Case is probably not original and is a later release case.
Case certainly looks original and probably a mis-read of the first numeral in the serial number, first number being a 6 not an 8. Dial and Hands are correct.
I'd say an original piece.
What is the case Patent Date?
Case is a later 1927/28 case....trust me....
I meant that whilst the movement falls with the 5000 range the case does not and it looks like the movemet has been recased in a later edition. Also the case serial number is correct.
I trust ya here, however w/o some other pictures, pat. date etc... or a brief summary of the difference, it's not obvious to me. Is it just the recasing evedence which looks different? The 6's and 8's are hard to distinguish for those who don't look as long, hard, and close as we do.
I've PM'ed camrondarcy to see if they can update pic or confirm some details. ...but this is an old record....
case serial number as entered suggests 1928, although not evidenced by picture. We have no way of knowing if it's a mis-stamped 6. Open nine dial and hands suggest earlier than 1928. No patent date info. 17 jewel movement from picture. I can't confirm if this is a Conqueror or a Lone Eagle.
1928 based on the Seriel number entered into the field by the Watch Owner.
camerondarcy PM'ed me a couple days ago saying they would double check the case SN and update teh record accordingly. I see it's been updated, so the confirmed case SN suggests this is a 1928 Lone Eagle (which just happens to have a 1926 10AN movement with a seral number falling w/i the range of the first 5000). I've changed from 1927 to 1928.
Cam is a friend of mine here in Australia. We use to work together, so I have the opportunity to see the watch in person when he got it. He had planned on restoring it, but other priorities took over.
The movement serial was important to me at the time.