Bulova 1954 Phantom

Submitted by FifthAvenueRes… on June 2, 2012 - 9:05pm
Manufacture Year
Movement Model
Movement Jewels
Case Serial No.
Case shape
Case color
Crystal details
Watch Description

Case measures 40.5mm lug to lug x 33mm non inclusive of the Crown using Calipers. White Dial shows luminous accented applied markers, Bulova signature and tracks are printed in Black. Hour and Minute Hands are Silver Dauphine style with luminous accents, Sweep Center Seconds Hand is Black (Blue steel). Stainless Steel Bezel is a press fit to the Caseback which is stamped as shown.

Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
William Smith
Posted June 2, 2012 - 9:30pm

What's the difference between the 1955 Phantom and (in same ad) 1955 Phantom A ?


Posted June 2, 2012 - 10:14pm


No clue but 'A' states expansion band. I'm assuming one of the other variants, athough not shown in the ad, eg: B, C, etc may not. This 'PHANTOM' is on a Leather strap, therefore does not match the image or descriptive text of the 'A' variant.

It's the 'PHANTOM'

Posted June 3, 2012 - 10:07am

In reply to by NOVA

If that were the Case You'd be suggesting that the 'PHANTOM' and the 'PHANTOM' "A" shown in the same ad are 2 different Watches.

Which is absurd, they are identical.

The ad is depicting the 'PHANTOM' "A" variant.

Posted June 3, 2012 - 10:12am

In reply to by FifthAvenueRes…

Both watches show an expansion band.  Your watch doesn't have that.  So, it doesn't match either ad.  The "strap argument" is equally applicable to both watches, not just the variant.

On a leather strap, your watch could be some completely different model.

It's your theory.  I'm just applying it in a consistent manner.

Posted June 3, 2012 - 11:51am

In reply to by NOVA

It's not a theory Lisa, it is a fact shown in the Vintage advertisements within the database.

Being that there is no ad showing an identical Watch on a Leather strap named differently at this time the ID is the best We can do.

Posted June 3, 2012 - 12:15pm

In reply to by FifthAvenueRes…

Without a matching ad, any ID is just a guess, and Phantom is no more provable than Phantom "A".  The same is true with any variant designation, or lack thereof.

The natural conclusion to your theory that the strap may make the ID is that you cannot know what the watch is unless the strap matches the ad.  Here, you simply don't have a matching ad.

It's your theory, crammed down everyone's throat for months now.  I'm just applying it consistently.

If you're going to argue that this watch, or any Academy Award, or Water Tite, or whatever, can't be a particular model because the strap doesn't match the ad, then you have the same problem here and with all your watches that didn't come to you on a matching strap with a matching ad.




Posted June 3, 2012 - 12:25pm

In reply to by NOVA

Once again, it's not a theory.


Q: Do We have an ad showing this design on a Leather strap named differently?

A: No.

Posted June 3, 2012 - 12:39pm

In reply to by FifthAvenueRes…

Q.  Do we have an ad that shows this watch at all? 

A.  No. 

So, no basis for calling it a Phantom at all.

In another thread last week you argued that the watch should be judged by the strap it has on it at the time of posting on this site.  In that case, you have a watch that does not match any known advertisement.

By the way, the Phantom "B" is a different watch and it has nothing to do with the strap.  I'll be posting an ad shortly.

It's your theory, I'm just following it to its natural conclusion.  You have no more basis for calling this watch a Phantom than a Phantom A, or anything else.  As you admitted, it's just a guess based on one non-matching ad. 

You should allow others the same right to choose the "A", or whatever, if that's the guess they are more comfortable with.  You are not the sole judge of what is a good guess and what is not.

Posted June 3, 2012 - 5:04pm

In reply to by NOVA

Never claimed to be and Your personal vendetta, agenda, beef or whatever YOU'd like to cal it is noted.

The panel will vote.