Community Stories

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

Mad Dog
Posts
6,584
Likes
78,274
Greetings from Cincinnati, OH…

A0FBB3CA-E9C0-47F5-8278-87D59ED30699.jpeg


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


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


My 1175 indicating No.29…
A20F5BA7-AF4A-4E89-89C9-5521AC805F0F.jpeg


…and no date stamp…
B2B94036-4FEE-473C-A7F2-DCFD50253F6C.jpeg


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

V/R,

Collin
Edited:
 
gbesq
Posts
9,737
Likes
54,440
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
Posts
7,177
Likes
23,253
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
Posts
3,947
Likes
6,767
My Speedmaster serial # 3221xxxx came with a 1039 and I have no reason to doubt it wasn’t original.
67EA146B-921B-4B58-ABE9-8DB94A495791.jpeg
Edited:
 
Mad Dog
Posts
6,584
Likes
78,274
gbesq 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
Posts
6,584
Likes
78,274
Vercingetorix Vercingetorix
My Speedmaster serial # 3221xxxx came with a 1039 and I have no reason to doubt it wasn’t original.
67EA146B-921B-4B58-ABE9-8DB94A495791.jpeg
Dibbs!

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

😁
 
Vercingetorix
Posts
3,947
Likes
6,767
Mad Dog 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
Posts
24,246
Likes
53,990
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
Posts
3,947
Likes
6,767
2 pictures from eBay. One to make Mad Dog mad and one showing the latest 1039 I could locate with a quick search.
F1926A42-88EC-4451-93AF-FA39D66452F3.jpeg AF8DF4B0-929C-48B9-88F9-26B6C070D211.jpeg
 
Mad Dog
Posts
6,584
Likes
78,274
Vercingetorix 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
Posts
6,584
Likes
78,274
Dan S 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
Posts
24,246
Likes
53,990
Mad Dog 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
Posts
6,584
Likes
78,274
Dan S 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…

87A0975F-AB65-4101-8C8C-FFFFCA9B5E40.jpeg
 
ndgal
Posts
2,315
Likes
5,697
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.



 
eugeneandresson
Posts
5,071
Likes
15,650
ndgal 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
Posts
13,198
Likes
22,952
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
Posts
1,337
Likes
706
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
Posts
9,737
Likes
54,440
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
Posts
12,124
Likes
40,343
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)
 
9 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

ndgal

Crisp 1971 Omega Speedmaster 145.022-69 "Straight Writing" Bran Find. 1175/640 Bracelet. $8,500.00

ndgal Watches For Sale
ndgal
ndgal
Posts
0
Views
3K
llvhhui

SOLD Omega Speedy Tuesday with 1175/640 Bracelet

llvhhui Private Watch Sales
llvhhui
llvhhui
Posts
5
Views
17K
watchstick_81

! Omega 1175/640 bracelet (20mm)

watchstick_81 Watch Parts and Accessories For Sale
watchstick_81
watchstick_81
Posts
3
Views
3K
ndgal

Vintage Omega 1175/640 Bracelet brushed to match Speedy Tuesday #1

ndgal Watch Parts and Accessories For Sale
ndgal
ndgal
Posts
3
Views
2K
slippin

My first post, and some questions regarding my Omega Speedmaster

slippin Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
Texas Toast
Texas Toast
Posts
10
Views
4K
ndgal

Omega Speedmaster Speedy Tuesday 1 Alaska Tribute. #05XX/2012 1175/640 Bracelet

ndgal Watches For Sale
ndgal
ndgal
Posts
0
Views
2K