I CAN'T FIND OUT ANYTHING ABOUT IT. NOR CAN I EVEN FIND ONE THAT LOOKS LIKE IT. SERIAL # 680792
In reply to i don't think it's fake by DDOLAN
Your photos were deleted due to not following the guidelines for filesize, filenames and dimensions.
Please feel fee to re-add your photos but please resize then to be no more then 700 pixels wide and rename the filenames accordingly to includ the date you added the watch.
Thanks!
Please post pics of the front and back of the watch. If you're comfortable opening it up, pics of the inside of the case back and the movement would be helpful as well. Any writing on the watch or the movement that's not visible in the pics needs to be stated. Thanks.
Per this thread, it would appear that you have a Sea King. http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1970-sea-king-2157
Please take a look and let me know if you agree.
I wish I could hug you! LOL! Thank you so much. I have looked everywhere and you got it in minutes. So the second hand is not on this model. I was afraid mine was missing it. The watch runs like a champion. The Accutron seems to have overshadowed it in 1968. Thanks again. I have a bunch of REALLY old Womens and a couple pocket watches in various states that I may ask about if I can't find out through regular channels.
In reply to flag on the play. Where did by FifthAvenueRes…
How can you evaluate whether the poster's watch was a Sea King when we no longer have the pics or any other information other than that there was a whale on the dial? The picture above is Wayne's watch, not the poster's. Admin deleted the poster's pics due to size.
If it matters, the poster's watch was waterproof. I don't recall if it was automatic. I think maybe it was self-winding.
Wayne,
I used the Case design and movement method which will always be the same within a specific model in a given Year.
2 examples below, one of which is Yours - Your Blue Dial watch and Your Gold watch cannot both be 'SEA KING's Wayne. The Case design and movements do not match.
The Bulova 'SEA KING' was a 17 Jewel Waterproof Automatic in the late 1960's - early 1970's and all used the 11 ALAC movement in one form or other (w or without Day Day/Date display)
'71
Fifth, I just don't see how you can make such broad, definitive statements with no ad to support them.
Think about the 1965 Commanders, for example--those cases do not all look alike. In that example, we have an ad that proves it. In this case we don't, but the absence of an ad isn't positive proof of anything.
As for having the same movement, the database has other examples of the same model with different movements.
I think your theory is a sound one, but with no evidence to support it, I don't think it has to be accepted by anyone as fact.
The case design will be the same within the model line Lisa, not the style.
ie: Waterproof - Stainless Steel back with retaining ring.
Movements will always be the same within the model.
ie: Commander - 30 J auto.
Case diameters will be the same as they fit the same mvmt.
Of coarse lug styles will differ.
This is something We need to look at in depth. The 1950 - 1970 auto's are very confusing and the confusion all revolves around the Case design - not the lug style.
IMO.
If anyone were to see the 2 Watches above in a printed ad they would assume they were the same, in reality they are not, as is shown.
I'm having trouble with this statement, "The case design will be the same within the model line Lisa, not the style." What about the 1965 Commanders? Isn't that a model line, and we have an ad showing very different case designs within that line (look for example, at the watch on the guy's wrist in the ad--it is totally different from the other cases in that ad)?
And couldn't such a drastic difference in case size/shape also result in a different movement, all still within the same model line?
And what about the fact that we have examples in the database now of the same model/case with different movements?
Couldn't Bulova have decided to make the Sea King without the date function, since not everyone likes that look? And, therefore, that variation would have carried a different movement? We don't have any evidence to the contrary.
Okay, so it sounds like you're saying that it doesn't matter what the outer shell looks like, but rather the size, shape, and construction of the inner cavity that houses the movement, along with the movement type. Is that a fair statement? (Perhaps with some additional distinctive qualifications, such as waterproof, 30 jewels, etc.?)
And you would limit those criteria to the later 60s/70s models--where we started getting more into lines with distinctive features, rather than simple case design changes--or do you think this holds true for all models regardless of date?
This strikes me as a pretty different way of identifying a model; I'm just trying to get a handle on it.