Hello everyone,
I would like to ask for your opinion regarding the legitimacy and originality of an Omega Constellation ref. 168.015 I recently acquired.
This configuration could be a transitional one.
Hello everyone,
I would like to ask for your opinion regarding the legitimacy and originality of an Omega Constellation ref. 168.015 I recently acquired.
This configuration could be a transitional one.
Looks good.
Thank you Dan for your response. I’m asking because I can’t find any reference to a 168.015 with a pie-pan dial. The year of manufacture 1968 may suggest a transitional model.
Hello @benoit13_34
I'm sure you (or the seller) meant 168.025 ? (the pie pan version rather than dome dial version)
I'm more concerned by the lack of bevels on the case. (I thought that was what you were referring to when you mentioned 'transitional')
Although I don't know how you remove enough gold to create the sharp case edges while retaining the hallmark.
Here is a near identical 168.025 (rom C24) and you can see the sharp bevels on the case edges, that hey are know to have.
The case says 168.015 on the back, which is where I'm sure he's getting it from. And it is a front-loader (tool 105), and appears to be a monocoque case, so it is very clearly a 168.015 (at least as far as I can tell... that is VERY clearly a 1 in that picture, yes?).
Well, the other option is that it is a transplanted dial from a 168.025. Have you actually seen the inside of the case? Or are you trusting the seller's word for it?
you're absolutely correct. 👍
I was so busy looking at the case that I didn't read what was right in front of me. 🤦
The comment about the edge facets still stands. - and IMHO the dial has been transplanted from a 168.025 because the pie-pan is a more desirable / valuable watch.
If I was @benoit13_34 I would consider returning the watch, depending on how it was described by the seller of course.
you're absolutely correct. 👍
I was so busy looking at the case that I didn't read what was right in front of me. 🤦
The comment about the edge facets still stands. - and IMHO the dial has been transplanted from a 168.025 because the pie-pan is a more desirable / valuable watch.
If I was @benoit13_34 I would consider returning the watch, depending on how it was described by the seller of course.
Thank you for your replies. I confirm that the watch is engraved 168.015 and is a monocoque model, which is why I cannot open it myself. I relied on the seller, who is known to be reliable, but he maintains that everything is fine inside and that it would need to be sent to Omega to Check.
Any watchmaker with the Omega tool can pull the movement out. Heck, you can get said tool on Ebay (I even have one, and I'm far from a watchmaker! 😁).
If @Peemacgee says the .015 was never available as a pie-pan, he's correct. So the dial at least is incorrect for this watch. Not sure you can trust the seller if they can overlook something that serious.
Any watchmaker with the Omega tool can pull the movement out. Heck, you can get said tool on Ebay (I even have one, and I'm far from a watchmaker! 😁).
If @Peemacgee says the .015 was never available as a pie-pan, he's correct. So the dial at least is incorrect for this watch. Not sure you can trust the seller if they can overlook something that serious.
PS: opening a monocoque case isn’t that easy.
🥹
The question about an uncommon or transitional variant is always interesting for collectors. Sometimes, with the accumulation of research over time, it is true that the conventional wisdom gradually changes. I've seen many examples of this, where watches thought to be incorrect were later accepted as correct. Unfortunately, even in cases like this, the conventional wisdom can be slow to change, often because people continue to use the standard reference websites that aren't updated to reflect new knowledge. I have a bit of a pet peeve where people take information on websites too literally, e.g. serial number ranges.
However, at the moment, this watch is believed to be incorrect, and at best would be a "watch with a story," so it would certainly impact the value.:
Thank you, Dan, for your very interesting reply. I completely agree with you. The issue here is that the watch was sold to me as original (and therefore priced according to its “true” market value).
I really like the watch itself, and the question now is whether I should return it or pursue the authentication process with Omega, if that is possible.
Additionally, I was looking for a few elements to check with the seller once the watch is opened, in order to determine whether it is an adaptation or truly a factory model, as he claims.
Thank you, Dan, for your very interesting reply. I completely agree with you. The issue here is that the watch was sold to me as original (and therefore priced according to its “true” market value).
I really like the watch itself, and the question now is whether I should return it or pursue the authentication process with Omega, if that is possible.
Additionally, I was looking for a few elements to check with the seller once the watch is opened, in order to determine whether it is an adaptation or truly a factory model, as he claims.
