Bulova 1970 Chronograph "C"

6/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.
3
Variant: 
C
Manufacture Year: 
1970
Movement Model: 
Valjoux 7736
Movement Jewels: 
17
Case Serial No.: 
Unknown
Case shape: 
Round
Gender: 
Men's
Additional Information: 

Inheirited from my wife's grandfather.  Came with the original mesh band, but it was too small for my wrist so I had a jeweler replace it with a similar, larger one.  It's in great shape, but needs a small amount of maintenance...it loses about 2 minutes per day, and I think the winding stem may have a slight bend - it's a little sticky when winding or setting.

Anybody have references for a reliable, reasonably-priced service for a tune-up?  It took me a long time to figure out exactly what I have, and now I'm a little protective of it. 

Not For Sale
Bulova Stars and Stripes
FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted May 22, 2012 - 5:21pm

I wouldn't run it any more - the loss of time and 'sticky' winding mechanism could indicate a thorough cleaning is in order.

Confirmation of the Year of manufacture would confirm the ID.

Geoff Baker
Posted May 22, 2012 - 9:08pm

Club 5000Panel Member

Year of manufacture is not relevant to ID

It's a Chrono C AND it's fabulous! 3 from me

Congratulations Scott - You now own one of the coolest Bulova's ever made.  Welcome to the club.

ScottMcG
Posted May 22, 2012 - 9:47pm

How do you confirm the year of manufacture?  it's got an "N0" on the back - there's a serial number, but it's very faint and my eyes are a bit older than they used to be.  I'll try again with a magnifying glass and good light later, and will update the info when I get it.

But yeah, it's cool.  I really love it, and it's a great-looking watch.  I'll get it cleaned and serviced soon and try to get a pic or two from the inside.

NOVA
Posted May 22, 2012 - 10:26pm

I agree with Geoff.  We all know what this is, and it is FABULOUS!  Congrats on a truly great watch. 

For the record, N0 indicates 1970.  You listed the watch correctly and no other "confirmation" is needed.

Here's an ad from 1970 to verify the ID.

The print is very tiny, but the bottom line specifies "Chronograph C".

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted May 23, 2012 - 6:35am

"Year of manufacture is not relevant to ID"

"I agree with Geoff.  We all know what this is"

 

Of coarse the Year of Manufacture is relevant in an ID, if the Caseback were stamped N1 it wouldn't be manufactured in 1970.

duh.

NOVA
Posted May 23, 2012 - 11:06am

It was clearly stated that the case back was stamped "N0" for 1970.  Read the post above mine.  And I repeated that information in my post.  If you're going to quote people at least try to do it in context rather than deliberately out of same.

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted May 23, 2012 - 7:35am

Club 5000Panel Member

The year of manufacture is a piece of information pertinent to the watch. Regardless if, in this case, it makes a difference on the ID or not.  It is good style, and allows all who see the record to know what year the watch was made.  I had thought it was a required field.  The field for year of manufacture is the very first piece of information admin has listed in the root record.  However, following this logic, we would not have to enter the movement model, since the this model only came with one movement.  We could skip entering the jewel count since it only came w/ 17 jewels.  We don't need to enter case shape, as they were all round. Sometimes folks are in a hurry and don't follow directions to properly enter the watch record or they just don't have the info quite yet.  That's understandable.  How many forced entry fields can we leave blank and still confirm the ID.   IMO only the ones which are not important pieces of information. 

It is most definitely without a doubt a chrono C and I'll give a confirmed three checks when the correct information is entered in the root record.  Without this information, I would be confirming that the single picture is that of a chrono C.

This is why we have soo many incomplete, misleading records in the database. 

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted May 23, 2012 - 7:39am

Club 5000Panel Member

well you updated the year before I could get off my soapbox.  Three checks confirmed!! :)

NOVA
Posted May 23, 2012 - 11:05am

Will,

I agree that the ideal watch record would have all pertinent information supplied.  However, sometimes that isn't possible.  For example, I have a couple of 1970s watches that are well known--one happens to be the Chron C--where I cannot get the back off to gather as much information as I would like.  I have tried and tried.  Does that mean it's not a Chron C?  Of course not. We have a very clear ad showing what that watch looks like, we have seen quite a few examples of it, and there is no similar watch to confuse with it.  That's not the case with a lot of watches, and, in those instances, more information is likely necessary to confirm the ID.  In this case, you also acknowledged that the identification of the watch was clear and definite, despite the lack of further information.  Rules can be useful things but it is sometimes possible to achieve the desired end result without following them to the letter.

Perhaps more importantly, I thought the checkmarks were intended to represent the strength of the model ID, not the completeness of the watch record.  If that's true, then your statement that "it is most definitely without a doubt a chrono C" would warrant three checks confirming the ID without any additional information.

Lisa

 

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted May 23, 2012 - 8:31am

Exactly, how could one confirm a manufacture Date of 1970 without the relevant information.

The Date of manufacture is a part of relevant data.

3 Stars. - Thank You for updating.