Bulova 1953 Academy Award "ZZ"

9/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.
2.559999
Variant: 
ZZ
Manufacture Year: 
1953
Movement Model: 
7AA
Movement Jewels: 
21
Case Serial No.: 
8089395
Case shape: 
Rectangle
Crystal Details: 
21.50 H x 17.40 W Four Quadrant Pyramid
Gender: 
Mens
Additional Information: 

New Old Stock  - Original display case and storage box including Bulova polishing cloth and original JB Champion bracelet.

Added 3/12/2011

Photos Updated 12/04/2013

Not For Sale
Geoffrey Baker 1953 Bulova Academy Award ZZ Watch 12 04 2013
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted October 21, 2012 - 9:11am

"Case looks like a AA case, too!"

The packaging is very similar to the 'ACADEMY AWARD' Series of Watches.

Distinct differences include the elimination of 'Oscar' from the outer lid, replaced by the 'Bulova Goddess of Time', the base becomes Gold (White on the AA display box), the inner lining becomes beige and all mention of the Academy is elimated from inside. - Other than that they're the same.

A wonderful example of post 1952 packaging whch makes Me wonder if the Watch was named an 'ACADEMY AWARD' in 1953.

 

 

bobbee's picture
bobbee
Posted October 21, 2012 - 9:36am

Maybe the packaging changed and not the name. If they changed the name, why no ads? Copyright on Will's new found ad could be a reason the packaging changed.

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted October 21, 2012 - 9:41am

The reason the packaging changed is spelled out in the lawsuit agreement dated 1952.

bobbee's picture
bobbee
Posted October 21, 2012 - 10:49am

I know. Packaging changed, but not the name. Find proof for a new name, until then it is an AA.

bourg01
Posted October 21, 2012 - 12:24pm

Panel Member

Ist, there is no way to prove this is the original packaging, though it probably is. We're not Id'ing the packaging, just the watch. That said, it matches the ad, so it's an AA "ZZ" for me.

JP
Posted October 21, 2012 - 12:50pm

Panel Member

Very cool. AA  ZZ is my vote.

DarHin's picture
DarHin
Posted October 21, 2012 - 1:41pm

Geoff, can we get pics of the case back and the movement? Thanks.

Geoff Baker
Posted October 21, 2012 - 6:32pm

Club 5000Panel Member

Sorry Darin, can't do, sold it about a year ago. I have a bad pic of the case back clearly showing L3 but no mvnt photo. I would have noted in the record the date code not matching the case, so I assume it was L3 as well. I don't sell many but this is one that escaped my collection.

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted October 21, 2012 - 3:53pm

Club 5000Panel Member

If the case is marked 1953, then there's no question Bulova made the case in 1953.  If the watch was not marketed as another model name in 1953, as documented by an ad or other documentation on currently on site, then IMO the best way to describe this watch is as a 1953 AA "ZZ".  For me, the "object" isn't necessarily to get a three tick confirmed ID as much as to best name the model w/ information on hand.  If- repeat- if Bulova stopped marketing this watch as an AA in 1952, but didn't market it as a different model name, then it's best described as a 1953 AA "ZZ".  It doesn't matter if Bulova did or could market as AA in 1953. What model name and variant best describes this watch?  The comments in the thread go over the possibility, or even suggest it's probable that it was not Marketed by Bulova as such.  ...but we have nothing showing it was marketed as anything else.
The new newspaper ad from 1953 only indicates that Connell's Jewelry store ran an AA ad in 1953.  This is much different than if we had a national ad ran by Bulova.  Maybe Connell's simply had a bunch of AA "OO" in stock in 1953 and ran an older ad without consulting Bulova or anyone esle. 
I'm fine with subject watch being ID'ed as a 1953 AA "ZZ". 

bobbee's picture
bobbee
Posted October 21, 2012 - 4:39pm

Thank you for your eloquence, Will. My sentiments exactly, I am only looking for the ID nearest to the subjects in hand, as should we all if we cannot prove a three tick ID. The comments anyone makes are great sounding boards for any ID's made, and should be welcomed as such, even when things get a little "heated".