I have a 168.016 mint condition Omega Constellation Chronometer with 751 calibre in stainless steel with the original stainless bracelet and silver/white face with day and date.
It is a 1968 model. The serial number is 26995098
The watch was serviced by the Omega agents in Cape Town about 7 years ago and has rarely been worn as it was my grandmothers (possibly 6 times in 6 years by me) and is always kept in a safe.

I would like advice on price please

I have tried selling it on https://www.chrono24.co.za/omega/constellation--id4115783.htm

But don't know if the price is right. Can someone please point me in the right direction??

Thanks,

Brett

 

You can change language/currency settings in the upper right corner of the advert... $1,350 it would seem.

 

Some seem to be going for this price and higher but I cannot tell what is realistic

 

anyone have any ideas?

 

Beads of Rice Bracelet is worth 140 - 200 USD is sold separately. Case is in excellent condition with very sharp lines (the first chamfer to go usually is the end chamfers on the lugs and they are still nice and crisp) and dial is pristine by the look of it. So, it's helpful if in your description you point out the positive features of the watch. Secondly, I'm assuming from the condition of the case and dial that the movement may well look pristine, so a good closeup of the movement will also help market the piece.

Watch head alone on this cal 751 in this condition should be worth 800 - 900 USD in my opinion. Its becoming rarer to see these 168.016s in such condition and this is a head above most of what I see around.

Cheers

Desmond

 

I think the issue is that - whilst this is a very nice watch -the style hasn't yet reached anywhere near its potential
- and I'm afraid the uninitiated see 'Constellation' and think they should all be worth the same

The hands and chunky dial on this reference are an acquired taste -as is the day/date feature
(I just found out -AJTT- that the indices are likely to be jet -nice)

I love the round case dome dial style -but would take a .004 or .010 hidden crown Connie every time rather than the later version
-and good ones are still available for sub $1000 (occasionally!)

there's a gold-cap .018 (no day feature) up for auction shortly in the UK (with strap not BoR)
The case isn't anywhere near as well preserved as the OPs but it is estimated at a more realistic 300-400GBP
http://watchesofknightsbridge.com/view-auction-catalogues.html
In 5 years time we will no doubt be ruing the fact that we didn't hoover up these more affordable Connies.....perhaps the OP should hold onto it a while longer

Philip

 

SOLD for $950

 

Congratulations Bret
Someone has got themselves a really nice watch and I think you got a pretty good price

 

I have an earlier version of said watch prime visual difference is the pie slice hands, later on the case morphed into the C shape with quite a few variations on the same basic style. I think the earlier ones are the most stylistic typifying 1960's design, whereas the C Case watches say 1970's to me, either way these are hugely underrated watches

 

Interesting take on the C Shape, and I agree totally that these designs are underrated.

I see the dog leg lug cases and the C case pretty well as quintessential 1960s designs rather than 70s. The C was a breakthrough design conceived in 63 and appearing in early 64, and the case style was so popular at the time that it had a run of 14 years in total. I see 70s as more brutalist with 'clunk' and 'chunk', such as in the Pilot Line cases or the big, thick barrel and cone shapes, which I love for different reasons than 60s designs.

With the late 60s version of OPs watch, which is IMO is pure minimalism, you can just see what is in store for the 70s by looking at the dial. The markers have bulked up, an early sign of the 70s mindset of "Big is Better".

Cheers

Desmond

 

Yes! We are long overdue for a "Show Me Your 168.016" thread! Here is mine. I will sit back now and watch this thread come to a screeching halt. Ok, I admit it's not the favorite in my collection but I think it's attractive. It's simple but efficient. To be honest, I'm surprised they're not more popular.

 

Welcome to the club mines a 168.018

 

it´s a great model. last great inhouse caliber, last classic design. her is mine. I am not sure about the crown. lokks larger then the other examples.

 

Hello all, I've just picked up a 168.016 day-date model from 1969 in very nice condition. I'm getting it serviced at the moment but will post pictures eventually!

A few questions about this model, about dials, and about the MOY test...

- Unlike the watches posted above, my 168.016 has the dial with the narrower, slightly tapered hour markers. There are quite a lot of these on the OmegaAddict database (https://database.omegaaddict.com/members/member.php?mode=search) under "168.016", "168.016/CB", and "168 016". This dial seems to be very similar to one that sometimes appears on the date-only 168.018, and I assume since there are many examples around it was a genuine option for this case style?

- This dial (again unlike those above) fails the MOY test. The central line passes through the first point of the M, but then goes through the O distinctly left-of-centre, and then through the middle of the Y (rather than to the right of it). Here's an example from the database (there are quite a few others):



I've read this article on MOY: file:///C:/Users/crypt/AppData/Local/Temp/MOY%20and%20Omega%20Constellations-1.pdf
In there, when mentioning exceptions, it says "There were two periods where out of MOY dials appear to have been prevalent – at the turn of the 1960s and in a small number of calibre 564 models of the later 1960s".
Can I assume that we can add this style of 168.016 dial (751 movement) dial to the "legitimately out-of-MOY" list?

- Finally, I was wondering how this case style fits into the history of round-style Constellation cases of the 1960s. I've seen it described as an updated version of the 168.004 case, but from what I understand, by the time the 168.016 came out, the 168.004 had already been replaced with the 168.010, and perhaps even the 168.018. In this video, Omega Enthusiast implies that the 168.004, 168.010 and 168.018 were non-overlapping, basically successive updates of the same basic case model stream:

He doesn't mention the 168.016, but of course it's a day-date model, and the 168.004, 168.010 and 168.018 are all date-only models.

So is the 168.016 basically the day-date version of the 168.010, or perhaps the 168.018?

 

I mentioned in a different thread recently that, whilst interesting, the information in the above video has some flaws.
The .004 and .010 did overlap.
The 168.016 is the day date version of the 168.018.
Which itself is the next design development of the 168.010.

The 168.018 ( and .016) has subtle differences in case design and a flat rather than domed dial.


Edit - this is what I wrote previously:

Interesting video - and some lovely watches- but he does have a couple of things wrong.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a 168.018 with a pie pan dial or domed dial, only the distinct flat dial.
The 168.004 overlapped with the 168.010 into 67
The 168.010 started with a cal 561
The 168.004 does, rarely, come with a cal 564
The 168.004 has 2 bezel styles.

 

Interesting, thanks!

I'm still curious about the MOY thing. Now I look, it seems that the dials with the chunkier markers in 168.016 cases do pass MOY, as do the ones on the 168.018 that have narrower markers and look very like my 168.016 dial.

So it's just the narrow-marker 168.016 dials that are non-MOY (and it's not just mine, they all seem to be like that).

 

Here's mine: