Just picked this one up, and it looks like it never saw any serious wrist time. Stainless case shines like a mirror and it looks like it has never been opened. I will at some point, but not today. At time of posting, it's been in my hand for about 3 hrs, is running and appears to have lost a second over those 3 hrs.
According to 1966 Linebook 162, this is a Date King "AG" when mounted on a stainless steel band, and a Date King "PM" when mounted on leather. Based on that, this is a
Date King "AG".
Band is a nice Kreisler and is a pretty close match to the ad from the previous year. Only difference is the "Waterproof" text on the dial. I am assuming that may be explained by the year difference between the watch and linebook entry. Watch is a match besides that.
.jpg)
.jpg)
For future reference, here is the "PM" version. Note the stock numbers.
.jpg)
.jpg)
As I uploaded these ads, I noticed that the strap version (PM) doesn't list luminous hands and dots on dial; or "antimagnetic". I wonder if this is an accidental omission?
Yeap the Bulova Date King "AG" gets all the ticks from me.
Does make you wonder if the lack of certain elements like the lume, was the telling factors with some variants.
These two variants certainly look identical, aside from band. There is a 1966 ad for the PM stating luminous, and there is clearly lume on the watch in the linebook photo.
Without the original band for the AG, I'm inclined to go with PM.
Certainly a Date King. I think that looks like an original band and might just be a photography thing in the minor differences. I would be inclined to go "AG"
1967 Bulova Date King "AG" looks to be a great match and it does look like the original bracelet.
I see a distinct difference in the band on the watch and the band shown on the AG. I'm with Ken 1967 Bulova Date King PM