Bulova 1975 Accutron

3/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.
Manufacture Year: 
Movement Model: 
Case Serial No.: 
Case shape: 
Case Manufacturer: 
Additional Information: 

Inside of caseback says:

REF. L-178 in black ink with U7048-0 and U-10328-0 scratched in

Movement says: 2301

Not For Sale
Watch Face
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
Posted December 8, 2012 - 12:47pm

 I don't understand the confusion about the movement, that is clearly a 230 based movement and we have no reason to doubt the OP she she says it is a 2301. The 57589 is clearly the serial number of the watch.

The L-178 is almost certainly the case number. Bulova didn'take their own gold cases, those were made by several sources. The U- numbers were probably scratched in by someone servicing the watch. 



Posted December 8, 2012 - 2:30pm


There is no confusion on the movement, serial # case # or case maker, the confusion is using the movement "series"  when ID'ing these Accutrons. Currently this watch is published in the database as a Accutron 230, it is not a "230", this one is...

It looks nothing like the subject watch at all. The way to ID the subject watch would be to call it a 1975 Accutron period. I does have a model number, but right now we have nothing to determine what it is. Using the movement when naming these Accutrons only will cause more confusion, because there is also a Accutron 214 that looks like this...

and a 218 that looks like this...

This is where the confusion you are reading on these threads is from.




William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted December 8, 2012 - 2:48pm

Club 5000Panel Member

OT  You have pointed out three "Accutrons" which happen to have those numbers as their "model number".   ....and you are correct for those three.  There are hundreds of Accutron models, what about the rest of them.  I don't care if we use the movement "series" numbers in the name or not, but I don't agree with the logic that because three out of hundreds of Accutron models happen to have the same model numbers as the movement series numbers- regardless of the movements in these three examples- is a reason not to use movement info in the ID. 
Remember I don't care which of the proposed naming conventions we use, but I do care about how we arrive at the choice.   

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted December 8, 2012 - 2:53pm

Club 5000Panel Member

So I'm fine with either:

1975 Accutron Model unknown


1975 Accutron 230 Model unknown  

I don't care, as long as we can reach some agreement on the naming process, and apply it consistently on both existing accutrons in the databse, and new accutrons coming in to the database.

EDIT:  For your Accutron model number 230 above, we could name it
Accutron (Model) 230

Accutron 230 (Model) 230  
...and same convention for the other two. 

We are attempting to subset information on Accutrons into logical and consisten ID "names".  We have several choices on how to subset the domain of Accutrons, and I think the choice for the subsets should help "ID" the watches into subsets which convey the most information about them, aid in ID'ing them, and consistently follow some "rules". 
We all want the same thing :) We just have to decide which we will implement-IMO


Posted December 8, 2012 - 3:16pm

Will, There is a provision in the record for the Movement, it doesn't need to be in the title, it only add confusion.

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted December 8, 2012 - 3:27pm

Club 5000Panel Member

I agree there is a provision for movement info in one of the fields of the record, as there is for variants in other non-accutron records. 
I'm not basing my choice on what is the best way to subset accturon info predicated on the fact that part of that info may already be somewhere in the root record.  It may be useful to have the movement series info show up in the model name as well.  Or not... 

Posted December 9, 2012 - 2:23pm

  Thank you for the explanation OldTicker. There must have been some PM's between panel members because I don't think a reading of the entries woud have led one to that explanation.

  I have about 60 Accutrons and, to me, the series is the first 3 digits of the movement. It appears to me that it is going to be difficult to fit Accutrons into your system but I applaud the effort.  

Posted December 9, 2012 - 3:25pm

No problem Lyle,

The purpose of this site is to preserve Bulova History & all of the wonderful watches they made...some want to change history, I don't. I have never come across a ad or dealer price list that uses the term "series" when naming a Accutron, and if you have, please let us in on it.

Everything so far looks like this... http://www.mybulova.com/node/5051

Nothing is ever easy, if it was, we would get bored!



FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
Posted December 9, 2012 - 2:39pm


* For the Accutron #230 shown in the ad:

The Watch is actually 'ACCUTRON Series 214' model #230 which is not the same as the subject Accutron which is the 'ACCUTRON Series 230' model #unknown.

Without use of the Accutron Series as an identifying factor the subject Watch would become simply an 'ACCUTRON' unknown.

bobbee's picture
Posted December 9, 2012 - 5:57pm

But in the "movement field" would be the 214 number. Your method lumps a plethora of watches under the "214 series" nomenclature, or the "218 series" etc. etc.

At least using the available ads we give a watch a chance at being named correctly.