Treasure vs Treasurer

Some of you will recall a long standing debate about whether there was a model called the "Treasure" or whether the "Treasure" listing in the crystal catalog was simply an error, and the only model that existed was the "Treasurer".

If you don't recall those discussions, then below is an example of one such exchange, which was originally posted here:  http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1953-unknown-1326

You can also find assertions that there was no Treasure model here:  http://www.mybulova.com/node/1348  and here:  http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1951-treasurer-2932

 

Fifth: 

I'm 99.99999% certain 'TREASURE' is a recurring typo or abbreviation for 'TREASURER' in the GS catalogues - unless We have something from Bulova confirming the name 'TREASURE'??

eg: a Bulova advertisement.

The Glass dimension listed by GS for the 'TREASURE' has been matched to Bulova ads showing the 'TREASURER' model on more than one occasion.

 

Bourg01:

CMX345-2F  22.4 x 19.3 quadrant faceted labelled "Bulova Treasure" coming right from the crystal package.

 

Fifth: 

Shawn,

Yep, We've seen this scenerio on a couple of 'TREASURER's in the database:

GS names a Watch 'TREASURE' and a Bulova ad names it 'TREASURER' - on 3 occasions now if My memory is correct.

GS Typo.

 

Bourg01:

No Mark, We simply haven't found an ad for the Treasure model. Crystal fits  the Treasurer, Ardsley and the Academy Award P. No how do you figure it's a typo, crystal data in unreliable.

 

Fifth:

it's still a typo - 8 Months later.

IMO

 

Well, below is a 1949 Sears ad naming a watch the Treasure. 

I'm sure that the immediate claim will be that a Sears ad isn't good enough, and the ad is wrong.  I would point out in response to any such claim that Sears ads have been proved reliable.  One memorable example of a similar issue is the early 1940s Lone Eagle A, which some--you can guess who--insisted could not be correct.  The argument then was that the ad showed a mislabled Ambassador.  After a crystal packet was found identifying a Lone Eagle of the appropriate size and shape, that argument fell apart.  Since that time, we have also found an ad for a similarly styled Lone Eagle.

So, now we have an ad and crystal packet that name a watch the Treasure.  Both are typos?

 

Time Bandit
Posted June 11, 2012 - 1:00pm

"He who speaks without modesty will find it difficult to make his words good.
Confucius

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/confucius.html#CD2zUhWfW1BJb7DU.99
NOVA
Posted June 11, 2012 - 1:33pm

"jeesh...do Your Homework people."  

                         - FifthAvenueRestorations

(from yesterday, http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1950-duo-wind-1088?page=3)

 

It is a good divine that follows his own instructions. ~ William Shakespeare

Time Bandit
Posted June 11, 2012 - 2:03pm

I know you know that the quote wasn't directed in your direction.

NOVA
Posted June 11, 2012 - 2:07pm

Yes, I did know that, but thanks for clarifying.  Likewise, my quote was not directed at you.  :)

bobbee's picture
bobbee
Posted June 11, 2012 - 2:43pm

 "To be is to do,"  Confuscious.  "To do is to be," William Shakespeare.

 "DOOBEE, DOBEDOOO," Frank Sinatra.

JP
Posted June 11, 2012 - 1:16pm

Panel Member

Well chop my legs of and call me shorty if it aint a Treasure. What other marvels will we come up with??

 

JP

OldTicker
Posted June 11, 2012 - 2:51pm

Don't look now, but the "sky is falling"...Chicken Little :^)

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted June 11, 2012 - 3:29pm

Better run for a hard hat then Greg.

Can anyone explain why the model/item number provided by the Sears catalog of 0582TE is identical to the model number for the 'TREASURER' shown in this 1950 ad ? http://www.mybulova.com/sites/default/files/vintage_ads/bulova-ad-1950-3...

