Bulova 1968 -Non-Conforming

Model ID rating explained.
Manufacture Year: 
Movement Model: 
Movement Jewels: 
Case Serial No.: 
Case shape: 
Case Manufacturer: 
Additional Information: 

1969 Beau Brummel "AJ"

Not For Sale
1969 Beau Brummel
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
Posted July 31, 2014 - 11:41am

Club 5000Panel Member


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

Club 5000Panel Member

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's picture
Posted July 31, 2014 - 3:27pm

Lugs are different.

Unk. but would give two tix for BB.

Posted July 31, 2014 - 3:42pm

Panel Member

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

Club 5000Panel Member

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

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

Club 5000Panel Member

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)

bobbee's picture
Posted August 1, 2014 - 8:33am

Here is a correctly cased one, still hasn't had it's ID changed.




1962 mat ad.




Posted August 1, 2014 - 8:51am

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

Panel Member

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. 

Posted August 1, 2014 - 3:09pm

Panel Member
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