Reply With QuoteI'm not really a lover of chronographs, with the exception of the Speedmaster Pro, but that particular Bulova looks amazing. (I might buy one.) :)
I've had a couple. One was excellent, the other I thought was awful in terms of quality. So I'm still unsure about the brand as a whole. However, I've just spotted a chrono I like the look of. Very vintage in its appearance and I love a sunburst 70s style case. I MUCH prefer this over the looks of the "Moon Watch" tbh, although I guess the limited Moon model will hold its value better...
http://intl.bulova.com/collections/a...roducts/96b236
Anybody tried one of these so I can get opinions before I go searching for one? Retail is £399 but they're currently available for around £325 in the UK.
I'm not really a lover of chronographs, with the exception of the Speedmaster Pro, but that particular Bulova looks amazing. (I might buy one.) :)
Bulova's recent 'heritage' releases have all (well, mostly) been pretty good and this is certainly up there if you can manage the size.
With a sweeping hand quartz movement, they make great 'grab and go' watches.
That said, I rarely wear mine...
M.
Thanks. Hmmm, I do know what you mean about the size, but it has integrated lugs so should wear okay I'd expect. Karl, it's on Amazon for around £325 but leave one for me :-D
They don't make them like they used to
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
I thought that was a JLC Deep Sea Chrono! Very nice.Originally Posted by andy tims
As I write the queue is forming and eagerly awaiting Karl putting it on SC... :D
This is bizarre, I'd been looking at these too, but the price was £339, I was also looking at the UHF 96G241, the smooth sweep hand and high frequency appeals to me but the oversized cases do not. The styling can also be a bit hit and miss depending on the model.
I think they must out-source as their quality seems very hit and miss in my experience.
Shame about the date window
Good price though
nice looking watch, very vintage Omega ish
Thanks for the information, I'll try one of the one's I'm interested in out first, I quite fancied the 50th Anniversary Accutron or Kirkwood but they are serious prices!
Andy, there is an argument that the Bulova company never made that at all.....
Dave
Looks amazing! What model/year is that?They don't make them like they used to
Early 80's from memory.
- - - Updated - - -
Acknowledged
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
It does have a hint of something else, slightly more iconic, doesn't it...?
M.
Do you mean the Heuer Bund? That's moderately iconic I suppose. I can't think of any other chronos similarly iconic in terms of bezel design, numerals etc. Some of the Sinn/O&W chronos are fairly iconic but they all follow a similar design, but it's not clear where the original iconic... alness came from...!!
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Certainly looks Heueresque to me.
M
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
Not Heuer - try Zenith Cairelli
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
Well look, that case is exactly the same as the Zenith Cairelli, dimensionally perfect. It has been discussed a few times elsewhere and there are collectors now that have compared the two side by side. There is no doubt.
Except it has a uni-directional ss bezel with an aluminium insert, whereas the Cairelli had a painted solid Alu one.
And this has no dust cover, and a 50m WR and a screw-down crown.
So was probably reverse engineered form a Cairelli case, about 15 years after the Cairelli ceased.
And,
The fact is that this Bulova, and ones like it powered with the Val 7740 and the Val 72C (Flyback version of the 72), along with the revival of the Excelsior park 7740-powered Monte Carlo in the exact same case, all arrived in a rush over a very short time period (late 80s), and limited production run. And then nothing.
So it would fit that a small company thought it had bought rights to use these 2 names (Bulova and ExPark), and brought out 6 versions (both 7740 versions came in black and white dials) before being told to stop by the correct owners of the names (or before they were bought out). It's a classic modular model range to get as much range product from limited funds.
Certainly those two lines do not fit with anything else bearing the two names.
Hence my comment.
Dave
ps - sorry, not meant to be a thread stealer.
Let's hope it doesn't arrive with hand and chapter ring alignment like that
Fancy this one as a beater.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B...f_rd_i=desktop
They are certainly getting good at making attractive computer generated images and retouched photos of their watches, I guess everyone is these days. But so far, seeing the real thing has changed the impression pretty damn quickly.
Not all Bulova watches have the smooth sweep, all the Marine Stars for example have vanilla quartz movements. Also the Accutron II/Precisionist 2 movement is usually not as accurate as they claimed - I have one that is less accurate than a Ronda movement although the sweep is hypnotic and the watch is still "accurate enough."
Since they were absorbed by Citizen Watch the range seems a little confused with some quite distinctive designs being mixed in with some very generic watches that would be much cheaper branded as Citizen. It's almost as if Citizen aren't sure of where to pitch the brand.
That is a great watch. I reviewed it. So much better than the crappy Snorkel II I tried...
Agreed, and it wears as well as it photographs.
