Classic 60's style, 10k RGP case and back with a great JB Champion period band.
Added 9/18/2011 - Photos Updated 12/04/213
I couldn't find the ads I was looking for but I found something realtively close as an example of Case color variation.
ad number one shows 'HER EXCELLENCY' "T" also available in white
The Watch in White is the 'HER EXCELLENCY' "U"
also available in Yellow.
Different Case colour = different variant letter.
Back to My original question: which Colour is the "G" ?
In reply to I couldn't find the ads I was by FifthAvenueRes…
Lets stick to the subject watch at hand and not throw strawman arguments out...what does a Her Excellency from the 50's have to do with a Engineer of the 60's?...when you can find a ad with this watch shown with different variant letters for White & Yellow, then we might have something, but until you do, the "G" is the best we have, it matches the subject watch to a "T"
If you want to give it 2 ticks, go ahead...the majority of the panel is what determines the ID...not one person, right?
Two reckless members attempting to force variant designations into every ID they make hardly constitutes a panel concensus and variant designations will be at the desrection of admin, not the panel.
Crystal specs for this Case are available through another thread discussion:
"I believe the correct crystal for this is the CMC401, which is 22.6 by 22.6mm. "Bulova 1266E." That particular case model number appears to be associated with the "Engineer G" and the "Engineer H"
http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1965-unknown-4506
The Glass fits the "G" and the "H" variant. - One of these variants will be a White Case and one will be Yellow, as shown in the example prior.
The 'HER EXCELLENCY' Watch in the example has absolutely nothing in common with the 'ENGINEER' discussed, the letter designating the variant after the model name does, a point obviously missed.
an interesting discussion Gentlemen,
Thank You.
In reply to Two reckless members by FifthAvenueRes…
"Two reckless members attempting to force variant designations into every ID they make hardly constitutes a panel concensus and variant designations will be at the desrection of admin, not the panel."
I will address this quote first...
All one has to do is go back in the archived form threads to see the "reckless" opinions, theories, and imagination spouted by you Mark...What coulda, shoulda, and woulda is useless unless you have hard proof...and unless I missed something, the panel was formed to ID watches and rate the ID, but as you can see, less & less panel members are participating, because it seems that only you can correctly ID a watch and your opinion is the only one that counts.
"The Glass fits the "G" and the "H" variant. - One of these variants will be a White Case and one will be Yellow, as shown in the example prior."
Crystal spec's are fine for narrowing down a watch model, but ads are even better, one recent example is the Diamond Excellency that was just found...The "C" is the Butler dial version, available in both Yellow & White Gold and the "L" is the Black dial version available in White Gold only...they all take the same crystal.
"The 'HER EXCELLENCY' Watch in the example has absolutely nothing in common with the 'ENGINEER' discussed, the letter designating the variant after the model name does, a point obviously missed."
Again, when it comes to Bulova, a one size fits all approach on how they named and marketed watches has been proven over & over again to be wrong...trying to second guess them does no good.
Using a generic name on a watch is of no help to any member that uses the database search to ID their watch...a generic Engineer search could look like the subject watch, or could look like this...which is also a Engineer...and there is a distinct difference between the two on both the dial & bezel. They need to be ID'd with the letter or number vairiant if we have it, and it also needs to be included in the title of the subject watch. (I thought this was being done, but I have yet to see any changes made in the search feature.)
If we are going to correctly ID these watches for others to use, we should use the proof we have on hand and call the subject watch what it is...Engineer "G" 17J available in both Yellow & White, and not second guess the proof we have.
You call members reckless, yet no one else on this site is so reckless in their observations as you, whose only consistency is your inconsistency.
In the other of these model threads I earlier pointed out the crystal specs would ID this watch, but if you know which is which, please, let us in on it.
The "H" may even be a different case but we do not have an ad for the H.
Until then, this watch looks suspiciously like the "G" variant to me, unless I'm drunk or stupid,so that is my vote.
The various discussions, points presented, arguments and counter-arguments about these points, as they relate to watches, are all laid out nicely above. It helps me understand why various members are voting the way they are voting, and it helps me decide how I will vote.
For my comments below, I am not including the possibility that the shape of the ad is rectangular and subject watch is square. That's a different issue, so I'm ignoring it below.
I can see, as presented through an example of other ads on site, one ad shows one variant letter and two gold colors, but when cross-referenced to other ads on site, we find out that the yellow is one variant letter and the white is another. This is not stated in the original ad, but it turns out to be true in this Her Excellency example. We know this because the example ads show us.
For the subject watch (and Engineer G ad being discussed), it may turn out the G and H are actually different colors. However, we don't have ads to cross-reference this for the subject watch. We have just the one ad for the "G". Do I think subject watch will turn to be the "G" if/when we get other ads? To me, that remains unknown, and has about a %50 chance of being true or false.
