Forums Latest Members
  1. sgk May 20, 2015

    Posts
    112
    Likes
    130
    Hi all,
    I was hoping the forum could help me with a Constellation that I recently purchased. I bought it on an online auction site based on few and not so good quality pictures. The reason that I bought it was that it had enough dirt and grime on it that it appeared like it had been found somewhere and put up for sale. Moreover, the dial looked flawless and it also came on a beads of rice bracelet. There were no movement or inside caseback shots but I took a gamble.

    [​IMG]

    Crystal has scratches but the dial is clean, although it seems to be the markers with paint rather than onyx. So I proceeded to open up the caseback and look inside. And then to my surprise, the caseback was marked 167.005, although it was a date version cal 564.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Upon closer inspection, I found 168.005 also marked below the case manufacturer hallmark. But this seems to have been done as an after thought with what seems to be like one of those punch tools. Hope you guys can make it out in the photo below just under the C.B.

    [​IMG]

    This is the first time I have seen something like this, so I just wanted to get feedback on whether this looks legit. I mean the amount of build/up and green grime between the lugs ::puke::indicated that it was worn a lot and not cleaned by the owner. So my thinking is that it is kosher.

    Would appreciate any input.
     
  2. mondodec Editor Constellation Collectors Blog May 20, 2015

    Posts
    843
    Likes
    871
    If only watches could talk! Then we may have an idea of what happened during its life and why someone engraved 168.005 on to a 167.005 case.

    The engraving is not the kind of stamping one would see on a multiple model case - e.g. it's not centred or level - and so speculation is about the best one can do.

    Possibly, the medallion on the original 168.005 case back had worn and so some enterprising watchmaker took a 167.005 case back out of his parts drawer and modified it. The case itself is not too bad at all, retaining the facets on the lugs and the dial is pretty good.

    The dial seems to fit the case snugly, ruling out a pie pan 168.010 model, but the case back is not original to the watch in my opinion, and so It's a piece that needs further investigation. For example, an extract that would indicate it's a genuine 168.005 model. But that costs money and would need to be reflected in the price you pay for the watch.

    If confirmed as a genuine piece, the best option is to search for a 168.005 caseback and swap it.

    Cheers

    Desmond
     
  3. sgk May 21, 2015

    Posts
    112
    Likes
    130
    Thanks Desmond. Your opinion is highly appreciated.
    One question:. Are the outside casebacks for both models identical? I mean the bevels, the raised edge ring around the medallion, etc.

    One thought that occurs to me is that if the caseback is replaced by a watchmaker, then why go to the trouble of stamping in the 'correct' case number when this is not even visible on the outside. I assume that this was done quite a while ago as the caseback was really stuck and the O-ring disintegrated. Moreover, a 'normal' person (I assume vintage watch collectors didn't exist at the time) would not know or care if the correct ref number was there?

    Another detail which might be pertinent is that this watch comes from Sweden and there has been discussion about an Omega agent there who played around with cases a bit (ref. the transformed Rancheros). Is it possible that Omega watches were sent as parts to Sweden and assembled by the official agent. As casebacks are interchangeable, the anomaly occurred when the correctly stamped ones were in short supply. I doubt that a 'rogue' watchmaker would go to the trouble of stamping numbers. This is again conjecture of course. But I fear that this will remain a mystery.:unsure:
     
    Edited May 22, 2015
  4. gatorcpa ΩF InvestiGator Staff Member May 21, 2015

    Posts
    12,168
    Likes
    15,625
    To my knowledge, there is no real difference between the case backs for the 167 and 168 series. The dials and movements were different to accommodate the calendar function, but dimensions on the outside were identical.

    If I had to guess, there might have a shortage of 168.005 casebacks at some point either in Bienne or at one of the national Omega import agencies. Remember that at that time, the 167 no calendar versions were far less common, so there might have been extra examples of those versions.

    Someone, knowing that they were identical, and that the 168 version was out of stock, authorized the double stamping. This type of dual (or more) case referencing became more common in the 1970's.

