- Posts
- 2,716
- Likes
- 5,488
SOG53
·You may prefer steel over gold cap. I would take more time to find better example
Jumbo Connie 14395 Franken?
- Posts
- 952
- Likes
- 3,858
qazwsx1
·Hi all, I spoke to the dealer and he said that it was an error on his part and that it was a typo. The watch is actually a 14393 and it says this on the caseback as well. So all in all the watch checks out and there is no mystery! Apologies for sending you all on a goose chase!
Must’ve been pure luck - somehow I managed to guess it right again.
- Posts
- 1,231
- Likes
- 1,264
ErichKeane
·Just goes to show that, sometimes, we can all see what we want to see in an inconclusive photo.
It just clearly looked like a 5 to me.
- Posts
- 6,062
- Likes
- 9,377
Peemacgee
··Purrrr-veyor of luxury cat box loungersI don't think I even wanted to SEE that! I just started looking at pictures and read that, I actually don't know anything about either reference (and in fact, I skipped OPs text, just looked at pictures).
It just clearly looked like a 5 to me.
I'd love to know what you can see that I don't that would convincingly lead you to see a '5' - because for me there is simply nothing definitive between the upper horizontal and the lower curved section, other than a slightly darker section.
Anyhoo - we now know it does show a '3' - even if it doesn't look like one of those either.
- Posts
- 1,231
- Likes
- 1,264
ErichKeane
·I'd love to know what you can see that I don't that would convincingly lead you to see a '5' - because for me there is simply nothing definitive between the upper horizontal and the lower curved section, other than a slightly darker section.
Anyhoo - we now know it does show a '3' - even if it doesn't look like one of those either.
For me the area between the 'top' and the 'round' part of the number. Zoomed in, it is clear that it is filled with JPEG artifacting. There is a series of artifacts on the 'left' side between the two that makes it look like a 'bar'. Zoomed out, the diagonal bar on the right side (for the 3) was basically invisitlbe to me.
I've attached an edit with where I marked what I see. INTERESTING is that after I zoomed out and realized what I was looking at, I compared the 2 3s and realized that the JPEG compression makes the angular part of the 3 look WRONG!
So I saw the left side when i saw it zoomed out, and now based on other evidence am pretty sure it is closer to the right side (though like I said, I got it wrong, as it doesn't 'end' where it is supposed ot). In the end, I think what I've convinced myself is that the area between those two sections is a total dogs breakfast of compression artifacts that could go either way.
- Posts
- 6,062
- Likes
- 9,377
Peemacgee
··Purrrr-veyor of luxury cat box loungersThat case back ABSOLUTELY looks like 14395-61SC to me, so its an odd mix here to me.
- Posts
- 1,231
- Likes
- 1,264
ErichKeane
·I think the point I was making is that, whilst we are all just offering opinions, it isn't particularly helpful to so strongly emphasise a conclusion when it really wasn't that clear at all.
- Posts
- 952
- Likes
- 3,858
qazwsx1
·Since the last digit is unclear, I will compare it with the 14393 and 14395 from the two watches I own.
You can see that in the bottom-right image (14395), the last digit has a more open end, and the curve occupies a larger area.
You can see that in the bottom-right image (14395), the last digit has a more open end, and the curve occupies a larger area.
