Skip to content
RepWatchForumSign in

Comparison thread: 38mm vs 40mm versions of the same field watch, with a dated correction log · RWF-12889

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
QCReader 08924Participant

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-12889.

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.

ClaspCheck 08926Participant

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.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.