What is the difference in caseback for centre or sub second? The Omega 260 and 280 series movements are the same thickness AFAIK, or is it just in the wording?
Hi Padders, the centre seconds case backs are deeper and rounder than the sub secs which look quite a bit flatter. I have a Longines 12.68z in a 13322 and the case back is noticeably deeper than my SmithS sub secs 13.15's in the 13322 case.
That might be movement manufacturer specific I guess, not all movements are the same depth so maybe it is more for that reason they differs rather than for the sub vs central second hand variants of the same movement. You do see Omega models where the caseband looks the same, but the back thickness differs for auto and manual wind movements due to the depth difference of course.
That might be movement manufacturer specific I guess, not all movements are the same depth so maybe it is more for that reason they differ rather than for the sub vs central second hand variants of the same movement. You do see Omega models where the caseband looks the same, but the back thickness differs for auto and manual wind movements due to the depth difference of course.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were further 13322 variants out there, they have used the case so widely and it was in production for over 20 years after all. They presumably used spacer rings to cater for movements of different ligne.
Hey everyone!
Posting in this old thread for the sake of not creating a new topic in the hope some other Dennison-interested folks will see it!
I've gotten into a bit of a super niche with the Dennison 13322 Omegas and am hoping for some expert opinions: I particularly like a version of the 13322 with blued hands and a railroad printed track. They're very simple watches but super elegant in their simplicity. I believe they are all from the early years of the 13322 with the "OG" 30 cal 30t2 movement and I've seen them with in steel and 9ct cases.
If anyone has more info on this dial configuration I'd love to hear about it! One question in particular: I feel like the printing especially of the 5 and 7 seems sloppy in a lot of them. I've attached some photos for reference of close ups I've "collected" on the Internet over the years... I hope thats ok. What strikes me is that most of them seem to bleed into the sub second track... my understanding is the case, dial and hands were all made by Dennison? Were they "sloppy" or was a dial refresh in service common?
The other possibility is of course more recent dial "optimization" but as you can see from the pictures the rest of the dials aren't exactly pristine and the frequency with which I have seen these "bleeds" seems to me to indicate something else... one instance is an outlier, anything above three is a pattern...?
However, peculiarly, for some reason, AJTT describes the 168.004 as a deluxe watch even though the one shown is only gold cap, it also calls it ‘Constellation II, even though there must have been a dozen Constellations before it.
OVDB calls it ‘Constellation Calendar’.
