1175 Bracelets have Date Stamps

[pdxleaf]

I think it's generally accepted that Omega 1175 bracelets do not have date stamps. I have two 1175 bracelets with date stamps on the clasp hinge.

Note that the date stamps are not in the same position on the clasp as say for example a 1039. The stamps appear on the hinge.




What's more, one date has a "10", as opposed to a 1, 2, 3, or 4 that signifies the quarter of the year. The "10" appears with the "71". It's possible that in 1969 they used quarters but in 1971 they switched to months?



Perhaps others who have 1175 bracelets may want to look for date stamps on their hinges.

Postscript: there are many threads on bracelets, including threads with the 1175. Rather than appending to one of those, I thought a new thread might get more attention from others who may have ignored another bracelet post.

PPS: if my bracelets are not anomalies and other 1175s have date stamps, my apologies to @eugeneandresson for giving him yet another feature to obsess over.

PPPS: I could be late to the party and this is already known, in which case I will gladly eat humble pie later.

 

[pdxleaf]

My first taste of humble pie

https://omegaforums.net/threads/date-engraved-inside-1175-clasp.85681/

 

[Dan S]

I have one that appears to have a tiny stamp on the hinge that says 2-80. Is that plausibly a date stamp?

Edited: Feb 27, 2023

 

[pdxleaf]

Dan S

I have one that appears to have a tiny stamp on the hinge that says 2-80. Is that plausibly a date stamp?

Yes, or at least this is consistent with what appears on others.

 

[Dan S]

pdxleaf

Yes, or at least this is consistent with what appears on others.

I never would have noticed it if you hadn't started this thread.

 

[pdxleaf]

Dan S

I never would have noticed it if you hadn't started this thread.

Ahh, you're just saying that

 

[gbesq]

Mine is stamped 1-71 on the inside of the clasp. No date that I can see on the hinge - at least as far as my old eyes can discern.

 

[mountainunder]

My 145.022-71 ("I Love my Speedmaster" says May 1971 ) was 1-71 on bracelet 1175

 

[Geme81]

Mine report 3 72 (it is on a speedy 145.022-71

 

[pdxleaf]

Geme81

Mine report 3 72 (it is on a speedy 145.022-71

We may be crossing over from "anecdote" into "science."

 

[140dave]

Earliest I have seen is 2-70 and the latest is 10-81
From my observations: Most of the actual marked 1175 bracelets fall into the 2-70 through 4-71 dates and then the unmarked 1175 / No 12 bracelets kicked in. (I would be curious to know on the 3-72 if the clasp is marked 1175 as well @Geme81)

The latest ones I have found, the ones marked -81, are also marked as made by JB Champion.
Just FWIW; have owned a dozen or so of these, I like them for the vintage look but unlike the 1039 I feel these are still strong & wearable today.

 

[pdxleaf]

140dave

Earliest I have seen is 2-70 and the latest is 10-81
From my observations: Most of the actual marked 1175 bracelets fall into the 2-70 through 4-71 dates and then the unmarked 1175 / No 12 bracelets kicked in. (I would be curious to know on the 3-72 if the clasp is marked 1175 as well @Geme81)

The latest ones I have found, the ones marked -81, are also marked as made by JB Champion.
Just FWIW; have owned a dozen or so of these, I like them for the vintage look but unlike the 1039 I feel these are still strong & wearable today.

When you say 2-70 through 4-71 marked dates, does this mean marked on the clasp like eg 1039, or marked on the hinges like the ones in this thread? I'm curious if the ones we say unmarked also have the small stamps on the hinge or if there are no marks on both the clasp or the hinge.


Both my 4-69 and 10-71 have the no. 12 unmarked clasp.

I also noted but didn’t mention a difference in the sides on the links. My 69 has brushed sides with a sharp edge. The 71 sides are polished and slightly rounder. It is possible that someone polished them but they are very even and consistent, enough so to make me think it left the factory this way. (Both of these have the Omega no. 12 clasp, although the 71 came from Japanand the 69 from the USA.)

Like you mentioned, given the long production, there seems to be differences.


(The 4-69 came with my 145.022-68 from the original owner. The watch has a DNN close to 70 bezel, so parts like the bracelet were likely changed. I don't suspect the clasp was changed though.)

