I bought this tonight... seller said it's the original case that goes with the watch... NOS? I don't know about that but....
It has a Director type case.... with the X-Dial we've now come to see was in fact a Academy Award variant dial.
What do we think about this? I've seen this watch before... and with what we're learning... it could very much be legit.
In reply to It is what it is until proven by FifthAvenueRes…
In reply to Another Mystery to by OldTicker
Yeah... the pictures weren't that great but the color of the velvet inside the case jumped out at me...
Pretty stoked... can't wait to see... she advertised it as watch new in case with tags... hrmm.. pictures don't do it justice but if it is... wow... this is one for the shelf alright.
In reply to ...was doing a little by FifthAvenueRes…
In reply to The previous Owner stated the by FifthAvenueRes…
In reply to Well, I know that I believe by NOVA
In reply to If Bulova 'agreed' (they were by FifthAvenueRes…
On October 21, 1952 Bulova stipulated to the Federal Trade Commission that it would no longer use the Academy Award name. That's a legally binding agreement, apparently based on action taken by the FTC (rather than resulting from a private lawsuit). Failure to comply would likely result in severe penalties.
I don't know if Bulova pulled all the AAs currently on the market at that point or if they just quit making new ones, but I think we can assume that anything dated after 1952 cannot legally be called an AA.
In reply to I dunno Counselor, here's one by FifthAvenueRes…
You are basing that assessment solely on an eBay seller claiming that was the original box for this watch.
And I didn't say that you couldn't call it an AA, rather I said that you couldn't legally call it an AA after 1952. Not according to the court order I just read. I'm looking for the FTC proceeding to see if we can get more details about the exact terms of the stipulation.
And don't call me Counselor. I am not holding myself out as an attorney. I could get in big trouble for that. Seriously.
I'm not argueing for or against and I can't understand why eveything becomes a battle here, it's getting a little boring. I don't automatically assume that every eBay Seller is a liar, I look at the Seller befor e I buy and never Buy from 'watch dealers' - private individuals only and what would this individuals motive be to lie - it's not a $500 sale.
Shown is the Watch - as I originally stated it is what it is. Jerin is a big boy, He will figure this one out.
Peace.
In reply to I'm not argueing for or by FifthAvenueRes…
No one has accused the seller of lying. There's no need to be so dramatic. We all know that most eBay sellers know little about what they are selling. It very well could be that this seller obtained the watch from someone who claimed the box was original. . . or bought the watch from a jeweler who put it in that box. That still doesn't make the watch an AA, despite the best of intentions and full disclosure of all available information on the part of the seller.
Fifth, you argue about almost everything anyone says on this site. I'm surprised to hear you say it is getting boring. I was under the impression that you thrive on the debate.
Jerin surely can "figure this one out" but he asked for our opinion. And that's all we're giving him--including you. So chill. . . please.
I was just reminded of this thread, where an obvious AA was sold in a Director box. Does that mean we should really consider the watch a Director? I mean, it was sold that way, by a trusted eBay seller, no less.
In reply to Wow lots of tetchyness on by GVP
I'm not feeling testy at all, but I can't speak for others. There may just be way too much reading between the lines going on here.
I am just talking about a watch. . . and also the criteria we use for identifying them. The larger picture here is that, if asked the question generically -- should a watch identification be made solely on the basis of the box it was sold in? -- I believe that no one here would answer "yes". So, let's come up with some other basis for naming this watch. It doesn't matter to me whether it's an AA or not. I just don't think the box alone is sufficient to identify it.
And, by the way, I don't think Plains thought that was sufficient grounds either, which is why he presented the issue for discussion--the watch, that is, not the box.
Mark you stated that you never buy from watch dealers. I'm curious as to why? Is it because they tend to charge a little more than private sellers? I've bought a 3 or 4 watches from dealers. Had some good experiences and some not so good. There's one guy here in Chicago who has the best examples of every watch you can think of but his prices are at least 5 times higher than they are worth.
In reply to Bob, I think the genuine by FifthAvenueRes…
....and the beat goes on:
Walks like a Duck.....
Quacks like a Duck.....
must be ........an unknown Academy Award.
* Note the Dial characteristics of this Watch are identical to the known Academy Award Watches in the database, it is not a redial and Yes, this Dial is plain.
** Please keep in mind there are known Ladies plain Dialed Academy Award models.
"unknown Academy Award" = unknown watch. Unless Stephen wants to add an "Academy Award Hopeful" category to the list--then quite a few lovely watches would finally have a home.
Sometimes it just looks like a duck and turns out to be some fool parading around in a duck suit. ;>]
There has always been a general 'Academy Award' category available in the dropdown.
If in doubt use that until their is a general sensus of agreement in the myBulova community.
Debate is always welcome here as long as it is conducted in a friendly manner were by the end result is the correct identification of a Bulova watch.
Seems that the ID's come sooner or later.
I think that when I first joined this site last Oct. there were only around 200 Id'd watches in the database and maybe 5 pages of ad's.
Now there are almost 800 ID'd watches and over 8 pages of ad's
If it didn't have a curtian dial, it was not a AA, it was just something that somebody put together was the cry.
That was proven wrong thanks to Plainsman's super ability to find old ad's.
We only have a positive ID on about 6-8 models, and there are over 20 listed in the glass catalogs, so there are many more to find.
In reply to Here is a Picture that was by OldTicker
Where did you find that picture? I found it here, posted by Wayne, in the thread regarding his "His Excellency": http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1953-his-excellency-1669
In reply to Where did you find that by NOVA
In reply to Well, except for the tiny by NOVA
The watch that Plains bought has the Quadrent dial just like the "R", and "G" right??
A month ago I had two watches with a AA case and a quadrent dial that I thought were AA's, now I have a AA "R" and an AA "G" and knowing Plains, he won't rest until he hits paydirt! :-)
In reply to The watch that Plains bought by OldTicker
In reply to The watch that Plains bought by OldTicker