Bulova signed Star case in a '60s model?

Looks to me like they were cleaning out old stock maybe...4yrs on the mvmnt....like that dial its sleek but elegant...nice watch !!!!

According to Nova's own standard this is a Frankenwatch!

In the March/April edition of the Watch and Clock Bulletin, there is a nice article summarizing a brief history of the Star Watch Case Company.  Check out pages 182-183, if interested.  There were some major changes w/ this case company in 1906, again in 1929, and a merger in 1948 which lasted thru 1972.  Perhaps there was another contract of some type w/ Bulova for casing some watches during this 1948-72 regime? 

I'd have to say the watch case example above sure looks like a Bulova cased for Bulova by the Star Watch Case Company.

Thanks for the info.  I will check that out.  It's odd, though, that we haven't see more of these--if there were an arrangement between the two companies.  I will be re-inventorying my '60s collection soon, but I don't think I have any more such examples.

My theory, take it for what it's worth.

Watch Case Company's made replacement Cases for all brands. In order to aid the Jeweler or the Consumer the specific Brand the Case was designed for and the Year made was stamped on the outer back.

No proof, just a feeling...

On the movement there is an L or an upside down chevron below the word WATCH. Anyone know what that is? I have the same mark on my 10BZ in the Sea Cloud C.

Darren

The Bulova M4 doesn't match the rest of the stamping on the cases, like it was hand stamped.

It could have been done by a watchmaker trying to sell it as a real Bulova, and most Star cases have a serial number on them...Non-Conforming in my opinion.

It's funny that this watch is getting so much attention now.  I posted this forum topic over a year ago, and there was little comment on it until today.  I forgot that I even have this watch.  The watch is not entered into the database, and never will be, so no need to label it.

Well, then, Will, you will like what I found this morning on a sales site.  Nothing is as simple as we'd like it to be, huh?

Why not? It's just another Jeweler re-do, simple enough.

Basically the same watch from the same time frame in the same maker's case with the same Bulova signature.  No way that's a coincidence.  There's a story here--a Bulova story--we just don't know what it is.

Now that I'm looking for them, I'll surely find more.  I always do. 

something that happens once will never happen again.  something that happens twice will surly happen again.  Bulova story here......I agree.  I'm looking now too.

Thanks, Fifth, for pointing me in the direction of another example currently for sale.  These pics aren't great, but all the same elements are there.

Yes they are.

The Dials are showing the traditional Bulova '23' insignia - the Bulova '23' was a Waterproof Automatic.

IMO, these are Star manufactured replacements, replacement Cases always came with a new Dial. None of the Movements seen are Automatics as the '23's were, nor are they dated 1964 as the Cases found are.

Okay, so who in 1964 decided to gather up a bunch of Bulova 23 watches and replace the cases with Star cases and the "wrong" movement?  Who?  Why?

The "replacement case" theory has never made one bit of practical sense to me.  No factual scenario has ever been presented that could explain this phenomenon. 

This is not the first time we have seen Bulova movements and dials in non-Bulova cases--lots of them--all with identical characteristics.  I'm referring, of course, to the orange and white dial jobs, all of which have Bulova dials and Bulova 10ANs and even the same style of dial but aren't in Bulova cases.  After you see a dozen or so of something, the whole random case replacement theory seems silly.  It's not random or occassional, its methodical and intentional.

The theory used to be that any case that didn't have a Bulova signature inside the case was a so-called replacement case, but after we gathered up a bunch of them, all from the same few year period, and all well known models, even you, Fifth, dropped that theory and posited the possibility that they were cases made somewhere besides New York, thus explaining the absence of the "New York" signature inside the case.

There could be an equally plausible and understandable reason for these watches--one that makes a whole lot more sense than "replacement case" ever has.

P.S.  You say that replacement cases always came with a "new dial", but not, I believe, a dial with  the name of a well known watch manufacturer printed on it, along with the name of one of that manufacturer's well known watch lines.  Imagine the legal problems that would have resulted from such a practice.  And, in this case, we're talking about a well known case manufacturer, not some fly-by-night maker of imitation Bulovas.

So poking around the net I find more info, albeit it's mostly opinions. 

Some chatter of the solid gold Accutron cases (some say all solid gold accutron cases) were outsourced by contract to both Schwab and Wuischpard (S&W) and The Star Watch Case Company in the 1960's. 

A little later (late 1960's to maybe 1972/3?) , the names below helped find info on a potential contract in which Bulova was interested enough to spend some R&D money on trying to get their Swiss made chronos to meet the "preferred" US made standards in RFP for watches supplied to NASA, with some connection to Star Watch Case Company. Don't know why they wouldn't use their own US cases?  It's bits and pieces of info here and there. The commonalities among the stories indicate that something akin to a pre-proposal RFP had Bulova offering to supply NASA "US" watches at a buck each, but Omega offered similar product for a penny each. 

