or early 168.001.

 

That's no good news. I bought the watch. Are you sure?