Forums Latest Auctions Members

Speedy 3592.50 and the 1479/812 - inconsistent end pieces?

  1. timestamp

    timestamp Feb 9, 2019

    Posts
    151
    Likes
    973
    In my quest for a nice 3592.50, I have studied countless pictures of offers. One thing that bugs me is that there seem to be two common appearances of the end links on the lugs:

    1479.jpg
    In variant A, the end pieces seem to sit very high in the case and sort of pop out on top. To my eye, this variant looks "wrong". In variant B, everything looks fine to me.

    Both postitions seem to occur in various Speedmasters (not only 3592.50, but also 3590.50), all of them intended to be delivered with the 1479 bracelet.

    Why is this? The end pieces are solid, there is no room for them being bent, right?

    1) Do the cases intended for the 1479/812 have special lug hole positions? If so, variant A would have the "wrong" case? Goes against everything I know about Speedmaster cases. Weird.

    2) Are there different versions of 812 end links? Also weird.

    3) Are the inner sides of the lugs in exibit A polished down? If so, that would need to be a huge amount of material... does not look like it. Not really an option IMHO.

    Any other reason? Much appreciated ;)

    Thanks!
     
    Edited Feb 10, 2019
  2. DotOverNine

    DotOverNine Feb 10, 2019

    Posts
    57
    Likes
    79
    I'm wondering the same. Checking this thread again and again in hope for some new info =/
     
  3. fskywalker

    fskywalker Feb 10, 2019

    Posts
    1,689
    Likes
    1,126
    In many Omega parts there have been through the years multiple suppliers, so there could potentially be 2 slightly different 1479/812 bracelets or slightly different lug positions on 3592.50 cases
     
    DotOverNine likes this.
  4. mgarelik

    mgarelik Feb 10, 2019

    Posts
    45
    Likes
    51
    I am wearing a 20th anniversary with 1479. Just snapped a pic.
    IMG_20190210_220953~2.jpg
     
    Taddyangle and timestamp like this.
  5. timestamp

    timestamp Feb 11, 2019

    Posts
    151
    Likes
    973
    Thanks!

    @mgarelik Could you be so kind, if time allows, and post three quick shots for our reference?

    - view from the underside of the watch with mounted bracelet
    - view of the side of the end pieces without the watch
    - view of the springbar holes on the lugs without the bracelet

    That way, we can compare if we find someone with an example of variant (A). Thanks!
     
  6. mgarelik

    mgarelik Feb 11, 2019

    Posts
    45
    Likes
    51
    I am wearing the watch at the office today...and can't take the bracelet off...but here is one pic of the back.
    IMG_20190211_122406~2.jpg
     
    DotOverNine, fskywalker and timestamp like this.
  7. DotOverNine

    DotOverNine Feb 15, 2019

    Posts
    57
    Likes
    79
    @timestamp: i'll get back to you this weekend. I bought the watch in the top of your pictures. Was kinda worried when you posted it...

    IMG_3956.jpg
     
    timestamp likes this.
  8. DotOverNine

    DotOverNine Feb 16, 2019

    Posts
    57
    Likes
    79
    Hi again, here's the pictures. Although it would be interesting to see another watch with the same appearance. As i said this is the same watch as in your Chrono24 picture.

    The endpieces are firmly in place when mounted so it's not like they are a bit loose.

    1479_1.jpg 1479_2.jpg 1479_3.JPG 1479_4.jpg 1479_5.jpg 1479_6.jpg 1479_7.jpg 1479_8.jpg 1479_9.jpg 1479_10.jpg 1479_11.jpg
     
  9. DotOverNine

    DotOverNine Feb 16, 2019

    Posts
    57
    Likes
    79
    Comparing @mgarelik and my picture it looks to me that my endpieces are not positioned in the same place. His endpieces show more on the backside, while mine are "popping out" in the front.

    1479_13_edited.jpg mgarelik.jpg
     
  10. mgarelik

    mgarelik Feb 18, 2019 7:30pm

    Posts
    45
    Likes
    51
    Mine look like the tabs on the back are materially thicker as well. Honestly, the end links look quite different. On my example, they are more angular and "dimensional." Although, I didn't buy mine new...I did purchase it about 20 years ago...so I am pretty sure it is as born.
     
    Edited Feb 18, 2019 7:36pm
  11. DotOverNine

    DotOverNine Feb 19, 2019 12:37am

    Posts
    57
    Likes
    79
    I purchased mine last week, so i can't be sure it's the original endpieces. However there's nothing really saying that they wouldn't be.

    In the pictures it looks kinda odd when they "pop out" on the front side. But in reallife it's nothing i really notice. Looks good on my wrist. Really happy with this watch =)

    IMG_3958.jpg
     
  12. timestamp

    timestamp Feb 19, 2019 4:43am

    Posts
    151
    Likes
    973
    @DotOverNine thanks for the detailed pictures! And congrats - I was watching the same offer (that's why I picked this example) and was litterally just hours late to buy it ;)

    Yes it does indeed look like the flaps/tabs (?) on the back are of different thickness. But then again, I don't think these could be ground down without the endlink moving around... so are these really two different "812" versions?

    It would be awesome if anyone with a variant (B) watch could snap the same pictures as @DotOverNine did, a view from the side of the (unmounted) endlinks should clear this up.
     
  13. DotOverNine

    DotOverNine Feb 19, 2019 5:40am

    Posts
    57
    Likes
    79
    Thanks @timestamp - i must admit your post did put some heat on me. But it's not like it was a real good offer or anything really. All of the rest 3592.50's on Chrono24 are clearly overpriced...
     
  14. timestamp

    timestamp Feb 19, 2019 5:46am

    Posts
    151
    Likes
    973
    Absolutely, yes. It also had the best case condition by far :)