The dial is a proper matte black and it has a black date window which was a real surprise.
I think the black date window is the real surprise of the watch
That's a good looking watch (and seems excellent VFM too), although I have to disagree about the Snorkel II.
It's a good watch for the money in my view.
M
Judging by replies to my video, I think there are some earlier ones that were good, and then later ones which weren't so good.
Thanks for that and now having watched your review i am £114 worse off.
Last edited by mjc1216; 1st April 2016 at 11:38. Reason: Spelling
I suspect there's some truth in that. They have a potentially excellent USP with a smooth sweeping semi-high accuracy quartz movement, combined with a brand name that has enough history to back up their brand story of unusual and accurate movements - their hummers were used on the moon mission after all. The trouble is, in the current market anything quartz more or less has to be marketed as the (much) cheaper alternative, and that's how the watches end up looking. If only they could give their unique movement a decent chance, Grand Seiko style, using proper metal components instead of plastic and optimising the accuracy. And they could also raid their back catalogue for some decent classic styles - after all, the Super Seville is a pretty good take on the Day Date. Armed with a smooth sweeping high accuracy movement and pitched as a serious watch for a decent price, something like that would be quite attractive. But they find themselves competing with Deisel instead half the time in the slighly too big and too shiny fashion market, as if unsure of how seriously they should take themselves.
Much of your criticism of the Snorkel seems to be around the internal bezel not working like a modern, external one.
I've got an original Deep Sea 666 too and the Snorkel II imitates that well, with the same functionality on the bezel (and the non-screw down bezel crown). Your expectation is not representative of how the original (and other similar watches from that era) worked - I agree it's not great these days, but that's how the original style watches worked.
I know you had other comments, such as the weight being in the bracelet and some quibbles over engraving on the back, but the quibble on the bezel is just wrong.
It's a cheapish (c £200) quartz watch with an interesting movement and stylish appearance based on a classic design, so some of your criticisms are unfair (eg complaint about the lack of a sapphire crystal despite acknowledging the need for a domed crystal) or (to a great degree) just plain wrong.
The comparison with the Inox, for example. It's a totally different style of watch with a tiny dial for the case size (I hadn't realised how big it was until I looked at your review).
Sure you say the finishing is better (and I'll trust you on that), but (I think) you also say it cost twice as much! You'd expect something for your money.
Sure you were disappointed, but, honestly, I think you had a totally unreasonable expectation going in and that's made your review lopsided.
ETA Sorry if that sounds a bit down on you, it wasn't really my intention, good reviews generally
M
Last edited by snowman; 1st April 2016 at 14:59.
Waiting for the 'moon watch' to arrive, Ernest Jones are expecting 44 in (for the whole country!) Beginning of May, looking round, seems to be the default price in the UK.
The new moon watch looks mint. Hope it's they decide to produce a few more
Clearly I didn't get across in my review how many watches I've had that are cheaper than this, but they still felt of better quality. I'm talking Seiko 5s etc which would not normally be seen as the best Seiko can build, but they're better than that Snorkel. If you watch my review of the military you'll see how much better I think that is, and that cost much less than the snorkel. I appreciate your thoughts, I really do but I won't be changing my mind on how cr*p I found that snorkel to be. Opinions are subjective though and you're welcome to yours.Much of your criticism of the Snorkel seems to be around the internal bezel not working like a modern, external one.
I've got an original Deep Sea 666 too and the Snorkel II imitates that well, with the same functionality on the bezel (and the non-screw down bezel crown). Your expectation is not representative of how the original (and other similar watches from that era) worked - I agree it's not great these days, but that's how the original style watches worked.
I know you had other comments, such as the weight being in the bracelet and some quibbles over engraving on the back, but the quibble on the bezel is just wrong.
It's a cheapish (c £200) quartz watch with an interesting movement and stylish appearance based on a classic design, so some of your criticisms are unfair (eg complaint about the lack of a sapphire crystal despite acknowledging the need for a domed crystal) or (to a great degree) just plain wrong.
The comparison with the Inox, for example. It's a totally different style of watch with a tiny dial for the case size (I hadn't realised how big it was until I looked at your review).
Sure you say the finishing is better (and I'll trust you on that), but (I think) you also say it cost twice as much! You'd expect something for your money.
Sure you were disappointed, but, honestly, I think you had a totally unreasonable expectation going in and that's made your review lopsided.
ETA Sorry if that sounds a bit down on you, it wasn't really my intention, good reviews generally
M
Fair enough, each to their own of course.
And the military does look cracking value at under £120!
M
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
It genuinely is a really lovely watch the Military. They got everything about it spot on IMO.
Posting Permissions
