Bulova 1932 Sky King

Submitted by jabs on January 24, 2014 - 10:32am
Manufacture Year
1932
Movement Model
10AN
Movement Date Code
T
Movement Jewels
17
Movement Serial No.
-
Case Serial No.
2071685
Case shape
Other
Case color
Two-tone
Case Manufacturer
Bulova
Crystal details
15,6-20 x 21,1 mm
Gender
Mens
Watch Description

1932 Sky King I mean

1932 Sky King
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
Geoff Baker
Posted February 3, 2014 - 5:16am

I agree Will, we have been tagging this style as Sky King. We need to do one of two things. Open up all the others or stop debating this one.  I choose the latter.

FifthAvenueRes…
Posted February 3, 2014 - 6:35am

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.

William Smith
Posted February 3, 2014 - 9:42pm

In reply to 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. 

 

FifthAvenueRes…
Posted February 5, 2014 - 5:55pm

Will,

'UNKNOWN' is the correct ID.

mybulova_admin
Posted February 6, 2014 - 4:51am

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.

 

FifthAvenueRes…
Posted February 6, 2014 - 9:25am

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' ......

 

 

 

 

mybulova_admin
Posted February 6, 2014 - 3:38pm

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.

JP
Posted February 6, 2014 - 7:06pm

I am inclined to vote Sky King but I am biased in my vote because I just recieved on like Jabs has and I sure do like it.

 

FifthAvenueRes…
Posted February 7, 2014 - 9:07am

In reply to by JP

Well put John as bias is currently the foundation of the ID whilst the vintage advertisements are telling Us that it is not.

Reverend Rob
Posted February 7, 2014 - 10:25am

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.