Friends of Constellations,
I collect 18k Omega Constellations with date!
So I have some thoughts to share on the often double reference markings in the back.
The Omega ref code table says clear,
- the
168.xxx is a 'water resistant
chronometer calendar'
- the 166.yyy is only a water resistant calendar.
=> First example, very clear:
The
168.033 / 166.052: (with pictures)
So obviously Omega has double referenced this case back, to use this case as well for the
- ref 168.033 with chronometer movement cal 1001 and dial with '..officially certified' and the
- ref 166.052 with non chronometer movement 1002 with Constellation dial but without 'chronometer off.. cert...'.
Both examples of these watches exist and are easily found in the web.
(Though its odd to use 'Constellation' for a non chronometer, as well as there are 'Seamaster' with chronometer movement.)
=> Second example, with confusion:
The integrated bracelet models
168.047 / 166.059, both references are mostly marked in the back.
The first is the model with a chronometer movement 1001. It exists!
The other is the non chronometer watch with cal 1002. I never saw this!
But: If you search for 168.047, you may find almost none.
If you search for 166.059, you will find several, but all are chronometers with cal 1001.
I did write to some of these offerers, that they chose the wrong ref., a non chronometer ref for a chronometer dial and movement.
But nobody believes me, because when one sheep jumps into the hole, all the others follow, except a very few.
If they would mention both references as is in the back, nothing would be wrong.
And when I make my inquiry:
Omega 168. 18k, I would get them all.
Btw the successor watch with almost the same case and bracelet is ref 168.059 with chronometer cal 1011. I think the second half of the digits .059 is common and causes these above mentioned errors.
Konrad
(old-omegas.com)
First example:
Second example:
