Classic 60's style, 10k RGP case and back with a great JB Champion period band.
Added 9/18/2011 - Photos Updated 12/04/213
I think you guys are both saying the same thing? Bobbee's sayiing why he's voting for the Engineer G and Fifth is saying why he's voting for the generic, or would give less than three ticks for the "G" variant listing. I remember, when I vote, i believe there's a 50/50 chance that it really is one or the other, but we only have a "G" ad on site which best describes the subject watch.
So by voting for the "G", I'm not saying it's the "G" (as i would give two ticks tentative), I'm saying it most closly matches the ad for the "G".
Darren, re. the rectangular appearance of the case, I don't know if you saw my post concerning this in the other Engineer thread, but I think it is down to longtitudinal compression, as if you look you will see that quite a few of the ads I have posted seem to suffer from this, as the dials on even round watches look a little "egg-shaped"!
Based on the other (recent) Engineer "G" id'ed in the last week or so, this one should also be the Engineer G. Same logic as explained in both threads. Consistent.
I doubt that both the white and yellow gold are the "G" variant, but I don't think we can say which is which, so why not consitently call both the "G" until ads/documentation surfaces to suggest otherwise.
Either the yellow or gold is G, or they both are G. I go with the former, but G (consistenly) works for both now. I'd still give two ticks for G (as I do in the yellow gold version), but if we are gonna leave this record without variant designation, why did we ID the other yellow gold record to a G variant level?