LADY BERKSHIRE / CARLA

Since I was the only one who responded to Bob's comment, I take issue with your characterization that is was "immediately dismissed".  Rather, I responded to Bob with the possibility that the ad shows the Carla and Lady Berkshire as differently sized watches.  It is a fact that the two watches are not the same size in the ad.  However, as I stated to Bob, that could be a perspective issue related only to the way they were drawn by the artist.

I agree that measurements will help indicate if within this group of collectors we see different sizes, but the sample size will still be too small to be determinative, as we simply don't have very many examples of that watch.

We should also look at the ad as a whole to see how the watches relate to each other in terms of size.  In other words, is it only the Carla that looks smaller, or do all the watches in that vicinity of the ad appear smaller? 

To me, the other watches in the center part of the ad do not appear significantly smaller than the Berkshires --certainly not to the degree that the Carla is smaller than the Lady Berskshire.

My Case dimensions of this example are 26mm lug to lug x 19.5mm non inclusive of the Crown.

I know that you, Fifth, are never going to let go of this idea that the strap makes the model ID, but I'm going to repeat these thoughts for everyone reading this thread who may still be deciding what they think about this issue.

If the strap is essential to the process of identifying a watch, then you must further conclude the following:

No watch can ever be definitively identified unless it came into your possession with the original strap, and you have some way to prove that the strap was original.  Otherwise, it could be any model--including one for which we do not yet have an ad.

Similary, if the watch came into your possession with no strap at all, you will never be able to determine the model ID because you do not know what strap it had originally.  That rule applies to every model, including those that are well known, like the Lone Eagle, Chronograph C, you name it.

You can't simply pick and choose when a strap matters and when it doesn't, as the theory espoused by Fifth rests on the claim that the ID can turn solely on the type of strap.  So, unless your watch matches the ad in every respect--including the strap--you have insufficient proof of its identity.

And forget about arguing that Bulova may not have advertised every possibility for every strap available for a given model.  It doesn't matter.  If you don't have a matching ad, then there's no ID.

So, Fifth, I again challenge you to change every watch you have that did not come to you on it's original strap (and that must be provable) to "unknown", since according to your own beliefs, you cannot know what model it is without the original strap.  How about it?

Alternative to changing every watch without the original strap to an "unknown" we could have a model ID rating system that corresponds to specific, defined elements.  One of those could be the strap.  This has been suggested before by others.  It would seem to be a way to address this issue.

So, for example, we could have multiple check marks, which mean something like the following:

0 checkmarks - no proof exists to support the model ID, or the advertisement used to prove the ID is not a match for the case.

1 checkmark – some support for ID, but no advertisement.  In other words, ID is based on crystal specs or photo of supposed NOS watch showing a matching case.

2 checkmarks – Model ID supported by advertisement showing matching case, but one of the following is true:  1) dial does not match the ad, 3) date of ad is more than five years from date of watch.

3 checkmarks – Model ID supported by advertisement that is dated within five years of watch and the case and dial are a match, but the original strap is not present

4 checkmarks – ID supported by ad that is dated within five years of watch and all elements of the watch match the ad, including the strap

to add to the debate over the Watch - the same Crystal that fits the 'LADY BERKSHIRE' also fits the 'CARLA'.

"ladies crystal 10.4mm fits these bulova watches"

Black Beauty

Carla (6776)

Coral

Eva

Lady Berkshire

Lady Maxim

Nocturne

.....so it appears the Strap vs Bracelet may not be just another assumption after all.

More Case specs?

So, Fifth, I again challenge you to change every watch you have that did not come to you on it's original strap (and that must be provable) to "unknown", since according to your own beliefs, you cannot know what model it is without the original strap.  How about it?

No need Lisa, I just hate when ideas I propose to the site are written off as 'assumptions' and 'rants', -  I've been around Bulova Watches waaaay too long. 

This theory is no longer a theory.

IMO

More Case specs from the Members owning this Watch would be stellar.

You are always talking about how long you've been around Bulova watches.  Ten years, if I recall correctly--exactly the same amount of time I and many others on the site have been collecting, and far fewer years than many.

Moreover, it's not the length of time that matters, it's what you've done with that time.  Too many assumptions and a closed mind can result in a lot of wasted time, IMO.

If you really believe that the strap makes the ID, then change your IDs to "unknown".  That is the logical conclusion of what you are proposing, as I suspect that very few of your watches are on the original strap, and, of those, I doubt you can prove it.  If you need help, let me know.

If I really believe?

The mount does make the ID, in this Case.

You own this Watch do You not, Can You provide Case dimensions to the discussion?

Until I produced that ad, you would not--and did not--assume that the Lady Berkshire could be a different model with a different strap.  That's the point.   If the strap doesn't match the ad in front of you, then the watch could be some other model, for which we simply don't yet have the ad. 

