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.
In reply to Once again NOVA You cannot by FifthAvenueRes…
Fifth, as usual, when no one agrees with your opinions and you are clearly losing a debate because someone--in this case, not just me--easily pokes holes in your conclusions, you resort to personal attacks. Unfortunately, you are wearing your immaturity on your sleeve, and you would be well advised to go back inside and change.
You seem to be suggesting that we should all--or at least me--simply shut up when you speak, regardless of how obviously wrong you are. Well, that's not going to happen, so get over it. If you are going to so readily express your opinions in a public forum, then you should be prepared for others to express theirs also, even when they don't jive with yours.
I do not routinely make pronouncements based on nothing but my own assumptions backed only by scanty evidence and poor logic. Rather, I present arguments and--where available, actual evidence--to support those arguments. Others are free to agree or disagree as they see fit. I think your insinuation that others blindly follow my lead is quite insulting to the members of this site. From what I've seen, the members here are quite capable and willing to review the evidence and arguments and make a sound decision. Several new-ish members have done that here and have contributed significantly to this discussion. You should give them a lot more credit, and learn to buck up when they don't agree with you.
I have studied the ads, and I continually study the ads, probably more than you could imagine or would ever believe. I would give you the same advice, with the added admonition that you study them without having already formed your own conclusions and opinions. Study them with an open mind, if you can, and separate fact from supposition. It would make these discussions a lot easier.
As you say Fifth, we can only go by what the ads tell us. So in that case, the date on the watch in question is for 1953, ergo the ad from 1953 tells us that this watch is a "Jordan", irrespective of the lack of a bracelet, as the strap on said watch is not original. If the watch was dated 1952 with an expansion strap, would that make it a "Jordan"? Or dated to 1954 with a leather strap, would that make it an "Ashford"?
O.K. how about this. Why not , for the purpose of naming a watch, the watches are surrendered for star rating minus any strap or bracelet, unless strap /bracelet is obviously or can be proved WITHOUT DOUBT to be original to the watch? In that case, such watches could only be named by data on this website.
I belive Nova knows more than most when it comes to Bulovas ,and ya know what she isnt rude or disrespectful when she disagrees or has ever used the foul language i see out of 5th. Her knowledge far surpasses you fifth and you can only wish for the manners she has. I have had my run ins with her and i was big enough to admit i was wrong. Keep up the good work Nova i wish i had a 10th of your knowledge on Bulova watches. 550 watches really? Wow must be an awesome collection.
In reply to I belive Nova knows more than by Jim Townsend
4 MY 2 CENTS WORTH,
1953 production clearly shows it as Jordan as per the ad, the band here is of no consequence nor should it be as the original bands seldom accompany a watch we buy some 60 years later. Mark can bang his gong all he wishes to. We have the case,dial , hands, movement data all matching an ad that say 1953 Jordan. What's the big deal here??? Mark (Fifth) rambleing on and trying to argue a mute point about bands?. Pay him no mind, ignore the rambling arguement that has no basis, make your opinion known, vote if your a panel member and move on.
After all, we all know what he's up to, don't let him "aggrevate" you off. That's the polite word for what he's known to do with folks here.
In reply to 4 MY 2 CENTS WORTH, 1953 by bourg01
