Ruxton?

Looks like it to me....cept the ad says faceted crystal but im sure yours has been replaced a time or two since new so no real issue there....

Crystal dimensions are approx. 21.5mm x 25mm.

The RUXTON...

Good One, Lisa!

Best :-)  Scott

P.S.

Moonbeam, Ruxton
4
CMT308-30F
 
RMU108-20
 
CMT2293 227
 
HMB228/3

Moonbeam, Ruxton "A"
4
CMT308-25
 
RMU108-20D
 
CMT2293A
 
HMB228/3F

ADDITIONAL IMAGE CREDITS TO WATCHMAKER & eBAY RESELLER: "NICKof TIME..."

Allright, here's the " Ruxton A " 1951 version. Very clearly a different case than the watch posted but it's a 1957 model. No ad, no proof, should posted as an unknown. Looks more like one from the Senator series, just which version would be my question.

ad Dated 1958 - 'MINUTE MAN'

Not a clear enough picture of the Minute Man to tell whether it is my watch or not.  Also, revisit Scott's notes on the crystal above.  He said only the Ruxton and Moonbeam take that glass.

Not the best I know.

My Eyes are getting worse by the Day it seems but I can make out the lug and bezel horizontal details. Dial is a match also.

It's certainly not the 'RUXTON' - Shawns' ad shows that.

Draw Your own conclusions - IMO this is the Watch.

i sold one of these as a ruxton..that what it said it was in the database

Shawn said the ad was for the Ruxtan A, the Ruxtan can't be all that much different. Probably just a dial change and maybe white gold plate?

I'll 3rd the motion on Fifth ad. I can't see enough detail there to comment on the watch.

I have to totally disagree with the assertion that the Ruxton and Ruxton A can't be that different.  Take a look at the various Ambassadors in the database.  There is a great deal of difference even amongst the Ambassador A's, much less between all the various Ambassadors, i.e., B, C, D, E, etc .  If that example doesn't satisfy you, then how about all the different Senators. . . or Directors?

I think we've seen enough variation in model design--including those with the exact same name--to know better than to make assumptions about design changes, or lack thereof, through the years.

Don't get me wrong:  I'm not wedded to the idea that my watch is a Ruxton.  I don't really care what it is called, but I would like to make a good ID, not one based on blurry ads or baseless assumptions.  I have no issue with considering this one an unknown at this point.

Actually, I take that back.  I do have a problem listing this one as an unknown when we have an ad for the Ruxton that looks, as far as we can tell, to be an excellent match for this watch--better than any other ad presented to date.  Also, the crystal specs make sense for the Ruxton.  I continue to believe that those facts are sufficient for a tentative ID.  We have other tentative IDs in the database based on crystal specs alone. 

Ellierose,

In regard to your statement above that you sold a watch like this as a Ruxton based on my database entry, let me say first that I feel your pain. I have quite a few watches in my collection that I purchased thinking that they were a model that they later turned out not to be. However, they are still beautiful, authentic, vintage Bulova watches, and they have value, regardless of their name, known or unknown.

Since that time, Admin invented the star rating system, which was designed to give all users of the database a way to determine how sure we are as a group of a given watch's model identification. Every listing in the database has three stars at the top of the listing.  They may be all white, meaning no votes have been cast in favor of the asserted ID, all the way up to three yellow stars, meaning the watch is confirmed under the name stated.  Because we have no official Bulova records regarding the watches' identities, we rely on vintage advertisements, crystal specifications, and, occasionally, on an apparent original dealer's tag to help us figure out the name of the watch. Sometimes we have no evidence, sometimes sketchy evidence, sometimes really solid evidence, sometimes we're somewhere in between. The star system is intended to tell you how sure we are about the name listed in the database, and you can, in turn, use that information to make your own evaluation and act in accordance with it.

In the case of this watch, it has only achieved a little more than one star. That's an indication to you and all users of the site that this watch only has a tentative identification. That means that we aren't sure at all about this model name. We have some evidence to support it, but the evidence is not strong enough at this point and, therefore, the model cannot be confirmed via three stars. Again, that in no way indicates that the watch is not authentic or valuable; rather, it simply means that we're not yet sure what it was called by Bulova.

So, if I were you, I would not provide a model name--or provide it only as a possibility--on any watch that fails to achieve three stars. If it has three stars, then you will see in the listing evidence to support the ID, and that evidence can also support you if anyone were to question your information.

I also recommend reading the entire thread on any watch that interests you. The nature and value of the evidence is typically discussed and debated, and, by reading it, you can form your own opinion regarding its merits.  Also, if there are any concerns regarding the watches authenticity, those will be discussed and debated as well, and you can use those points to consider the authenticity of your watch.  If anything in the discussion seems unclear or inconclusive, you are free to post a question seeking further clarification.

Others may offer refinements to these comments, but this is my 2c, and I hope it helps you in the future.

- Lisa

i agree nova that it is still a beautiful watch..and the one i sold was in as nice as shape as this one..i know about the starts..i thought that ad matched pretty good.sometimes it is hard to tell, plus the artist didn't always drawn them exactly the same.some of the time...anyway not a big deal..the buyer never gave feedback but didn't ask for a return either so i guess he was happy with it..i was thinking about keeping myself..but i had to move stock...but now that i see the other ad posted here i can see it is a minute man...oh well..i'll know next time...i think this is the only one i ever missed labeled so..i have a pretty good percentage with that..there is other people who are totally wrong,or who don't even try...

Let me clarify my comment, I don't believe the "1951" Ruxtan or Ruxtan A can be that much different. That's just my opinion and I do repect your comments on other models, variants, and changes over different years of production. The issue here is that this watch is a 1957 release from Bulova and there is no evidence to support any model ID. Forget any notion of it being anything close to the 1951 Ruxton or Ruxton A. Could it be a 1957 Ruxton?? We need provinance to support that. For now it's another beautiful Bulova Unknown to me and a very fine addition to ones collection. There is no doubt that this watch is 100% genuine Bulova, I've had 2-3 myself but never able to ID them and I will not attempt any ID from crystal specs any longer. There are just too many Bulova's that take the same size/shape crystals in similar model during close production periods. If you would, post the crystal specs for this watch and I will bet they are way different, both longer and wider,  than any 1951 Ruxtan or Ruxtan A crystal discussed in this forum.

Regards. shawn

Great work folks.  I'm curious-how many panel members are there?  

Ruxton was the private label for Friedman's Jewelers .  When the store closed its doors, the name was part of the intellectual property that was auctioned on October 9, 2009.  Check out wikipedia for Friedman's Inc.

The Watch in question has since been positively identified as...... You guessed it,  the 'MINUTE MAN'.

Agreed, but only after we obtained a clearer ad showing what the Minute Man actually looked like.   The correct call then, and now, is not to insist on a particular model ID when the only available ad is too blurry to be definitive, but rather to wait until better proof is available.

For the record, this is an excerpt from the 1958 ad that clearly showed the watch to be the Minute Man: