What we don’t know

Every watch site shows you the fields it has filled in. This page shows the ones it hasn’t. The numbers below are counted from the catalog when the page loads, across all 779 references, and nothing on this page is written by hand.

The reason to publish this is on the principles page: honest absence beats false precision. A principle nobody can check is a slogan. So here is the checkable version.

Three answers, not two

Most catalogs have two states for a field: filled in, or blank. Blank does a lot of dishonest work in that arrangement, because it hides the difference between a fact nobody has looked up and a fact that does not publicly exist.

Recorded: A value is on file for this reference.
Brand publishes nothing: Someone went looking and the manufacturer does not publish it. This is an answer, not a to-do, and the catalog stores it as one. Only two fields can currently say this, because only two carry the marker that records it.
Not recorded: Nobody has filled it in yet. A genuine gap, and the only one of the three that is anybody’s fault.

The ledger

Field	Recorded	Brand publishes nothing	Not recorded
Case width `caseSizeMm`	779 100.0%	—	0 0.0%
Case thickness `caseHeightMm`	742 95.3%	—	37 4.7%
Lug-to-lug length `lugToLugMm` The single best predictor of whether a watch fits a wrist, and the one most brands decline to publish. The middle column is watches where we went looking and found nothing to record.	652 83.7%	57 7.3%	70 9.0%
Lug width (strap size) `lugWidthMm` No sourced pass has been run over this field. A reader buying a strap should measure rather than trust the blanks here.	39 5.0%	—	740 95.0%
Water resistance `waterResistanceM`	742 95.3%	—	37 4.7%
Production years `yearsProduced` Several large brands, Lange and Tudor among them, publish no production dates for any reference. Those are the middle column, not gaps.	752 96.5%	27 3.5%	0 0.0%
Case material `caseMaterial`	779 100.0%	—	0 0.0%
Crystal `crystal`	746 95.8%	—	33 4.2%
Bezel material `bezelMaterial`	700 89.9%	—	79 10.1%
Bracelet or strap `bracelet`	761 97.7%	—	18 2.3%
Dial colours `dialColors` Not exhaustive by design. On a reference that shipped in dozens of colours, this lists the commonly traded ones rather than every variant.	748 96.0%	—	31 4.0%
Hour markers `dialNumerals`	708 90.9%	—	71 9.1%
Dial finish and pattern `dialFinish` No sourced pass has ever been run over this field. An empty value here means the catalog has not recorded how the dial is worked, never that the dial is plain.	0 0.0%	—	779 100.0%
Complications `complications` An empty list is a real answer: a time-only watch has no complications. It is counted as recorded only when the row carries at least one, so the gap here is overstated rather than flattered.	635 81.5%	—	144 18.5%
Movement linked to a caliber page `caliberSlug` Every reference names its caliber in prose. This counts the ones matched to an entry in the curated caliber dataset, which is what makes "other watches sharing this movement" work. Never guessed: an ambiguous match is left empty.	304 39.0%	—	475 61.0%
Citations on the row `sources` The lowest number on this page and the one that matters most. Newer rows carry citations because a test now requires one; the rows added before that rule are grandfathered and are being worked through.	177 22.7%	—	602 77.3%

There is no score

Deliberately. A single completeness percentage would be easy to publish and would immediately become the thing worth improving, which is not the same as improving the catalog. The fields are also not equally important. A missing lug width costs a reader one measurement with a ruler. A missing citation costs them the ability to check anything else on the row.

What this page still doesn’t tell you

It counts whether a field has a value. It does not count whether that value is right, and those are different questions. A recorded figure can be wrong, and some are: the catalog runs an automated check for places where a reference’s prose and its structured row contradict each other. It currently holds 5 open disagreements about water resistance and 9 about which movement is inside, each needing a source before either side can be corrected.

The movement ones matter more than they sound. One of them is the difference between an in-house calibre and a Sellita, which is a claim buyers pay a premium for.

Four rows whose reference number we could not find

The worst version of a wrong field is a reference number that resolves nowhere, because then every other field on the row may be describing a watch that does not exist. Four are currently in that state, and rather than quietly remove them while the question is open, here they are.

DD9901-S1CA-BK (checked directly)
ballwatch.com returns "The page you requested cannot be found!" for this reference. Ball has no non-GMT Engineer III Maverick at all: the only Maverick in the catalogue is the Engineer III Maverick GMT (40mm), ref DG3028C-S1CJ-BK, whose own page states "WATER RESISTANCE 100m/330ft". The DD prefix belongs to the Engineer Hydrocarbon DeepQUEST line, not to Engineer III. So the row also carries the wrong water resistance (300m against the real watch's 100m) and possibly the wrong model.
G0A43001 (checked directly)
Piaget files G0A43001 under the POLO, not the Altiplano: the product URL on the Polo path resolves to the Piaget Polo collection and the word "Altiplano" appears nowhere on it. The row pairs an Altiplano model name and a 41mm ultra-thin description with a Polo reference number, so at least one of the two is wrong and the row cannot be right as written. For scale: Piaget's genuine 41mm Altiplano Ultimate Automatic (G0A51127) is rated 2 bar, while a Polo S is around 100m, so the row's stored 30m matches neither candidate.
26564OR.OO.D101CR.01 (reported, not yet re-checked)
Reported as not resolving on audemarspiguet.com: the direct URL 404s and a site search for "26564" returns nothing. Real Jules Audemars tourbillon references are given as 26143PT, 26346OR and 26559OR. The suffix D101CR is noted as a Royal Oak Offshore strap code (26471SR.OO.D101CR.01.A), which would make this reference a splice of two unrelated ones. Treat as a fabrication candidate rather than as a water-resistance disagreement, and re-check first-hand before acting.
FC-775MC4NH6B (reported, not yet re-checked)
Reported as absent from frederiqueconstant.com. The real variants of this watch are given as FC-775N4NH6B, FC-775G4NH6B and FC-775BL4NH6B, all the same 41mm case, all stated at 10 ATM. The suffix here looks like a corrupted form of one of those rather than an invented watch, so this is the most likely of the four to be repairable by correcting a single string. The water resistance on the row (50m) is wrong regardless: Frederique Constant states 10 ATM for the model.

A further 3 rows describe a watch that certainly exists but record a reference number that does not match the manufacturer’s scheme for it. Those are a string to correct rather than a row to reconsider, and they are tracked separately for that reason.

These were not found by looking for them. A check comparing each reference’s prose against its own spec table flagged a set of water-resistance disagreements, and the work of going to source each one turned up four references that could not be sourced because they were not there. A cheap consistency check found an expensive problem it was not designed to look for, by forcing someone to open the page.

Two rows are worth naming rather than leaving to be spotted. Dial finish sits at zero: no sourced pass has ever been run over it, so the catalog records nothing about how any dial is worked. Lug width is close behind at under five per cent. In neither case does a blank mean the watch lacks the property.

← Catalog stats · Principles · Post-mortems →