I do note that the 1948 ad states 15 Jewels, other than that the Watches appear identical. If that be the Case why does the GS packet only reference the 'TREASURE' and not the 'TREASURER' as they both take the same Crystal, apparantly?

NOVA
Posted June 11, 2012 - 3:57pm

Jewel count is not an insignificant difference.

"Apparently" is a loaded word and does not connote fact.

Crystal packets are undated and cannot reflect later models or name changes. I also suspect that they make no attempt to list every past model that took that crystal.

I cannot look this up for myself at the moment, so can anyone clarify whether there is an ad for the Treasurer that predates this ad for the Treasure?

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted June 11, 2012 - 3:32pm

Club 5000Panel Member

The oxen is slow, but the mountain is patient. 

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted June 11, 2012 - 3:35pm

Confucious said that too?

bobbee's picture
bobbee
Posted June 11, 2012 - 3:40pm

No, that was William. Confuscious is not a member.

Jim Townsend
Posted June 11, 2012 - 6:37pm

You cant fix stupid it's for life  Ron White. get er done :0

NOVA
Posted June 11, 2012 - 7:04pm

"The fundamental cause of trouble in the world is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."   - Bertrand Russell
OldTicker
Posted June 11, 2012 - 7:10pm

The other ad...

You get the letter "r" and 2 additional jewels with this one for the same price...

bobbee's picture
bobbee
Posted June 11, 2012 - 7:19pm

"When the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest."

- Thomas Hughes, from "Tom Brown's Schooldays."

  Nighty-night.

OldTicker
Posted June 11, 2012 - 7:29pm

I am thinking that the same guy or gal that was doing copy/proof for GS got fired and went to work for Sears...

As far as I can see we have no 15J watches that look like this in the database, but we do have one with out the jewel count and 2 different movements listed for this watch.

NOVA
Posted June 11, 2012 - 7:40pm

Any 15 jewel version of this watch that was presented on this site would have been turned away as a Frankenbully on the grounds that only the Treasurer had that case, and the Treasurer has 17 jewels.

An absence of Treasures in the database does not mean that they didn't exist.  That argument is just like saying that if we have no ad to show something, then it can't be true. 

We know we don't have all the ads.  We know we haven't seen all the watches.

An absence of proof is not evidence of anything. 

NOVA
Posted June 11, 2012 - 7:35pm

The "other ad" for the Treasurer is also from Sears and is dated one year later than the Treasure ad.

I believe that "other ad" is the first ad we have for the Treasurer (?)

So, it could be a simple matter of the Treasure having been upgraded to a higher jewel count and the name changed to the Treasurer.  The two watches may not have been advertised or sold at the same time, which would explain why only the Treasure appears on the crystal packet and why Sears didn't change their product number.  They were, afterall, essentially the same watch--certainly they looked the same.

 

OldTicker
Posted June 11, 2012 - 7:42pm

It looks like we only have the one ad in the database, I went back as far as 1946 and couldn't find one.

One year wonder...now to find one with 15J...another "rare" one.

NOVA
Posted June 11, 2012 - 8:03pm

I've been trying to come up with a scenario for how two entirely separate entities--Sears and G-S-- could end up publishing the same typo regarding the same watch. 

The only scenario that makes sense to me is that they both got the bad information from the same source, i.e., Bulova.  But that would mean there were no typos involved.  That would mean that Bulova made an error in the information they provided, and a watch that was intended to be sold as the Treasurer actually got advertised and sold as the Treasure.  That would bring us back to the Treasure as an actual, legitimate--even if somewhat unintended--Bulova watch.

Even if you argue a chain reaction, i.e., Sears got the ad info from Bulova but then screwed it up, and G-S got their bad information from Sears, you still have a watch advertised and sold as the Treasure and replacement crystals sold for that watch under the name Treasure.  That still means the watch existed and was not a mere typo on a G-S crystal packet.

Anyone else have a scenario?

 

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted June 11, 2012 - 8:11pm

Scenerio?

