I've now added a dropdown box to categorise the model name of a watch.
For those that have watches on the site can you please take some time to update your listing and select the most appropriate category.
New additions must have this category selected.
Please read here for more information about the categories available.
http://www.mybulova.com/bulova-watch-model-identification-categories
Comments welcome.
Interesting question Mark. When I'm researching my watches and locate a ad or other info after a possible I D I send a inquiry email with pics attached to a few other members and ask them to confirm or deny based on their own independent research. When they respond with either a positive or non-positive is when I add a name to my watch, or not. You could confirm this with Stephan as I've ask his opinion on a still yet unidentified 1920's quite a while ago as the ads in the database can't be enlarged without major distortion. I can reliably state as fact there are watches listed with NAMES in the database that are proven as incorrect, yet there they are!
My thoughts. . .
I agree with Fifth (can you believe that? LOL). I have often thought that we need a review/approval process, but figured I was just getting too persnickity about the whole thing. However, if we really want to build a reliable database of confirmed Bulova models, then we need to apply consistent control over what goes in there. It would make sense to add that review before the final status of "confirmed".
If we were to come up with objective criteria for confirmation, as in specific information you have to have before you can select Confirmed, then that could be handled electronically initially. That is, the system could be set up so that "Confirmed" is grayed out as an option until certain qualifying information has been entered. Qualifying information could be things like, Have included a copy of a matching vintage ad, which is __________, Have confirmed crystal specifications of _____, Have matched crystal and case dimensions to another confirmed, identical model, which is __________, etc. Some requirements may be mandatory by themselves, others may be alternative to each other or required in combination.
That electronic form could be a preliminary step to being able to select Confirmed. Then, we could have a small panel of elected reviewers who only need to look at entered information for accuracy, such as whether the watch really matches the ad presented. Seems to me that, for this step, one person's interpretation is probably not what we want. Maybe we vote on a panel of willing judges? The panel could also have a way to enter comments about the watch that speak to issues of authenticity, e.g., redial, wrong hands, etc. Not to criticize the watch, but rather to help all future viewers understand what, if anything, about the watch is not original to that model.
Certainly, above all else, we need to decide on objective criteria for confirmation, otherwise any method of review or approval will be subject to personal opinions, stalemates, and unfair inconsistency.
About watches that were not submitted or approved as confirmed, but rather were entered as tentative. . .
The elected panel members could be assigned specific years for which they are responsible for reviewing the tentative submissions on a regular basis. If a tentative is found that the panel member believes to be qualified for confirmation, that watch could be submitted to the committee for review, using the same objective criteria for confirmation. Thus, the committee would have the authority to confirm tentatives.
Using the approach of dividing up the database by years, the committee could also be responsible for reviewing old database entries--where the poster is not active on the site--and recommending those to the committee for either upgrade or downgrade. In that way, we could "clean-up" the existing database.
I agree with Mark & Lisa's ideas, and before any watch would be put up for review, all of the required info plus CLEAR pictures of the watch should be required.
The said watch should be up for discussion to all members for debate and the member submitting the watch should be able to make their pitch as to why it should be confirmed as such.
If a member submits a watch for confirmation and is on the panel, they should be left out of the confirmation vote.
Lets tweek these ideas and come up with a plan.
In reply to I agree with Mark & Lisa's by OldTicker
I think OT has made a very important point about opening the watch to discussion by all members of the site. That's a step that should not be skipped, because there are members with extensive knowledge but who may not have the time or inclination to sit on a committee or panel. We need to be sure everyone has a chance to weigh in before a decision is made. So, maybe we need a defined, open discussion period, after a watch is offered for confirmation, then it goes to committee.
Required Info;
CLEAR Photos (of the dial, movement, caseback, bezel)
Case dimensions in mm (lug to lug, between lugs, length, width not including crown)
Crystal dimensions (width, length, and shape)
Information on watch (movement model, date code, jewels, caseback info)
Any known history if available
Just a start folks, feel free to ad more...
Information on watch, in addition to the above, should include metal specifications (e.g., 10k rolled gold plate bezel, stainless back). All text on the case should be stated unless clearly readable in the photos.
Criteria for confirmation is more difficult. For me, the first question is whether there is anything that can put a watch in the confirmed category, other than a vintage ad dated within a prescribed period of years before or after the date of the watch, clearly showing the subject watch. (An ID based on supposed artist rendering problems would not meet this criterion.) But what about a claimed NOS watch, in original box with tag that includes a model name? Are we prepared to accept that information as confirmed, even though we have no way of confirming that the box/tag were in fact original or accurate? We’re in essence accepting some unknown seller’s claim that those IDs were original.
Once we decide what proof provides confirmation, we have to determine to what degree the subject watch must match that proof. What about differences in jewel count and metal description, dial variations, absence of a waterproof label, self-winding or manual, etc.? These are the details that are sometimes argued to make or break an ID, even when the picture in the ad is a match (or sometimes not!).
