TC1/2 or constellation?

[holly35]

After reading about abems recent problems with his flakey frontier, are the TCs a more desirable and reliable choice?
I have been offered both a superb TC in g/f and a similar 1602 in steel in barely used unmarked condition.
Which way to go?
Both fully double boxed with instructions , tags and warranty cards.

[abem]

To be fair, I've had my share of flakey TC modules... and some reliable Frontiers. I was just never able to figure out what was going on with that frustrating 1603. I also had a 1602 (from a $16 Alcor, not an Omega or Hamilton) that stopped working after I cleaned the contacts with alcohol. No idea what I did wrong there. I don't know if my limited experience is enough to form any conclusion. It's one or two data points. Your milage may vary.

-abe.

[Ade51]

That's easy - bearing in mind the condition and extras why not have both

Seriously though Abe is right - they both have their issues. Having said all of my 3 Frontier 1602/1603' have minor annoying issues such as varying levels of intensity of the LED's and sticking digits when cold.

The look of the digitals wins it for me though over the TC's however if you decide not to go for the steel 1602 can I have the sellers details

[abem]

Decisions, decisions...

Just in terms of the opportunity that you have, the GF TC is nice but you can usually find another one without too much difficulty. Finding a minty 1602, either steel or GF is nearly impossible.

The gold filled TC has brushed surfaces so if you find one that's not quite perfect, then you can always rebrush it pretty easily to look almost perfect. Getting a stainless 1602 case to look minty perfect is much more difficult with the polished front face and all.

So, even though I prefer the TC magnetic buttons over the small round pokey buttons of the 1602 and I like the two button layout of the TC and I like the centered display on the TC over the vertically offset display of the 1602 and I like the AM/PM dot on the TC that the 1602 doesn't have, despite all that, I'd probably still go with the 1602 since that's an opportunity not likely to come around again for a long time.

-abe.

[LEDluvr]

I agree iwth Abe, I'd go for the 1602 over the TC. Not that I don't like the TC, either choice is a great one. Chances are you are probably going to want both in your collection anyway so I would go for the harder to find 1602 first and later get the TC, as they are more plentiful.
But the best option (IMO) is to buy both now.

[holly35]

Thanks for the comments,its been a very difficult decision,i love the stainless steel but feel the TC module more appealing,after all the Frontier module appeared in countless cheap no name watches.The TC in my opinion is the better looking watch,(that polished rim on the 1602 cheapens the look)
The TC is more impressive on the wrist ,you cant mistake it for anything else.The 1602 may be rarer but ,as i wont be purchasing further,i came down on the side of ......yes the TC!
Will list pics in due course,full original complete packages are rare which ever way you look at it.

[LEDluvr]

holly35 wrote:

Will list pics in due course,full original complete packages are rare which ever way you look at it.

We look forward to seeing them.

[retroleds]

feel the TC module more appealing,after all the Frontier module appeared in countless cheap no name watches.The TC in my opinion is the better looking watch,(that polished rim on the 1602 cheapens the look)

The Frontier being placed in many watches is no indicator of quality, really just of the market maturing to where parts were more generic. I really think the Frontier has survived better than the early Pulsar/Omega modules, percentage still living vs. percentage made. But it is close.

The polished bezel face - some like that better. Personal preference.

[holly35]

All a personal preference,i suppose.Still ,in my eyes changing from theTC modules is like Rolls Royce fitting BMW engines to their cars.Nothing wrong with that but purists may prefer the "original" TC modules.Also TC supplied no cheap brand watches with their original dot matrix modules.Interestingly values of the TC models are consistently higher than the 1602/3 range,even if they are scarcer . Which shows they are more desirable. A contact i have would always charge more for a TC over the later models.

[retroleds]

All a personal preference,i suppose.Still ,in my eyes changing from theTC modules is like Rolls Royce fitting BMW engines to their cars.Nothing wrong with that but purists may prefer the "original" TC modules.Also TC supplied no cheap brand watches with their original dot matrix modules.Interestingly values of the TC models are consistently higher than the 1602/3 range,even if they are scarcer . Which shows they are more desirable. A contact i have would always charge more for a TC over the later models.

Sorry, but I'm not getting your argument about "original TC" movements - each of those model lines had what was original to THEM. Omega didn't manufacturer the early magnet set movements any more then their Pulsar or Hamilton division/branches did. I would agree that a TC generally fetches more than a Digital I/Constellation, but a P2 draws more than an Executive, Big Time or Classic. Same correlation - one is earlier and bigger, one is later in the era so not as brag-gable. Rarity be damned. A Frontier movement is original to a Digital I or II.

[holly35]

What i meant to say when quoting" original",is the first generation,originally conceived ,first production type.(excluding the P1 ,which even that has P2 innards.

[retroleds]

What i meant to say when quoting" original",is the first generation,originally conceived ,first production type.(excluding the P1 ,which even that has P2 innards.

The TCs and the Digital I & II are different watches, different external designs(despite the simularities), different internal design, different button design. The Frontier module in the Digital I is every bit as original design, original concept as the TC with the magnet set - proper for it's place and time in history and the progression of the technology. Not sure why we are stressing the point that they are different watches, which makes them different. Pick the one you like.

[holly35]

I know these are all original in one context , its just that , from a collectors point of view, the first generation " original" of anything normally will command a premium . This may be because, with these items later "improved" versions has lead to lower quality . A huge amount of development , costs and design created a quality hand made module ( at the start at least)
Over the years the " lets made an improved better and cheaper" version resulted in a digital watch for £5.00. Probably holds the time as good are the first digital watches but would you want one?
Hence the desire for the watches the housed the original concept modules. This is where the desirability comes in. Your buying the first omega model , not the mid life model. This is what i am trying to say when i mean original. Everyone has their own take on it .

[abem]

I think you made exactly the right call (for you).

Both the 1602 and TC are equally top tier so you can't go wrong by following your instinct. I ended up selling my 1602 and 1603 mainly because I don't feel a personal connection with the later Omegas the way I do with my Pulsars. Despite the nice build quality, Omega logos etc, they seem just a little too close to the multitude of generic clone watches with little pokey buttons on the upper right side of the case. It's also personal history (my dad worked with Pulsar while at Ray-O-Vac). That's just me, though. I've heard others say that they thought the Pulsar P2 or P3 felt cheap because of the lightweight case and bracelet. I think it feels refined. Opinions will vary.

Most important: Get what you like.
Of lesser importance: Market value, the views of others, etc.

-abe.