Bulova 1921 Lady Maxim

11/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.
2.55
Manufacture Year: 
1922
Movement Model: 
A.A.I.
Movement Jewels: 
17
Movement Serial No.: 
6153
Case Serial No.: 
2321
Case shape: 
Tonneau
Case Manufacturer: 
American Standard
Gender: 
Ladies
Additional Information: 

 Recently acquired this one... a real Mystery! 1924 is a guess. Movement is 8 1/2 lignes, case is 18K non-Bulova. I found a post on NAWCC site about a similar Lady Maxim (no photo). The case was 14K gold filled, but had the same manufacturer's stamp. Is this a BULOVA, or was it made for another company by BULOVA??

Image added by myBulova Administrator.

J. Bulova Company. Makers of the Famous Lady Maxim and Rubaiyat Watches.

 

Not For Sale
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
shooter144's picture
shooter144
Posted January 23, 2012 - 1:10pm

I dont entirely dissagree, Lisa, but Bob does have one that says Bulova on the dial, so where does that leave us?

shooter144's picture
shooter144
Posted January 23, 2012 - 1:15pm

Any chance you could post some pics of your Ladies Bob???

My thoughts are that if they are not Bulovas, collectively we may be able to spot other issues like font or missaligned tracks, poor mvmnt fit or modification to make a fit, or other such stuff that we can usually spot to show reoworked or assembled from parts Bulovas.

I really do put a lot of merit into your opinion ( it is much more educated than mine) but the other factors are also pretty reasonable. If we had the lot to look at maybe we can come to better conclusions (or at leasst opinions).

NOVA
Posted January 23, 2012 - 1:19pm

I would say that leaves us with Bob's watch qualifying to be listed, whereas this one does not meet that same criteria.  That would be no different from any other watch that has the same case as a known Bulova but with a different, non Bulova dial.  We would dismiss such a watch, and we all know what we would call it.

shooter144's picture
shooter144
Posted January 23, 2012 - 1:33pm

A 'Re Dial'????  LoL...  I hear what your saying and your right....its just odd to see several like this, someone made them and they dont look cobbled together. Hopefully we can find some more info.

Would be nice to see pics of all of them to compare as a group...

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted January 23, 2012 - 1:00pm

...sorry, redundant post removed.

NOVA
Posted January 23, 2012 - 1:52pm

I do agree that we should express our opinions publicly about the legitimacy of a watch and its place on the site.  I have a lot of respect and genuine affection for Bob, and I have no doubt that he addressed the matter privately to avoid potentially embarrassing the watch owner.  However, if the watch had been removed at that point, the rest of us would have missed the opportunity to address the matter together as a forum, and that is exactly what we're here to do.

There's been talk lately, both publicly and privately, about avoiding any negative content in posts.  I don't think that approach will work, as we need to be able to openly and honestly express our views on a watch, and those views may not always be the ones that someone wants to hear.  However, we can always choose to express those opinions as gently and unoffensively as possible.

. . . except when addressing Fith, of course, in which case no holds are barred : - P

 

timerestoration's picture
timerestoration
Posted January 23, 2012 - 2:10pm

In an earlier post it was said that "someone made these watches". It seems more likely that it was BULOVA, than anyone else, since they actually had a model called "Lady Maxim" at some point in their history.... we may never know for sure.

BTW, I am not personally affected by any comments (negative or positive) either way. I am simply interested in the truth.

NOVA
Posted January 23, 2012 - 2:16pm

You may be right.  I'm really not arguing that point one way or the other.  I just think that, because it does not read "Bulova" on the dial, it does not meet the criteria for the site, just as Westfields and Caravelles--which are known to have been made by Bulova--fail to meet the criteria. 

mybulova_admin
Posted January 23, 2012 - 6:06pm

Club 5000Panel Member

IMO, this is an early Bulova watch, at a time when Bulova were breaking out into the womens market.

Bulova have a long history of using the title Lady and Miss in its model naming.

Lady Springfield, registered by Bulova in 1920 and and in 1947

Lady Lindy, registered by Bulova in 1928

Lady Excellency, registered by Bulova in 1946

I'm sure there are more......

Again IMO Lady Maxim is an early womans model manufactured and released by Bulova.

I've seen enough of these now to believe that they are not frankenbullies.

This watch gets my 3 stars.

Geoff Baker
Posted January 24, 2012 - 5:35am

Club 5000Panel Member

Alright, I'm committing, (which means I kinda done reading this post forever) I like the case as an early Am Standard made for Bulova but not marked as such (many solid cases I've seen are not 'named' Bulova). I BELIEVE (my opinion) that early Bulova movements might not have had date codes, I am on the fence regarding the dial and hands. Having said that I think the concession is the apparent age. This early in Bulova history is way to foggy and I think we need to be careful to not exclude watches from this era

Two stars AS A BULOVA (keeping it in the db)

Jeff - you never did elaborate on the 'gold content' statement - did it not assay or was the weight overstated?