I'm putting together a side-by-side of the 38mm and 40mm versions of a common three-hand field watch design. The aim is a reference post we can fix over time instead of repeating the same arguments. Corrections go in a dated log at the bottom. What should the table include besides case diameter, and which specs are usually misreported?
Discussion record: RWF-01729.
Add lug-to-lug, thickness and lug width as separate rows. Diameter alone tells you little about wearability. Two cases 2mm apart in diameter can be within 1mm of each other lug to lug, and that number decides whether the watch overhangs a small wrist. Also give the source for each figure: manufacturer sheet, caliper measurement, or catalogue listing.
State whether thickness includes the highest point of a domed crystal. Different measurement methods can produce different figures, so keep both the source and method beside each dimension.
Before the table goes live, a question: are you comparing current production only, or older references too? Dial printing, lume colour and crown signing often changed between batches. If older pieces are in scope, add a production-period column, or every disagreement will look like an error when it's really a running change.
Use a correction row with date, old value, revised value and evidence. A worked example could change a lug-width entry from 20 to 22 mm; do not present that example as a correction to a real model.
Summary so far. Rows: diameter, lug-to-lug, thickness (method stated), lug width, crystal type, water resistance (as specified), movement family, production period. Each row has a source tag. Corrections go in the dated log with old and new values. If nobody objects, that's the template, and later posts should give evidence rather than restate opinions.
A stated water-resistance rating does not establish the present condition of an individual watch. Separate the manufacturer specification from a dated inspection or test of the particular example.
Clarification for “Comparison thread: 38mm vs 40mm versions of the same field watch, with a dated correction log”: the point beginning “Add lug-to-lug, thickness and lug width…” belongs to the question as written. It should not be read as a report that a new check, purchase or experiment has been completed. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
Method note for “Comparison thread: 38mm vs 40mm versions of the same field watch, with a dated correction log”: use “Add lug-to-lug, thickness and lug width…” as a row heading in a proposed working record. Put the statement, its supporting source or measurement, and any unresolved detail in separate fields. This proposes a format; it supplies no additional evidence. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
Limit of the answer in “Comparison thread: 38mm vs 40mm versions of the same field watch, with a dated correction log”: “Add lug-to-lug, thickness and lug width…” is an excerpt from the discussion, not an independent verification. A reader needs the relevant original material before treating an interpretation as established. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
Correction note for “Comparison thread: 38mm vs 40mm versions of the same field watch, with a dated correction log”: retain the wording beginning “Add lug-to-lug, thickness and lug width…” in the record. If later material changes it, add the date, the changed wording and the source for that change; do not invent a completed correction here. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
Summary draft for “Comparison thread: 38mm vs 40mm versions of the same field watch, with a dated correction log”: the answer addresses “Add lug-to-lug, thickness and lug width…”; the related point is “Diameter alone tells you little…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
Reader check for “Comparison thread: 38mm vs 40mm versions of the same field watch, with a dated correction log”: distinguish the discussion point “Add lug-to-lug, thickness and lug width…” from its proposed application. The thread offers a way to reason about the question, without adding a personal experience or a newly observed outcome. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.