If you're going to make assumptions, then, according to you, the one that should be made is, if the strap doesn't match the ad, it could be an entirely different model. 

So, yes, if you really believe that the strap does, or could, make the ID, then you need to change every ID you've made to "unknown" where the strap doesn't match the ad.

This isn't just about the Carla and the Lady Berkshire, and you know it.  You have made your underlying agenda very clear, and I have no doubt that you won't hesitate to use these two watches at every conceivable opportunity as an example of how the strap matters to the ID.

I'm saying, fine, if you really believe that, then follow it to the logical conclusion, and judge/name your watches accordingly.  Any that don't have a provable, original strap, should be changed to "unknown".

If you're not yourself willing to do that, then you shouldn't expect others to be willing to do it either, and you should be looking for a better solution to the problem.  Such as a revised rating system.

This may or may not apply to all Bulova Watches Lisa.

There are, and what have been assumed to be, Model 'Name changes' within the Vintage advertisements - in studying I noticed although the Cases and Jewel counts were the same the mounts were not. 

It was My contention that the vast majority of these examples, particularly the ones within a couple of Years of being advertised are not Model Name changes at all, but Models named differently based on the mount on which the Watch was Sold. - A theory which was balked at by the majority of Members, including Yourself.

With this example I think We've shown this to now be a fact.

That's right, it may, or may not, apply to all Bulova watches.  How would you know for sure unless/until you have all the ads?

Until the Carla ad came along, you did not assume that your "Lady Bulova" may not be that model based on the strap.  Now, unless you have the original strap, how do you know which it is?

We need a way in the rating system to account for this unknown.  Otherwise, we're left arguing about every single watch and whether the strap does or does not matter, with typically no way to prove the point one way or another.

P.S.  As for this example, nothing has been shown to be a fact.  Even if you believe that the crystal specs indicate the two watches are the same size, you have shown that the strap may matter in regard to these two watches ALONE.  Anything beyond that limited context takes you back to the realm of pure assumption.

It's not that difficult, in the close calls the strap determines the ID.

eg: 'KNICKERBOCKER' - 'COMPTROLLER'

The closeness of the call to be left to your assessment, of course, based on whether or not you believe the strap matters.  Sorry, that's not good enough for me.  

How about some objective standards that can be consistently applied?

A change in the rating system could help with this. 

Using your AA "Q" as an example. . .

If we came up with a revised rating system, where the strap is just one of the rating elements, your Academy Award "Q" could go back to being a "Q", which it most likely is, with one less checkmark for the missing strap.  If an ad came along later that showed the "Q" with the particular light brown leather strap yours has, then the watch would get the final checkmark.  If an ad came along later showing your watch with the leather strap as an entirely different model, then we could change the ID and congratulate ourselves for having recognized via the missing checkmark that the strap could, and did, matter.

Of course, this approach would mean that very few models get all four checkmarks, because few have the original strap, but living with that would save a lot of future arguments--at least on this particular topic.

In general, better defining what each of the checkmarks means would surely lead to more consistent results throughout the database.

Variants are just that, Variants.

To call Me out on an ACADEMY AWARD "Q" ID when the Watch did not match the advertised "Q" variant, albeit only its mount, was 100% correct.

IMO.

I like Your style and wish more Members, Panel Members, had this train of thought.

I hate to get us off a productive track by talking specifically about the Carla and Lady Berkshire ;>}, but I do think the point should be made that we have only a black and white ad to show these two watches.  As you know, at least one of these models has a two-toned case.  How do we know from this ad that they both do?  I don't think we can tell that, which means it cannot be considered a fact that the two watches are identical except for the strap.  Not yet.

Perhaps a colored ad will come along soon to further clarify the situation.  Until then, I think we should think carefully about what has, and has not, been proved in this thread.

My watch is also 26mm x 19.5mm 

We've established that 2 very similar if not identical looking Watches are named differently in the same ad.

One is shown on a Leather strap ('LADY BERKSHIRE') the other on an expansion Bracelet ('CARLA')

The Watches in question both accept the same Glass.

No other differences can be noted.

If We could get more Case dimensions from the Members who own the Watch in question it could further the debate, although IMO this is a Case closed.

Lisa, can I ask You to add Yours?

Plainsmen,  anyone?

I will not add data to an issue that is not provable and will likely be misconstrued and misused.

As I said, with only a black and white ad you cannot determine what the differences between the cases might be, and we know that at least one of them is two-toned--a fact that cannot be seen in the ad.

Moreover, a tiny sample of anecdotal evidence is not going to address or resolve the underlying issue that we're really discussing here.

So then is mine a Carla since it has the expansion band? If so i need to update it.

Does anyone's Lady Berkshire or Carla have the original strap that it came on? 

No? 

