Please consider donating to help offset our high running costs.
As said in my earlier post, mine is 168.004 cal.564.
Cheers,
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?
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,
Hi @Peemacgee @aprax
@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,
@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 ?
.