Bulova 1924 158

Submitted by QuothWinter on December 14, 2012 - 4:30am
Manufacture Year
Movement Model
Movement Date Code
Movement Jewels
Movement Serial No.
Case Serial No.
Case shape
Case color
Case Manufacturer
American Standard
Watch Description

As is, recently bought. I haven't tried to clean it up yet.

Runs, will time for accuracy.

19k rolled gold. Fine bracelet, no markings.

Case marked American Standard, sorry, had a closer look.

Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Posted July 25, 2015 - 2:02am

Are you sure we should do this? In this web site we identify watches on the basis of ads. Although I fully agree with the theory that this watch could have been named as 157 based on the evidence we found in ads of the watches 153, 155 and 6713, I think it would be the first time we assign a name to a watch that is NOT supported by an ad (is that correct? Or did we do it before?) but based on a theory. Although we have of this watch an ad that indicates only 14KT solid gold, not even indicating a gold filled version of it, at least we have an ad that shows the shape. So, I rather would keep the name 158, than call it 157. As a compromise, can we give it both in the title, so something like 158/157, meaning 158 as based on an ad that shows the shape and 157 as the likely name, but not (yet) supported by an ad?

William Smith
Posted July 25, 2015 - 4:24am

In reply to by Alex

I do see how my three ticks if its ID'ed as 157 would hardly be "confirmed" without an ad.  I retract my tick assignment statement in previous comment block.  I would give two ticks tentative for either 158 or 157.  It would be based on those patterns in others, but not on an ad.   

We have assigned model names without exact matching ads, but usually we give two ticks for tentative, and we try to avoid giving a variant without some support (rule out other variants for which we have ads, and perhaps have one remaining entry in the Bulova price lists, so we go tentative for that variant based on rule out and elimination). This is done on a theory, or on other documentation, but not an ad.

We have voted in tentative ID's based on crystal specs theories, but I don't like assigning a model name on only crystal specs, even if we have a couple different crystal sources w/ same name, shape and deminsions.

The 1926 hallmarked 1st 5K LE CC's are ID'ed on a theory, and there are 1926 ads nameing it otherwise.

I guess if we were gonna change subject watch to 157, we should at least run through the red zone to do so, so at least the panel has to vote in such a change.  That is our SOP for these types of possible changes.