Case measures 37mm lug to lug x 22mm non inclusive of the Crown using Calipers. White Dial shows raised Gilt Arabic numerals, Bulova signature and register. Hour and Minute Hands are Gilt Index style. Snap fit Caseback is Gold. Bracelet is signed by Sturdy.
In reply to I agree - The evidence by FifthAvenueRes…
See I think Conrad because it's what we know. You can't just take something like a crystal that fits and say... well, because we know it fits and it's not 21 Jewel it must be.
That process of elimination to proof is just not working. We've tried it a hundred times and it more than not turns out to be wrong when we find the real add. The Conquerer could be the same watch with a regular dial, but that's just it... we don't know. So you can't assess something we don't know as proof. Essentially just making it up on conjecture.
Corad until proven different.
In reply to See I think Conrad because by plainsmen
The Conqueror might be a different colour, a different case, a different dial.
When you are presented with an ad with the exact same case and dial, and is the ONLY KNOWN ad for a watch in the DB, why the Hell are we splitting hairs over the jewel content?
The reasoning behind the main argument just beggar's belief.
EDIT:- What is so strange about the movement being from the same year? Wouldn't we all try to do this when renewing a broken/unfixable movement? The jewel count could be simply down to not having the correctly jewelled movement to hand, ask any watch guy if they haven't done this in the past.
In reply to The Conqueror might be a by bobbee
Yep it's Unknown what the Conqueror which takes this craytal looks like. Most certainly not like the Conrad, but still unknown. The problem with the Begger's belief is I have found five watches ID'ed as Unknown in the last five weeks which follow this Belief, and four of those don't have the crystal specs to help determine unknown for them. I just want to know what it is we are suppose to do, and when we have to do it :)
So we are saying it's a Conrad with a movement swap. That's cool, as long as I can be consistent. Or we are ID'ing the case/dial. That's cool too.
The evidence we have before us is enough to suggest a tentative ID on the Conrad. Like any watch we have IDd it's model can be changed upon new and better evidence.
I agree with Bobber, we are splitting hairs and that isn't helping the ID process.
Again for me it's a Conrad with a movement swap until such time that I see an exact watch listed as another model (which is still plausible).
In reply to The evidence we have before by mybulova_admin
What evidence do we have??
The ad showing the Conrad does not show engraving around the bezel like the subject watch, but it does show the engraving on the LE & Ambassador that are just above the "Conrad", the jewel count is wrong, only thing that matches the ad is the dial...Unknown is giving it the benefit of the doubt...Plus the band is not a match match...;-D
We give a Dial far too much weight in a Watch ID when the ads show that on occasion Bulova Watch Models do come with different Dials (variants) and the same Dials are used across various Models.
The subject does not match the 'CONRAD' other than the Dial.
To answer bobs' question from above: "What is so strange about the movement being from the same year? Wouldn't we all try to do this when renewing a broken/unfixable movement? The jewel count could be simply down to not having the correctly jewelled movement to hand, ask any watch guy if they haven't done this in the past"
Simply put, We have only just realised the correlation between a Movement Datecode and Case seriel number. Prior to 2012 the chances of a Watchmaker matching the 2 were slim and none, a fluke. In fact many Watchmakers today who not versed in Bulova still have no idea what a Movement Datecode is, let alone the Case Seriel number sequencing.
The subject will be the 'CONQUEROR'.