Bulova 1959 21st Century

10/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.
1.911
Manufacture Year: 
1959
Movement Model: 
10BP
Movement Jewels: 
21
Case Serial No.: 
D650595
Case shape: 
Rectangle
Crystal Details: 
CMY289-40 20.5 x 19.5
Additional Information: 

Well, let's give this a try and see how well we do. Using the only data available, there are no ads in the DB showing this model so I have to resort to the crystal package which says " Bulova 1200D, 21st Century". So what do we call it?

 

Not For Sale
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
bourg01
Posted July 9, 2012 - 2:09pm

Panel Member

I have to agree with OT on a 4 catagory system. In this case, with the knowledge the dial was a custom refinished a vote for "non conforming" is not unfounded. Votes for "Unknown" are also well founded but they dismiss the crystal data entirely. Normally I'm not one to use crystal data either but because the shape is unique and only referenced to a single model in the catalogues it has merit here. I'm still in the "Tentative" catagory based solely on the crystal data and that the fit was perfect to the bezel. I didn't have to parge it, just popped it right in.

mybulova_admin
Posted July 9, 2012 - 4:51pm

Club 5000Panel Member

So is that a tentative on non-conforming or a tentative on 21st Century :-)

bourg01
Posted July 9, 2012 - 4:55pm

Panel Member

My opinion only, is "tentative 21st Century".

JP
Posted July 9, 2012 - 5:20pm

Panel Member

I would concur with tentative 21st Century, but it will never get a confirmed due to the custom dial change. Nice change but it kills the ID. Have you consideered changing the dial back to the original butler finish or is really important to you to have a confirmed ID. As I have said many times, you know your watch and that is the bottom line to me.

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted July 9, 2012 - 6:14pm

Club 5000Panel Member

JP  I have always thought that a tentative ID is better than an unknown, when it warrants tentative.  IMO this watch does.  I believe other members feel that way too. Some don't.  That's cool. This is why we have a panel.   Personally I won't be changing dials or the likes to try to get a confirmed ID for any of my watches. It's not that important to me to have my watches ID'ed as anything other than what they are.  I bet Shawn is happy knowing it's a 21st Century w/ a custom dial- and if that dial was done from a print/dye of Bulova dials, who knows, we may find out someday that this 21st Century did come with that dial as an option- it's not like it had a green redial or the likes- but who knows what we "might find out".  I just keep reminding myself that there's nothing wrong or negative about a tentative ID - IMO  The subject watch is great, and I have several similar types of watches that are among my favorites regardless what they are called. 

It is nice, however, when we have a watch entered on sight which matches the ad %100, but to me, that doesn't make it any "better" than one like the subject watch.  Perhaps more desirable to collectors or a more valuable piece of information for Bulova ID'ing, but the only difference to me is that it happens to match the ad.  It's increased "value" to me is in the information it provides us, not the watch itself.

JP
Posted July 9, 2012 - 6:26pm

Panel Member

Very well said and my feelings as well. If it were my watch I would be satisfied with the tentative as well. I was only thinking of the newbees who might wonder what was going on. As I said in my last post, you know your watch and are happy with it so who cares about the 100% ID.

It is a beautiful watch and deserves to be enjoyed as it is. My vote was to be tentative 21st Century if I were a panel member as I stated earlier. 

bobbee's picture
bobbee
Posted July 15, 2012 - 1:57pm

As the only crystal to fit this is for the 21st. Century, even with the redial it is this model, and taking into account senior member's comments to aid me, in this case 3 ticks.

bourg01
Posted July 15, 2012 - 2:30pm

Panel Member

Well , IMO it's a tentative "21st Century" but if the 1937 Treasurer is to be named Treasurer- Non Conforming, Then to maintain consistancy and form some guidelines, Then this watch should also be made 21st Century - Non Conforming due to the custom dial refinish or the 37 Treasurer needs to be made a tentative Treasurer.

I'm really not concerned with the ID  here, I submitted this watch to challenge us all and to help us move towards some standards for making evaluations. We can't go one way and then another, we need to be consistant. Mark has raised a valid point regarding this and I have to agree with him.

As JP says, I know what I have, a realy cool watch with a really killer custom dial and I happen to prefer the re-dial over the original. After all, I'm the one wearing it or if I sell, the Shadow dial design will bring in a premium.

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted July 15, 2012 - 2:43pm

Club 5000Panel Member

I agree w/ Shawn/Mark on this issue.  It's early enough in this new "add a watch" process for us to reconsider things published to date, and as noted, any record can be "changed" at any point in the future when new info comes up or opinions change.  

DarHin's picture
DarHin
Posted November 19, 2012 - 1:26am

2 ticks, tentative 21st Century. (Now that I'm a "voting panel member").