Mad Dog
·Greetings from Cincinnati, OH…
![A0FBB3CA-E9C0-47F5-8278-87D59ED30699.jpeg A0FBB3CA-E9C0-47F5-8278-87D59ED30699.jpeg](https://omegaforums.net/data/attachments/1529/1529942-c8821b02b19c8d0b29667b958fd6f302.jpg?hash=yIIbArGcjQ)
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?
![93BE9B74-F18E-4140-A39E-4E2094F1FD84.jpeg 93BE9B74-F18E-4140-A39E-4E2094F1FD84.jpeg](https://omegaforums.net/data/attachments/1529/1529938-65bbe3ac66ab9ee8bfafcc98ec0e4233.jpg?hash=ZbvjrGarnu)
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…
![D3D0D745-5D69-44B9-BFF0-30513353508D.jpeg D3D0D745-5D69-44B9-BFF0-30513353508D.jpeg](https://omegaforums.net/data/attachments/1529/1529951-628fb3fec7dcfa9c964f7c958bdc0920.jpg?hash=Yo-z_sfc-p)
My 1175 indicating No.29…
![A20F5BA7-AF4A-4E89-89C9-5521AC805F0F.jpeg A20F5BA7-AF4A-4E89-89C9-5521AC805F0F.jpeg](https://omegaforums.net/data/attachments/1529/1529949-2124989a3772f270d70a2f77ec060f41.jpg?hash=ISSYmjdy8n)
…and no date stamp…
![B2B94036-4FEE-473C-A7F2-DCFD50253F6C.jpeg B2B94036-4FEE-473C-A7F2-DCFD50253F6C.jpeg](https://omegaforums.net/data/attachments/1529/1529948-077f3745d2dcce020f6037b43cfbad20.jpg?hash=B383RdLczg)
Anyway, I was curious as to these 3 questions…any input is appreciated.
V/R,
Collin
![A0FBB3CA-E9C0-47F5-8278-87D59ED30699.jpeg A0FBB3CA-E9C0-47F5-8278-87D59ED30699.jpeg](https://omegaforums.net/data/attachments/1529/1529942-c8821b02b19c8d0b29667b958fd6f302.jpg?hash=yIIbArGcjQ)
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?
![93BE9B74-F18E-4140-A39E-4E2094F1FD84.jpeg 93BE9B74-F18E-4140-A39E-4E2094F1FD84.jpeg](https://omegaforums.net/data/attachments/1529/1529938-65bbe3ac66ab9ee8bfafcc98ec0e4233.jpg?hash=ZbvjrGarnu)
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…
![D3D0D745-5D69-44B9-BFF0-30513353508D.jpeg D3D0D745-5D69-44B9-BFF0-30513353508D.jpeg](https://omegaforums.net/data/attachments/1529/1529951-628fb3fec7dcfa9c964f7c958bdc0920.jpg?hash=Yo-z_sfc-p)
My 1175 indicating No.29…
![A20F5BA7-AF4A-4E89-89C9-5521AC805F0F.jpeg A20F5BA7-AF4A-4E89-89C9-5521AC805F0F.jpeg](https://omegaforums.net/data/attachments/1529/1529949-2124989a3772f270d70a2f77ec060f41.jpg?hash=ISSYmjdy8n)
…and no date stamp…
![B2B94036-4FEE-473C-A7F2-DCFD50253F6C.jpeg B2B94036-4FEE-473C-A7F2-DCFD50253F6C.jpeg](https://omegaforums.net/data/attachments/1529/1529948-077f3745d2dcce020f6037b43cfbad20.jpg?hash=B383RdLczg)
Anyway, I was curious as to these 3 questions…any input is appreciated.
V/R,
Collin
Edited: