Bulova 1969 -Non-Conforming

Submitted by jabs on July 31, 2014 - 11:17am
Manufacture Year
1969
Movement Model
10BZC
Movement Jewels
21
Movement Serial No.
-
Case Serial No.
G429504
Case shape
Round
Case color
White
Case Manufacturer
Bulova
Gender
Mens
Watch Description

1969 Beau Brummel "AJ"

1969 Beau Brummel
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
mybulova_admin
Posted July 31, 2014 - 11:41am

 

Case and fail are a nice match for the Beau Brummell 'AJ', but the movement looks to be a replacement.

Thoughts on if we should ID as a BB or Non-Conforming ?

 

 

William Smith
Posted July 31, 2014 - 2:55pm

I see what your saying.  17 jewel in BB "AJ" ad (I don't remember date of ad) and 21 Jewel 1959 (L9) movement in 1969 case.  
I'd say non-conforming, just to follow protocol.  
Folks will see/know it's a BB "AJ" case/dial, housing a movement swap of 10 yrs difference and jewel count difference.  On the wrist (or in the collection display window) this watch is gonna look identical to the BB "AJ".  

bobbee
Posted July 31, 2014 - 3:27pm

Lugs are different.

Unk. but would give two tix for BB.

jabs
Posted July 31, 2014 - 3:42pm

I found another ad for BB SS with similar lugs

that is for changing 23jwls

I think the movement is really exchanged, but the case is BB

I bought this watch by one photo blindly from Mexico :)

William Smith
Posted July 31, 2014 - 4:36pm

yea I see lug differences now.  So case is more like BB "SS" 

Geoff Baker
Posted August 1, 2014 - 6:16am

I guess I don't see the lugs match between the ad and the subject watch. Seems different to me. I'm torn, I honestly don't think we should tag a watch non-conforming over a movement but that's not really the discussion as I see it on this one. I'm not sure the DIAL goes in this case.

Trending toward Non-Conforming ( for a dial case mis-match)

jabs
Posted August 1, 2014 - 8:51am

In reply to by bobbee

Oh, great, that's exactly it - 21 jwls and 5 adj 
Bob finding a great ad :)
Reverend Rob
Posted August 1, 2014 - 9:45am

The 10BZ came in all three common jewel counts, 17, 21 and 23, but Doc shows it in production from 1959-1963. 

Definitely a swapped movt, I'm thinking the BB from 1969 would have had a different movt calibre, most likely a cousin of the 10BZ, although I'm not seeing anything with a sub second that late. 

My gut is thinking that the case has had a transplant of movt and dial from 1959. 

jabs
Posted August 1, 2014 - 3:09pm

In reply to by Reverend Rob

reasoning is logical, when I opened the watch was clear to me that something is not right
 
Well, not every time we succeed
Non-conforming