IMO - to best describe this watch, with it's unique shape/bezel detail, based on the ads we presently have on site, the closest and best "match" is the ad for the "G". In the future, if we get more ads, we may find out that one color is G and another color is H, but right now, the "G" ad captures the most information and most closely matches the subject watch. We can always change the variant if/when we get more info.
If this is our "goal" for ID'ing these watches, and these are the "methods" I are using to help me "vote" - a decision based on the existing ads on site, including other info on site (arguments/points like the her excellency example above) then I vote for the G ad as being the the best way to ID this watch today, even though I believe I have a 50/50 chance of being wrong. I would give two ticks tentative.
Each voting panel members gets to decide how they vote. It's nice when they lay our their reasoning behind their vote, as it relates to watches. Unfortunately, they also get to interpret what it means to meet the "site goals" for ID'ing a watch, as without rules or guidelines, or a concise description of site goals and methods to meet these goals, it's up to each member to decide.
As I understand the "general rules" for assigning an ID collectively: Voting members each get one vote. We count the vote, and based on count, the model name, (which may include variant letter), is assigned to the subject watch.
Now I move into the grey area: my interpretation of what I think Fifth meant by the following part of his statement:
"...variant designations will be at the desrection of admin, not the panel."
I may be wrong, or second guessing what Fifth means.
I think Fifth means if the panel collectively makes a really bad decision on their vote for the variant, Stephen can step in and make an executive decision (kind of like a presidential veto) to over-ride the vote and assign an ID. Has the panel, collectively, made a bad decision to date. I don't think so. Stephen hasn't had to exercise his right to veto. To clarify I use a hypothetical example using subject watch. If 7 or 8 panel members, for what ever reasons, voted that subject watch was the Engineer I (an obvious "bad" choice), Stephen could step in and veto this obvious "bad choice" and assign an ID that he thinks is a better choice. He would probably go with a generic/base model ID of Engineer. IMO this is how a veto should work. We could then re-discuss the variant designation, and perhaps after another collective vote, assign a variant.
Maybe during my hypothetical example, we were all drunk and made stupid choices. The reasons for the bad choice are only important if we collectively continue to make really bad choices on several watch ID votes. We are not... and collectively we are making good ID calls, at both the base and variant level IMO.
I'm sure folks are gonna read that one sentence Fifth made about admin deciding the variant, and take it's meaning as it's written. A few words on the screen. However, I'm now asking Fifth if my interpretation of his statement is closer to what he "meant"- although it's not what he wrote?
I'm at a loss.
I can't possibly fathom how We determine this Watch is the "G" variant when We have Crystal specs which show the Glass fits the "G" or the "H" variant and We have a trend within Bulova Watch Models which clearly show the Case colour is a determining factor when naming the variant.
Where's the logic behind that one?
Will,
Yes, Stephen as admin has the power to overide any 'concensus', which has not been reached on the variant designation of the subject at this point as 3 member votes does not constitute a consensus, thank goodness.
In reply to I'm at a loss. I can't by FifthAvenueRes…
I thought that's what you meant about Admin's over-ride :)
Fifth- I agree, we can't determine for sure if this watch is the "G" or the "H".
For me, I'm not saying it's a G variant as much as I'm saying, IMO, the best way to "show" what this watch looks similar to, based on ads on site, is the ad for the "G". I don't think I can say it's the "G" or the "H". That's unknown. I can only match it to the closest ad which helps ID it today, and if it were entered as a "G", I would give only two ticks. The base/generic model name is a sure thing, but variation among various base models is not captured in this base ID only. Since we currently have no other mechanism to display this "helpful distinction" in the root record short of listing the voted variant in the modle name, I think the variant should be dispalyed in the root record somewhere. I think this helps ID the watch to a sure thing at the generic Model name level AND it helps show detail about the watch which would otherwise be lacking without tentative variant displayed. Agreed we do say this in the comments, but that doesn't show up in the root record.
If I ran the site, or if it was up to me, I'd probably try to list a sure thing base ID for this record, and also somehow list the fact that, while it can't be determined if it's the G or the H, it looks like the watch pictured in the ad for the "G".
It starts to get complicated if we try to do something like assing ticks for the base name, and do so for the variant too, but this would convey more info- like the fact that a watch may be confimred at base level, but could turn out to be either the E or the G (in this example). And I do conceed by listing the variant the way we do now, this possibility isn't transparent in the ticks assigned in the root record. Currently, would it be two ticks because the base model name is in question, or because the variant is in question? The way things are now, one would have to read teh comments to make this distinction.