LADY BERKSHIRE / CARLA

Will, the problem I see is that the issue is moving beyond variants into other models.  The current thread regarding the Carla and Lady Berkshire is a good example of that.  How does one distinguish between those two models if you do not know what strap yours came on originally?  Mine has no strap at all, so, if the strap is the sole determining factor, how could it be decided which it is?  I think the result is an "unknown" not a tentative, and the solution I proposed would address that problem.

Fifth has today thrown out other models which he believes turn on this issue (Knickerbocker, et al.).  A week or so ago we were debating the Ashford and Jordan on this very issue.  It is coming up as a point of contention in model IDs on at least a weekly basis, and not just in regard to variants or a few limited models.

Then, as you pointed out, there are all the series with variants--Academy Awards, His and Her Excellencies--for example, which together add up to a lot of watches.  A review of the database shows that this issue matters with variants, as the watches are inconsistently ID'd based on whether the watch owner subscribes to the "strap theory" or not.  Where the strap is considered to matter, the variant name has not been used, so, again the result is not a tentative ID of the variant but rather a complete dropping of the variant name.

Moreover, the Carla and Lady Berkshire debate opens the possibility that any watch can change IDs based on the strap, and, until you have all the ads, you don't know what the other possibilities are.  Until yesterday, no one had any idea that there was a Carla out there, so the strap on the Lady Berkshire was considered not to matter.  We may now have evidence to the contrary.  That could happen with any watch.  If the strap can determine the ID, how can you know what model you have, if you have no strap, or if the strap doesn't match the ad?  This is true for any watch, not just a few, and not just variants.

Until we have all the ads, we cannot know all the facts about any given model, so it is simply a fact, IMO, that any watch ID--not just for variants or a few others--could be argued to turn on the strap.  You may think that is taking things too far, but I think it is taking them to their natural conclusion.  Fifth's only answer to this problem is to say that he can determine whether or not the strap matters.  Is that really the answer that everyone wants to live with?

My suggestion was to come up with a way to deal with this that acknowledges the known or potential importance of the strap and accounts for it as a factor in the model determination but does not make the ID rise or fall on that basis alone. Fifth's 1950 Academy Award listing was the basis for a sort of satellite discussion of this issue today, and I think it serves nicely as an example of how a revised rating system could work nicely in these types of situations.  Hopefully, he won't delete the listing before folks can read that discussion.

Of course, I am not a panel member, and I do not have any watches listed here, so, ultimately, the issue really does not concern me.  I will continue to ID my watches in the manner that I believe makes the most sense, and everyone is free to visit my site if they are interested in a different point of view. 

Now, I too am done with this discussion.  It has been a long day, and others should have the chance to voice their opinions.

If the only evidence for model id is the band/strap, can we have a dual model in the database until such time that there is new evidence of another distinction? In other words instead of having both Tuxedo and Craftsman models in the db how about Tuxedo/Craftsman.

The ID should hinge on which mount the Watch is on now, at the time of entry into the database.

I honestly don't see what the cuffuffle (sp) is all about.

Lisa,

I would say that the Panel Members should nominate models for eligibility and then vote on whether or not to consolidate model names. This way a consolidated model should get 3 stars/checks. If the models are kept separate how many will get 3 stars/checks?

As far as those models with letter variants I think that the rating system is already a sufficient way to  agree or disagree. Members who add watches to the db are expected  to include evidence by way of an ad, if one exists. No ad, no variant. I would ask that any Panel Member who sees fit to apply demerits to a models rating please post their reasons.

Of course all of this depends on Panel Members casting their vote based on the evidence at hand rather than intuition, assumption, or personal reasons. I'm in no way implying that this happens just saying that it shouldn't. Personal experience is important but it's just that, personal. One can't expect to influence another's opinion without hard evidence.

Darren

Lisa,

I don't remember which thread but awhile back I proposed having a system based on rating the individual components of the subject watch, case, dial, movement, etc., to produce an average.

I agree with you that accepted standards should be devised and held to.

Darhin, I hope that you'll nominate yourself.  For months I have noted your consistently thoughtful and intelligent contributions to the discussions.  You're obviously interested in what's being accomplished here, and you're great with the crystal specs.  I think you would be an excellent addition to the panel.

I hope you change your mind at some point in time DarHin.  I listen to what you and everyone esle says anyway, but you have the interest, skills, and most importantly the passion.  You are also consistent and logical.  Just something to think about..... and you can always decide to become a panel member later too.

I agree Darren you would be an asset to the site, I vote Darhin be made a panel member.

Seriously, I appreciate the kind words but I think we should get back to the topic at hand and let Mark have his thread back.

