So I was looking as the one-owner ‘65 on the left, and I was wondering who the heck shaved down the number 6 end-links, because there is a somewhat noticeable gap between their edges and the inside of the lugs.

Then I got to thinking, that’s really not likely, so I pulled this ‘64 out (right side), which has no gap. And then I put them side to side:


We are certainly all aware of the case differences between these two years, but this I never expected. There appears to be a subtle difference in the the inside width of the lugs. Now, not having a plethora of both examples, I can’t tell if this is a fluke, or the rule. Has anyone else picked this up?

 

Or have the insides of the lugs been polished away on one of these watches?

 

It would have to be the larger distance one then, and: because it’s a one-owner watch ; the rest of it is mint ; and there is no viable reason to do so, I would have to say I doubt that.

 

Also, if you look at the lugs, why would the left watch lugs be thicker than the right watch lugs, if the left watches lug-insides were polished away?

 

Obviously because they were even thicker to start with, therefore aesthetically displeasing, and the original owner shaved them down to make them look better.

 

Yes I had a -65 that also had a noticeable gap. 506 end links.

 

Send them here for inspection.

 

"I was sitting here comparing my two Ed Whites when I realized I have two Ed Whites and shat myself."

Sorry, i got distracted. What was the question?

 

Amigo: if two Ed Whites cause significant lower intestinal distress, then there are a significant number of members here that can never leave the bathroom...