Bulova 1959 21st Century

10/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.
1.911
Manufacture Year: 
1959
Movement Model: 
10BP
Movement Jewels: 
21
Case Serial No.: 
D650595
Case shape: 
Rectangle
Crystal Details: 
CMY289-40 20.5 x 19.5
Additional Information: 

Well, let's give this a try and see how well we do. Using the only data available, there are no ads in the DB showing this model so I have to resort to the crystal package which says " Bulova 1200D, 21st Century". So what do we call it?

 

Not For Sale
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
Geoff Baker
Posted July 6, 2012 - 7:27pm

Club 5000Panel Member

Unknown I say - can't ID based on crystal only.

I will say that I like the watch 100%, very nice model Shawn. You do nice work.

bourg01
Posted July 6, 2012 - 7:41pm

Panel Member

Thx Geoff,

I've never been one to put alot of stock in crystal data either unless the shape is odd and the fits perfect, then I wouldn't have mentioned it. I've discussed this watch with Lisa as she has one as well. She was able to find the "21st Century" model listed in a 1954 Bulova price listing. Sold for $65.00 back then.

 

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted July 6, 2012 - 8:03pm

Club 5000Panel Member

Unknown from me. 

I checked Lisa's site. I can't imagine the case dimensions are any different on subject watch.  So with crystal package which fits and lists only 21st Century AND Lisa's reference that this model name shows up as such in an official Bulova price list, it's getting pretty close to tentative (if we have such a thing any longer).  While the price list doesn't show which watch it is, it does show that model name existed.

So do we have two choices Unknown and Known, or was admin saying there would be three choices after consensus and subsequent publicly published?  I thought he was saying three.  Unknown, tentative, or model name "sure".  Maybe the tentative part shows up in some comments field of the watch if published as unknown under the two choice system?

bourg01
Posted July 6, 2012 - 8:51pm

Panel Member

Hi Will,

I'm not sure what our options are yet but I think Stephen had mentioned keeping 3. Other then our comments i don't see any voting options yet.

OldTicker
Posted July 6, 2012 - 9:06pm

Unknown, but should be listed in a comments section as a possible 21st Century with the crystal spec's the only proof to the possible ID as of now, and waiting for a ad to surface to confirm it or rule it out.

Does it have a shadow dial, or is that just the way the light is hitting the dial??

bourg01
Posted July 6, 2012 - 9:15pm

Panel Member

It had a plain butler dial but I had it re-done in a shadow dial configuration.

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted July 7, 2012 - 11:52am

The Watch Owners changes to the Dial from original would make it 'NON CONFORMING' - We will never find an ad to Match exactly as the Dial is custom.

bourg01
Posted July 7, 2012 - 12:21pm

Panel Member

Hmmm, Good point Mark and so true, but if I hadn't had the dial done custom, What would your opinion be if it had the original dial? If I hadn't told you all about the dial, who'd be the wiser? As it stands popular opinion seems to make it a "Non -Conforming - Unknown".

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted July 7, 2012 - 5:17pm

Club 5000Panel Member

Well unknown from me unless there's some type of "tentative" catagory, as it would most likely be under the old system w/ crystal specs for more than one example. 

The redial issue is not considered it my last sentence, and resulting possibility of non-conforming ....and good points Mark and Shawn.  If we had not been told it was a redial not done exactly like the dial that came in the watch, and without an ad to see what original dial looked like, we may handle differently. 

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted July 7, 2012 - 7:16pm

In this Case We have the benefit of knowing the Dial has been redone to a non-original spec, without that knowledge it would become a Tentative or Unknown ID. Personally, I would have voted 'Tentative' (if that's possible) until proven one way or another.