Trying To Replace A Tag From 1999-2000

T
Posts
5
Likes
0
First post 馃榾 I lost my watch in a divorce and looking to replace it with a similar watch. Like a lot of stuff purchased pre cell phone camera days I just never thought to take a photo of it after I purchased it back in 1999 early 2000. The box and the watch were gone prior to the divorce so I don't have any sort of records either.

I know I bought it in either late 1999 or very early 2000. I know it was from the 2000 line. It had the black face. So I did some research and found a reputable seller and bought one. The watch arrived today and it's WAY too small.

I was sure my watch was a WK1110.BA0317 and that's what I ordered. ( pictured below). It looks exactly like my watch ( or very similar) and it said "full size" which I assumed was what I had. But this turns out to be 37mm as "full size". My watch had to be in the 44/45+mm and up range. Clearly my fault for not doing a better job of understanding the size.

Any ideas on the part # I should be looking for? I know there were a few years there where different models only had some minor differences. Any help would be appreciated.

BIG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANKS in advance.

s-l1600.jpg
Edited:
 
bdev
Posts
207
Likes
436
The 2000 series, WK1111, was always a 37mm, which was TAG's full size. If you had a 44/45mm watch, it wasn't a 2000 series.
 
T
Posts
5
Likes
0
bdev bdev
The 2000 series, WK1111, was always a 37mm, which was TAG's full size. If you had a 44/45mm watch, it wasn't a 2000 series.

Thanks for the reply. I am just guessing on size. Only thing I know is it was bigger than this watch I received. I thought for sure they sent me the wrong watch because it looked so small compared to how I remember my original. Could have been 40/41/42mm but I'm not sure that helps if all 2000s were 37mm. And I may have the Wk111 part number wrong. That was just where I landed based on how I remember the watch looking..

And I'm sure part of the problem is 37mm was standard mans size watched in 1999 and today that would be on the smaller side.

The other thing is I can't even get this watch on my hand ( it has the standard set of links). I would need to buy 5+ links and that's something I know I didn't do when I bought it from the jeweler 20 or so years ago.

Thanks again for the the reply.
 
bdev
Posts
207
Likes
436
Links were probably removed to fit the previous owner (or many other previous owners) and never replaced when sold to you. TAG watches from that era should come with enough links to fit a wrist around 8".

Here's a link to the TAG 2000 catalog....
https://www.calibre11.com/catalogues/tag-heuer-annual-catalogues/2000-tag-heuer-catalogue/


BTW.....you might have purchased a WT1110 "LINK" back in 2000. It's a 42mm watch. I thought of this 'cause I have one. See attached pic.
Link 2.jpg
Edited:
 
Aquagraph
Posts
22,236
Likes
31,509
Hi TCM1968, welcome to the forum. You, like I did, have found out the hard way that older watches are smaller. As others have said, the 2000 series was 37mm as standard, so leaving that aside... your best bet is probably to check out the catalogues from the era and see if you can find your watch that way? Calibre 11 has a tn of catalogues available, just follow the link below.

https://www.calibre11.com/catalogues/
 
T
Posts
5
Likes
0
bdev bdev
Links were probably removed to fit the previous owner (or many other previous owners) and never replaced when sold to you. TAG watches from that era should come with enough links to fit a wrist around 8".

Here's a link to the TAG 2000 catalog....
https://www.calibre11.com/catalogues/tag-heuer-annual-catalogues/2000-tag-heuer-catalogue/


BTW.....you might have purchased a WT1110 "LINK" back in 2000. It's a 42mm watch. I thought of this 'cause I have one. See attached pic.
Link 2.jpg

Yes, on the removed links... The band was right around 6 3/4 inches. I could barely get 4 fingers in there so would have had to buy a number of extra links ( if memory serves they came with my original purchase and the jeweler fitted me in shop)..

I have been doing a deep dive on other possibilities. The WT1110 is one of them but I don't remember the link strap. Have been going back through the old manuals as well but even that can be confusing. Other than the size feeling small to me I remember everyone always joking about how "heavy" it was and how could I wear that. The one I just ordered was so light I didn't even think anything was in the box...

One avenue I am doing a deeper dive on is it's possible I bought the watch in 1999 new but that it wasn't that years model..

