Some questions regarding 1039/516 and 1175/640 bracelets.

[Mad Dog]

Greetings from Cincinnati, OH…



I recently received the Omega Extract from the Archives for my recently acquired 145.022-71. It states that the bracelet is a 1039/516. Also, I purchased my 145.022-71 with a beautiful and period correct 1175/640…and it was disclosed that it was not original to the watch.

The following are questions that I have concerning both the 1039 and 1175:

1039 questions…

1. The extract indicates 1039/516…but my 145.022 was a very late production 71 model from January of 74. According to the reference chart below, it does not appear that the 1039/516 went on 145.022s in 74. Is the extract indicating 1039/516 correct?



2. If I try to source a 1039/516 for purchase, what date stamp should I try to obtain for my 145.022-71 produced in January of 74?

———

1175 question…

1. 1st edition MWO shows a No.12 clasp and a date stamp…I have a No. 29 clasp and no date stamp. Is my 1175 a service 1175?

1st edition MWO indicating date stamp and No.12…


My 1175 indicating No.29…


…and no date stamp…


Anyway, I was curious as to these 3 questions…any input is appreciated.

V/R,

Collin

Edited: Dec 28, 2022

 

[gbesq]

Hi Collin. Unfortunately, I can’t answer most of your questions as I was not the first owner of the watch. As I noted in my sales post, the watch came to me with an 1171-1 service bracelet which I knew was incorrect for the 145.022-71 reference. I consulted the bracelet chart referenced in your post and noted that both the 1039/516 and the 1175/640 are correct. I selected the latter simply because I have always found the 1039/516 to have rather flimsy construction and the 1175/640, while still a flat link design, has the more robust build quality of the two. To my knowledge, there was no service version of the 1175 bracelet and it was produced for only a few years. My recollection is that somewhere on the clasp of the 1175/640 on your watch there is a date stamp that reads 2-71. Hope this helps. Regards, -Greg

 

[M'Bob]

So I guess one of the questions on the table is, do we see 1039 bracelets stamped later than 1971? Put another way: while this chart is certainly excellent, are there notable exceptions?

Hopefully, a cross-section of 1039 owners will weigh in in whether there are any stamped later than 1971. I will check mine as well.

 

[Vercingetorix]

My Speedmaster serial # 3221xxxx came with a 1039 and I have no reason to doubt it wasn’t original.

Edited: Dec 28, 2022

 

[Mad Dog]

gbesq

Hi Collin. Unfortunately, I can’t answer most of your questions as I was not the first owner of the watch. As I noted in my sales post, the watch came to me with an 1171-1 service bracelet which I knew was incorrect for the 145.022-71 reference. I consulted the bracelet chart referenced in your post and noted that both the 1039/516 and the 1175/640 are correct. I selected the latter simply because I have always found the 1039/516 to have rather flimsy construction and the 1175/640, while still a flat link design, has the more robust build quality of the two. To my knowledge, there was no service version of the 1175 bracelet and it was produced for only a few years. My recollection is that somewhere on the clasp of the 1175/640 on your watch there is a date stamp that reads 2-71. Hope this helps. Regards, -Greg

Hi Greg. Thanks for the inputs, sir. I can definitely appreciate the robustness of the 1175. Although I have not handled a 1039, I’m guessing it’s similar to my 7912 that’s on my EW…and the 7912 does not feel robust. Also, I checked everywhere for a date stamp on the 1175…no joy…and it’s no big deal…I’m just curious about it.

 

[Mad Dog]

Vercingetorix

My Speedmaster serial # 3221xxxx came with a 1039 and I have no reason to doubt it wasn’t original.

Dibbs!

[I’m fairly certain your 1039 is not dibbsable…but I said it anyway]

 

[Vercingetorix]

Mad Dog

Dibbs!

[I’m fairly certain your 1039 is not dibbsable…but I said it anyway]

The cheapest 1039 on eBay is 2x what I payed for the watch and bracelet. My wife thought it was a fake watch because the bracelets are so tinny.

