Bulova 1954 Phantom

5/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.
2.406
Manufacture Year: 
1954
Movement Model: 
10 BUC
Movement Jewels: 
17
Case Serial No.: 
8414062
Case shape: 
Round
Crystal Details: 
28.5mm
Gender: 
Men's
Additional Information: 

Case measures 40.5mm lug to lug x 33mm non inclusive of the Crown using Calipers.

White Dial shows luminous accented applied markers, Bulova signature and tracks are printed in Black.

Hour and Minute Hands are Silver Dauphine style with luminous accents, Sweep Center Seconds Hand is Black (Blue steel).

Stainless Steel Bezel is a press fit to the Caseback which is stamped as shown.

Not For Sale
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
NOVA
Posted June 3, 2012 - 12:01pm

Here are two more Phantom ads.  Neither one mentions a leather strap version.  So, that's four ads for the Phantom with none showing or mentioning leather.

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted June 3, 2012 - 4:10pm

Do You have an ad showing the Watch to be named something else?

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted June 3, 2012 - 4:18pm

The 'PHANTOM' "B" ad does not mention a Gold Case, apparantly there must be a "C", "D", "E" ect ?

I have the "B" - Hands and Markers are Silver and the Case is Stainless Steel, as on the "A"

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted June 3, 2012 - 6:01pm

Club 5000Panel Member

Well....any and all members willing, please help me out w/ my line of thought below.  Please note any fallacious or flawed logic in my statements.  The statements only apply to the subject watch in light of the Phantom ID and ads to date.

We don't have an ad stating on leather. I would not assign checks now based on some possible future ad which may indicate "on leather".  So to date, regardless of mount (band), this case/dial/mvent combo cannot be confused with any other model than generic Phantom.  While the subject watch does not match the ad based on mount, it none-the-less cannot be confused w/ any other model than generic phantom- so listed as such, it should receive a confirmed ID. 

If a leather ad comes along, this may affect future variant designation, but not impact the confirmed ID as generic 1954 Phantom.

Does this seem correct?  Why does this record now have two checks ID?

NOVA
Posted June 3, 2012 - 6:24pm

Will, how do you reconcile that with the Lady Berkshire / Carla debate from last week, where Fifth made such a point of how any watch--not just variants--could have an entirely different ID based solely on the strap?

I have no problem with this watch as a Phantom.  My point is, and will continue to be, that Fifth is not consistent in his own arguments.  According to his theory--and the point he tried so hard to make in the Lady Berkshire / Carla thread--he has no basis for naming this watch anything at all.  Without a matching ad, showing the same strap as the subject watch, this watch could be anything.

I have no doubt that you, and others on the panel, have more sense than to buy into that approach and will, consequently, agree that this watch is the Phantom, regardless of the strap that happens to be on it right now.  I agree with that assessment and your logic, though I still think it would be beneficial to all to agree on specific standards for model IDs that could be consistently applied to all watches, regardless of who posts them.

 

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted June 3, 2012 - 6:25pm

Club 5000Panel Member

I can't reconcile the Lady B/ Carla debate w/o rereading.  Mark may not be consistent, I'm not disagreeing that he and others may make inconsistent statements at times. I have to reread carefully to take the statements in context.   

As you say, I think the root of the problem is teh lack of specific standards or rules, even if there are stated exceptions listed to these rules.  Some working definitions of "confirmed", etc...  You have pointed out some good suggestions on how to address this issue, and IMO we should discuss these suggestions and try to reach some consensus on how to apply/implement.  Then it would be objective, regardless of who posts them.  The rules/standards/definitions should remove subjectivity, and if it crops up, standards should, at minimum, elucidate or negate the subjectivity. 

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted June 3, 2012 - 6:29pm

NOVA,

The point is there are no conflicting ads which depict this Watch as anything other than the 'PHANTOM', as in zero.

The Watches discussed prior have conflicting ads, with one ad in particular showing the same Watch on a different strap/band/bracelet being named differently.

As I stated and IMO this will be ongoing on a Case by Case basis, with this particular Model there are no conflicts.

How the rest of the panel view this matter is their perogative.

NOVA
Posted June 3, 2012 - 6:55pm

Just because we don't at this moment have an ad that shows a conflict, doesn't mean the conflict doesn't exist.   One week ago, we didn't know there was a Carla to oppose the Lady Berkshire, did we?  But it still existed. 

The facts don't change just because you don't know about them.  We covered that same territory earlier today in regard to the watches with "17 Jewels" on the dial, and the fact that you insisted they couldn't exist because you had never seen them.  Well, they did, and do, exist.

If the strap can make a difference to the ID for any watch--which you have argued, whether you understood what you were arguing or not--then the issue should be approached consistently, not just when we happen to have an ad that shows an alternative or when it's more convenient to ignore the issue.