I couldn’t find a thread dedicated to these and feel they warrant it. I’m referring to the ~36.5mm beefy lug case references (larger than the normal 34.5mm ones).

Edit: An incomplete list of references (please call out if I’m missing any):
Bumpers: 2765, 2764, 2771, 2657, 2494, 2519, 2521, 2493
50* calibers: 2992, 2854, 2920, 2856, 2857
55* calibers: 166.011, 165.011

Bonus non-beefy references that I’ll let slide: 2976..

Nudge to @tamura, @kyle L, @qazwsx1, @hejsam, @Vanallard, @Rman, @MSNWatch, @hoipolloi, @Tony C., @ConElPueblo as I think you all have some nice ones..

Here’s my recent arrival - a 2992 reference / 503 caliber Seamaster Calendar with a pretty white dial and onyx accents.


And I used to own these.. both Seamaster bumpers, the first a 2765/2764/2771 reference and the second a 2657/2494 reference.

 

I don’t have any jumbo in my collection at the moment, my most recent was this 2657 in solid gold.

Very nice watches and I always prefered the early ones with bumper movement.

 

Here are some of my 36mm and up.

The early Seamaster chronometer 2519 powered by a 333.



A Seamaster 2494/2657 powered by a 344.( bought from Phil)



A 2976 from Japan. Powered by a 501.



Some 166.011 and 165.011 (tamura) powered by562 and 552.

 

This is one I sold not too long ago. Should have kept it.

 

Here is mine from 1952 and 344 movement.

 

Mine , ref 2494

 

Holy moly some of these are beautiful. I especially like the hour markers on the 2494 above @qazwsx1.

I’m enjoying the hunt for one of these. I love the diversity in their designs

They share the basic concept and shape, with slight differences between each.

 

Here are my current three, two bumper 2494s and a 2856/2857:

 

The aging of the black and the orange dial... boy, I'm in love.

 

I really dislike the term "undervalued", so let me propose that the jumbo Seamasters - and the bumper 2494, etc. are criminally underappreciated. I would say that the jumbo versions are about 1/5-1/10 as common as the standard 34.5mm ones (which are also wonderful, certainly), yet there is barely any difference in value.

None of the ones I've owned during the last six years have been more than a non-jumbo in comparable condition, which I find baffling.

 

Here is my 1952 black dialed gold capped Seamaster with cal 345 movement and BOR bracelet...

 

That might not be a jumbo, but it is fantastic anyway.

 

Wow!

 

Mother of god.
it is beautiful! my next goal is black dial.

 

Be careful, a black-dialed Seamsters are a minefield of redails. I agree, the example here is a beauty!

 

Thank you. For my own education, is there a particular case (or group) of number(s) that designate a "jumbo" , or is it just the diameter? I was drawn more to the beefy lug request...

 

It's an ongoing debate, but I lean towards defining that if a watch is a bigger version than the most common model, then it is a Jumbo. A Speedmaster isn't a jumbo, even though it is 42mm, but a 36.5mm ref. 2494 or 2657 which is 2mm larger than the ref. 2757/2576 would constitute one.

The OP defined what he wanted to see like this:

...And a number of us posted something else, all for others to enjoy

 

I’ll let jumbo beefy lug 55* and 56* caliber powered models and jumbo 50* caliber non-beefy Seamasters (ie 2976) slide

 

I might be procrastinating on something right now. Have I summarized things correctly?