Beautiful 30J Auto with date window.
Stephen. Subject watch seems to match the "I" on far right of ad. Shawn mentioned absence of "spider lines" (if he was referring to the vertical golden colored lines separating the "panelized" bi-color sections of the dial). Those lines are not seen in the ad. Other than that, looks like "I". Several other dials in this thread have those lines too, and appear to be original dials.
But it's now ID'ed as a 1966 President (sans I variant) so three stars IMO. Looks like when ID changed to President an old Star Count was not updated, and it's affecting the overall ID rating.
In reply to Not a President or a Regatta, by bobbee
In reply to So I'm thinking its fair to by mybulova_admin
The Spring 1964 price lists have two President "I" listed. One w/ the (blk) in model name field. The (Blk) suggest a black dialed variant. Different unique Bulova numbers on far left, same model and variant name.
There were many date kings in this Spring 1964 list, but none w/ two variant letters like the PS in the 1964 Ad. They all had single variant letter designations.
EDIT: I meant "....like the PS in the 1966 Ad" a typo on my part saying ad was 1964
If you compare the two watches with stripes in the ads, the one in the B&W ad has a light centre stripe, with either side being darker, the same as the subject watch.
The ad below for the President has a white dial with a light blue stripe down the centre.
Not the President, DK "PS".
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.
It is a myth busted when the supposed reasons for an ID have no ads to support, or any basis in fact, yet are presented as such.
If people insist on making wild claims with no factual support, and at the same time insist it IS a fact, in a condescending
and arrogant fashion, then they deserve all that they get.
This is hubris, and pride often comes before a fall.