Bulova 1953 Adams

Submitted by plainsmen on
Manufacture Year
1953
Movement Model
10BT
Movement Date Code
L2
Movement Jewels
17
Movement Serial No.
-
Case Serial No.
6557567
Case shape
Round
Case color
Yellow
Gender
Mens
Watch Description

Some very sweet lugs on this Ashford.  The case is in pretty great shape and overall a tight watch!  As per new ads and debate.  Changed to the Jordan on 5/8/2012.

1953 Bulova Jordan
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
JimDon5822
Posted December 15, 2024 - 8:53pm

I agree on the Jordan designation based on the linebook listings.

mybulova_admin
Posted December 16, 2024 - 6:19am

Geoff and Jim. The linebook shows this watch on a strap as a Adams not a Jordan.

Geoff Baker
Posted December 16, 2024 - 9:57pm

AHHH, I see what you did there. Now I'm at odds. If a watch is presented with the ORIGINAL strap or bracelet tis could come into play. In this example it is neither. What SHOULD or next step be? Are the linebook copies from the same book? What number and page please.

mybulova_admin
Posted December 17, 2024 - 5:17am

Both from the same linebook: 1953-1957_LineBook_BAWD0132.pdf (Jordan pg 148-149 - Adams pg 150-151)

This discussion has had me thinking of late about what to do when when we are presented with a watch without a mount and the watch model is known to be determined by said mount. 

My thinking is that we default to the strap model name and not the expansion/bracelet model name.

My reasoning is that it is 'more likely' (not 100%) that a watch without a mount has lost its leather strap rather than it's expansion band. I'm not saying it will always be the case, but it's more like;y that the watch was sold with a leather strap if it no longer has it present. Basically an expansion bracelet is more likely to remain and last longer on a watch.

So to summarise: 

  • watch without a mount + watch known to have mulitple names based on a mount = default to the strap version model name.

 

The above linebook lists the same watch as both the Adams and the Jordan. The difference between the two is the mount. If we lose the mount all together I would suggest we would ID as the strap model rather than the expansion/bracelet model.

All that said, I believe the subject watch here should be ID'd as a 1953 Bulova Adams.

We can further discuss what to do if the bracelet/expansion isn't original to the model, but with regards to a watch mounted on a leather strap (original or not) and were the watch was sold (listed in  a linebook or advert) with a strap version, that's the model name we use.

Geoff Baker
Posted December 17, 2024 - 9:06pm

Well - It seems you've made a decision, no argument from me  - update it I say

plainsmen
Posted December 18, 2024 - 6:34pm

I'm fine with the update.  So hard as many of the original strap/bracelets didn't make it after such a long time.  We do what we can, and in the end, it's only us who really determine it anyway.

mybulova_admin
Posted December 18, 2024 - 10:17pm

In reply to by plainsmen

I'm also hoping to try and establish a KISS rule that we can use when trying to determine the most suitable model name.

1955mercury
Posted December 19, 2024 - 6:13am

In reply to by mybulova_admin

Since it's highly unlikely that a leather strap or an expansion bracelet lasted 70+ years on a watch that was in regular use, why not identify them by what is currently on them? If that was the only difference, then that should determine the model name as they are presented currently. JMHO.

mybulova_admin
Posted December 19, 2024 - 6:18am

In reply to by 1955mercury

That's what we are currently doing to a large extent now. My above comments relate to when and if we are presented with a watch without a mount (strap/band).