Community Stories

Omega Constellation PP 1966

B
Posts
10
Likes
1
Hello all! I found an Omega Constellation Piepan 1966 and I instantly fell in love with it. As I am new to this universe I am not sure that I found a good example, but I think I did. Is it possible to upload some photos somewhere on this forum and get an exprt opinion from some of you guys?
 
LesXL
Posts
3,804
Likes
41,146
Hello and yes you can! And let's us know your assessment of the watch, and your specific questions on areas of doubts you have.
Screenshot_2022-08-26-13-15-16-62_3aea4af51f236e4932235fdada7d1643~2.jpg
Edited:
 
B
Posts
10
Likes
1
Thank you! Being totally new, I have tried to make my own assessment based of what I have learned so far. The Omega seems to be unpolished, orbpolished by a trained Omega poliser as it seems to have all surfaces in correct order. Watch got no papers or service history but runs great and accurate. Seller showed me inside of watch and it looked shiny and new. No scratches on automatic movement and such. Screws looked new an untouched. Crown runs smooth when winding. So given all above plus it has aftermarket wristband. I rate it 6/10. Please give me you thoughts.
20220826_135359.jpg 20220826_135345.jpg 20220826_135336.jpg 20220826_135249.jpg
 
20220826_135325.jpg 20220826_135309.jpg
gbesq
Posts
9,551
Likes
52,731
The watch has been polished, but I’ve seen much worse. We need straight on photos of the dial and the exterior case back taken in natural light, as well as photos of the movement and the inside of the case back, in order to properly assess the watch.
 
Pvt-Public
Posts
2,555
Likes
3,676
The back also looks like it may have had some engraving turned off by a lathe.
 
B
Posts
10
Likes
1
Thank you! Please find addional photos. I dont dare to open it. As I have never done it Im afraid I might scratch it or so. So have to december what I was shown, which to me looked as a shiny, clean and scratch free inside.
20220826_141718.jpg 20220826_141758.jpg 20220826_141825.jpg
 
20220826_141725.jpg
iamvr
Posts
1,273
Likes
5,665
Pvt-Public Pvt-Public
The back also looks like it may have had some engraving turned off by a lathe.

Was gonna write just that. The contrast of the finishing of the flat part to the beveled part is very stark. Plus, while they managed to preserve most of the medallion, the edge seems flattened out.
 
LesXL
Posts
3,804
Likes
41,146
More straight pictures indeed (sorry you were faster)... and from the movement too.

Not sure about the crown, but others will surely be more knowledgeable to advise.
 
Pvt-Public
Posts
2,555
Likes
3,676
Should the star be that close to “ constellation “? I’m learning too.
 
B
Posts
10
Likes
1
Thank you all. So I have learned now the the lathe is not original finish as I believed... also that i need to learn to open it But crown is original right?
 
iamvr
Posts
1,273
Likes
5,665
Do you perhaps have a picture without the hands covering the text and the star on the dial?

I believe the crown to be correct.

I would love to hear @Peemacgee 's opinion. He doesn't like us calling him an expert on this reference (which I believe is a 168.010), so I call him extreeeeemly knowledgeable 😀.
 
Peemacgee
Posts
6,078
Likes
9,415
The 'turned' section on the rear is correct for this reference, as is the flattened edge to the medallion - yes a 168.010 @iamvr. 👍
The proximity of the star to constellation is also correct.
The crown is likely original as it only protrudes a little on the 168.010.
Although the lugs look a little soft in some angles, I suspect this watch looks better in reality than in the pics.

Congratulations OP but you do need a 19mm strap to for those lugs though 😉

My non-crosshair version of the same watch (notice the thicker replacement crown for reference)
serial 24,241,xxx ~'66/67

IMG_01F7CB979EEE-1.jpeg IMG_3769.PNG
Edited:
 
iamvr
Posts
1,273
Likes
5,665
Many thanks @Peemacgee for sharing your exper... erm knowledge time and again illustrated with an example of yours.

It's again a lesson not to infer conclusions from a stainless steel to a gold cap version. I've made that mistake before. The turned section on the case back of my SS 168.010 is not that pronounced and the edge of the medallion is thicker.

DSC_3516.JPG
 
MtV
Posts
3,330
Likes
13,038
Many constellations actually had the turned circle around the medallion originally. It’s just that we don’t see them often, because they were polished away / worn off over the decades.

Nice example. 😀
 
Peemacgee
Posts
6,078
Likes
9,415
iamvr iamvr
Many thanks @Peemacgee for sharing your exper... erm knowledge time and again illustrated with an example of yours.

It's again a lesson not to infer conclusions from a stainless steel to a gold cap version. I've made that mistake before. The turned section on the case back of my SS 168.010 is not that pronounced and the edge of the medallion is thicker.

DSC_3516.JPG

Could be different years or different case makers.
The early .010s were a transition from the .004 and even carried the cal 561 movt.
Although I believe, like yours, they always had the brickwork observatory

here is the back of another SS .010 that I own - different again
no turned field and almost no edge to the medallion
serial 25,637,xxx ~'67/68
(correct crown for this reference)

IMG_1992.JPG
Edited:
 
Peemacgee
Posts
6,078
Likes
9,415
and here is the back of a very late .004, (with cal 564 movt) with a smaller turned field and raised edge to the medallion, the edge being not dissimilar to your .010
(with correct crown for the .004)
serial 24,297,xxx ~'67
IMG_0473.JPG
Edited:
 
Peemacgee
Posts
6,078
Likes
9,415
@iamvr
I've just added the serial nos and approx years for my watches for reference - if you have the serial no. for yours it would be useful to compare
 
iamvr
Posts
1,273
Likes
5,665
Peemacgee Peemacgee
@iamvr
I've just added the serial nos and approx years for my watches for reference - if you have the serial no. for yours it would be useful to compare

Mine has the serial number 24'271'xxx, cal. 564, approx. 1966.

So pretty close to your late .004.
 
Peemacgee
Posts
6,078
Likes
9,415
iamvr iamvr
Mine has the serial number 24'271'xxx, cal. 564, approx. 1966.

So pretty close to your late .004.

My .004 is an odd one, being a 564
I have the original papers for my .004 and it was sold in June '67 ( but of course the movt could have been produced in '66)
I have never had that one opened, so I couldn't tell you the case manufacturer but given the similarities it wouldn't surprise me if it was the same manufacturer as your .010
 
B
Posts
10
Likes
1
iamvr iamvr
Do you perhaps have a picture without the hands covering the text and the star on the dial?

I believe the crown to be correct.

I would love to hear @Peemacgee 's opinion. He doesn't like us calling him an expert on this reference (which I believe is a 168.010), so I call him extreeeeemly knowledgeable 😀.
 
19 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

J

Omega Constellation Vintage full Gold 1966

juan luis Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
gatorcpa
gatorcpa
Posts
6
Views
536
zummalo

Omega constellation piepan 14902 62 SC

zummalo Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
zummalo
zummalo
Posts
13
Views
412
benoit13_34

Omega constellation 168.015 pie pan

benoit13_34 Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
ErichKeane
ErichKeane
Posts
21
Views
233
T

Omega Constellation 168.010 - redial?

time-after-time Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
TIMElyBehaviour
TIMElyBehaviour
Posts
7
Views
304
X

Vintage omega constellation?

xmx500 Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
Dan S
Dan S
Posts
11
Views
498
B

Omega constellation pan pie 168.005 check

blou Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
SOG53
SOG53
Posts
4
Views
301