This strange watch has been in my collection for quite a while. I've been too embarrassed to show it, but decided to bite the bullet and put it out there for comment.
It has a 9AN movement with the square symbol, which, I believe dates the movement to 1927. However, the case looks nothing like a 1927 model--at least not any that I've seen. The case was made by Star, which, I understand did make a few cases for Bulova for a short time, and maybe only for military watches(?)
The thing that makes me hesitate about writing this off completely is that the dial seems to fit the case, and I can't identify that dial as belonging to any other model.
So, is this watch good for anything other than a laugh and as an example of how not to spend hard earned money?
.jpg)
.jpg)
This same practice goes on today, with some of the most recognizable and luxury watches out there. Movts are changed, and the old ones sent to the factory for reconditioning, and by 'old' I mean sometimes only 5 yrs old. Cases are replaced, etc etc. However, this is at the Authorized Repair Centre, so all parts, cases and movts are genuine. I was actually quite surprised that a watch could come in and then go back to the customer with a completely different movt. I'm talking mechanicals, here, because with quartz this is a given. Does this make them Franken? Hardly.
Obviously I can't comment on exactly what was going on at the time with the Bulovas, but it doesn't surprise me. I agree that Bulova would not have stood still if this was in any way an unauthorized practice.
Well, we're all entitled to our opinions.
In my view, anything authorized by Bulova to be sold as a Bulova watch is a Bulova watch. Plain and simple. It's just like if you went out today and bought a reconditioned iPhone. It would still be an iPhone.
A reconditioned Bulova may be something you don't want in your collection, but it is still a Bulova.
Occasionally, over the years, customers have brought in BULOVAs for service that were not in BULOVA signed cases. When I suggested that the watches were recased at some point in their history, I sometimes got the objection that it was the same watch that they purchased (or remember their relative purchase) 50+ years ago.
This may shed some new light on things.
*Edited for language - Plains* Nova.
Spiegal offered a 'trade in program', Spiegal received the trade ins, Spiegal had the Watches reconditioned and then sold them. It's called Capitalism.
Case in point, at first glance a Bulova 'EXCELLENCY' - all except the 17 Jewel Movement and Master Sutton Case that is.
I see no evidence of these Watches as being Bulova authorized - does the ad state Bulova 'authorized'?
No.
When You trade in Your Car does it go back to the factory to be reconditioned?
No
Does the factory authorize the reconditioning?
No.
Fifth, I think you're being ridiculous.
Using your car analogy, if someone took my Subaru, took out the engine, put it in a different maker's body, then advertised it as a Subaru, you could bet Subaru would be all over that like white on rice. . . unless they had authorized it. It's common sense, and, I think, obviously so.
Cars don't go back to the factory to be reconditioned, but watches do. At least they do now. Again, not all watches, the ones that spring to mind are Omega and Rolex, mainly, along with other even more high end brands. I have no way of knowing if anyone had an authorized exchange program going on with Bulova, where they may have been collecting 'trades', and sending them to Bulova, or as has been mentioned, utilizing different cases on the spot to place reconditioned movts into. Surely unauthorized activity and advertising would have been jumped on by Bulova?
We can't assume the ad was authorized, but can we assume it's not?
I would agree that unauthorized cobbling together of cases and movts, particularly cases that were never used by Bulova, is frankening, and it did indeed happen. I would imagine, in that instance, the date codes for movt and case would be way off, as well as the maker of the case being odd.
In reply to Cars don't go back to the by Reverend Rob
...and I have trouble assuming that Bulova did not sanction this somehow, based on their brand name use. Or if they didn't sanction, w/ a major retailer catalog like Spiegel using their name, they would have taken legal action. Remember the similar discussion for cases manufactured by Allerton Case Co, which used Bulova movements and dials (in all instances known to date). They placed several ads in various pubs, and Bulova sued and won a trademark infringement and unfair competition case against The Allerton Company, Inc., and A. Hirsch Co.
See http://www.mybulova.com/node/4005 for an example of the ad, and a link to the legal stuff which resulted from the prominant placement of BULOVA in the ads.
I believe this ad example I link to above is actually one of the latter ads which moved the word BULOVA or reworded to make less prominent in the ad, and there were earlier ads which were the basis of the lawsuit. However, this ad was still not to Bulova's satisfaction, and it was either discontinued or reworded for later copy.