Omar Bradley, Jim Shelby, O. A. Stark, NASA, Omega

Apparently Omega got the contract, and supposedly used Star cases, although I have not found an example of an astronaut Speedmaster in a Star case.  Seems like one of the Stark family and the new management regime at Star were somehow working with Omar Bradly of Bulova, but it's unclear if this went beyond some prototype Bulvoa/Star research. 

Something Bulova is going on here, as Nova said.  We just don't know what....yet.

I take issue with the assertions made above that all 23 Jewel watches are selfwinding and/or waterproof.

In addition to the subject watch, I have a fully signed 1960 model running a 10BZ 23 Jewel movement.  It is not automatic or selfwinding.  Just like the subject watch, the dial reads, "Bulova, 23 Jewels".  It is signed inside the case, "Bulova, Fifth Ave, New York", and outside the case "Bulova".  The crown is also signed "Bulova".  Both the case and movement have the 1960 date code.  In size and shape, it is quite similar to the subject watch.

A review of the watch database reveals quite a few watches marked 23 Jewels on the dial, running a 10BZ movement, and not marked waterproof or selfwinding/automatic.

Additionally, in my experience, after 1960, Bulova dropped the inside the case signature and went with "Bulova" on the outside only.

So, the only thing unusual about the subject watch is that, along with the Bulova signature on the outside of the case, it has the Star signature, just like other, similar watches we've seen.

I had a customer about a year ago, came in with two nearly identical watches, to get an estimate for servicing. One watch was a Bulova, with the distinctive lugs like a '51 Ashford, but I think there may be other models with this 'folded ribbon' type lug. The other was a Benrus, with the same case. From a couple feet away, you couldn't tell them apart. I had a quick peek inside, and the movt in the Bulova was stamped Bulova, and the movt for the Benrus was stamped Benrus. The Bulova case was stamped Bulova, and the Benrus case was engraved Benrus on the outside caseback.  I can't for the life of me remember the casemaker, but it may have been Star Case. I have been looking for another one since then. The customer said he'd think about the service, and I never heard back from him. My point here is these two cases were identical. While it is possible A Bulova case may have ended up with Benrus innards, it doesn't explain the clearly marked caseback of the Benrus. I also know this is just hearsay, as I have no pics to back it up, but I am still looking for another one of these Benrus made lookalikes. I do think it odd, that both companies would go with the same case if they were sourcing from the same company, but perhaps they were unaware the other was using the same case? At any rate, both companies sourced cases and movts from other companies, and maybe one was a deliberate copy of a successful model. 

I continue to think on' t....

edit: Folded ribbon doesn't really describe it

In the case of the subject watch--as well as the one I was most recently discussing--the cases, movements, and dials have the Bulova signature.  Some of them we see also have a Star signature, and they all happen to be similarly styled 23 Jewel models from the same time frame--many from the same year.

Thanks to William for passing along an article written in 2010 by Bruce Shawkey for the NAWCC Bulletin.  In it, Shawkey confirms that the Bulova 23 was offered in several manual wind versions at least as early as 1958.  He further states that the manual wind 23 jewel movements were found both in "Bulova 23" models and dress models, such as the President.

I think He cornfused the 'PRESIDENT' with the 'HIS EXCELLENCY' model of the same period.

The '23 Jewel' insignia can also found in the ad database on the late 1960's 'SEA CLOUD'

which still doesn't speak much for the Star Cases.

No, it doesn't speak to the Star case, but it certainly does refute your claim that the entire watch is a fraud on the basis that there was no manual wind, non-waterproof 23 jewel watch.  At least we've gotten that far.  Now, we just need to figure out why these particular 23-jewel models are showing up in Star cases.

Nova, someone posted a while back pics of replacement cases, still packaged, with new dials, all sporting the Bulova logo on the dial.

Anyone know if or when Bulova sold Star?

Shooter,

That was Me and We've been around and around about these Cases but it isn't sinking in.

When did Bulova own Star ?

Here's a hypothetical - someone who owns a 'SEA CLOUD' needs a fast buck, so the solid Gold Case goes to the schmelter (Goldmember reference) and the Movement gets re-cased.

There was no 23 Jewel 'PRESIDENT' between 1956 and 1960.

In 1956 the 'PRESIDENT' was 17 Jewels, manual winding and was upgraded in 1960 to 21 Jewels, manual winding.

In 1958 the 23 Jewel manual winding 'HIS EXCELLENCY' appears.

end of story, Shawkley is mistaken.

