Dear all, Can someone be king enough to explain why there are 2 case numbers on this 1968 Constellation "C". I searched a lot and found some others with 2 case numbers but no explanation for it... Thanks for your input FF
Thanks for your fast reply! It means that the accurate case number is the 017... even if it was supposed to be for a 009 before Omega changes the collection?
Back in the 60's there was an evil stock room manager in Bienne who could see the future and he wanted to give n00bs fits over learning the ropes 50 years from when he started the dual reference numbers. He's probably laughing the evil laugh right now.
Some references used the same case and it was easier (cheaper?) to mark both on the case back. Example: 166.032 non-chronometer 168.023 chronometer version
Most I've seen inside an Omega is 4 reference numbers on this Dynamic case... In this instance, the case was used for both manual wind and automatic version, each with and without date = 4 case references in one case. Cheers, Al
At least with the early 176.007's, Omega had the decency to strike through the 176.001 reference when they were using up old casebacks
168.009 was the original designated model number for the C Shape, and some very early ones with cal 561 movements only have the 168.009 stamp. In late 1966 it received another model number, and for a time both numbers were used. Cheers Desmond
Hey man, how are you doing? Enjoying semi-retirement? We were just talking about you (all good, BTW). I said you were one of the few people who I'd let curse me out without reciprocation. That's about as good of an endorsement as I can give.
Hi Dennis, Yes very much indeed. Have been doing a fair amount of travel, having stayed in Spain for three months and then Taiwan and Japan over Christmas until February. Back to Spain and Portugal again in a couple of months as we've bought a house in Altea: a nice village, away from all the ancient and leathery Brits in Benidorm and the Eurotrash in Marbella.. So, semi-retirement is a luxury that I'm enjoying much
dear Mr. @mondodec, thank you for continuing to post. there are few that are as concise and authoritative. I hope I didn't waste any words and that my appreciation comes through. again, thank you. joel