Bulova 1957 Ambassador

3/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.
3
Manufacture Year: 
1957
Movement Model: 
8 BBA
Movement Jewels: 
17
Case Serial No.: 
C481907
Case shape: 
Round
Gender: 
Mens
Additional Information: 

Case measures 37mm lug to lug x 32mm non inclusive of the Crown using Calipers.

Butler finish Dial shows applied Gilt Hour markers, Bulova signature with 'Selfwinding' insignia below are printed in Black.

Hour and Minute Hands are Gilt Index style and a Gilt Index Seconds Hand shows on a Cross-Hair sub Dial above the 6.

17 Jewel Swiss Automatic Movement is encompassed by a shock absorbing ring.

The Glass is retained by a press fit bezel, Caseback is stamped as shown.

Vintage dispaly ad is Dated 1957.

Not For Sale
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
mybulova_admin
Posted April 22, 2013 - 4:51pm

Club 5000Panel Member

Just a reminder to all that we don't need to have a solid ID on every watch, that's why we introduced the tick rating AND a watch can easily be updated when additional information is found.

Despite some slight differences between the watch and advert this ad is the closest match for the subject watch and should be marked as a tentative Ambassador at the very least. Lack of information in a drawing or description is not as important as listing a feature that the watch has.

bobbee's picture
bobbee
Posted April 22, 2013 - 5:13pm

Do you mean like the watch supposedly being waterproof, and the one in the ad is not?

Any features listed about this watch are pure conjecture., as the only feature we DO have is a frontal photo, which does not match the advert in many respects.

It is allright asking for only positive remarks about a subject, but when none can be found, what else do you do? Say how nice it looks? That is a given, it looks wonderful, from the front.

bobbee's picture
bobbee
Posted April 21, 2013 - 7:24pm

Thanks TB.
Do you think we should be posting on this though, as we are only lowly members?

Time Bandit
Posted April 21, 2013 - 7:46pm

I don't see why not? You were a panel member and left for obvious reasons, I still have my right to voice my opinion, panel member or not! We all know how many panel members were lost because of snide/stupid remarks. I'm really missing how quiet it was there for awhile...

mybulova_admin
Posted April 21, 2013 - 8:35pm

Club 5000Panel Member

Tentative Ambassador for me.

Everyone here has the right to their opinion on the model ID of a watch.

At the end of the day however it is up to the panel members to collectively make the call. Those calls can certainly be aided by non-panel members.

All positive, polite comments welcome as always.

Time Bandit
Posted April 21, 2013 - 9:21pm

I concur with "all positive, polite comments welcome as always" admin.

If I might offer a suggestion?

I think it would benefit the database if watches being posted for ID purposes not even be considered if the only pic of the watch is a single picture taken off the internet, with no movement/  inner/outer caseback pics etc.

I'm just curious as to why this watch is even being considered for a ID without  the necessary information/pics???

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted April 21, 2013 - 9:41pm

Club 5000Panel Member

It's an old watch record, from years ago.  There were not many watches in the database at that time, and so some info was more helpful then no info back then.  Folks found example watches (or even just photos like this one) and entered them to "fill in the gaps" in models, years, etc...  These old records are still there, and if a newer, more complete example isn't in the database, we sometimes bring up these old ones, such as they are.  If we had another example of this watch with more complete pictures etc... it would certainly be better to do the analyses on that complete record....but for this and many examples, this is the best we have.   

Time Bandit
Posted April 21, 2013 - 11:15pm

With all due respect Will, this was presented for "review" with little to no credible information. A model name was speculated (at best) and discrepencies were pointed out.

Not one piece of "factual" information was supplied with this submission!

As you said "Folks found example watches (or even just photos like this one) and entered them to "fill in the gaps" in models, years, etc..."

Guesses aren't facts, is all I'm saying.

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted April 21, 2013 - 11:25pm

Club 5000Panel Member

so were many, many other records over the years...and they allowed us to make guesses at model ID's based on ads and what ever watches we had at the time.  It's true, guesses are not facts... and an hour consists of 60 minutes, and many other things can go without saying....LOL  Is anything your saying now or in the last six months leading to or assisting with the ID process, or are you just giving us some facts for our general knowledge.   I don't pay any attention to your facts or opinions, because so far I don't see any of them relating to the watch ID process.....it's more like your complaining or pointing out stuff you don't like.  I don't care.

bobbee's picture
bobbee
Posted April 22, 2013 - 3:37am

I would like to point out that just under a year ago, fifthavenue posted that he was "resurrecting this one, and adding new images".
He also states it is a 17 jewel auto in a waterproof case.
How can these be facts, and how can he add more images, when he never had this watch?
TB was also adding his opinion of the subject watch in his earlier post, and your post stating all members opinons should be taken into consideration, and then saying you don't pay any attention to his facts or opinions seems to be very negative, Will.