In reply to Information on watch, in by NOVA
I would accept the NOS watch provided that certain info is provided (crystal specs match model in catalog and time frame, original bill of sale,)
It would be more of a judgement call, and could just be left in the tentive catagory.
Maybe for now only watches with an accompanying ad with discription should be confirmed? It might produce more ad's in the database as a result?
The basic information asked for in the existing information fields is good - could be better.
The problem is even with the minimum information asked for not everyone is filling them out completely, yet the watch is still allowed to post.
How about making those fields mandatory and only when all the now required fields are complete will the Owner then be allowed to click 'save' by the program and the Watch posts.
add a Case Dimension field, it's a start....
In reply to The basic information asked by FifthAvenueRes…
Agreed. Whatever information we ask for, it should all be required (except, of course, things like movement serial number, which isn't always there). That should cut down on entries by people who just want verification of their watch before they sell it on eBay (I see that happening on a daily basis now). I think it's fine for anyone to post a question asking for help for whatever reason--watch related, that is. It's good that we help the watch community in general, and we, in turn learn from the exercise. But I don't think it's okay to have watches entered in the database with little information and no follow-up. If someone takes the time to enter all required information, then that shows commitment and interest in contributing to the collective goal.
Okay, so I don't get what people are doing now with the new categories. I thought the point was to show that your watch is Confirmed, not just to claim it.
Where are the supporting ads or references to ads? Where's the confirming evidence for the ID? Seems like we're just going through our collections now and calling them confirmed without a proper basis. Seems like that defeats the point of the new classifications entirely.
Come on, guys/gals, it's not that hard to ID the ad or otherwise state the basis of your watch ID.
In reply to ...would lead back to an by FifthAvenueRes…
The poster should still have to gather and present the required evidence. There's no way any panel will have the time to do everyone's research for them. The panel should approve or deny based on the evidence presented. The evidence should be required before being able to select Confirmed, regardless of who selects it.
I'm not trying to pick on anyone, but rather we're just starting to explore our new categories, and we need to discuss how they are working. I note that a watch was just posted as "unknown" for the model name but "tentative" for the status. A tentative unknown? I guess it's possible, but I don't think it's what Admin had in mind. Seems like an "Unknown" model name should force an unknown status. Right?
We have to take into consideration that our members are not all watchmakers or collectors. Movement information for watches that require special tools or to break a waterproof seal should not be required. Maybe a line item for movement type i.e. Manual Wind, Selfwinding, Automatic, Quartz.
Wayne
In reply to We have to take into by Wayne Hanley
I see your point, Wayne, but consider this. We are trying to build a complete, reliable database. In fact, we're trying to reconstitute the official Bulova records that were lost. So, we need complete and accurate data. In your opinion, is it unreasonable to expect someone to get that information--even if it requires a trip to the watchmaker--in order to get a watch Confirmed? In other words, they could enter the watch with lesser data--say, everything that doesn't include opening the watch--but they could not go beyond tentative with only partial information.
I'm not really sure what I think of that idea, because it seems like we're likely to end up with a bunch of tentative IDs where the poster has gotten a "good enough" answer and moved on, leaving us with partial data and no hope of ever getting the rest, so no way to complete the identification process.
Maybe we just need to accept that the database is for those serious enough to figure out how to get all the data, and the forum is the place to get help with an ID if/when the poster can't or doesn't want to gather it.
In reply to I see your point, Wayne, but by NOVA
All, I've removed the ability for members to add a status as I feel I've jumped the gun a bit here and need to think about this a little more.
The original premise for the site was to allow anyone and everyone the ability to add the vintage Bulova watch to a single database. Back then I didn't think things would take off like they have.
A agree this process needs to be more controlled, but I hesitate to put strict controls in place where is puts people off adding their watch or helping to identify others.
I will made a number of field mandatory, bearing in mind that I don't want to force people to have to open the watch to find the jewel count or internal serial numbers.
I've added a non-mandatory jewel count, a mandatory case shape and additional text to include case material, history and info on dial refurbs.
What else should I add to the input form (mandatory and non-mandatory)
I'll look into a better workflow to marking these as either confirmed or tentative as I think those 2 are the going to be part of the end result.
WOW!
Better ideas and realizations, than I expected... A "Panel" is far more realistic, and fail safe than merely expecting Stephen to "review" (all aspects of) the new/old additions, from the inception of data entry...
There needs to again be a place to "enter known data," for everyone with images and basic info.+
Then someone/s to follow- up on entries, asking for more info. (I do this to get crystal & model IDs!)
We'll need top and side view images... in and/or outer case back + movement pics, for proper IDs!
Crystal specs within .5mm or better. And also soon a crystal shape Chart and Alphas... (Educating everyone about crystal shapes and curvatures, etc... makes the descriptions that much more accurate!)
Same with the various metal alloys, plating processes and metal color tints and vocabulary used...
Dials and known variants... Plus the original bracelets, bands and straps...