Thanks again for the replies...
 
T
Posts
5
Likes
0
Aquagraph Aquagraph
Hi TCM1968, welcome to the forum. You, like I did, have found out the hard way that older watches are smaller. As others have said, the 2000 series was 37mm as standard, so leaving that aside... your best bet is probably to check out the catalogues from the era and see if you can find your watch that way? Calibre 11 has a tn of catalogues available, just follow the link below.

https://www.calibre11.com/catalogues/

Thanks for the reply. Yes, have been going through the catalogs. Did not see one for 1998 though ( maybe there isn't one) but that year could line up with my purchase if my new purchase was last years model.

And yes, the 37mm thing is sort of a shock. That was considered a mans watch in 1999 and today that's probably more of a larger ladies size.

That was my initial reaction. That I had been sent a ladies watch. I couldn't get it on my wrist but I laid it on my arm and it looked like a toy or something. Granted my wrist is in the 8 inch range but it just looked really small. Another reason I can't imagine I would have bought a 37mm 20 years ago. My wrist size hasn't changed 馃榾

Thanks again for the reply... the hunt continues...
 
Aquagraph
Posts
22,236
Likes
31,509
A bit of a long shot, but saying it was heavy makes me think of the Aquagraph. That is seriously heavy, but you haven't mentioned a chronograph or rubber pushers... and it wasn't available in 1999. It may not be what you had, but it sounds like it would be your kind of watch.

P9030131.jpg
 
T
Posts
5
Likes
0
Aquagraph Aquagraph
A bit of a long shot, but saying it was heavy makes me think of the Aquagraph. That is seriously heavy, but you haven't mentioned a chronograph or rubber pushers... and it wasn't available in 1999. It may not be what you had, but it sounds like it would be your kind of watch.

P9030131.jpg

It was not a chronograph........ but a chronograph is what I will get if I can't figure out the 1999 watch... 馃榾 that Aquagraph is a sharp watch..

But also now remembering how heavy it was. Remember a co-worker getting one and trying mine on and remarking at how much heavier my Tag was than his and that leading him to find out he bought a fake.

Again, 20 years ago.... it's possible I'm just thinking of a standard guys watch today and then I get the 1999 watch and it just looks and feels really small ( but it could have been heavy and large in 1999)...
 
Aquagraph
Posts
22,236
Likes
31,509
T tcm1968
It was not a chronograph........ but a chronograph is what I will get if I can't figure out the 1999 watch... 馃榾 that Aquagraph is a sharp watch..

But also now remembering how heavy it was. Remember a co-worker getting one and trying mine on and remarking at how much heavier my Tag was than his and that leading him to find out he bought a fake.

Again, 20 years ago.... it's possible I'm just thinking of a standard guys watch today and then I get the 1999 watch and it just looks and feels really small ( but it could have been heavy and large in 1999)...

Actually a lot of fakes are 'heavy' because people perceive that an expensive watch should be heavy, when that's not necessarily the case... you will also see people peddling fakes on Ebay and remarking how heavy the watch is... my first TAG was fake, and that was pretty heavy. I think the bracelet was plated brass!
 
dtf
Posts
2,827
Likes
2,795
T tcm1968
Again, 20 years ago.... it's possible I'm just thinking of a standard guys watch today and then I get the 1999 watch and it just looks and feels really small ( but it could have been heavy and large in 1999)...

I suspect this is the problem, watches are a lot bigger than a 20 years ago. Yesterday I was wearing my 10yo aquaracer, at 38mm it feels tiny compared to everything I wear these days.

Have you considered buying the modern version of your watch? The aquaracer is a direct descendent from the 2000 line and there are lots of current and past models in the 41-45mm range.

For example 43mm aquaracer automatic with steel bezel, https://www.montredo.com/en/aquaracer-43-automatic-date-calibre-5-10457.html

41mm quartz ceramic bezel, https://www.montredo.com/en/tag-heuer-aquaracer-41-quartz-blue-dial-way111cba0928-10449.html
Edited:
 
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

Jabilas

Take watch to a local repair shop or send it into TAG?

Jabilas TAG Heuer Discussion
K
Kissezenet
Posts
17
Views
5K