Seamaster cal. 321 sub register hand help

Posts

127

Likes

210

rennfahrer

·Jun 7, 2016

Hello all:

I was hoping the experts and @Archer can help me out: I have a ref. 14364 Seamaster cal. 321 (below) which has had its sub hour register replaced at some point.

They appear to be 4.25mm length. Are these hands the same as the Speedmaster (say 2915 or 2998)?

Will newer replacement register hands for the 1957 Reissue 3894.50.00 work? Or are these 4.0mm?

Also, I am assuming that the seconds register hand for the 145.0049 won't work? Different tube diameter or length perhaps?

Thanks in advance,
Patrick

 

Posts

127

Likes

210

rennfahrer

·Jun 7, 2016

Another alternative: buy the hour register hand for the 3575.20.00 and have it chromed instead of the blue? Thoughts on this? Of course, I could leave it alone, too.

 

Posts

38

Likes

79

Emiel

·Jun 8, 2016

Hello,

Would it be possible to switch the hand of the subdial at 9, with the hand of the subdial at 6.
The reason is: the hands for the chrono function are different from the hands for the hour indication.
The subdials at 3 and 6 are subdials for the chrono function, while the subdial at 9 is the minute indication for the hour function.

I'm not sure if I explain this clearly.

Kind regards,
Bart

 

Posts

1,641

Likes

5,753

pascs

·Jun 8, 2016

All the sub dial hands have different hole sizes so they can not be swapped around

I think also the 3594.50 Speedmaster hands are a little wider than the originals

 

Posts

127

Likes

210

rennfahrer

·Jun 8, 2016

Thanks @pascs and @Emiel .

Ofrei offers 4.25mm sub hands that "look" like a match only gold-plated - may be easier to have them painted silver if they are the right size.

 

Posts

1,641

Likes

5,753

pascs

·Jun 8, 2016

Just had a quick look through the old hands I have. The gold colour is from a 321 Seamaster (2907 or 2947) and the silver one is from a 3594.50 Speedmaster.

I wasnt right about the width but the newer hands are a fraction longer and slight different profile

Edited: Jun 8, 2016

 

Posts

127

Likes

210

rennfahrer

·Jun 8, 2016

@pascs excellent work! Thank you. Yes, it looks like the newer one is maybe longer by 0.25mm (maybe?) and it a fraction slimmer at the widest part of the "sword." Really thanks for this - I will have to archive this.

 

Posts

1,641

Likes

5,753

pascs

·Jun 8, 2016

rennfahrer

@pascs excellent work! Thank you. Yes, it looks like the newer one is maybe longer by 0.25mm (maybe?) and it a fraction slimmer at the widest part of the "sword." Really thanks for this - I will have to archive this.

Hope the pic helps. I think once fitted to the watch it would be hard to see the difference, except the newness of it could be distracting 😀