The back of case is difficult to read. The etchings are very light - they read, "Stainless Steel, Shock Resistant, Anti-Magnetic, Self Winding, Water Proof"
I think that watch will be Bulova 23 "B" like another one in database
In reply to Thanks Jabs, there is a lot by MGD001
Yes Andersok you are correct, I saw the same thing on the movement. This is a recent purchase and I don't know the watches' history. Recently I used our forum to ask a question on a 23 I saw previously with a replacement TK watch case. I chose not to add that particular watch to my collection, for I want to try to keep my collection as authentic as possible. It was suggested in the forum to marry the movement to an authentic case, but I thought I would rather search for another 23 instead and that's when I found this one. Now I have seen in other discussions within "My Bulova" that a year or two of separation between the case and the movement is acceptable/normal, so I thought this was an acceptable item to add to my collection? If this is not true, then I apologies and the watch status should be changed to non-conforming. With this said, I know this is good information for the library and it does help other collectors; however, I probably will be eliminating this 23 from my collection if you think this movement would not have found its way to this case through normal traditions.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the two year difference on your watch case and movement; that is an acceptable span, like you mention. Not at all necessary to be considered non-conforming for that difference. It is the correct movement for this time period and model. I say hold on to it.
In reply to Thanks Andersok - was it by MGD001
I agree with Ken - I'm not at all concerned witht a two year spread between case and movement. There are any number of reasons a 1956 movement is cased to a 1958 date code. In the final analysis , there are only 366 calendar days between a 1956 movement and a 1958 case. This is a nice watch, I'd keep it.