Omega Constellation hidden crown - advice needed

[kalin91]

Hi all,

Came across this Constellation with hidden crown which seems to be in good condition (although no photos of the movement at the moment). One things that I notice is the "T Swiss Made T" which in my understanding indicates tritium on the dial. However, neither the hands nor the index batons seem to have tritium - just onyx inlays.

Am I missing something or is that well assembled franken?

Edit: having had a closer look the indices seem painted and not with onyx.

 

[Noddyman]

Mmmhh, that’s weird as the dial looks legit to me.
It looks like a 168.010 so possibly on the later references Omega started using just one dial for both lumed and non lumed.
I also agree that the markers are painted.

 

[X350 XJR]

Hands may have originally been lumed?

Side note, a bit odd that the dial appears nearly pristine yet the date disk has yellowed.

 

[Noddyman]

I know some later 168.010’s came with baton hands containing both lume & black infill but you would expect to see lume on the dial as well. If the lume pips have been cleaned off the dial it’s a very good job.

 

[Peemacgee]

Noddyman

Mmmhh, that’s weird as the dial looks legit to me.
It looks like a 168.010 so possibly on the later references Omega started using just one dial for both lumed and non lumed.
I also agree that the markers are painted.

Noddyman

I know some later 168.010’s came with baton hands containing both lume & black infill but you would expect to see lume on the dial as well. If the lume pips have been cleaned off the dial it’s a very good job.

This is a bit of a conundrum.

I don't recall ever seeing a 168.010 with painted indices.
They did do onyx and lume dials as you say @Noddyman.
It can't be a 168.018 dial as they were flat not domed.
The dial appears to be the right size for the case - so most likely isn't a 168.005 dial. (although the generic crystal doesn't make it easy to assess the relationship between the minute haches and the edge of the dial)
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Omega did use the same dial without lume - we've seen this happen on other references. (like the doglegs)

Could it be an uncommon transitional watch?
I would love to see the inside of this @kalin91to see if it is right at the end of the .10s run - do you have a movt shot?

 

[kalin91]

Peemacgee

This is a bit of a conundrum.

I don't recall ever seeing a 168.010 with painted indices.
They did do onyx and lume dials as you say @Noddyman.
It can't be a 168.018 dial as they were flat not domed.
The dial appears to be the right size for the case - so most likely isn't a 168.005 dial. (although the generic crystal doesn't make it easy to assess the relationship between the minute haches and the edge of the dial)
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Omega did use the same dial without lume - we've seen this happen on other references. (like the doglegs)

Could it be an uncommon transitional watch?
I would love to see the inside of this @kalin91to see if it is right at the end of the .10s run - do you have a movt shot?

Thanks all for your input!
To my unexperienced eye, nothing on the dial indicated any additional work/repair/refinishing/etc. having been made. Hence, I am really puzzled with this watch.

I have requested a photo of the movement and seller responded that he will try to open the watch - so as soon as I have received the photo, will post it here.

There is also a photo of the papers, but tbh could not get much useful info from it (165.002.06 as ref number or?).

 

[Peemacgee]

Those papers are from a different watch.
A Tresor from 58/59

EDIT
Being sold in 62 is quite reasonable.

 

[Pvt-Public]

Absolutely no expert here. But doesn’t the crown look a bit large for a “hidden” crown? Not very hidden to my eyes.

 

[Peemacgee]

Pvt-Public

Absolutely no expert here. But doesn’t the crown look a bit large for a “hidden” crown? Not very hidden to my eyes.

it is a replacement crown - and possibly not the correct one (the originals are no longer available)

 

[kalin91]

Found this one listed as 168.001 (by Japanese seller) with similar layout - T Swiss made T without having tritium.
The font on the dial seems correct although a bit thick (so not sure if repainted).
Could it have been a mistake already in the factory?

 

[Noddyman]

For me the spacing of T SWISS MADE T is a concern. It should be laid out as per your original example, underneath the 6 marker. The rest of the fonts are very convincing but it’s not an example I would use for verification.

 

[Peemacgee]

kalin91

Found this one listed as 168.001 (by Japanese seller) with similar layout - T Swiss made T without having tritium.
The font on the dial seems correct although a bit thick (so not sure if repainted).
Could it have been a mistake already in the factory?

Have you seen another jumbo with a T SWISS T dial?
IMHO either a good redial or service dial.

Also you are comparing apples with pears.
i.e. An early-ish 60s dial with onyx and a late 60s dial with painted indices.

I don't think there is any point in looking for similar dials.
The dial on your original example is one of three things:
1. a dial cleaned of lume
2. an anomalous contemporaneous dial showing Ts but no lume
3. a service dial. (with Ts but no lume)

As I mentioned above, dials with Ts but no lume are a known thing - but no-one knows for sure if they were original to the watch (i.e. Omega being slightly left of field as they often were) or a service item.

The dial you show is unusual as it has painted indices - this is not usual for a 168.010.
That is the first conundrum that requires solving.
Then to decide on options 1, 2 or 3 above.

Edited: Jan 18, 2024

 

[khangct]

Look like a redial to me. Also the date disc condition doesn’t match with the dial at all.
P.S seem like it rocking a generic second hand too.

 

[kfranzk]

Can't it be a ref 168.004 with cal 561 and 18mm lugs?
The 168.010 has cal 564 and 19mm?

Here are mine in 18k, first 168.004 second 168.010...
Konrad

Edited: Feb 10, 2024

 

[Peemacgee]

kfranzk

Can't it be a ref 168.004 with cal 561 and 18mm lugs?
The 168.010 has cal 564 and 19mm?

Here are mine in 18k, first 168.004 second 168.010...
Konrad

You have some interesting watches @kfranzk and certainly like your gold.

The .004 you refer to is a deluxe Constellation with uncommon ‘brutalist’ indices more commonly seen on later .016/.018s.

As a deluxe the correct reference is likely 168.014.

However, Neither of your watches answer the conundrum of painted indices on the dial of what appears to be a 168.010 case.

 

[Davidt]

kalin91

Found this one listed as 168.001 (by Japanese seller) with similar layout - T Swiss made T without having tritium.
The font on the dial seems correct although a bit thick (so not sure if repainted).
Could it have been a mistake already in the factory?

That’s been redialed imo. Minute hashes are inconsistent and th font is too heavy and wrong.

 

[kfranzk]

Yes @Peemacgee, you are right the shown watch 168.004 (and 168.014 in the case back) has indeed papers saying BA 168.014.
But isn't there the question open, wether the watch of the starter @kalin91 has lugs of 18mm or 19mm.
And no I have no argument for the painted indices.
Konrad

 

[Peemacgee]

kfranzk

But isn't there the question open, wether the watch of the starter @kalin91 has lugs of 18mm or 19mm.
Konrad

It’s often difficult to ascertain whether a ‘hidden crown’ case is an .004 or an .010.
After all there is only a 0.5mm difference in the lateral position of each lug.
However, the vertical alignment of the lugs in relation to the minute haches appear to suggest an .010.

 

[skand]

This is my 168.004, cal 561