Omega Seamaster 168.024

Hagemann70 · Sep 3, 2024

I can't work it out - every watch I have looked at seems to have a different crown! Maybe some others could dive in here on this one? Would be good to know if the 166.010 and 168.024 indeed did have different crowns or if we have all got it wrong!

Hagemann70 · Sep 3, 2024

nanjingcigaretes
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think thin scalloped would be correct for 168.024 (chronometer version). Cal. 564 was first released in mid 60s (1966ish) which will be late for thin scalloped (often correct for late 50s and early 60s models).

All I can say is they all seem different on very watch so the original ones perhaps didn't last? I've even spotted one that had the crown sticking out about 2mm and not sitting flush with the case!

Davidt · Sep 3, 2024

nanjingcigaretes
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think thin scalloped would be correct for 168.024 (chronometer version). Cal. 564 was first released in mid 60s (1966ish) which will be late for thin scalloped (often correct for late 50s and early 60s models).

Agree. The thin scalloped crown is absolutely correct for the non chronometer version but I don’t believe it to be original to the chronometer version which has the fatter, standard type crown.

__ryan__ · Sep 3, 2024

nanjingcigaretes
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think thin scalloped would be correct for 168.024 (chronometer version). Cal. 564 was first released in mid 60s (1966ish) which will be late for thin scalloped (often correct for late 50s and early 60s models).

I was not sure about the crown on the 168.024, but assumed they had the same crown because they have the same case. That's not necessarily a good assumption. And come to think of it, I'm not sure I've ever seen an example of the chronometer version with the thin scalloped crown. I guess I assumed they were all incorrect, given that many are incorrect for the non-chronometer version.

So much for assumptions. :whipped:

__ryan__ · Sep 3, 2024

Davidt
Agree. The thin scalloped crown is absolutely correct for the non chronometer version but I don’t believe it to be original to the chronometer version which has the fatter, standard type crown.

Indeed, a quick image search shows a variety of thicker crowns, but no thin scalloped crowns for the 168.024.

Omega Seamaster 168.024

Hagemann70

Hagemann70

Davidt

ryan

ryan

Similar threads

Omega seamaster 168.022

1969 Seamaster 168.023

1969 Omega Seamaster Automatic Chronometer ref. 168.024 - Cal 564 - Serviced

1969 Omega Seamaster Automatic Chronometer Ref. 168.024 Cal. 564 Quick set - Fresh Serviced

Will any of Uncle Seiko/Forstner "FOIS" bracelet fit a vintage Seamaster 168.023?

Omega Seamaster automatic 1970 168.024 Chrono 24 listing genuine?