Talk:Bulova

"Ironically for a company which once touted its tuning fork technology as a major advance over traditional mechanical timepieces, the current Astronaut model features automatic ETA SA movement, making it far more similar to the rival Omega."

You could say the same about the Omega f300hz which, despite omega touting their mechanical movements better than the tuning fork to get the nasa contract, the f300hz omegas used a tuning fork mechanism. The 'ironically' statement is not exactly neutral in tone, and is contrary to wikipedia's rules see Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid - 199.181.134.222 (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the official film of the 1970 FIFA World Cup directed by Alberto Isaac in many shots next to a scoreboard showing the results of the matches appears a Bulova billboard. Bicko2008 (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The first, paid, official television commercial was, indeed, the Bulova Watch placement on NBC flagship station WNBT New York on July 1, 1941. However, it is a widespread and often misquoted piece of misinformation that it was a map of the USA or a watch face that was televised that day as the commercial. It was, in fact, a placement on the WNBT test pattern, which was modified to look like a clock, with the phrase "Bulova Watch Time" in the lower right hand corner. That was, in fact, the first paid advertisement on the very first day of commercially licensed telecasting. The Early Television Society of Columbus, Ohio has confirmed this report by unearthing a photograph of the test pattern/clock itself as evidence and confirmation of the recollections of surviving NBC crew members and viewers of the telecast. http://www.earlytelevision.org/images/rca_bulova_ad-1.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.242.230 (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're not providing any sources to back this up. Bulova itself asserts that it was an image of a clock over a map of the U.S. with the words "America runs on Bulova time"; other sources agree with this. The image you refer to doesn't prove anything: it's a test card image that could have been used at any time after this. Bulova was, after all, a prolific advertiser and sponsor. Unless a reliable source can be provided to show that this was the first "commercial" (which seems doubtful, as a test card mentioning a sponsor is not generally considered a true commercial) you are committing synthesis and original research by extrapolating a meaning from the image that isn't inherent in it. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, fair enough. Here's a source: New York Times, July 6, 1941. Article entitled: "Imagery For Profit" by R.W. Stewart. This is an article about television going commercial five days earlier, and some specifics about WNBT and what they did on that first day. Quote from the article:

"As last week's lone starter under the new rules, WNBT began its commercial career with four sponsors, all of whom presented programs to mark the first day of television as an advertising medium. The station, located atop the Empire State Building, received the first license for business operations, since NBC made early application for commercial standing, indicating its ability to go into immediate service under the new status. No transmitter problem was involved because the station has been on the air experimentally since June, 1936. The first attempt to attract prospective customers was made under the sponsorship of a watch manufacturing concern, which paid $4 for the privilege of having a test pattern resembling a clock face flashed on the screen. The pattern remained on the air for a minute, while the second hand traced its way around the dial" 24.252.242.230 (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Better. However, now we have possibly conflicting reliable sources. Firstly, do these refer to the same incident? Again, a clock face with a sponsor's name beneath that of the television network and station call letters is not generally considered a "commercial" but it is a form of sponsorship. Could there have been both -- i.e., Bulova had both a true commercial (a few seconds long before a popular sporting event with a voiceover and the sponsor's name or product onscreen) as well as being a named sponsor during the intermissions? It's possible that there is some conflation here, including in the NYT article (and the site where you found the image repeats the urban legend that the BBC Television Service shut down for WWII in the middle of a Mickey Mouse cartoon). Either we find more sources to straighten this out, or we write something like "accounts vary as to the exact details of the first commercial." FWIW, the book Please Stand By also differs, by mentioning an image of a clock for a few seconds without a voiceover (I paraphrase). ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I guess this is as far as I can go. I have produced a New York Times article from the same week as the event (as opposed to undocumented statements in books and websites decades later), heard with my own ears the recollections of old time New York TV engineers at the Early Television Society conventions (who both remembered the "test pattern-clock Bulova") placement as the first paid ad on WNBT moments after sign on that day and before the Brooklyn Dodgers game on July 1, 1941, and the Society has unearthed a photo of the camera shooting the test pattern. From what I understand, Bulova wanted to be credited as the very first sponsor on American commercial television on day one, and WNBT made sure of this by creating the clock-test pattern and getting it right on moments after sign-on. I guess it is up to the editors of Wikipedia as to how to phrase this. What seems apparent (to me, anyway) is that the first paid advertising on American television was the Bulova placement on the WNBT test pattern, since it was the first paid, sponsored image broadcast on that date, and was seen right after sign-on that day, which meant that no other form of advertising could have come before it. 24.252.242.230 (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are a Wikipedia editor! Just remember that on Wikipedia, verifiability and no original research are two of the most important principles. If you have heard something with your own ears, that's not good enough; Wikipedia cannot be a primary source. But if you can get those people to publish that information (i.e., put it on a semi-credible website), then that would make a good source to clear up this murky issue. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 22:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would give far greater weight to a contemporary NYT story than to either a company history or some random web page. I've gone with NYT for the undisputed parts and taken out the disputed. I went with $4 but we can take that out too if you insist or change it to "under $10." I don't think this is the place to debate the details. That argument belongs on the Television advertisement page. Rees11 (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would tend to agree, except for the fact that if true, this wasn't really a television commercial, but a sponsorship. So that naturally begs the question of what the first real commercial was. (And there's also the possibility that the reporter didn't know much about television as a new medium -- there was a lot of confused reporting about the Web in 1994, for example.) But the place for this is, as you say, in the other article. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 13:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

