Bulova 1965 Date King

For what it's worth!

Here is an ebay auction watch the seller claims to be a 1970 Date King, item No 120707306067

That's an interesting find Wayne, where does the Seller get the name?

I have another question in regards to the Red ads.

Do We know the source or in which publication they appeared ?

I ask because typographical errors have also been seen before - If the names of the Watches shown in the ads were to be swapped they'd make more sense when added to the info We already have.

'PRESIDENT' shown in the Red ad would be the 'DATE KING'.

'DATE KING' shown would become the 'PRESIDENT' - matching the large ad showing the 'new design' 30 Jewel 'PRESIDENT'.

ad dated 1960:

The 'PRESIDENT'  leading into 1964 was a 23 Jeweled Automatic with center seconds - not a 17 Jewel auto with Date display as the Red ad depicts.

Therefore: the Red advertisements identification of a 30 Jewel auto with Date display being a 'DATE KING' is wrong, a typographical error -  a 30 Jewel automatic with Date display in 1965 was the 'PRESIDENT'

IMO

Fifth

You had asked earlier in this string if anyone had seen a Date King after 1964. I found one. You can contact the seller if you like using the eBay item number. I have no dog in this fight. I just thought the subject watch matched the 1964 ad with the Date King.

Wayne

admin

The ad shows a 'DATE KING' J as a 17 Jewel Watch, as suspected. The 'DATE KING'  H and 'PRESIDENT' O are mis identified in the ad.

'DATE KING' H should be the 17 Jewel Watch named 'PRESIDENT' and vuse versa.

Fifth

Are you saying that gj's subject watch is a President & not a Date King? 

Wayne

Wayne,

I am, I have and I will continue to.

A 30 Jewel 'DATE KING' makes no sense when others are shown as 17 Jewels.

A 30 Jewel 'PRESIDENT' makes sense, the other ads show the PRESIDENT is a 30 Jewel automatic Watch with Date display.

The typographical error in the Red ad is obvious.

Fifth

I can phathom a 30j Date King. This1964 ad brags about 39 versions of Date watches. The problem is lack of supporting ads to prove or disprove a typo in a two page ad. This ad is very important in that it identifies a bunch of 1964 watches. We have 1965 ad that introduces six Commanders.  Nothing else supports many of the 1966 through 70s Bulovas. You are arbitrarily assuming that the Commander replaced the President, mainly due to lack of follow-up ads or information.  

Fifth, I think here, we have is a failure to communicate!

1. 1964 President        2. 1964 President  O            3. 1964 Date King

Just swap the text under the titles (descriptions) of watch 2 & 3 I can understand & see your point. Is that what you  are saying? I can believe that because watch 1 & 2 are Presidents.

Wayne