krogerfoot
·I’ve recently gone through quite a few BoR bracelets for 166.010- and 166.011-style Seamasters and a couple of Constellation models and wanted to document what I think I know now. I’ve always accepted a fairly rattly bracelet worn loose and louche. Then I ran across a bracelet with #11 endlinks that were squeezed really tight and it fit better than any I’d worn previously. @pdxleaf and I discussed how these endlinks differed from ones I’d had earlier and speculated whether they were even legitimate Omega items. The size is subtly different and the font is obviously cruder than the serifed #11s I’m used to. Now that I know they exist, I see the more crudely stamped #11s in online photos, particularly in Japan, but before my mind would fill in the missing serifs in typical photo resolutions.
I recently bought a beat up 1502 5-row bracelet with #11 endlinks bent out of all shape and looking like crap (should have scrutinized those photos better). After grappling with them with a pair of pliers, it was clear that there’s no problem I can’t, with a little effort and ingenuity, make much worse. But it also seemed to show that the size difference I noted before could easily be a shape difference instead.
I recently picked up my 166.011 from service and the watchmaker mentioned he had adjusted the endlinks for me because he couldn’t bear to look at them (not my handiwork, thankfully). I’m grateful, but in all honesty they still don’t look that swift. The lug shape is more bosomy than your classic sleek 166.010 profile, so it could be that #11s just aren’t a great fit. I’ve since gotten some more appropriate tools and practiced beating up on the previously-mentioned 1502 and its endlinks, and by using a beefy 2mm-diameter spring bar, I’ve almost gotten a less unsightly fit on my 166.010.
166.011 on the left, 166.010 on the right, both on 1502/11 bracelets, neither with a great fit to the endlinks. I feel like I’m getting close with the beat-up practice bracelet—just need to raise that right-hand tip of the lower endlink a bit.
I’d like to hear about best practices with endlink adjustment. I definitely need something to keep from chewing up the endlinks. I was more worried about metal fatigue just causing the endlinks to snap but they seem more resilient than I had expected.
I recently bought a beat up 1502 5-row bracelet with #11 endlinks bent out of all shape and looking like crap (should have scrutinized those photos better). After grappling with them with a pair of pliers, it was clear that there’s no problem I can’t, with a little effort and ingenuity, make much worse. But it also seemed to show that the size difference I noted before could easily be a shape difference instead.
I recently picked up my 166.011 from service and the watchmaker mentioned he had adjusted the endlinks for me because he couldn’t bear to look at them (not my handiwork, thankfully). I’m grateful, but in all honesty they still don’t look that swift. The lug shape is more bosomy than your classic sleek 166.010 profile, so it could be that #11s just aren’t a great fit. I’ve since gotten some more appropriate tools and practiced beating up on the previously-mentioned 1502 and its endlinks, and by using a beefy 2mm-diameter spring bar, I’ve almost gotten a less unsightly fit on my 166.010.
166.011 on the left, 166.010 on the right, both on 1502/11 bracelets, neither with a great fit to the endlinks. I feel like I’m getting close with the beat-up practice bracelet—just need to raise that right-hand tip of the lower endlink a bit.
I’d like to hear about best practices with endlink adjustment. I definitely need something to keep from chewing up the endlinks. I was more worried about metal fatigue just causing the endlinks to snap but they seem more resilient than I had expected.