 

[Dan S]

That's cool that they put the bracelet on the extract. Did you show the bracelet in the photos, or do you think they actually had that info in the archives?

 

[Vercingetorix]

2 pictures from eBay. One to make Mad Dog mad and one showing the latest 1039 I could locate with a quick search.

 

[Mad Dog]

Vercingetorix

The cheapest 1039 on eBay is 2x what I payed for the watch and bracelet. My wife thought it was a fake watch because the bracelets are so tinny.

Yeppers…I’ve seen the recent 1039 prices…holy smokes! I hear you about the tinniness…I’ve had people negatively comment on the tinniness of the 7912 on my EW.

 

[Mad Dog]

Dan S

That's cool that they put the bracelet on the extract. Did you show the bracelet in the photos, or do you think they actually had that info in the archives?

They must have had that info in the archives…all I did was provide the 145.022-71 reference as well as the serial number…no pics. All info was provided to the Chicago OB via phone/text.

 

[Dan S]

Mad Dog

They must have had that info in the archives…all I did was provide the 145.022-71 reference as well as the serial number…no pics. All info was provided to the Chicago OB via phone/text.

In that case, I would certainly tend to believe the extract. I would imagine that the (incredibly helpful) chart was made as a general guide and not meant to be taken as gospel. Interesting data point IMO.

 

[Mad Dog]

Dan S

In that case, I would certainly tend to believe the extract. I would imagine that the (incredibly helpful) chart was made as a general guide and not meant to be taken as gospel. Interesting data point IMO.

DOH!

I didn’t see the statement in red indicated by the big red arrows below…

 

[ndgal]

Here is a 145.022-71 with a June 19, 1974 production.
Original 1039/516 (mentioned on extract) with an undated buckle. One of the very last ones and one of the latest dates I have seen a 1039/516 mentioned on extract.

 

[mountainunder]

You may find this past thread about helpful
https://omegaforums.net/threads/1039-bracelet-no-date-stamped.79860/
https://omegaforums.net/threads/1175-bracelet-question.52986/
https://omegaforums.net/threads/omega-1175-647-bracelet-constellation-speedmaster.148126/

Edited: Dec 29, 2022

 

[eugeneandresson]

ndgal

Here is a 145.022-71 with a June 19, 1974 production.
Original 1039/516 (mentioned on extract) with an undated buckle. One of the very last ones and one of the latest dates I have seen a 1039/516 mentioned on extract.

I believe they ‘undated’ 1035s near the end as well. They probably should never have stamped dates on them in the first place…all us pedants lives would have been easier.

On a personal note : tinny as can be, I still love me some 1035/1039s…

 

[Davidt]

This has been discussed previously but I don’t think the traditional flat link bracelets are particularly fragile at all.
Rather they’re very well engineered, being strong and durable, yet light and comfy.

In complete contrast to many later/modern bracelets that have added heft to give the impression of quality.

 

[spacemission]

Hey Mad, nice speedmaster.

I think that there is a lot of misinformation on the internet about modern and vintage watches.

Enjoy your watches

 

[gbesq]

Not to confuse the matter even further, but take a look at this link from Millenary Watches:: Omega Bracelet Reference Numbers Ultimate Guide - Millenary Watches It indicates that the 1039 was produced from 1966 to 1972. Since Mad Dog's extract from the archives indicates that his '71 Speedmaster was produced in 1974, it seems that either the 1039 that came with it was produced at least two years earlier than the watch itself or that the information provided by Millenary is incorrect.

 

[abrod520]

Based on my experience I would also think an undated 1039 clasp would be appropriate for this late production.

However, I'd recommend getting the Forstner flat-link instead, it's all the look but a fraction of the cost and has the additional benefit of being a bit sturdier-feeling (though I need to add that I had never had any problems with any of the 1039s I owned)