Hi Guys,

First time on the sight.

I have owned a 1980s stainless steel constellation for years and just came across this 18K gold version today and could not pass it up.

I was unable to get any info about Ref. 398.0872 on the Omega website. Does anyone know about this reference as to the manufacture date and rarity? Also, any ideas why the dial looks different on this watch than other Constellations of the same era? My other Constellation has dots on the hours vs. this one having lines.

Everything else checks out on this watch with a 1431 Quartz movement, proper engravings on the band/Case back, and matching Ref. numbers on the band and inside of the case back.

Any h elp would be appreciated,
Thanks

 

Looks like first facelift after the original Manhattan designs in early 1987. very much like the 396.1080 but the cal 1431 was a certified chronometer version whereas the thermo-compensated cal 1441 was not. Makes sense as this is the 18k version and carries the chronometer appellation.

Cheers

Desmond

 

Thanks for the info.

 

I know this is a very old post, but I have been searching information about these watches and I know you are very knowledgeable. So, my question is: calibers 1441 and 1445 were HAQ, thermocompensated. 1422, 1431, and 1444 were not, were Chronometers. Aren't the 1441 and 1445 above the chronometers in accuracy as they had an accuracy of 10 seconds per year? Why these weren't Chronometers? I know in one of the most expensive models, all 18K with anthracite dial, they put the 1445, HAQ TC, inside.

Thanks!

 

I think we have to separate the 1422 because that was a beautifully finished seven jewel electro-mechanical piece designated to be tested by the BO as a certified chronometer, as were the lesser finished cal 1431 and 1444. The 1441 and 1445 were not produced for certification irrespective of their accuracy.

So issues of accuracy beyond the criteria of chronometers doesn't come into play as far as Omega is concerned. Chronometer certification was as much a means of denoting top of the line quality and high level finishing as it was a marketing tool to denote exclusivity.

Omega, over its history, has produced many movements that could meet the criteria for chronometers but didn't market them as such. Take the 30.10 series of bulletproof hand-winds as an example, most of which never went near a certifying authority but all of which could probably be regulated to chronometer tolerances.

I think there was also some internal debate in those days as to whether chronometer certification was necessary, given the improved accuracy of quartz-based watches. The marketing department won out at that time.

Cheers

Desmond

 

Thank you very much. I am very impressed with my Manhattan with caliber 1445. After 35 years, last year it achieved an accuracy of +2 seconds!!! The expected accuracy is +-10/year. It is a great movement, it was serviced two years ago.
Cheers!!