1932 Sky King I mean
We need to get it right.
Based on the ads the XX Case cannot be the 'SKY KING' and those previously tagged as such should be identified as 'UNKNOWN'. Being consistanly wrong at this point doesn't change things and because We want this Case to be a 'SKY KING' for lack of any other positive ID is an injustice to the serious Collector.
No further debate of similar records necessary, this latest thread being the debate.
In reply to We need to get it by FifthAvenueRes…
Fifth, then that would be the former choice Geoff mentions above. Reopen other records that are similar- the tentative "Sky Kings" (maybe there's only two of them, or one??), but we gotta do one or the other. I agree that wanting to call this Sky King may be an injustice, but we gotta call it someting. Sky King (W/O sufficient ads, but intuition) or "Unknown". Should we resubmit the other ID'ed example(s) for review, and the comments wil show we suspected this to be a Sky King?
...Or we can use subject watch for currnet consensus, and then change other(s) based on how this one turns out?
Unknown isn't a bad word, or a bad ID. ...and consistently wrong isn't right.
This will remain a Sky King until I see evidence to the contrary. We have an advert showing the later 'XX' case version sold as a Sky King. As far as I'm concerned its a update to the fish design that was used in 1930/31.
We have no evidence that this watch went by any other name.
If we used this mindset on all the 1927 Lone Eagles we would need to rename then as 'Unknowns'
I think I hear a broken record :-)
1932 Sky King for me.
ad Dated 1930
ad Dated 1931
ad Dated 1932
ad Dated 1933
ad Dated 1934
Database examples of the XX pattern Case are Dated 1931 and 1932.
We have a substantial and undeniable amount of concurring evidence dated 1930 through 1934 inclusive that the XX pattern, as showing on the subject Watch, is not the 'SKY KING' ......
But we have no evidence to the contrary that shows the 'XX' version as anything else.
There is no arguement from me that the earlier/original release was as is shown above.
It's simply my beleif that the 'XX' version is a later version with adverts using pre-existing released images. It's the exact same principle as the 1927/28 Lone Eagle series, as there may well be other examples.
In reply to I am inclined to vote Sky by JP
It is a small difference, and although we do not have any evidence to suggest that there is another watch that looks like this with the XX engraving, my gut says this is not a Sky King.
I ask myself, why would Bulova change something like the engraving pattern? They have re-named other models for far less, in fact no change at all.
If my gut is correct, it means, among other things, that Sky Kings are actually rarer than they appear to be.