If I recall correctly this phenom was not limited to the 1950+/- Case, it dates back to the mid - late 1930's 'TREASURER'.

* note I said 'if'

NOVA
Posted June 11, 2012 - 8:28pm

This discussion/issue involves a 1949 Sears ad for a Treasure model and a crystal packet that reads "Treasure" and lists the crystal specs as CMX345-2F  22.4 x 19.3.  Those specs match the crystal that fits the watch shown in the 1949 and 1950 ads posted above.  Previous Treasurer models are markedly different in either or both size and shape and are easily distinguished from the models under discussion here.

Crystal specs for mid-1940s Treasurer (later renamed His Excellency J & JJ:  26mm, round (G-S A370)

Crystal specs for the mid-1930s Treasurer:  28.3mm x 13.2mm (G-S MX463)

Crystal specs for the 1920 - early 1930s Treasurer:  23.4mm x 23.4mm, tonneau

We don't have specs for this version of the Treasurer, because we have no examples of it, but it's cut corners distinguish it from the crystal/model under discussion in this thread:

Bulova watch

 

Okay, so, where were we?  Scenarios anyone?

OldTicker
Posted June 11, 2012 - 8:43pm

Speculation...

We know that the last Treasurer was a round 21J from 1945-46, and changed to a His Excellency in 1947.

Bulova decided to bring in a new 15J model in 48-49, called the Treasure, it flopped in its first year, so they went to a old good selling standby name, the Treasurer in 1950-51 and added a couple of jewels to help it sell...

NOVA
Posted June 11, 2012 - 8:50pm

A reasonable scenario, and certainly one I favor over a double-typo theory.

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted June 11, 2012 - 8:35pm

We were discussing 'TREASURE' vs 'TREASURER' on a GS Crystal package, as mentioned a GS Crystal package marked 'TREASURE' was also found to fit the mid to late 1930's 'TREASURER'.

Please don't brush off My observations, I'm merely conveying what has been discovered in the past.

...carry on.

NOVA
Posted June 11, 2012 - 8:45pm

I didn't brush off anything, Fifth.  I gave a factual, detailed response to your vague, possibly erroneous "recollections".

If there's another model and another crystal packet that should be discussed then present them.  Do your own homework for a change. Then, start your own thread, because this one concerns a 1949 Sears ad that names a Treasure model and a corresponding crystal packet that describes the crystal that goes with that watch, also naming it the Treasure.

Otherwise, kindly stick to the topic at hand and quit trying to subvert a legitimate discussion with vague, irrelevant references to some other information you can't seem to recollect or present.

Scenarios anyone? 

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted June 11, 2012 - 8:52pm

I'm done with the topic,

Thanks.

 

Guess's anyone?  oh sorry, Scenerios....

NOVA
Posted June 11, 2012 - 9:01pm

Nothing wrong with guesses, speculation, theories, ideas, or scenarios as long as they are acknowledged as such and not represented as fact (such as the erroneous factual assertion that caused this thread to exist.)

We're brainstorming, and that's a useful tool if understood and used properly.

OldTicker
Posted June 11, 2012 - 9:01pm

This example is no different than other models we have discovered, name changes with in 1 or two years is something Bulova was good at.

I am beginning to think that there are records for these old watches at corporate headquarters, but because they are so confusing, nobody wants to go through them!

NOVA
Posted June 11, 2012 - 9:10pm

LOL!  Can you imagine having the job of trying to figure out if someone's watch is a Treasure / Treasurer, or, worse, a Knickerbocker / Clinton / Chief / Comptroller?  I'd be tempted to "lose" those records too!

And I agree that a simple name change for an upgraded watch that wasn't doing well makes perfect sense.  We may never know for sure, but it's a reasonable theory and no different or worse than others we have proposed regarding otherwise inexplicable name changes.

At least we do now have evidence that there was a Treasure model that fit the crystal identified as belonging to the Treasure.  That's one little mystery solved.