    It would not bother me in the least, and I would leave this case back as part of the history of the watch.

    Hope this helps.
    gatorcpa
     
    felsby likes this.
  5. mondodec Editor Constellation Collectors Blog May 21, 2015

    Posts
    843
    Likes
    871
    Yes, they're exactly the same case with a different ref number and are interchangeable with a range of Omega case backs. By the look of the OP's case back it isn't stamped, but rather engraved, and not too evenly at that. Hence, I feel it was replaced well after it left the factory in Switzerland.

    Of course, however we explain its presence we can never escape the realms of speculation, pleasurable though it is :) My feeling is that it didn't come from the factory that way. Omega, at the time, was at its zenith in terms of quality and quality control, devoting around 25% of its workforce to ensuring its products fitted the claim of consistent precision, accuracy and durability. It's difficult for me to believe that a shortage of case backs for one model would encourage a Jack Fixit solution such as the one suggested. These watches were made in Biel/Bienne, a largely German speaking culture with a similar tradition to manufacturing 'correctness' as their cousins over the border, and it seems almost incomprehensible that such a 'crime' would be committed. (That is not to say however they got it right every time).

    SGK, I think there was a good reason to have the correct model number on the case back, not for the owner's sake but more for whoever looked under the bonnet in the future. The model number is central to Omegas parts regime even today, and I'm thinking that an old fashioned tradesman or a service agent would not wish to let a watch leave his shop without ensuring a reference to its real origins.

    Re, the Swedish agent playing around with cases on lesser models, I understand that Omega's flagship model, the Constellation, always left the factory as a fully finished product, with some exceptions only where gold cases by law had to be manufactured in the country of origin, and so I would think it highly unlikely the Swedish agent would have the opportunity to meddle.

    So, while I think the case back does indeed form part of the history of the watch, it is questionable when that history began. The real issue is what will happen if you decide at some time to sell the watch? Likely, it may well precipitate the kind of conversation we are having here.

    Regards

    Desmond
     
    Aroma likes this.
  6. gatorcpa ΩF InvestiGator Staff Member May 21, 2015

    Posts
    12,168
    Likes
    15,625
    It looks stencil engraved to me. Not unusual for things like case serial numbers or other one-off items. I have a Rolex and Universal done this way.

    [​IMG]

    The cases were made by a contractor to Omega's specifications, which we agree were very exacting. However, If someone needed a few casebacks for a 168 and none were available, I just can't see them making a new batch for a small number when they knew full well that 167 casebacks would do the job. They may be Swiss, but they are businessmen also.

    My original thought is that it was likely a national Omega OEM parts distributor,that did the stencil. Maybe a Norman Morris, or his equivalent in another country, but there is really no way to know for sure. I've never seen this type of engraving before on a Constellation, but as we always say...

    The only rule with vintage Omega is that there are no rules.
    gatorcpa

    P.S. - One last point. Went back to the OP's pictures. This watch is a very late version of the 168.005. 27M serial number places it to about 1968. Could have been cased up to 1970 or so. I've seen them in Japanese catalogs from that time. I wonder if this is one of those very late models? Omega QC started to slip a bit by then.

    http://nakahiro.parfait.ne.jp/catarog1970/moji/omega1970.html
     
    Edited May 21, 2015
  7. sgk May 22, 2015

    Posts
    112
    Likes
    130
    Thanks for your thoughts gatorcpa. Yes, it is indeed stencil engraved.
    Desmond, I hear what you say about the exacting standards tradesmen of the time held themselves to and I concur. I do not think that that this originated in the Swiss factory. Thus my thoughts turned to the Omega agent JP Brandt in Sweden

    Of course, we can all offer theories here and that is the fun part of vintage watches. But both of your's will be more educated than mine. Nonetheless, my gut feeling is that there was no malicious intent behind this engraving and in my opinion this does not detract from the watch. At least not for me. The watch shall remain as-is for now.

    Thanks once again to both of you for your input