Ruxton?

Looks like this ad was folded on the image of the Ruxton, so it's difficult to make out.  What do you think, a Ruxton. . . or yet another Senator. . . or what?

1957

11AC, 17 jewels

10K RGP bez with ss back

Ad is from 1952

Signed on case, movement, dial and crown

shooter144's picture
shooter144
Posted March 13, 2011 - 2:48pm

Looks like it to me....cept the ad says faceted crystal but im sure yours has been replaced a time or two since new so no real issue there....

NOVA
Posted March 13, 2011 - 5:30pm

Or during the five years between that ad and my watch, they decided it looked better without the facets.  It's got enough going on without that--I think it would detract.

WatchCrystals.net's picture
WatchCrystals.net
Posted March 14, 2011 - 3:56am

It originally took a "quad gable" (shooter terms: Dual "X," crosshair, recticle "X") or basically really a "plus sign" glass crystal, as illustrated...

 

:-)  Scott

NOVA
Posted March 13, 2011 - 4:44pm

Crystal dimensions are approx. 21.5mm x 25mm.

WatchCrystals.net's picture
WatchCrystals.net
Posted March 14, 2011 - 3:59am

The RUXTON...

Good One, Lisa!

Best :-)  Scott

 

P.S.

Moonbeam, Ruxton 4 CMT308-30F   RMU108-20   CMT2293 227   HMB228/3
Moonbeam, Ruxton "A" 4 CMT308-25   RMU108-20D   CMT2293A   HMB228/3F

 

ADDITIONAL IMAGE CREDITS TO WATCHMAKER & eBAY RESELLER: "NICKof TIME..."

mybulova_admin
Posted March 14, 2011 - 6:00am

Club 5000Panel Member

Add it tot he database as a Ruxton for now until someone finds a better ad to either prove or dis-prove.

Lovely watch.

WatchCrystals.net's picture
WatchCrystals.net
Posted March 14, 2011 - 1:49pm

Stephen,

 

I believe we ALREADY "proved it," mate... (Only two models take that glass... And if the MOONBEAM isn't here yet... I have images from one+ theat Shawn sold, previously... The distorted illustration proves the crystal, dial and case, me thinkst??? And the Moonbeam doesn't look like the Ruxton, or Ruxton model "A..." which appear to be in the 1952- 57 range??? (i.e. Lisa's is likely the RUXTON "A," if a 1957 manufacture... And may well sport  different powerplant, etc., than the 1952 model/s???)

 

:-)  Scott

bourg01
Posted January 8, 2012 - 2:15pm

Panel Member

Allright, here's the " Ruxton A " 1951 version. Very clearly a different case than the watch posted but it's a 1957 model. No ad, no proof, should posted as an unknown. Looks more like one from the Senator series, just which version would be my question.

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted January 8, 2012 - 2:53pm

ad Dated 1958 - 'MINUTE MAN'

mybulova_admin
Posted May 13, 2012 - 2:39am

Club 5000Panel Member

Do we have a copy of this advert in the database?

NOVA
Posted January 8, 2012 - 3:21pm

Not a clear enough picture of the Minute Man to tell whether it is my watch or not.  Also, revisit Scott's notes on the crystal above.  He said only the Ruxton and Moonbeam take that glass.

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted January 8, 2012 - 4:44pm

Not the best I know.

My Eyes are getting worse by the Day it seems but I can make out the lug and bezel horizontal details. Dial is a match also.

It's certainly not the 'RUXTON' - Shawns' ad shows that.

Draw Your own conclusions - IMO this is the Watch.

NOVA
Posted January 8, 2012 - 4:53pm

Shawn's ad shows the Ruxton A, not the Ruxton.  The Minute Man ad is way too blurry to be useful.

Ellierose
Posted January 8, 2012 - 4:52pm

i sold one of these as a ruxton..that what it said it was in the database

bourg01
Posted January 8, 2012 - 5:11pm

Panel Member

Shawn said the ad was for the Ruxtan A, the Ruxtan can't be all that much different. Probably just a dial change and maybe white gold plate?

I'll 3rd the motion on Fifth ad. I can't see enough detail there to comment on the watch.

NOVA
Posted January 8, 2012 - 5:45pm

I have to totally disagree with the assertion that the Ruxton and Ruxton A can't be that different.  Take a look at the various Ambassadors in the database.  There is a great deal of difference even amongst the Ambassador A's, much less between all the various Ambassadors, i.e., B, C, D, E, etc .  If that example doesn't satisfy you, then how about all the different Senators. . . or Directors?

I think we've seen enough variation in model design--including those with the exact same name--to know better than to make assumptions about design changes, or lack thereof, through the years.

NOVA
Posted January 8, 2012 - 5:39pm

Don't get me wrong:  I'm not wedded to the idea that my watch is a Ruxton.  I don't really care what it is called, but I would like to make a good ID, not one based on blurry ads or baseless assumptions.  I have no issue with considering this one an unknown at this point.

Actually, I take that back.  I do have a problem listing this one as an unknown when we have an ad for the Ruxton that looks, as far as we can tell, to be an excellent match for this watch--better than any other ad presented to date.  Also, the crystal specs make sense for the Ruxton.  I continue to believe that those facts are sufficient for a tentative ID.  We have other tentative IDs in the database based on crystal specs alone. 