I suspect people would take a 1039 over the 1175, but for the price (and possibly extra sturdiness), the 1175 is a great choice. Unfortunately....like everything vintage speedy the price may change.

 

[pdxleaf]

gbesq

Mine is stamped 1-71 on the inside of the clasp. No date that I can see on the hinge - at least as far as my old eyes can discern.

Can you take a picture of the clasp?

Based on what 140dave noticed, your clasp would not be the no. 12.

 

[gbesq]

pdxleaf

Can you take a picture of the clasp?

Based on what 140dave noticed, your clasp would not be the no. 12.

Sure. I’ll take a photo when I get home.

 

[140dave]

Like I said, take my info with a grain of salt. It is just based on the 12 or so I’ve owned and the ones I’ve followed on eBay and here, that is a small sample size.

A couple of pictures, sorry they are not great but should illustrate what I’m saying a bit better.

All date codes I have seen are on the hinge, not the clasp like on the 1039. And I’ve seen one or two of those single digit ones shown above or ones that don’t make sense as dates. Not sure what to think of those.
First the marked 1175

and then a No 12 unmarked with a later date code

 

[pdxleaf]

140dave

Like I said, take my info with a grain of salt.

All date codes I have seen are on the hinge, not the clasp like on the 1039. And I’ve seen one or two of those single digit ones shown above or ones that don’t make sense as dates. Not sure what to think of those.

Absolutely, Dave, from one grain to another. I know less than most people here and am seeking knowledge. Hoping that our collective grains can make some sense of this.

To recap, we've been using the term 'marked' for both the bracelet reference (i.e. 1175), as well as the date (e.g. 9-76).

Seems like there are clasps that either have the reference 1175 stamped in them or do not. In both of these types, neither have the date stamped in the clasp. (This is something that gbesq may prove wrong, as his clasp may have a date stamp.)

You noticed that most of the clasps marked with '1175' fall into the 2-70 through 4-71 dates. After that the unmarked 1175 / No 12 bracelets appear.

In addition, it appears that all clasps have No. 12 on them (with or without the '1175' stamp). Some clasps produced in later years had "JB' on them in addition to 'Omega', but these JB clasps did still not include the '1175').

It appears that clasps had stamps near the hinge that we believe signify the date. On some Omega bracelets, Omega would only use 1, 2, 3, or 4 to identify the quarter of the year. But we are seeing 9, 10, etc, which seems to say that Omega was identifying the individual month rather than simply the quarter. At the same time, it is possible that Omega switched from quarters to years, but that is speculation.

It's possible that these don't correspond to the month and year of production, but so far this seems a reasonable hypothesis. We'll need to adjust our hypothesis if someone knows of or shares a hinge stamp outside of the 12 month range or something that doesn't make sense as a date.

Thanks, this is making more sense to me. Not sure how accurate it will prove, but that will depend on more samples. The downside is that it would mean that some of us may start obsessing over matching the 1175 bracelet dates to our watch heads.

 

[stokey7873]

Wondering what to make of a 12 9 number combo on my bracelet. It’s a No. 12 not marked with 1175 that came with 48 endlinks (19mm).

 

[pdxleaf]

stokey7873

Wondering what to make of a 12 9 number combo on my bracelet. It’s a No. 12 not marked with 1175 that came with 48 endlinks (19mm).

A guess: it is similar to 12-69, meaning December 1969. In your example, they left off the '-' and of course abbreviated the 69.

Not sure my explanation would convince anyone who doesn't think these stamps refer to dates. That person would likely say I am making the evidence fit the conclusion.

Maybe others can offer their thoughts.

 

[Dan S]

pdxleaf

A guess: it is similar to 12-69, meaning December 1969. In your example, they left off the '-' and of course abbreviated the 69.

Not sure my explanation would convince anyone who doesn't think these stamps refer to dates. That person would likely say I am making the evidence fit the conclusion.

Maybe others can offer their thoughts.

pdxleaf

What's more, one date has a "10", as opposed to a 1, 2, 3, or 4 that signifies the quarter of the year. The "10" appears with the "71". It's possible that in 1969 they used quarters but in 1971 they switched to months?

So did they use months or quarter in '69?

 

[stokey7873]

I could never make sense of these markings so hopefully someone knows what's going on. Hopefully the conclusion is not that it's a fake but it is a weird one to explain within any constructs.