Bulova 1970 Chronograph "C"

7/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.
3
Variant: 
C
Manufacture Year: 
1970
Movement Model: 
Valjoux 7736
Movement Jewels: 
17
Case Serial No.: 
Unknown
Case shape: 
Round
Gender: 
Men's
Additional Information: 

Inheirited from my wife's grandfather.  Came with the original mesh band, but it was too small for my wrist so I had a jeweler replace it with a similar, larger one.  It's in great shape, but needs a small amount of maintenance...it loses about 2 minutes per day, and I think the winding stem may have a slight bend - it's a little sticky when winding or setting.

Anybody have references for a reliable, reasonably-priced service for a tune-up?  It took me a long time to figure out exactly what I have, and now I'm a little protective of it. 

Not For Sale
Bulova Stars and Stripes
mybulova_admin
Posted May 23, 2012 - 8:38am

Club 5000Panel Member

These watches were only produced in 1970 for all the examples we have seen.

Even if it were 1971 it'd still be a Chrono "C"

NOVA
Posted May 23, 2012 - 10:34am

Exactly, Stephen!

And the date was given as 1970.

It's not like there's some similar watch that could get confused with this one.  Some people just have to argue about everything.

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted May 23, 2012 - 11:44am

The N0 Caseback datecode was not given initially, this information was added by the Watch owner at a later time.

and

as an added note 'Period Paper' an online reseller of vintage advertisements dates the Bulova 'CHORONOGRAPH' "C" ad displayed to 1971.

Q: If the Caseback were stamped N1 would the Watch still be a 1970 'CHRONOGRAPH' "C"

A: Nope.

 

It is therefore My opinion that a tentative ID was correct until the Date of manufacture could be confirmed.

NOVA
Posted May 23, 2012 - 11:43am

The model name is not "1970 Chronograph C" or "1971 Chronograph C".  Rather, it is "Chronograph C".  And this watch would be that model regardless of whether the date on the back of the case were 1970, 1971, etc.

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted May 23, 2012 - 11:46am

so why date the Watches in the database?

I'm not argueing, the correct date of manufacture is part of the root data.

NOVA
Posted May 23, 2012 - 12:01pm

Oh, for Pete's sake, no one is saying that we shouldn't date the watches.  The only point here is that everyone knows this watch is a Chronograph C.  It was crystal clear when no date was assigned, and it is equally clear now that a date has been assigned.  The date neither changed nor clarifed the model ID.  That was the sole point Geoff made, to which Stephen and I concurred.  We're not talking about any other watch.  We're talking about this watch.

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted May 23, 2012 - 12:27pm

agreed, everyone who has knowledge of Bulova Watches knows the Watch is a 'CHRONOGRAPH' "C".

Q: Did We know at the time of listing that it was manufactured in 1970.

A: No

Therefore, the ID could not be confirmed as a 1970 'CHRONOGRAPH' "C".

it's that simple

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted May 23, 2012 - 1:37pm

Club 5000Panel Member

I'm calling the ASPCA on you Mark.  That poor horse.  I think without some rules stating the minimum of data needed to confirm an ID, three checks may be continent on folks whims and mood.  Not very objective nor consistent.  The watch is indeed a Chrono C, whether it has one, two or three checks.  Without the date, it's still the chrono C.  I had assumed there were required fields to be completed to confirm.  That's all.  The owner can see from the comments it's a Chrono C, so the number of checks is in fact irrelevant in this and many other examples.  If we are going with the intent of ID'ing the watch, this was done based on the comments, not the number of checks.  Just seems to me there are data which should be entered to warrant the three checks, and it may not be contingent on if the record is ID'ed correctly or not.  It just opens the door to more records having incomplete data having the three checks.  We need some rules, IMO. 

DarHin's picture
DarHin
Posted May 23, 2012 - 2:01pm

If I were a Panel Member I would give this watch 2 stars.. er..checks since there is no evidence of case year or movement model/year. By evidence I mean pics.

NOVA
Posted May 23, 2012 - 2:26pm

I do not disagree that some rules may be a good idea.  Some time ago we proposed rules, including mandatory data fields.  Those proposals were rejected in favor of a more open and welcoming approach.  The goal was to make listing and identifying a watch easier rather than more difficult than it needs to be by insisting on rules when the answer is obvious.  

By suggesting that clear photos of movements, etc. are required to establish an ID in every case, even when we know perfectly well what the watch is, you are making strict compliance with rules and standards more important than gathering as much data as possible.  Stephen has in the past made it quite clear that is not the direction in which he wants to take the site.   It is his call, and he has chosen to make very few data points or "evidence" mandatory.