Case measures 37mm lug to lug x 22mm non inclusive of the Crown using Calipers. White Dial shows raised Gilt Arabic numerals, Bulova signature and register. Hour and Minute Hands are Gilt Index style. Snap fit Caseback is Gold. Bracelet is signed by Sturdy.
In reply to Can't be the Conrad if it's by William Smith
Didn't we go down this road before? Does any one know of any other ad picturing the dial seen in the ad and on the subject watch?? That is a very different dial and not too easily mistaken for any thing else. Conrad until some one can find an other dial like this one on another watch.
Very nice watch Mark.
John
JP That dial looks very familiar- and very unique. I'll go poking around the database.
Have to ask though-How can it be a Conrad if the Conrad is advertised as 21 jewels? Non-conforming or writing off to a movement swap maybe....(w/ mvnt date matching case date), but Conrad?
Isn't unknown more appropriate for now?
I agree with JP. We had this conversation before. If the current evidence suggests one and only one model exist and it has the wrong jewel count we can put it down to a possible movement replacement at some time. The case is what it is and the dial is what it is....the movement is the only piece that could have been replaced without effecting the model (IMO) on this watch. It is unique.
CONRAD is my call at this stage until we see a advert showing the exact watch listed as a Conqueror...and then we change it.
Great advert find.
Great watch find.
This is a tricky one for me. Doesn't the current evidence include the crystal fitting both Conrad and Conqueror? Your right we don't have any evidence for a Conqueror "looking like" subject watch. But we have a crystal package saying Conqueror with this crystal shape/size. It can't "be" the Conrad though, as the current evidence includes 21 jewels. I understand what you guys are saying about the case/dial looking exactly like the Conrad ad, and writing off as a movement swap (from same year) does keep the watch record from disappearing into the "unknown" abyss....but more important to me.... when do we use the non-conforming category vs ID'ing on closest match to some but not all features? ...and when do we use "Unknown"? I'm playing Devils Advocate a little bit here- to help me be consistent.
I use non-conforming when I see a watch with a dial obviously from another model, or for the real custom jobs, or an obvious marriage w/ a movement that has been "fitted" to the case. But it's these times I wish we had definitions, or a general "exceptions" blurb.
Are we ID'ing cases and dials without regards to the movements? Not really if we say "movement swap". It is useful to note somehow that subject case/dial matches the case and dial of the Conrad without it going into the unknown or non-conforming realm.
My vote is for unknown. I'd sorta be OK with Conrad w/ moement swap (meaning I'd give one tick)....but really I'm voting Unknown because I think our "loose rule of thumb" almost forces me to vote this way. Mainly concerned over our working definitions, procedures/protocol, and when not to use them.
I'll take a look for a few other watches currently ID'ed as unknown along same line of reasoning, and ask how our decission here would affect these records ID's. Maybe in a forum post, not in this record... :)