1969 Beau Brummel "AJ"
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".
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)
Here is a correctly cased one, still hasn't had it's ID changed.
http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1960-unknown-4783
1962 mat ad.
In reply to Here is a correctly cased by bobbee
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.
In reply to The 10BZ came in all three by Reverend Rob