NOVA
Posted January 8, 2012 - 6:57pm

Ellierose,

In regard to your statement above that you sold a watch like this as a Ruxton based on my database entry, let me say first that I feel your pain. I have quite a few watches in my collection that I purchased thinking that they were a model that they later turned out not to be. However, they are still beautiful, authentic, vintage Bulova watches, and they have value, regardless of their name, known or unknown.

Since that time, Admin invented the star rating system, which was designed to give all users of the database a way to determine how sure we are as a group of a given watch's model identification. Every listing in the database has three stars at the top of the listing.  They may be all white, meaning no votes have been cast in favor of the asserted ID, all the way up to three yellow stars, meaning the watch is confirmed under the name stated.  Because we have no official Bulova records regarding the watches' identities, we rely on vintage advertisements, crystal specifications, and, occasionally, on an apparent original dealer's tag to help us figure out the name of the watch. Sometimes we have no evidence, sometimes sketchy evidence, sometimes really solid evidence, sometimes we're somewhere in between. The star system is intended to tell you how sure we are about the name listed in the database, and you can, in turn, use that information to make your own evaluation and act in accordance with it.

In the case of this watch, it has only achieved a little more than one star. That's an indication to you and all users of the site that this watch only has a tentative identification. That means that we aren't sure at all about this model name. We have some evidence to support it, but the evidence is not strong enough at this point and, therefore, the model cannot be confirmed via three stars. Again, that in no way indicates that the watch is not authentic or valuable; rather, it simply means that we're not yet sure what it was called by Bulova.

So, if I were you, I would not provide a model name--or provide it only as a possibility--on any watch that fails to achieve three stars. If it has three stars, then you will see in the listing evidence to support the ID, and that evidence can also support you if anyone were to question your information.

I also recommend reading the entire thread on any watch that interests you. The nature and value of the evidence is typically discussed and debated, and, by reading it, you can form your own opinion regarding its merits.  Also, if there are any concerns regarding the watches authenticity, those will be discussed and debated as well, and you can use those points to consider the authenticity of your watch.  If anything in the discussion seems unclear or inconclusive, you are free to post a question seeking further clarification.

Others may offer refinements to these comments, but this is my 2c, and I hope it helps you in the future.

- Lisa

Ellierose
Posted January 8, 2012 - 10:35pm

i agree nova that it is still a beautiful watch..and the one i sold was in as nice as shape as this one..i know about the starts..i thought that ad matched pretty good.sometimes it is hard to tell, plus the artist didn't always drawn them exactly the same.some of the time...anyway not a big deal..the buyer never gave feedback but didn't ask for a return either so i guess he was happy with it..i was thinking about keeping myself..but i had to move stock...but now that i see the other ad posted here i can see it is a minute man...oh well..i'll know next time...i think this is the only one i ever missed labeled so..i have a pretty good percentage with that..there is other people who are totally wrong,or who don't even try...

NOVA
Posted January 8, 2012 - 10:58pm

I certainly wouldn't decide that it is a Minute Man at this point.  That ad is far to blurry to see.  Time will tell what this model is.

bourg01
Posted January 9, 2012 - 12:05am

Panel Member

Let me clarify my comment, I don't believe the "1951" Ruxtan or Ruxtan A can be that much different. That's just my opinion and I do repect your comments on other models, variants, and changes over different years of production. The issue here is that this watch is a 1957 release from Bulova and there is no evidence to support any model ID. Forget any notion of it being anything close to the 1951 Ruxton or Ruxton A. Could it be a 1957 Ruxton?? We need provinance to support that. For now it's another beautiful Bulova Unknown to me and a very fine addition to ones collection. There is no doubt that this watch is 100% genuine Bulova, I've had 2-3 myself but never able to ID them and I will not attempt any ID from crystal specs any longer. There are just too many Bulova's that take the same size/shape crystals in similar model during close production periods. If you would, post the crystal specs for this watch and I will bet they are way different, both longer and wider,  than any 1951 Ruxtan or Ruxtan A crystal discussed in this forum.

Regards. shawn

NOVA
Posted January 9, 2012 - 10:55am

Crystal specs are discussed above, along with Scott's comments on them.

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted January 10, 2012 - 3:49am

Club 5000Panel Member

Great work folks.  I'm curious-how many panel members are there?  

BillShaine
Posted May 12, 2012 - 10:09am

Ruxton was the private label for Friedman's Jewelers .  When the store closed its doors, the name was part of the intellectual property that was auctioned on October 9, 2009.  Check out wikipedia for Friedman's Inc.

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted May 12, 2012 - 1:53pm

The Watch in question has since been positively identified as...... You guessed it,  the 'MINUTE MAN'.

bourg01
Posted May 12, 2012 - 4:24pm

Panel Member

Yep, Minute Man would get 3 from me.

NOVA
Posted May 12, 2012 - 8:05pm

Agreed, but only after we obtained a clearer ad showing what the Minute Man actually looked like.   The correct call then, and now, is not to insist on a particular model ID when the only available ad is too blurry to be definitive, but rather to wait until better proof is available.

For the record, this is an excerpt from the 1958 ad that clearly showed the watch to be the Minute Man:

mybulova_admin
Posted May 13, 2012 - 2:37am

Club 5000Panel Member

Good work folks keeping on top of keeping these older posts updated as we finally confirm IDs.

Lisa has this been added to the database as a reference?