Assumptions, assumptions.  You know what they say about those. . .

Personally, I prefer facts, but those seem to be in short supply and under-valued around here.

That's a cute story Fifth, but doesn't work very well when you see many examples of the same or very similar models, all from the same time period, and all bearing the same Bulova case markings.  In fact, it sounds like the pure fantasy that it is.  Get real, please.

I am for real.

The 1960 ad for the 'PRESIDENT' proclaims '4 Years in the making'.

1960 - 4 = 1956.

Do the math, the 'PRESIDENT' was never 23 J manual winding.

...and, without the ads We currently have at hand it's very easy to see how Mr Sharkley could become confused.

The 1956 - 60 17 Jewel manual winding 'PRESIDENT' and the 1958 onward 23 Jewel manual winding 'HIS EXCELLENCY' are practically identical in appearance.

which still does not address the Star Watch Case issue.

And it's easy to see how you would become confused without the ads Shawkey had on hand.  We don't know what documentation he was reviewing.

Four years in the making does not in any way state or even imply that no other model was released under that name in the meantime.  It simply means that it took four years to perfect that particular version.  More assumptions on your part, asserted as fact when they are not.

You are right about one thing, most of this has nothing to do with this watch--only the part about not all 23 jewel Bulovas are manual wind or waterproof, which was my point is mentioning the Shawkey article.  You were dead wrong about that assertion.

Anyway, I'm sick to death of arguing about your assumptions.  Instead, I'm going to spend my time looking for real facts.  If/when I find them, you know where to look--if you actually care about facts.

See this thread for another example of a 1960s case bearing both Bulova and Star signatures:  http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1960-transportation-special-4362

It has recently come to My attention that the early 1950's and on Waterproof Cases are signed by Bulova and show the Star Watch Case Co hallmark on either side of the Waterproof and Watetite signatures found on the caseback.

If this has any bearing on the Watch Case under discussion is anyones guess at this point.

Mark has just announced that he is going to delete the thread I cited above, so, to avoid completely losing an important artifact and discussion, here are pictures of the watch from that thread.

The watch dates to 1960.  Note that it has the Bulova signature only on the outside and only the Star signature on the inside of the case.  That signature pattern nicely parallels the subject watch and serves as another counter-example to the "replacement case" theory espoused above.

The Star on the Caseback above is found on Bulova Waterproof Cases as early as 1954.

Those marked both *Waterproof* and *Water Tite* bear the Star Watch Case Co hallmark.

edit: 1953.

My bad

More information is needed regarding the significance of the star symbol next to the "Water Tite" language on some models.  The symbol may or may not be indicative of the Star Watch Case Co., and it may or may not indicate that Star made the case. It seems likely that, if Star made the case, they would have their full signature inside the case back, as we see in the subject watch and the 1960 "Transportation Model" posted above.

The star on either side of the "Water Tite" terminology--if related to the Star Watch Case Co. at all--could simply indicate Star rights to the "Water Tite" name, or it could be an agreed upon acknowledgement of Star's involvement in that particular technology.  Certainly, the significance of just the star, only appearing on the back of the case next to those particular words, should not be ignored, as that would appear to be a purposefully limited context.

What we know for a fact is that we see watches like the subject watch--and others that we've seen like it--as well as the "Transportation Special" model posted above that bear full case signatures for both Star and Bulova.  So far, these watches all date to the 1960s.

In my experience, after 1960, very few models include the Bulova signature inside the case.  The standard case signature for 1961 and beyond is "Bulova" on the back of the case only.  Many Bulova models made in other locations around the world include logos and symbols by non-US case makers inside the case back.  It is clear to me that, during this time period, Bulova used a number of different case makers.

After a google search I found a reference to Water-Tite being trademarked by Bulova in 1930 in the UNITED STATES HOROLOGICAL INDEX. If anyone has a copy perhaps they can confirm this.

I have a copy of the book and can confirm that it includes the following listing:

Water-Tite

Filed:  May 29, 1930

Use Since:  September 1928

I do not know if it is significant that the trademark pertains to "Water-Tite", but what we see on the much later cases is "Water Tite" without the hyphen.

In the index under Star Watch Case Co., there is a star symbol listed as a trademark.  Interestingly, the trademark registration was filed on March 12, 1953, but first use is reported as Feb 5, 1909.  It took them 44 years to register the symbol as a trademark.

Star Watch Case Co was also the Case supplier for Bulova's Military A-17A and 3818A waterproof Cases - which IMO Date to 1945'ish thru 1961.

It is also MO the *Water Tite* and *Water Proof* hallmarked Bulova Cases were supplied by Star Watch Case Co.

2c