Omega Constellation 168.004 cal 561. Double signed Meister

Posts
4
Likes
8
Newbie here, I just bought my first Omega Vintage. From what I know, it seems to be a Constellation model 168.004 cal 561 and has a double signature with the retailer Meister. I would be happy if you guys can share any information you may have on this model and your thoughts on this specific piece.
Thanks
 
Posts
142
Likes
200
Retailer signature adds a bit of value, i like them. just not that model so much. Im more into 168.005 (Doglegs ;D)
 
Posts
2,510
Likes
2,901
Awesome first model, I personally love this case, goes good with gray/black leather
 
Posts
5,631
Likes
8,723
Welcome to OF @david84
A pretty good watch for a first buy as @kaplan says.

I have a fondness for this style of Constellation so congratulations on your new watch.
Good looking dial, very good case too.
IMHO the added Meister doesn’t add value but some like it and are willing to pay a premium for it.

The 168.004 was the first hidden crown Constellation ( strictly speaking there is an earlier version but .004 is generally held as the first)
It was first produced from 1962 but was really released in 63 and ran through to about 1967.
The cal 561 has a semi quickset date.

Do you have any additional information on the watch , like the movt serial number?
I ask because the dial is unusual in that it appears to have notches for lume at the ends of the indices but no Ts on the dial.
This did occur on later (70s) watches but not so much on 60s watches unless very early -like 62/63.

Nothing about the dial suggests it is otherwise incorrect but it is a bit of a conundrum
 
Posts
4
Likes
8
Thank you very much for your detailed feedback.

Unfortunately I don’t have more info on the movement as I haven’t opened it neither have the tool to do so.

Welcome to OF @david84
A pretty good watch for a first buy as @kaplan says.

I have a fondness for this style of Constellation so congratulations on your new watch.
Good looking dial, very good case too.
IMHO the added Meister doesn’t add value but some like it and are willing to pay a premium for it.

The 168.004 was the first hidden crown Constellation ( strictly speaking there is an earlier version but .004 is generally held as the first)
It was first produced from 1962 but was really released in 63 and ran through to about 1967.
The cal 561 has a semi quickset date.

Do you have any additional information on the watch , like the movt serial number?
I ask because the dial is unusual in that it appears to have notches for lume at the ends of the indices but no Ts on the dial.
This did occur on later (70s) watches but not so much on 60s watches unless very early -like 62/63.

Nothing about the dial suggests it is otherwise incorrect but it is a bit of a conundrum
 
Posts
5,631
Likes
8,723
Thank you very much for your detailed feedback.

Unfortunately I don’t have more info on the movement as I haven’t opened it neither have the tool to do so.

Did the seller not provide information on the movt?
It would be interesting to see if it is an early .004 ( I.e. pre the application of Ts on a tritium dial)
Certainly better not try to open the watch yourself unless you have a soft rubber ball to screw the back off.
 
Posts
4
Likes
8
Nope. He just mentioned the watch has been serviced by his watchmaker.



Did the seller not provide information on the movt?
It would be interesting to see if it is an early .004 ( I.e. pre the application of Ts on a tritium dial)
Certainly better not try to open the watch yourself unless you have a soft rubber ball to screw the back off.
 
Posts
3,650
Likes
6,178
I ask because the dial is unusual in that it appears to have notches for lume at the ends of the indices but no Ts on the dial.
This did occur on later (70s) watches but not so much on 60s watches unless very early -like 62/63.
It is normal with early 004.
I have some in my collection and one doesn'f, one does with 2 t's.

 
Posts
219
Likes
240
Not a fan of non-dog leg constellations in general but this one has a much better vibe to me. It feels like the marriage of Piepan Constellation and Longines Conquest, which yields an aesthetically pleasant look. MEISTER text's incompatible font with Constellation below doesn't bother me for some reason, maybe I like it's cross-match with the texts above. I also liked the strap selection. Overall the watch doesn't look like a newbie tax to me - you've gotta have butterflies in your stomach these days 😎
 
Posts
5,631
Likes
8,723
It is normal with early 004.
I have some in my collection and one doesn'f, one does with 2 t's.


Thanks for the image @hoipolloi
That’s why I was asking about the movt serial.

You don’t see many really early .004s.
Ones without Ts must be from the earliest 62/63 batch of watches.
And it’s always nice to pin down a watch with an anomaly with facts for future reference.

What is the serial number on your ‘no-T’ .004?
 
Posts
2,519
Likes
3,557
MEISTER text's incompatible font with Constellation below doesn't bother me for some reason, maybe I like it's cross-match with the texts above.
IIRC the "MEISTER" will not look the the original Omega Fonts because it is added after production by the retail seller.
 
Posts
3,650
Likes
6,178
What is the serial number on your ‘no-T’ .004?
It is not with me at the moment but I still remember it has a 21mil 561 movement.
 
Posts
5,631
Likes
8,723
It is not with me at the moment but I still remember it has a 21mil 561 movement.

Thanks
So not really that early at all then.
I thought you were going to say 19mil or 20m at a push.
Good to know all the same.
 
Posts
4
Likes
8
Thank you all for your valuable feedback. This is very much appreciated. It is super interesting to have as much knowledge on a 60 years old piece !