I have a few assorted bracelet sections, and rather than keep them as spares I’d prefer to try and get them built up into complete bracelets. So I just measured up what I have, but now I can see that it’s not as simple as I thought it might be.

So I’d like to try, if possible and if it hadn’t already been done somewhere, to figure out what are the correct link widths for each position on the flatlink bracelets. My idea would be to populate something like the table below. I’m not sure what links are shared, and there might be pitfalls fir example 7912 widths might be different for gen1 and gen2. Anyway, if something is possible then it might then be a useful resource for people to correctly identify what they have, and what they need.



In my case I have a 7912 with one side of seven solid links, and a supposed 1035 with one side of eight solid links.

My 7912 looks like this. From the values I’d guess it’s missing the eighth link from the end, as it’s just too much of a step to go from 17.93mm to a 506 endlink.



My 1035 looks like this. This is confusing as the final link is bigger than 19mm so perhaps it’s a 1039 with an incorrect buckle. That might make sense as it came with a single 516 when I bought it.



Then I have these two sections of spare. The short three piece bit doesn’t seem to match either of the above, but the four piece section looks like it’s links 4-7 from a 7912.



Any help or advice would be great. I guess it would be best to have essentially NOS bracelets measured up. I can’t really do that myself as everything is small sections or possibly put-together bits like the 1035/1039. For clarity my values are measured at the widest point of each link, the same way as identified in this thread.

https://omegaforums.net/threads/fro...ge-seamaster-and-speedmaster-bracelets.45883/

 

I love these geeky threads!

I have a 1035 to hand that I've been trying on various watches this morning. It came with a one owner Speedmaster, has all the stretch like and I'm 99% confident its unaltered.

I started measuring to 2 decimal places but that's not practical.

 

Would probably help with accuracy issues if the measuring device was mentioned and relatively consistent.

 

Yes I think this is absolutely critical.

I use a calibrated digital vernier that is basically good to +/- 0.01mm. I think I can introduce larger errors by poor handling or alignment whilst measuring so I’m very careful. I measured twice and the largest discrepancy was 0.02mm.

I did wonder whether contributors could check their equipment by using something of a known size. The thing that sprung to my mind was a newly minted coin, but I’m not sure what production tolerances the various mints have. I tried to find that out but all I could find was tolerances on weight.

 

I used a digital calliper but geberal wear of the links and alignment when holding them renders anything finer than 0.1mm irrelevant imo.

 

I’m pretty sure it’s possible to measure with precision better than 0.1mm, but wear could well make it irrelevant as you say.

And just to save me flicking between threads... I’ve taken this screenshot from the thread linked above (thanks to @uwsearch) for the flatlink bracelets. This backs up the idea that my 1035 clasp is actually attached to half of a 1039 bracelet.

 

Given one if the drivers for this thread to to determine what 'looks' correct, I'd say one decimal place also makes sense as usually no one is going to be able to tell the difference between 16.51 and 16.54mm