Bulova 1958 Bulova 23

Submitted by MGD001 on March 6, 2017 - 5:33pm
Manufacture Year
Movement Model
Movement Jewels
Movement Serial No.
Case Serial No.
Case shape
Case Manufacturer
Additional Information

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"

1958 Bulova 23 B watch
1958 Bulova watch
1958 Bulova watch
1958 Bulova watch
1958 Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Posted March 7, 2017 - 4:31am

I think that watch will be Bulova 23 "B" like another one in database

Posted March 7, 2017 - 4:57am

Thanks Jabs, there is a lot of variations on the 23 Jewel watches. Is there such a thing as a Sunburst, or is that just a name people use with this type of dial?

Posted March 7, 2017 - 5:15am

In reply to by MGD001

Your watch has a sunburst dial, as a sunburst dials are labeled dials with structured rays as its name suggests

Model "B" I derive from the similarity of the shape of the case

Posted March 7, 2017 - 5:27am

Got it - Thanks!

Geoff Baker
Posted March 7, 2017 - 5:33am

Agree - 1958 Bulova 23 B

Posted March 7, 2017 - 7:33am

Agree w/ Bulova 23 "B". I believe I see L6 on the movement. 

Posted March 7, 2017 - 4:58pm

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.

Posted March 7, 2017 - 6:20pm

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.

Posted March 8, 2017 - 3:56am

Thanks Andersok - was it common for the two year difference when Bulova was making a watch or do you believe that someone had indeed married these together?

Geoff Baker
Posted March 8, 2017 - 6:47am

In reply to 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.