That first lens, the 6-3/8" can be a mighty fine hunk of glass, but, I'd shy away from a seller listing as "vintage quality" glass. That could mean anything from just OK to absolute junk. Don't even bother with it for a Century, not worth the trouble.
I've had two examples of this lens. No bubbles, near perfect glass on one, fine scratches on the other. Both are very sharp lenses and of course the one with fine scratching has a bit less contrast. They are big and heavy. I still have one to fool around with.
Now that 105mm Ektar can be a fine shooter, especially the later coated versions. There are also uncoated 105's floating around, I have both.
Both of mine came on cameras and both for less than the price you say this one lens is listed at.

troublemaker wrote:

That first lens, the 6-3/8" can be a mighty fine hunk of glass, but, I'd shy away from a seller listing as "vintage quality" glass. That could mean anything from just OK to absolute junk. Don't even bother with it for a Century, not worth the trouble. I've had two examples of this lens. No bubbles, near perfect glass on one, fine scratches on the other. Both are very sharp lenses and of course the one with fine scratching has a bit less contrast. They are big and heavy. I still have one to fool around with. Now that 105mm Ektar can be a fine shooter, especially the later coated versions. There are also uncoated 105's floating around, I have both. Both of mine came on cameras and both for less than the price you say this one lens is listed at.

Likewise, my 162 Optar in Graphex is a hunk. I have yet to shoot with it, as it came off of a 4x5 and is mounted on a 4x5 board. I'm reluctant to cut my last undrilled 2x3 lensboard just for this lens, since I don't have an identified need for it with my kit. I haven't needed anything between the 135 and the 203, not yet anyway. Come to think of it, it might fit on my 203's board; that 203 is a big lens, too, but it's a super lens, optically speaking.