Well, then, according to Fifth, you have an "unknown", because you cannot possibly know which one it is.  And the same is true for every watch you have that is not on its original strap.

Is this the result we all think should happen?  Are you all, Mark included, busy changing your IDs to "unknown"?   If not, then please chime in with an idea for how this type of situation can best be addressed.  

By looking at mine i belive it to have the original expansion band. I may be wrong but it looks original to this watch.

No, Jim, your band is totally different.  Here's a closeup view.

Lisa, Just asking the question, but if Mark is correct about the Carla and the Lady Berkshire both using the same crystal then how could the Carla be a smaller watch? I can't see any other distinction except for the expansion band on the Carla.

I agree that with the two of them, apparently, taking the same crystal, there seems little doubt that they are the same size.

However, as stated above, the ad is black and white, so we can't see metal colors.  We know that at least one of the watches has a two-toned case, because we have actual examples of it.  How do we know the other one is two-toned?  That cannot be determined from the colorless ad.  Is it far-fetched to think that Bulova might have made one of them all gold or all silver to appeal to those who don't care for the two-toned look?  I don't think so.  More importantly, without a colored ad, we simply can't know for sure and, therefore, we cannot conclude that the only difference between the two watches is the strap.   We need a colored ad to be sure.

P.S.  Isn't that a new leather strap on yours, Bob?  Do you still have the original strap?  If not, and if you believe that the two watches are identical, how will you determine which model you have?  If the ID turns on the strap the watch came on, then only that piece of information can determine which model you have.  Otherwise, per Fifth's theory, you have an unknown.  And that is true for every watch you own where you don't have the orginal strap to prove the identity.

pffft.

The Watches are identical and I've come to the conclusion, based on what I have read in numerous posts that if Lisa isn't right then ain't no one right.

Jim,

I would call Your Watch the 'CARLA' as it is on an expansion bracelet regardless - of coarse You could always add a Leather strap, in which Case it would become the 'LADY BERKSHIRE'.

I'm done with this one.

Agreed, we cannot see the metal colors due to the black and white ad but are we agreed the watches are the same size based on the crystal information? 

I see, Mark, so now you can just make up models as you go along by adding any strap you want, regardless of authenticity or even era correctness, as long as the strap is made out of the right materials?  Doesn't even have to be the same style as the ad?

Clearly we are after different things.  I value authenticity, facts, and truth.  I can see now that we have quite different values.

This discussion has ended exactly where I figured it would.  If you follow the argument that the strap determines the ID to its logical conclusion, you end up in a place where no one wants to go.  Not even you, Mark.

Yes Lisa I did put a new leather strap on my watch. I'm not taking sides here I'm just asking questions. My watch came with an expansion band not original to the watch. I'm all for keeping a watch original so maybe for this one we should have a Lady Berkshire/ Carla :) I certainly wouldn't consider my watch to be an unknown!

What did you think, Bob, of the idea of having defined criteria for the checkmarks, one of which would be the original strap?  I threw out some ideas earlier in the thread.  I'm sure they could be improved upon.

I do believe that we could take the strap into account without making the model ID stand or fall on that factor alone.  We could also decide if a replacement strap that is true to the era and style of the original--such as your very nice leather strap--could be accepted as a valid replacement for the original.  Seems to me like there is room for compromise here.

If standards could be agreed upon, maybe Stephen could be talked into making a few small changes that would largely only be of concern to the panel members and which might end this debate.  This is not, after all, the first time we've had this argument, and I am not the only one who takes issue with Mark's position regarding the importance of straps.  The database is full of inconsistencies, many of which result from disagreement on this very issue.

Lisa I like the idea of having detailed criteria for the check marks. Compromise is always a good thing in my book. I would feel very confident the panel members could work out the details. By the way after seeing some of the debates panel members go through I'm soooo glad I declined to be a panel member. :)

I believe there are only a few models, which based on the ads we have now, may be distinguished to a variant or even different model name based on the band/strap/bracelet.  It would not be all watches, as I don't think anyone suggested this applies to all.  I believe, for those models (or model variants) to which this may apply, there could be a distinction based on the band/strap.  IMO it would not change them to unknown, but it may result in a tentative ID as one of the possibilities w/i the set of models/variants in question.  It would be counterproductive to change ID's to unknown if we are pretty darned sure it's "one or the other".  Therefore tentative.  There are lots of good suggestions above and in other posts as to how we may deal with this issue.  We are all working it out now.  Good job all!

And thanks Lisa for all your efforts at LOC. 

EDIT  IMO this was Lisa's point. It would be counter productive to change to unknown.  I think Mark is in agreement with this being true...but I'm translating here, so I could be wrong.  We are taling about a  small subset of the model ID's - or at least I am. 

So what do we call this one with the black dial same in every way only the dial is black rather than white/cream