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.
Forum Replies Created
Case 18 — Crystal reflections: why a dark patch is not a coating test
No single lighting setup settles that question. Compare multiple controlled angles and describe the visible observation without asserting material specifications that have not been verified.
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.
Case 106 — Movement identification: the limits of a rotor photograph · comparison exercise
Reader check for “Movement identification: the limits of a rotor photograph”: distinguish the discussion point “Describe visible bridge shapes and markings separately…” 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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
Case 30 — Beginner glossary Q&A: complication, caliber, jewel count, power reserve
New here and reading spec sheets for the first time. Four terms keep tripping me up: complication, caliber, jewel count and power reserve. Short definitions would help, and so would a note on which ones actually matter when comparing two everyday watches.
Exercise RWF-24597/30: address this question within its stated limits.
Case 35 — Lug-to-lug and end-link overhang in wrist photographs
Record lug-to-lug and the effective span including rigid end links. Use a similar camera distance and neutral wrist position; photographs support fit discussion but do not replace measurements.
Case 21 — Lume comparison: keep exposure and charging conditions consistent
Summary draft for “Lume comparison: keep exposure and charging conditions consistent”: the answer addresses “Treat the comparison…”; the related point is “Repeat with equal light source, charging duration, elapsed time and camera…”. 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.
Case 2 — Lume comparison: keep exposure and charging conditions consistent
Method note for “Lume comparison: keep exposure and charging conditions consistent”: use “Treat the comparison…” 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.
Case 1 — Case finishing: distinguish a reflection from a surface mark
Limit of the answer in “Case finishing: distinguish a reflection from a surface mark”: “Ask for photographs with the light moved and…” 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.
Case 25 — Shipping timeline: separate dispatch, handover and scan events
Limit of the answer in “Shipping timeline: separate dispatch, handover and scan events”: “Distinguish label creation from physical acceptance and retain dated…” 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.
Clarification for “Comparing versions without mixing case sizes”: the point beginning “Match reference, dimensions and…” 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.
Case 14 — Case finishing: distinguish a reflection from a surface mark
A bright line appears in one polished-case image. What additional evidence would distinguish a mark from reflected light?
Exercise RWF-13622/14: address this question within its stated limits.
Reader check for “Packing photographs: document condition without exposing an address”: distinguish the discussion point “Photograph the item and protective packing…” 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.
Case 10 — Accuracy expectations: is -8 s/d acceptable on an entry-level automatic?
A correction to a common belief: an automatic doesn't need to match a quartz watch to be healthy. Consistency matters more than the absolute figure. A watch that's reliably -8 every day is easy to live with, since you correct it once a week. One that swings from +10 to -15 is the real concern.
Correction note for “Seller review template: facts, dates and unresolved questions”: retain the wording beginning “Use fields for order date, promised terms, dated…” 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.