Case measures 38mm lug to lug x 21mm non inclusive of the Crown. Original 'Shadow' Dial shows appiled Gilt Numerals and changes with the angle of light. The Dial is absent of a Minute register and the Seconds register is open. Hour and Minute Hands are Gilt Index style and and a Gilt Index style Seconds Hand shows on a sub Dial completely obscuring the 6. 21 Jewel 7AA dated A9 (1949). Crown is signed Bulova. Caseback is Gold and stamped as shown
Do we have an ad that shows the "Q" on a light brown leather strap?
No, I don't believe We do.
Okay, then, that's one. How about the rest of your watches that don't have the original strap? How can you possibly know what they are? A new ad could come along any day showing them to be an entirely different model.
true dat, which can be said for every Watch currently in the database.
Exactly! That's what I've been saying, and it is why basing the ID on the strap is a very bad idea.
If we came up with a revised rating system, where the strap is just one of the rating elements, that could, possibly, address the issue without invalidating a lot of IDs.
This watch, for example, could stay a "Q", which it most likely is, with one less checkmark for the missing strap. If an ad came along later that showed the "Q" with this particular light brown leather strap, then the watch would get the final checkmark. If an ad came along later showing this watch with the leather strap as an entirely different model, then we could change the ID and congratulate ourselves for having recognized via the missing checkmark that the strap could, and did, matter.
The Watch is an 'ACADEMY AWARD' - the "Q" variant is this Case on an expansion Bracelet.
....and, what is shown is Pigskin, not Leather which has since been disgarded.
: p
You see, that's your opinion. We don't all agree with you, as evidenced by the "Q"s and other variants sans conforming strap in the database. Rather than keep aruging about it, with the result being inconsistent database entries, why don't we come up with a consistent way to address it?
If the "variant" situation were the only instance where you claim the strap matters, then we could simply argue that the variant designation should be dropped. That won't happen in most cases, but you can keep arguing it until you're blue in the face if that makes you happy.
However, since you took the argument beyond the variant example and are now using the Lady Berkshire and Carla to prove that the strap matters in all instances, you have a much larger problem to address.
Now you either invalidate most of the watches in the database based on the strap or come up with a better way to handle the issue (assuming, of course, that some level of consistency is desired).
I don't have any problem with it Lis, to Me it's not that difficult to 'see', particularly at the variant level.
I realize that is true for you. But wouldn't the ideal solution be one that takes everyone's point of view into account and finds a way to address all concerns?
What is your objection to a revised rating system that defines specific criteria for each checkmark, acknowleding the strap as a possibly decisive factor? Is there some reason that I'm missing for why such an approach wouldn't take into account all points of view and avoid the problem of all IDs being called into question based on the strap?
I think the current rating system speaks for itself and if in the future viewers read through the threads attached to the Watches they will be able to assess.
I don't expect everyone to think the way I do, although it would be nice, there's no perfect World in this process as it is ongoing and will continue.
IMO, the mount is definately an aspect in a correct variant ID and as mentioned it also becomes an issue in some Model ID's.
It's a Case by Case thing.