Bulova 1964 Surf King "GW"

7/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.
2.575713
Variant: 
GW
Manufacture Year: 
1964
Movement Model: 
unk
Movement Serial No.: 
None
Case Serial No.: 
H361046
Case shape: 
Round
Crystal Details: 
28mm
Gender: 
Men's
Additional Information: 

1964 Surf King

Water Proof

Stainless Steel Case

Cream Colored Dial

Silver Markers & Hands

Shock Resistant

Anti-Magnetic

Case Back don't wanna come off - unknown manual movement 

Not For Sale
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
Dystopiologist
Posted September 23, 2011 - 5:57pm

 Cowabunga!!

 

OldTicker
Posted September 23, 2011 - 9:09pm

Nice one Wayne!

Matches the ad to a "T". all you need is the correct crown and the movement info..

Enter it in the database as a Surf King "GW" your's will be the first!

Greg

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted April 11, 2012 - 11:42pm

Club 5000Panel Member

Wish we knew for sure what constitutes a "GW".  Without text conformation, I don't know if the "GW" incudes a leather strap vs a SS band, etc.... and I think the "GW" subject watch needs to match the ad illustration 100% to warrant the "GW" variant designation.  I didn't rate yet, as I'm still researching this series of watches...

JP
Posted May 17, 2012 - 1:03pm

Panel Member

Could it mean "Great Watch" hehehe. The back is very hard to pop off but it does come off. I had to use a small jeweler hammer with my case opener to get it opened the first time but after that it isn't as difficult.

JP

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted May 18, 2012 - 6:54pm

Club 5000Panel Member

Good one John   GW = Great Watch

So the other Surf King GW was deleted, which makes it difficult to apply discussion in other thread to this watch. 

Gerard
Posted May 18, 2012 - 7:56pm

I deleted all of them and will not be posting others. There are other sites that work on add proof and other uploaded watches rather than the so called Bulova Gods.Funny how they can have a variant with no proof at all. MARK

This isn't just about me, i see people being screwed over and taking rude crap daily.

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted May 18, 2012 - 8:34pm

Club 5000Panel Member

I hear your frustration Gerard.  I believe we are working on some database issues. This record is "older" (number 2031).  Maybe the ad was found after the model ID was confirmed and Wayne updated the record from generic "Surf King" to "Surf King GW" and added the pic of the new ad. The checks were not reset to zero at this time, and we are seeing the old ID score from a previous ID (although that still doesn't address the missing movement info).  Or we were just doing it differently back then, and haven't updated in light of new ID protocol. 

I think it's partly a database management and quality control problem.  I know I don't go back and check all old records of a model when an example comes up in present day discussion. Only the owner or admin can make changes at the root level, but I can change my ID rating via checks assigned if I look for these issues.  I appreciate you pointing this out, so now I can change checks accordingly for this watch.

While this watch "looks just like a surf king GW", without the movement info at the root level, what would one be confirming with three checks. The pictures? The discussion?  The case/dial/hands only?  If I were voting on how these pictures compare to the pictures in the ad, I could confirm it looks like the Surf King GW (well...I'm ignoring the leather strap for sake of argument).   

IMO We should not give three checks confirmed without movement info entered at the root level. 

IMO it is better to have a two check tentative ID and a brief discussion stating "it looks like the Surf King GW, but we are missing the required movement data" then to give a confirmed ID".  This discussion may or may not include the leather strap for this example. 

Without an operational definition or rules for confirmed  (three check) model ID's, we are open to a gambit of problems. Nothing too fancy, but just some simple rules- necessary to obtain three check confirmed ID.

One requirement could be "to obtain a confirmed model ID rating, each root record must state the movement caliber, case back info, inside case back info and have pictures of the watch. If the actually case back or inside case back are blank  (are unmarked), this has to be specifically noted in the watch description"    

This is different than just not entering the data, which would result in two check tentative.   

Gerard
Posted May 18, 2012 - 8:40pm

My point was,

I asked several times why the watch pictured on this thread was given 3 stars and mine never did.I had the same add as proof plus a tear down to show other info. This didn't just happen.

I have let it go and will enjoy my hobby without the critics.

Gerard

OldTicker
Posted May 18, 2012 - 9:13pm

Gerard,

You have to have a little patience on the rating system, for one, not all members that are part of the panel check in every day, especially in the summer months, there is just too much going on, and most hobbies get put off till the winter months.

Second is that opinions are like (well you know) everyone has one, and they are all different too! (some bigger than others)

I am not a big believer in the "band determines the variant" thinking...bands are meant to be replaced, so unless it is a Craftsman or a Tuxedo, they mean very little to me. I recently updated one of mine to a Lexington "B" from a ad that Will found, but it is on a leather strap...I put the strap on when I took off the crappy expansion band that was on it when I got it, I dug it out of the scrap heap and it is the same band as shown in the advertisement, but because of the strap, not a 3 star watch to some, and not a big deal to me if its not.

The downfall of the rating system is that no clear rules were ever set on how to rate a watch, and until they are, well, these are the results...

 

 

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted May 18, 2012 - 9:11pm

Club 5000Panel Member

Gerard I guess it's a little late for me to answer your question.  IMO the watch in this thread was confirmed in error, and I have now given two checks.  I must have been busy or otherwise distracted, and didn't go check this watch when first reading your question in your previously deleted example. If I had, I would have answered sooner.  We get busy. 

Many of the old timers have been entering watch records for years.  Some of these members have become panel members.  The odds of an old incorrect record belonging to an oldtimer or panel member are pretty high compared to newer members, or those who participate occasionally, or those who participate but don't list many watch records.  If you perceived this error as some kind of favoritism, I would say it was more likely just the odds of the old record belonging to an oldtimer. 

The "critics" are what help make this site what it is.  Healthy discussion and an objective eye.  We can all be critics here, and this fosters growth and knowledge.  I believe we all try to be polite and informative, not rude or condescending.  Sometimes it takes longer to write three paragraphs than to just say   " IMO Jet Clipper"  and move on with life (or to the next watch record). 

Hope you stick around and be as helpful as you have in the past.  We need you. IMO we need all members who participate at the level you have in the past.  You've contributed a lot of good stuff!