Bulova 1965 Date King

Manufacture Year

1965

Movement Model

10CRACD

Movement Jewels

Movement Serial No.

Case Serial No.

564569

Case shape

Round

Case color

White

Case Manufacturer

Bulova

Gender

Mens

Watch Description

Anyone got a model on this?

Wayne Hanley

Posted April 12, 2011 - 11:02am

Fifth, I think what we have here is a failure to communicate!<<<I can't believe I screwed up that line!

1. 1964 President 2. 1964 17j Auto wDate 3.1964 President

OK Fifth - I buy that gj's watch is a 1965 President - Good Eye!!!

Wayne

Wayne Hanley

Posted April 12, 2011 - 11:16am

I had this string open while the spammer was here while.

So, if the above is settled. The Commander did not replace the President in 1965 right?

Wayne

FifthAvenueRes…

Posted April 12, 2011 - 11:44am

Wayne,

2 + 2 = 4 ....sometimes.

No - 'COMMANDER' was 30 Jewel automatic without a Date display.

I had assumed the 'PRESIDENT' must have replaced the 'DATE KING' prior to all of the information being disclosed in this matter.

'DATE KING' is a 17 Jewel automatic with a Date display.

'PRESIDENT' is a 30 Jewel automatic with a Date display.

FifthAvenueRes…

Posted January 20, 2012 - 9:02am

Correctly ID'd as a 'PRESIDENT' the 'DATE KING' would be 17 Jewels.

http://www.mybulova.com/node/3592

3 from Me.

bobbee

Posted April 5, 2013 - 8:17am

1964 ad. DATE KING "E". Perfect match.

Yet another myth busted.

simpletreasures

Posted January 20, 2012 - 9:14am

Three from me as the President.

mybulova_admin

Posted April 7, 2013 - 2:16am

Bobbee, it's not a case of 'myth busted' or someone neccessarily being 'wrong'. We are all trying to do our best here with the adverts and evidence we have at the time of discussion.

A big part of the IDing process is that nothing is set in stone and new adverts that are found that look authentic and official certainly help us 'fine tune' and correct our previous IDs.

This is yet another good ID find and with the ad date corresponding to the subject watch I will put this watch back up for review by the panel.

bobbee

Posted April 7, 2013 - 6:12am

Said it before, if someone states something and purports it to be fact, as it is here, then it is a "myth", and they are "wrong".
The occasional "in my opinion" inserted at the end of a couple of posts does not alter the fact that in other posts, it is made to look like the statement is made from a factual basis with proof, yet has none.
Such statements are misleading, and lead to more confusion.