While my eye tends towards the condition of the dial as the first thing I look at on a watch, I started thinking about how, generally speaking, one would assume there would be at least some wear similarity between the bezel, and the lug tops of a flat-lug Speedmaster, in particular. In the ghost bezel thread, I saw these two outstanding pieces, and noted that the bezels seem more worn than the corresponding lug tops, which were likely polished. Not a criticism mind you, just an observation. The question: does it bother you if there is a miss-match of condition here, and do you prefer it when the wear extent is similar regarding these two watch aspects?
That Zombie (top pic) is just a fancy movement holder. I couldn't find a better way to store the movement.
Holy . My mind boggles at what could be concocted with a combination of this and the 105002/2915 'parts holder project'. Absolutely love this one @oddboy. DIBS.
I am too. And here's what prompts the question: there's a lot of talk these days about "untouched" or "an honest example," meaning any type of watch clean-up or polishing is verboten. For pieces with historical significance, yes, I can see that, leave it alone, preserved as it endured whatever mission it went on...land, sea, or air. For Joe Blow's '67 Speedy that he sweated on, gardened with, and bowled with on Tuesday nights, I can pass on his wrist cheese and dirt. I will clean it up, and give the scratches a sympathetic polish, even if, with current collecting trends, it devalues it somewhat. I am the new owner; I'm not beholden to Joe's history with the watch. The new polished lug tops give me a platform to put my own scratches on, to create my own history.