And the only person that should pass judgement on a (separate category) of ID'd models, is the ADMIN!
:-) Scott
All, please remember one thing.
I want the process of adding a watch to the myBulova.com website to be as easy as possible so that the extreme novice who has just inherited a watch and has absolutely now knowledge of it can quite easily add it, yet still be able to have it identified.
I don't expect everyone to go out and buy a set of calibers or know how to open a case, and I don't neccessarily want to force people to go pay a jeweler to open it. We help were we can help.
I'll add some advise about taking correct photos shortly to the "Add a watch' section.
Like the saying goes 'a picture tells a 1000 words"
The 'Additional information' area is where everything else should go, unless we can determine common points to capture seperately.
In reply to All, please remember one by mybulova_admin
Hey Stephen,
We all know you want to keep it as simple, inviting and AUTOMATED as possible... However one of my main points in relation to this line of thought, is that in addition to needing a Forum for various dialogs (since added) an "add your watch/es" section (as you now have/had) you ALSO NEED a separate PROVEN MODELS section, which needs to (now?) go into greater detail... such as known: cases, dials, bands, crystals, etc.
(Perhaps similar to say: http://www.vintagewatchresources.com/detail.php?watch_id=376 but with photos of all known cases, dial, bands, etc. And adding the crystal specs.)
All you need to do is create/add a "details" page for the added data, on the PROVEN models! Then another section you'll need to add to expedite the IDing process... is a "photo link" (Grid) page with say 12, 18 or 24 photos of unknown models... so those can be clicked and in essence "wiki'd." (i.e. Fill in what you know... And then any member can edit, or move the progressing model ID FORWARD... to the next level !) This is what I wanted to do two+ years ago, for the top 6- 12 American watch brands...
A straightforward way to rapidly review the "unknowns," would simply be to ADD that to the top or bottom of the "Search Watches" drop down... Then perhaps (also?) have them randomly "populate" a webpage of photo links, in a "photo" style page grid pattern, for maximum visual peruseability? This would at once encourage more people to LEARN and also get more INVOLVED, by DOING... And consequently, also get MORE people interested and involved in BULOVA watch collecting & resale!
:-) Scott
Stephen,
What is your goal for this site?
You say that it has taken off beyond what you had expected and I can see why, for the most part it is user frendly, and has a good bunch of helpful & contributing members that try to correctly ID watches.
A correct ID should be the top priority, otherwise the database is usless if we have watches that look close bunched in with the real thing. If you go through the 800+ ID'd watches you will find many of them are wrong and quite a few don't even have pictures or a good discription. This needs to be fixed before more are added or its only going to get worse.
I know you don't have the time to babysit this site 7-24, so maybe the best approch is a team effort, Some of us can put together information posts that can be a must read before posting watches, like What is required info and how to obtain it, How to properly photograph a watch, How to measure crystals & cases, How to post your watch with pictures on this site, How to properly date it, ect.
From what I see there are now about 15-20 members here that contribute there thoughts, opinions, ad's and other items of interest regularly and we pick up a couple more each month. The number of joining members seems to average 2 per day and many of those are just looking for a value or ID to put their watch up for sale. How many times have we had to ask for a picture or basic info?
The current 15-20 members that put there time and effort in to ID'ing these at least deserve some valid info to work from. If the person submitting one for identification can't put in the info required, then they are not a collector nor have any real interest in the watch other that getting more for it on eBay.
A digital calipers can be purchased for $10-15.00, a case opener for the same, If the watch has a meaning to them, spending a couple bucks at the local jewler for the info should not be much to ask for gaining a proper ID. This would weed out the "no interest but my own profit rummage sale buyer" from the true collector/restorer/vintage watch seller.
The Contributing members range from Experienced Watchmakers that do beautiful work on restoring these old Bulova's, Parts suppliers trying to serve the market, Dedicated Collectors trying to figure out what they own, and Beginners that just want to learn. We have the talent, lets figure out a way to make this THEE Reliable Bulova Watch site to go to.
There has been a lot of good posts here on ideas to improve this site and if we all put our ideas forward, we can not only have proper ID's, we can have fun doing it.
Keep up with the suggestions and lets make this a fun, reliable, informative and valuable site for everyone!
Agreed, OT. I think we can implement rules and standards, elect committees, have a process, and still have a really fun site.
The forum is always available to anyone who just wants quick help with an ID based on whatever information they are comfortable providing. But for the database to have any real meaning, it needs to be something different--something more structured and controlled/reviewed. Anyone interested in participating in the site can choose their approach, depending on their level of interest and preparedness to provide required information--that is, they can submit a "What is it?" forum post with partial information, or they can post a watch in the database if all required information is submitted. No one would be excluded from participation or feedback.
The downside to not taking a more structured approach to the database is that it will become useless to any serious collector. I suspect that most of us who collect were thrilled to find this site because it held such promise as a validation/authentication tool. But the more junk that enters the database, the less that is true.