This has been a real Eye opener and although the idea has been deemed to be mine, it is not.

The Vintage ads are sending the message and if We are to correctly ID Bulova Watches We must listen.

I am 100% positive that this is not the only Gamechanger hidden inside the archives of the Library of Congress and look forward to Lisa's future visits and discoveries.

Mark, if what you say is true, that these two watches are a "game changer", and there are more "game changers" out there in as yet undiscovered ads, then you should be willing to change the game accordingly.  The result of not adapting to new information, and continuing to address the issue on a case-by-case basis as you suggested in your Academy Award thread, will only lead to further arguing and inconsistent and incorrect model IDs.

I respectfully suggest you consider the following:

• If the strap is the only difference between the Lady Berkshire and the Carla, then we have now shown that the model ID of any watch--not just a select, known few and not just variants--can turn on the nature of the strap.  There is no difference now between claiming that an Academy Award "Q" may not really be a "Q" because the strap does not match the ad and saying that any watch may be something different because the strap does not match the ad. 
• Since we do not have all the ads, we cannot know whether any given watch has a counter-part bearing a different strap and different model name.
• If the model ID of any watch can change with the strap, then any watch lacking the original strap matching an ad cannot be identified with certainty.  That includes watches that have no strap and watches that have a replacement strap, as those situations keep us from knowing the identification of the model at the time of manufacture.
• If we cannot positively ID a watch because it lacks the original, ad-matching strap, then any such watch must either be considered an "unknown" or be tentatively ID'd using the closest matching ad.
• If we are willing to acknowledge that any such watch can, at best, be tentatively ID'd, then why not change the rating system to clearly and accurately reflect the basis of the tentative ID?  The way to do that is a system that relates the model ID rating to specific elements of the watch.

If we settle for a case-by-case examination of watches to determine if the strap matters, then we are settling for making IDs based on incomplete information.  Unless we know that we have all the ads, we can never be certain that a given model is what we think it might be.  Consequently, the panel's decisions will be based on assumptions and quite possibly will be erroneous, with no acknowledgement of the possibility of error in the rating analysis. 

Moreover, the case-by-case approach has already proven to result in a mess, including much arguing--sometimes rather bitter--and a large number of inconsistent model IDs in the database.  Just look at the Academy Award and Excellency IDs in the database, if more proof is needed of the inconsistency resulting from a case-by-case approach and no clear, consistent standards for making IDs.

If we had a system that identifies specific elements of a watch believed to be important to an ID and ties the model ID rating to those elements, then the arguing and inconsistencies should lessen, if not go away altogether.  Moreover, the model IDs would take into account missing, and possibly crucial, information, such as the strap.

To continue to guess at the importance of the strap on a case-by-case basis, always with insufficient information to make a definitive decision, is to play by the old rules, ignoring your own declaration that the game has changed.  I do not see how that approach makes sense given what we know--or think that we know--now.

Lisa I don't hold the answers but I'm confident enough in the Panel to think the current issue will go the way of the 'FRANKENBULLY / NON- CONFORMING' amongst other speed bumps in the Road.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

I would think that since you were so keen on presenting this issue and arguing that it is a "game changer", you would be more willing to deal with the ramifications, which are myriad and extensive.

It's one thing to present a potential issue, it is quite another to figure out what to do about it.  You certainly seemed to have dropped the ball.

I think this is just another example of your love of stirring up trouble rather than suggesting information, answers, and solutions that facilitate forward progress.  As usual, all that will result is a waste of time and energy.  I, for one, have spent far too much time responding to your pointless provocations.  In the future, I will take a clue from most of the panel and site members, who have clearly opted to simply ignore them.

I'm not 'stirring up trouble' as You so kindly put it NOVA. merely making observations of what the ads are saying.

Perhaps We should bury Our Heads and pretend that this issue doesn't exist or never happened?

Without becoming overly analytical, this too shall pass.

IMO

If you don't intend to bury your head and pretend that the issue doesn't exist, then do something about it.  It will not just pass, and you know it.  This issue is an ongoing major bone of contention in making model IDs. 

If you're not intent on just stirring up trouble and trying to prove that you're always right, then work on being an active part of the solution.

Clearly, there is no reasonable hope of having an intelligent discussion and resolving an issue around here.  The final resort is always some idiotic GIF involving baseball bats or a dead horse.  I give up.

Well it was just making a point......You or Mark neither one will give an inch on your beliefs .It was mainkg a point on you two and your constant bickering nothing more nothing less .Your both right in your own mind so why continue to squabble over a moot point as you two will never agree on anything.