1969 Beau Brummel "AJ"
Case and fail are a nice match for the Beau Brummell 'AJ', but the movement looks to be a replacement.
Thoughts on if we should ID as a BB or Non-Conforming ?
I see what your saying. 17 jewel in BB "AJ" ad (I don't remember date of ad) and 21 Jewel 1959 (L9) movement in 1969 case.
I'd say non-conforming, just to follow protocol.
Folks will see/know it's a BB "AJ" case/dial, housing a movement swap of 10 yrs difference and jewel count difference. On the wrist (or in the collection display window) this watch is gonna look identical to the BB "AJ".
Lugs are different.
Unk. but would give two tix for BB.
I found another ad for BB SS with similar lugs
that is for changing 23jwls
I think the movement is really exchanged, but the case is BB
I bought this watch by one photo blindly from Mexico :)
yea I see lug differences now. So case is more like BB "SS"
I guess I don't see the lugs match between the ad and the subject watch. Seems different to me. I'm torn, I honestly don't think we should tag a watch non-conforming over a movement but that's not really the discussion as I see it on this one. I'm not sure the DIAL goes in this case.
Trending toward Non-Conforming ( for a dial case mis-match)
Here is a correctly cased one, still hasn't had it's ID changed.
http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1960-unknown-4783
1962 mat ad.
In reply to Here is a correctly cased by bobbee
The 10BZ came in all three common jewel counts, 17, 21 and 23, but Doc shows it in production from 1959-1963.
Definitely a swapped movt, I'm thinking the BB from 1969 would have had a different movt calibre, most likely a cousin of the 10BZ, although I'm not seeing anything with a sub second that late.
My gut is thinking that the case has had a transplant of movt and dial from 1959.
In reply to The 10BZ came in all three by Reverend Rob