hi @1jansen
So, is it an.004 or .010?
(A dogleg is 167.005 or 168.005)

 

As said in my earlier post, mine is 168.004 cal.564.
Cheers,

 

As said above, the 168.010 is not a dogleg, but a later model similar to the 004, with notable differences, some of which I mentioned above (the crown being another). Here they are side by side (010 on the left):


Lighting in that pic is bad, but I hope you can see why I questioned whether yours was a 004. More details:
004:


010:



EDIT to add: @1jansen we have been cross-posting, didn't see your recent post. I still cant't explain the different look (maybe it's down to photo angles), but I bielieve you of course.

 

thanks, I wasn’t doubting you, your second comment opened the door for some confusion.

The reason I asked is that the 168.004 with cal 564 is quite a rare beast.
it was originally thought that they only came with a 561.
(Omega don’t list it as a movement option in the OVDB)
Yours is the only the third to show up on OF.

It’s likely to be a late version, hence the dial configuration.
Do you have any details, such as the serial number of the movement?
Does it have a brickwork observatory on the medallion?

 

@aprax Thank you for your correction. Dogleg is 168.005.
@Peemacgee My apologies for mis-read your question. (earlier post amended)
Thanks guys.

 

Thank you for your insights.
The serial is 25.66m
There are bricks on the observatory dome but the base has no bricks. Does it make any difference ? Please enlighten me in this respect.
Best regards,

 

that is quite late - around ‘67/‘68

Mine is 24’2xxx, sold in ‘67 and came with papers and original hang tag (which is the only proof that these 564 .004s really exist. )

The observatory should only have bricks on the dome.
Originally, only solid gold Connies had brickwork observatories. this changed around the mid-60s.
so earlySS .004s would have plain observatories.

so your ‘hybrid’ .004 is like the others found to date.

Apologies to the OP for a bit of a thread hi-Jack

Mine (not correct Connie box but possibly original)
Same ‘Sharp edged’ dial style as yours

 

Hi @Peemacgee @aprax
For your further reference, I have another example of 168.004 in gold-plated connie and the serial is 23.04k for cal 561. It is later than the cal.564 version. Any comment ?

@Peemacgee You said my cal 564 version is the 3rd one come up in OF. Could you please direct me to the threads of the other 2. Thanks,

 

Thank you for sharing your ss Connie, @Peemacgee . It's a stunning piece.

 

your gold cap .004 (And almost all .004s) should have a 561 movt.
But with a 23.04xxx serial it is earlier than your 564 .004.
The serial would put it around ‘66, so the brickwork medallion works for this watch too.

well, one of them is mine above - I’ll have to search out the thread(s) for the other one.

 

here are two threads.
The first is mine in full, shortly after I found it, showing the all important hang tag.
the second is about another watch but contains a discussion with @TexOmega about his 564 .004.
Strictly speaking I think his was the first to be uncovered.
You’ll notice both have pie-pans, as does yours but Tex’s has a soft edged pie-pan.

you’ll see that yours has a substantially later serial.
To my mind this means that there must be others, in between, out there.

We should really put all three watches into the first thread for reference purposes.

https://omegaforums.net/threads/constellation-168-004-with-a-cal-564-movement.86829/
https://omegaforums.net/threads/my-first-constellation-and-she´s-from-1962-but-not-the-dial.102988/page-2

 

I can take new pix if you want to start a reference thread for future readers.

 

Dear lord that thing is in good shape. Congrats on the find, enjoy it!

 

@TexOmega Thank you for posting your unique stainless steel 168.004. More pictures are most welcome. To avoid hi-jacking this thread, and for future readers, perhaps, we should start a new thread. Shall we, @Peemacgee ?

@cicindela It's fabulous. A rare piece in NOS condition, matching GF bracelet! Congratulations! A big thanks!
Here is mine, a 2652.

 

This photo shows the dial is much sharper edged than it looked in the other thread.

I think it would be great if you could both add pics of your watch to the first thread I linked to above, as it has 168.004 and 564 in the title.
That means anyone searching for these two factors should get the thread as a top hit.

 

Hi @Peemacgee
Thank you for your comment, a new thread is created: https://omegaforums.net/threads/constellation-ref-168-004-“sharp-edged”-pie-pan-dial-and-cal-564.117668/

Please post your watch there. (more pictures!) It's a pleasure of having your valuable insights.

 

@Robbyman Thank you.
My apologies for hi-jacking your thread.