Forums Latest Members

Opinion Needed – 168.005 Constellation Cal 564 Gold Capped with Date

  1. MirMan Apr 29, 2014

    Posts
    18
    Likes
    21
    Hi All,
    I would appreciate any opinion/advice from forum members on this Cal 564.
    It appears to me to be an original dial, case and movement. Crown appears to be correct and signed also.
    Would appreciate if there is anything I should be aware of from the seller’s photos as provided.
    Could someone also enlighten me on whether the mark adjacent to date window is supposed to be there or not, ie. is one of the gold markers missing at 3pm? I’m aware that not all the Cal 564’s have the hour marker adjacent to date window but is it supposed to look like it does here.
    Thanks for your help.

    168.005 Cal 564 - 100422.jpg 168.005 Cal 564 - 100515.jpg 168.005 Cal 564 - 100533.jpg 168.005 Cal 564 - 100538.jpg 168.005 Cal 564 - 231540.jpg 168.005 Cal 564 - 231734.jpg
     
  2. hoipolloi Vintage Omega Connoisseur Apr 29, 2014

    Posts
    3,516
    Likes
    5,795
    Normally, a 168005 model powered by a 564 should have "officially certified" on the dial. This dial doesn't have that.

    Date dials without "officially certified" were seen on 14393 (smaller dial size) or 14903 which was the same size and design with later version 168005.

    Looking at the photo I can see the gap between the dial and the case, that means the dial is a bit small to the case. I would say it is a frankened watch with early dial on a later case.


    [​IMG]
     
    cristos71 and Skv like this.
  3. Skv Apr 29, 2014

    Posts
    287
    Likes
    140
    The words 'SWISS MADE' are not clearly visible. I'm having doubts that it is correct for the case too.
     
  4. TNTwatch Apr 29, 2014

    Posts
    2,876
    Likes
    1,950
    "SWISS MADE" partly hidden means the opposite of what Hoi is saying about the dial being smaller...
     
  5. Northernman Lemaniac Apr 29, 2014

    Posts
    4,424
    Likes
    18,135
    Dial is too small. i would pass.
     
  6. gatorcpa ΩF InvestiGator Staff Member Apr 29, 2014

    Posts
    12,207
    Likes
    15,726
    There are some things here that I'm not liking.

    1. There is significant wear-through on the lower right lug not present in the rest of the watch. There may have been a bad repair there, or the other 3 lugs were re-done. Not sure which.

    2. The fit of the crystal doesn't look right. Certainly not an Omega made replacement. That may be able to be fixed.

    3. The printing on the dial is correct for the earlier Ref. 14902, which is essentially the same watch as the 168.005. Some dials did not have a dial marker at "3". However, I've never heard of a Ref. 14902 case and dial containing a later cal. 564 quick-set movement.

    My Spidey senses are tingling on this one and that means to stay away.
    gatorcpa
     
  7. MirMan May 1, 2014

    Posts
    18
    Likes
    21
    Thanks Gentlemen for your guidance, unfortunately these popular vintage omegas often lie in murky waters. Spidey senses are always appreciated!
    So back to the drawing board and will wait for a better example to come up.