Correct heads for BoR 1036/511

Posts
7,912
Likes
35,893
Hi OF,
I am now have a BoR 1036/511 and considering to buy a head to go with it.
Could someone let me know which references is correct for the bracelet (Not just fit but correct ref.)
Mine is the same as this one: https://omegaforums.net/threads/omega-bor-1036-bracelet-with-511-end-links.77495/
Thank you for your time.
Best regards,
H

Nice question, but which references has your own research led you to?

It's always good to see new members first doing some of their own leg work with what is actually not such a simple question to answer.
 
Posts
1,523
Likes
1,678
Nice question, but which references has your own research led you to?

It's always good to see new members first doing some of their own leg work with what is actually not such a simple question to answer.
tbh I just know it will fit 18mm lugs, i digged but can not find the answer. I saw people put it in Connie 14393, It looks good but not sure if it is correct.
 
Posts
7,912
Likes
35,893
tbh I just know it will fit 18mm lugs, i digged but can not find the answer. I saw people put it in Connie 14393, It looks good but not sure if it is correct.

My general rule with flat links and BORs is that if they fit and are from the same general period/decade as the watch then it's good.
 
Posts
6,508
Likes
10,192
Bit like my strategy in a swingers club.
 
Posts
625
Likes
999
To list all the references here would be a futile exercise. The 511 were the successors to the 11 endlinks. Bracelets were an option at the boutique, so often it is difficult to determine exact references which fit on exact endlink references, particularly before the 6 digit references.

In my opinion the change between the 511s and 11s was around the mid-late 60s. If your watch is after that, and has an appropriate curvature and has 18mm lugs, then it is possible that the 511s could have been offered on that watch from the boutique.

Do note that the 11 endlinks were on the 7 row instead of 9 row beads of rice; the more "angular" watches (think Dog Legged Connies) look better on the 9 row, where the curvier watches look better on the 7 row.

But if you do want specific references, have these two: 165.010, 166.009, or any fat lugged seamaster.

It is probably best asking here when you find a watch which you think will fit, the endlinks, to make sure that it is period and style appropriate.
 
Posts
1,162
Likes
6,031
This was originally posted by @tdn-dk. I cleaned up the files. I hope it is helpful. Message me and I'll send you a pdf that is searchable.
 
Posts
13,483
Likes
31,778
To list all the references here would be a futile exercise. The 511 were the successors to the 11 endlinks. Bracelets were an option at the boutique, so often it is difficult to determine exact references which fit on exact endlink references, particularly before the 6 digit references.

In my opinion the change between the 511s and 11s was around the mid-late 60s. If your watch is after that, and has an appropriate curvature and has 18mm lugs, then it is possible that the 511s could have been offered on that watch from the boutique.

Do note that the 11 endlinks were on the 7 row instead of 9 row beads of rice; the more "angular" watches (think Dog Legged Connies) look better on the 9 row, where the curvier watches look better on the 7 row.

But if you do want specific references, have these two: 165.010, 166.009, or any fat lugged seamaster.

It is probably best asking here when you find a watch which you think will fit, the endlinks, to make sure that it is period and style appropriate.


More commonly referred to as 5-row and 7-row, the outer links are not counted.
 
Posts
625
Likes
999
More commonly referred to as 5-row and 7-row, the outer links are not counted.

I know that it is sometimes referred to like that, but I have found many people to be confused by this.

The specific problem is that a 7 row, could be 7, if you don't count the outerlinks, and 9 if you do. So when I explain that some people need a 7 row, I invariable get asked what I mean.

Changing it to 9 and 7 removes the confusion (or at least some of it).

Im not sure I have explained this very well though.
 
Posts
6,315
Likes
9,761
More commonly referred to as 5-row and 7-row, the outer links are not counted.

I know that it is sometimes referred to like that, but I have found many people to be confused by this.

The specific problem is that a 7 row, could be 7, if you don't count the outerlinks, and 9 if you do. So when I explain that some people need a 7 row, I invariable get asked what I mean.

Changing it to 9 and 7 removes the confusion (or at least some of it).

It certainly is confusing - which is why, for ease, I’ve recently started to refer to them as ‘Rounded beads’ and ‘squared beads’.
(But I’m probably only adding to the confusion)

Desmond refers to them as 7&9 but I can’t disagree that the beads (or grains if you prefer) of rice are in fact only 5&7.
 
Posts
10,451
Likes
16,344
I call the 1036 the 5 row but it’s hard to argue with Desmond.

Trying to find a head to fit a particular bracelet is a bit arse about face is it not? My 1036 genuinely came to me on an Ed White so your search just got a a lot more expensive, should you choose to include that as an option!
Edited:
 
Posts
1,085
Likes
3,767
I call the 1036 the 5 row but it’s hard to argue with Desmond.

Trying to find a head to fit a particular bracelet is a bit arse about face is it not? My 1036 genuinely cane to me on an Ed White so your search just got a a lot more expensive, should you choose to include that as an option!
That’s precisely how I ended up with my 166.010. I mistakenly bought a 5-row (7-row?) bracelet that didn’t fit my watch, then picked up the 166.010 and it’s never been off that bracelet. 166.010s seem fairly easy to find in good condition at good prices and look like a million bucks on those round beads.
 
Posts
1,523
Likes
1,678
I am about to pull the trigger on a 166.010, looking for your opinion on the dial originality. The font seems corect to my eyes, however the dial looks like in piepan shape and I am not sure if I have ever saw one in this shape be for. This is the seller' s picture.
Thanks guy.
 
Posts
5,636
Likes
5,811
My 166.010 does not look like that with respect to the dial. However, I think it's original.

You make your choice but I would not doubt it.
 
Posts
1,523
Likes
1,678
My 166.010 does not look like that with respect to the dial. However, I think it's original.

You make your choice but I would not doubt it.
However, the caseback said it is 166010 with cal. 565 dated 1968. Do you have any ideas? Could this be a franken piece? Many thanks?
 
Posts
5,636
Likes
5,811
Anything is possible but it’s the right movement and time period.
 
Posts
1,085
Likes
3,767
I am about to pull the trigger on a 166.010, looking for your opinion on the dial originality. The font seems corect to my eyes, however the dial looks like in piepan shape and I am not sure if I have ever saw one in this shape be for. This is the seller' s picture.
Thanks guy.
I'm having an issue with this horizontal band across the dial. It looks like it's not a reflection. I'm having an issue with the owner's foot as well, but I suppose that can't be helped.

 
Posts
1,523
Likes
1,678
I'm having an issue with this horizontal band across the dial. It looks like it's not a reflection. I'm having an issue with the owner's foot as well, but I suppose that can't be helped.

Now I notice the band, should it be something to be worry about. Thanks