Bulova 1963 Engineer

6/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.
Manufacture Year: 
Movement Model: 
Movement Jewels: 
Case Serial No.: 
Case shape: 
Additional Information: 

Classic 60's style, 10k RGP case and back with a great JB Champion period band.

Added 9/18/2011

Photos Updated 12/04/213

Not For Sale
Geoffrey Baker 1963 Bulova engineer watch 12 04 2013
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
DarHin's picture
Posted November 10, 2012 - 5:11pm

I've decided to retract my 1 tick vote for the time being to take a step back and start from scratch.

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
Posted November 10, 2012 - 5:29pm

What I do find very interesting is this Watch http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1965-unknown-4506 is either the "G" or the "H" according to bobbee:

bobbee Posted November 10, 2012 - 4:42am

Panel Member

Remember the owners crystal specs?
"Engineer G or H".


Yet the subject must be the "G"

go figure...?

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted November 10, 2012 - 6:18pm

Club 5000Panel Member

I don't have to poll other members for this, or think about what we, collectively, want to do on site.  I know for a fact we can't positively say if it's the G or the H.  I believe we can ID it to the closest match- that being the ad showing a "G".   This gives more info about the watch than just a base name, but can't be confirmed yet, as we don't have the ads to demonstrate it is truly a G.
I think we are saying the same thing.  I think. 

I have to second guess what I think Bobbee meant by his statement (paraphrased) the subject must be the "G".   I think he means, based on how I've described stuff, it is more helpful to ID it as looking very much like the ad for the "G".  This must be the only choice we can make for an ad on site, as it's the only ad we have to show this distinction.  He's not meaning it must be the "G", he's meaning we must use this ad if we are going to make this distinction the way we are currently doing things- and that ad just happens to only have the "G" in it.

Bobbee, is that closer to what you meant. 

bobbee's picture
Posted November 10, 2012 - 7:01pm

That statement was never made by me Will. As usual, someone made a quotation and got it wrong.

Fifth's quotation about the "no-brainer" was a response to Darren's single tick based on the shape of the watch in the ad being different to the subject, and meaning that the crystal specs were for the Engineer "G" and "H", and as the ad is for the Engineer "G", a single tick could be wrong for that reason alone, but Darren has since retracted his vote for further consideration of the watch.

Yet another wrong quotation, taken out of context and distorted and bent to obfuscate the real meaning of the comment, and the subject in general.


FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
Posted November 10, 2012 - 9:44pm

Close isn't close enough when naming a variant as a variant is a Watch model in a very specific configuration and why go back and fix things unnecessarily when We can take the time and do it right the first time.

I would think Mr Bakers example is the "H" variant, as the ad depicts the "G" and then continues to state 'also in White'. Combine ths given knowlege with the Crystal info and common sense would suggest the Yellow Case version is the "G" and "H" is White.

Unfortunately We do not have a Colour ad, nor do We have an ad describing the specific Colour of the Watch depicted in the ad and described as the "G" variant.

"G" or "H" with a lean to "H"

bobbee's picture
Posted November 11, 2012 - 1:15am

"I would think Mr. Bakers example is the 'H' variant, as the ad depicts the 'G' and then continues 'also in white'."
Once again, you have made a quotation that is completely false. If you had checked your source, you would find the ad ACTUALLY says "ENGINEER 'G' the executive look. 17 jewels. Yellow or white."
This in no way makes any preferential 'leaning' and makes nonsense of your further remarks in the above post.
Yet again I would ask you to get your facts right before posting, as you are just confusing the matter.
EDIT:- As you seem to like quotations, here is one for you.
"No, naming the variant does not help ID the watch- once the model name is known the variant is insignificant really."
Something YOU said a couple of days ago, and if you think that, why argue the toss so much?

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
Posted November 11, 2012 - 6:00am

Last comment.

Getting the 'toss' correct is not only important to Me Bob, it is important to the correct identification of Bulova Watches.

Based on knowledge accumilated to Date My opinion is the White Case version of this Model is the "H" variant, the Yellow Case being the "G". Does naming this variant change the ID of the Model? Does My opinion of which variant it is change the model? No, it's still the:


bobbee's picture
Posted November 11, 2012 - 6:21am

That's your prerogative to think which variant is which, although I wonder at your deductive reasoning how you come to such a conclusion? No matter, I take it you would give BrTime's 1965 yellow model three ticks for the Engineer "G" then?

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
Posted November 13, 2012 - 6:37pm


Most likely.

more examples of how Case Colour affects a variant.

ad Date 1963

ad Dated 1957' ish.


There are many more examples to be found in the ad Database.

Sorry Geoff,  just trying to clarify a point.

bobbee's picture
Posted November 13, 2012 - 7:33pm

The advert used to identify the subject shows the Engineer "G", and until we find any evidence to the contrary, it is the best and closest to a perfect match.
There really is no need to keep showing us pictures of other watches, we get it, really we do. It still does not stop the watch from looking quite like anything else in the DB, but the "G".