Bulova 1953 Jordan

7/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.
Manufacture Year: 
Movement Model: 
Movement Jewels: 
Case Serial No.: 
Case shape: 
Additional Information: 

Some very sweet lugs on this Ashford.  The case is in pretty great shape and overall a tight watch!

As per new ads and debate.  Changed to the Jordan on 5/8/2012.


Not For Sale
1953 Bulova Jordan
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
Posted May 1, 2012 - 10:35pm

Fifth, you are basing a model ID on an obviously non-original band, just because it happens to be leather.  That is ridiculous.

An obviously non-original band cannot logically be the basis of a model ID.  Plains admitted that he added the blue strap.  It doesn't match either ad, so it cannot alone determine whether the watch is the Ashford or the Jordan.  It must, by definition, be eliminated from consideration. That leaves you with the dates of the two ads, which would lead to the obvious conclusion that the watch is the Jordan, because the date of the ad matches the date of the watch.  This just couldn't be any more elementary or obvious.

Darhin, it's unfortunate that you are not a panel member.   The panel needs you.

DarHin's picture
Posted May 1, 2012 - 10:42pm

Lisa, I appreciate the vote of confidence but even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

Jim Townsend
Posted May 2, 2012 - 3:54am

Good work Bobbee and i think you should be a panel member as well.

bobbee's picture
Posted May 2, 2012 - 4:46am

Thanks but no thanks, I just like to think that if the watches are to be correctly named, all present information should be brought to bear, even on previously 3 star named watches. It was a fluke that I had just noticed the different names for this particular watch whilst surfing the database. Sorry about all this plainsmen, I shouldn't poke sticks in hornets nests I suppose. 

I wish no offence to anyone  when I say that I think that Nova is right in what she says about the straps issue, as any vintage watch is going to need a new strap/bracelet during it's lifetime, and the owner is not necessarily going to go to a Bulova stockist for the correct band, just to satisfy some anally retentive future collector!

A watch is a watch is a watch, not it's strap/band.... 

Jim Townsend
Posted May 2, 2012 - 5:47am

Been saying that for a long time the watch is the issue not the strap band or bracelet. But you will get others who disagree. Alas we go by what we think  but the band dont and cant make the watch. The jewel count the date the case the stem the crown etc. make the watch and this is plain and in your face. The date matches the ad 100% for the Jordan its clear cut .

Jim Townsend
Posted May 2, 2012 - 5:50am

Look at the movement i see an L2 1952 on the movement and the case is L3 1953 Hmmmm L2 right above the unadjusted upper left side of movement picture.

bobbee's picture
Posted May 2, 2012 - 6:04am

You have to date the watch by it's youngest component, in this case, the case itself has L3 stamped on it, making it 1953. We don't know the month it was made, as you can tell with Seiko watches, so we can only go by the year. IF the advert was dated, say January 1953, then the watch is definitely a "Jordan", but if the ad was from July 1953, there is the possibility it could still be an "Ashford". WE JUST DON'T KNOW!

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
Posted May 2, 2012 - 7:39am

How does the Watch definately become the 'JORDAN' if the ad states the 'JORDAN' is on an expansion Bracelet?

The Vintage ad for the 'ASHFORD' states the Watch was sold on an Alligator strap.

This detail is the only difference between the 2 Models.


For what it's worth I am not just assuming this as accused - the ads are telling Us.

Posted May 2, 2012 - 9:36am

Fifth, how did you identify any of your watches that weren't on the original strap when you acquired them?

If you seriously want to go down this path, then start with your own collection and, for every one that isn't--or wasn't at the time of acquisition--on the strap shown on the ad nearest to the watch by date, change the model name to "unknown" on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to identify it.

Of course, this also invalidates every ID made on crystal specs alone, because who knows what strap those came on?

The end result will be about a dozen watches left in the database with model names.  Is that really where you think we should end up?


P.S.  The strap is NOT the only difference between the two models.  According to the ads we have, the dates are different.  You act as though this is the first time we've observed a model change names over time, even over the course of just a few years.  It is far from the first.

P.P.S.  In response to your question, how can you call it an Ashford when you have no idea what the original strap was?  At some point, you have to do what we all do--including you--and make a best guess based on available information.  A brand new strap should not be part of that equation.  The watch case and dial and the ads are all that we have to go on here.  The ads, because of their dates, with all other known factors appearing equal--points to the Jordan.  It's the logical choice, and I think if the watch were not on any strap, you would have no problem with that conclusion.  You should view a brand new strap the same as none at all.


FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
Posted May 2, 2012 - 9:44am

Once again NOVA You cannot see the Forest for the Trees.

Every time a concept comes along which isn't Your idea You become arguementative.

If NOVA doesn't agree then it can't be right.....



Study the f*^#%!+g ads - these are not model Name changes, they are Models named differently based on the strap - I didn't develop this, the Bulova ads are showing Us.

Study the ads.

I'm done with this one.