I suppose this could be an update to my long-running DW 7032: Work-in-progress thread, but brand-new threads seem to get the most response. Prove me right!
I should also link to vlydog's thread from the start of the year. This dealt with the same issues as below, but nothing definitive emerged, unfortunately.
Since October, I've been living with the rep '358' endlinks that came with my Watch International 7836 bracelet. They're beefier and fill the lugs better than the usual suspects (e.g. '455B' or '280'), but they're not a flush fit. Online sources (i.e. Morgan) indicate that the Homeplates were originally sold with ill-fitting 380s. Introduced many years later alongside Tudor's ETA 7750 chronographs, the 589 endlink was discovered to be a better fit on the earlier bi-compax models.
Some more years later, 589 begat the 605, which came with the Pre-Tiger chronograph. Apparently, these are identical to the 589s, but... I'll let our Danish friend explain:
Our very own marsupilami had great success with 605s, though his 7031 was from Yuki, not DW. Does this make a difference? Maybe. Probably. I really should've sent him a PM...
Thing is, the lughole placement on DW's case is not quite the same as on the gen. Here's a profile shot of the real thing:
... and DW's:
If you have a Monte Carlo from Yuki, Phong, or NDT, please post similar photos so we can compare.
My, that was quite the introduction. Anyway, this morning I took delivery of the single 589 endlink that I was able to snag for pretty cheap a few weeks ago. How did it fit? The curvature is an excellent match with the lugs, but the internal hoops were too far to the outside.
The right picture shows the minimal overlap between hoop and lugholes when the endlink is in place. Not even a partial eclipse!
Any ideas on how I can get this endlink to work, short of buying a different case? I don't think bent springbars are going to do it, nor can I see how bending the endlink would make things better. Help!