Skip to main content

Bulova 1950 Academy Award "W"

7/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.



Manufacture Year: 


Movement Symbol: 

49 (A9)

Movement Model: 


Movement Jewels: 


Movement Serial No.: 


Case Serial No.: 


Case shape: 


Crystal Details: 

CMX326-35 21.6 x 17.6



Additional Information

This would be the Academy Award "W". Please note the band matches the ads exactly. Any other examples in the data base without this band are "not" Academy Award " W's " according to some members. I say that's rubbish. Next we'll have to need the ad matching faceted crystals and signed crowns for watches post 1949.

Not For Sale
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
William Smith's picture
William Smith
Club 5000Panel Member
Posted May 26, 2012 - 1:47pm

Great "W"  Now we are getting somewhere.  As for the band/strap issues (and I don't remember in subject example), in some instances I would say according to the ads, not according to some members.  The ads are not opinions.  The ads are ads.  How we interpret them are opinions, and when there are not specific rules or protocol, we rely on opinion.   If a watch case/dial/mvent configuration does not, to our knowledge (=ads), occur as more than one variant designation, then it can't be confused with any other variant regardless of which mount it is on. If there is more than one variant and the only difference we can see (= knowledge=ads) is the mount, then it would be difficult for me to confirm which of the variants can be designated.  It' just for a few watches where the distinction can't be made.  IMO this band/strap distinction need not be an issue for those watches where we don't have conflicting ads to date.  I could never confirm ID on anything if I were waiting for an ad which may come along indicating otherwise.  I'm confused on this issue, as it seems to apply to only a few watches, and IMO seems like the way to confirm w/ ads in those watches. 

I think most of us agree on this, we are just having trouble clarifying those few examples where the ads don't allow us to distinguish between possible examples w/o considering mount. 

Posted May 26, 2012 - 2:46pm

Again, William, I have to disagree with you on how you define the scope of the issue.

Here, we do not have a "conflicting ad" as you say.  We only have one ad that shows this case, and it is called the "W".  By not confirming that ID simply because there might be another watch with the same case and a different strap called something else is to allow the strap to determine the ID. 

This situation is no different than any other watch.  There could always be another ad that we don't yet have that shows the same case with a different strap under a different model name.  That is precisely the lesson to be learned from the Lady Berkshire / Carla debate.  There's nothing unusual about those two watches, they are not variants.  They are an example of how one ad can come along and change what we thought we knew, and the strap may be the only distinguishing factor we can discern between two models.

The issue of the importance of the strap is not limited to a few models or just variants.  Like with the LB / Carla, it could be a factor with any watch.  If we don't come up with a way to deal with that possibility across the board, this issue will continue to be a point of major contention, division, and inconsistency at any given time, in regard to any given watch.

The Lady Berkshire / Carla show that, until we have all the ads, we cannot know all the factors that may change a model ID.  Therefore, when a watch does not match the available ad in any respect, there is reason to doubt the ID.  We could, consequently, quite reasonably consider all such non-matching watches to be "unknowns".  But I think a more reasonable approach is to have a rating system that aligns with the elements of the watch and simply acknowledges which elements are present in the current example and which are not.

Accepting that approach would require a slight change in mindset regarding what the checkmarks mean. Instead of vague assessments such as "tentative" or "confirmed", the checkmarks would represent a straight-forward, factual evaluation of the watch elements as they compare to the available advertisements.  Anyone looking at the checks would then know exactly what they mean and which elements of the current example are not a match for the ad and, consequently, which elements could make the ID subject to further review if/when new information comes along.  Naturally, the strap would be one of those elements.

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Club 5000Panel Member
Posted May 27, 2012 - 1:42am

I shoulda commented in a forum post vs this watch.  I was not referring to this watch, and was not clear on things.  I knew we didn't have conflicting ads in the W example.    I'm also not suggesting "there might be another ad", but just about the ads we currently have.  I should address this in a thread which is one of my concerns.  I think I mean what Lisa's saying, but am tired now and babbling....