Excellent restoration candidate.
In reply to Hey Wayne, I don't think by bourg01
By my way of thinking a Bulova is unknown until proven otherwise. Acceptable proof is an ad which clearly shows the watch. Yes, the hand drawn ads can vary a little bit and the differences can be so slight that a pretty good ID is possible. In the case of the watch in question the clear copy of the ad shows this not to be a Revere. Everything else is just noise.
Jay
In reply to By my way of thinking a by vintagebulova.com
Gentlemen
I apologise, I am wrong. We had this argument last April after comparing two actual watches together.The one on the right is the Revere, the one on the left is unknown. My Alzheimers may be kicking in early. The text below is from April 2011
Lisa
I have seen the arrows and they are yours. I humbly beg your pardon. I am wrong! I honestly didn't see the difference here in this post. I saw the difference in this relatively new ad with the watches side by side. Thank you for your diligence & comparative analysis skills. I will humbly change my mis-named Revere to UNKNOWN. Like my daddy always told me "Son, ya gotta be able to seperate the fly sh_t from the pepper".
Something is up with Mr. Wayne's case SN as entered in root rocord ( 00552992 ) compared to the inside case back picture, which looks like it has some different numbers (and only 7 digits). ...and I guess this vertical fishes/flower/XXX/flower/fishes bezel is still an unknown...
In reply to Something is up with Mr. by William Smith
[quote=William Smith]
Something is up with Mr. Wayne's case SN as entered in root rocord ( 00552992 ) compared to the inside case back picture, which looks like it has some different numbers (and only 7 digits). ...and I guess this vertical fishes/flower/XXX/flower/fishes bezel is still an unknown...
[/quote]
There is an extra 5 in the root record, easily sorted.
Looks like the Stanford in this 1931 ad to me. Picture altered to see better def. on the engraving.
Not worked a hell of a lot.
