Bulova 1965 Engineer

4/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.
3
Manufacture Year: 
1965
Movement Model: 
11AL
Movement Jewels: 
17
Movement Serial No.: 
none that I can see
Case Serial No.: 
I187322
Case shape: 
Square
Crystal Details: 
22.5 by 22.5mm
Additional Information: 

Unknown (at least to me) model from 1965. Orig. and crown and I believe the original half-n-half band and presentation box. Lovely textured dial. Came out of an estate, so I'm fairly certain this has been unmolested and is not a fraken-bully. One watchmaker's repair mark on the inside back. Any help would be appreciated.

Not For Sale
Bulova 1965 unknown model
DarHin's picture
DarHin
Posted November 9, 2012 - 8:00pm

1 tick for Engineer since subject watch is square and ad shows a rectangular watch.

bobbee's picture
bobbee
Posted November 9, 2012 - 8:07pm

Darren, get those binoculars re-calibrated! LOL!

The ad is a little "worn" on the bottom of the dial, making it look longer.

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted November 9, 2012 - 8:59pm

Club 5000Panel Member

Although not the best way to "see" if things may be distorted in shape/dimensions, we can look at other watches to see if we detect any sign of vertical exaggeration. It doesn't look like it.  So then I can kinda "count the squares in the grid to determine "square vs rectangular" in ad. 

So if there's no vertical or horizontal exaggeration, then a little better grid seems to show ~3 squares wide by ~3.3 squares high.  Rectangle?

bobbee's picture
bobbee
Posted November 10, 2012 - 4:42am

Remember the owners crystal specs?
"Engineer G or H".
No-brainer.

bobbee's picture
bobbee
Posted November 10, 2012 - 4:54am

Will, could you do the grid thingy on the Clipper 'A' in the ad, above the Engineer?
It looks a little ovoid as well, and could mean a small amount of longtitudinal compression to make the ad fit, I have seen it in several ads I haved posted before, or maybe the original scan from source wasn't quite "flat".

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted November 10, 2012 - 4:01pm

Club 5000Panel Member

Bobbee- I'll give it a try tonight. I'll PM you whatI end up with.

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted November 10, 2012 - 6:26am

bobbee's picture
bobbee
Posted November 10, 2012 - 4:45pm

Will et al, I just checked the dial on the Clipper above the engineer, measured both the dial and case diameter by expanding size of image until it read 30mm for dial horizontal, 31.5 mm vertical. case was 40mm horizontal, and just over 42 mm vertical. The Engineer "G" image is vertically longer in a similar ratio, easy to do yourself and check my results, but it looks like either those two or all the images in this ad are slightly distorted, thus giving a false sense of dimension.

bobbee's picture
bobbee
Posted November 10, 2012 - 6:47pm

Also, if you look at the Engineer in the ad, the right side of the case looks a little concave or "pushed in", and a little narrower than the left side, especially in the slightly enlarged cut-out in the lower grid pictured above.

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted June 11, 2013 - 4:30pm

Club 5000Panel Member

Based on other recent record in comments (and one of JP's recently ID'ed) shouldn't this record also be ID'ed to the variant "G"?  Some are ID'ed to a variant "G", and some are generic Engineer w/o variant designation.

Three ticks for Engineer, as it's now listed.  I'd go two ticks if ID'ed as Engineer "G" as per the other threads logic AND I think a two tick Engineer "G" conveys more info about this watch, based on ads to date, then a three tick generic Engineer....and we can be consistent between example watch records.