It was a paid advertisement, and I think most people today would call it a "commercial," but I'd be open to calling it something else with some descriptive text. The NYT story doesn't really give it a name. Rees11 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Don't know sure about Mercury and Gemini project. Apollo project spacecrafts mission timers I'm sure that were kept updated by a clock division of the AGC (Apollo Guidance Computer) main clock of 2048 Hz (in particular the F10 division of the main clock at 100Hz and the routine of the T3rupt interrupt to keep the clock update also in AGC standby mode F17 subdivision, update with compensation every 1,28 seconds). The main clock generating device of the Apollo Guidance Computer was a quartz crystal. Being aware of that, and with the "citation needed" quote on the "Omega SA" page about watches in space exploration on this argument, I recomed to find more sources or to change something, in particular in relation to Apollo missions (even Apollo 11 first landing on the moon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scteff (talk • contribs) 20:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

A further note about Bulova watches on Apollo missions. David R. Scott, Apollo 15 Commander, took both a Bulova Chronograph wrist watch and a hand held Bulova 1/10 - second split hand Sports Timer (stopwatch) on his mission to the Moon's surface at Hadley Delta in 1971. Bulova asked him to take one of their watches to test it in the lunar environment. Colonel Scott also requested the stopwatch, because it operated in tenths of a second, instead of a chronometer's fifth of a second increments. The stopwatch was used to time the duration of various course correction engine burns including the Descent Orbit Insertion burn. Both the chronometer and the stopwatch journeyed to the lunar surface, so a Bulova watch was also used on the Moon. The sources for this note are a recent letter directly from Colonel Scott and a letter dated June 3, 1971 from Haskell C. Titchell, Vice President of Public Relations for Bulova Watch Company, Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.13.184 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Bulova apparently morphed into the Bulova Technology Corporation? Or did it? Did the latter then morph into "BT Techologies LLC". If this is totally misleading will worry about deleting it from view later. Right now, I am confused, but I don't want to confuse someone else later! Student7 (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Precisionist being a quartz movement, it does not seem right to compare the bph with mechanical movements. Otherwise, if we are to mix all types of horological movements, then we may as well state that the fluidity of Precisionist's second hand movement, though greater than 36000 hi-beat mechanical watch models, still do not match the tuning fork based Bulova Accutron (perceived continuous motion) and the spring drive technology (true continous motion) developed by Seiko. 2014.1.21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.35.137 (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

As far as I am aware, there is no thermal compensation in the Precisionist movements, something that the wiki page claims. Bulova have made no such claim; it appears this is something that has originated at some review site and been passed around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.230.52 (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

mybulova.com and watchophilia.com look a lot like fansites to me, complete with the requisite web forums attached. Is there some reason these should be used in Wikipedia? Is there any evidence that either one has the usual editorial standards required of a reliable source? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Watchophilia is known as a source of reliable information on vintage and antique Bulova watches. MyBulova.com is a well-respected site that has a database of watches that can be searched by such characteristics as case shape, movement grade, materials, etc. MyBulova.com also has a collection of Bulova watch advertisements that help in identifying model. Neither is a fansite, if that term implies uncritical or superficial treatment.--Jburlinson (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Watchophilia About This Site page lists only one author, "Lisa", and she denies that she's an expert. MyBulova's "panel members" are likewise mostly pseudonymous, several with implausible backgrounds, and with no training beyond "I've been collecting for a while". All of the affiliate links are sketchy as well. These come across like crypto "news" sites where everyone involved is primarily interested in evangelizing the product. Woodroar (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agree. These are self-published sources, being individual and group blogs, respectively. In order to use them as sources, the authors would need to be subject-matter experts who have been previously published within the area of their expertise in independent, reliable secondary sources. I don't think these authors meet either, let alone both, of these prerequisites. Banks Irk (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Have you actually read any of the various articles in watchophilia? I haven't come across a single one that "evanglizes" the product. Same with mybulova, which seldom provides critiques, pro or con. The strength of the site is the presentation of straightforward facts about the various models, including images that can be used in identifying the hundreds of different Bulova offerings over several decades. As for not claiming to be an "expert", this is a humble disclaimer not typical of a fansite. It only means that she is not a watchmaker. Jburlinson (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I read a variety of articles. It's mostly a database of stats and images that "Lisa" found herself or got from other collectors. The notes on pages like this and this tell me there's plenty of amateur guesswork involved, as does the last paragraph of this page. What I would expect from an expert source would be actual photographs/scans primary documents like advertisements (not just what could be found online), hands-on documentation of watch collections, visits to company locations like factories, interviews with company employees, etc. Woodroar (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

What would be required as a self published sources, per WP:SPS, is that the author has been previously published by independent reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK. Let's get down to brasss tacks. In the article "determining the model name of a watch" (link provided above), there appears the statement: "In later years, Bulova often named watches as variants of a model, e.g., Senator A, Senator B, and so on. Differences between variants could be the case shape, or just the dial design, the gold color, or even the band or bracelet." Now suppose a WP editor wanted to make this point with something like the following: "Bulova frequently issued watches using names of earlier models with an alpha-numeric suffix, representing variations in such features as shape, design or color." (A better paraphrase could probably be written.) This is a demonstrably true statement that would provide useful information for the reader. It seems to me that an editor's options are to: (a) simply write this statement with no citation; (b) cite a published source, such as watchophilia, a well-recognized website within the watch community, or (c) forget about it and say nothing until some other source comes along. I like (b) -- how about you?--Jburlinson (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

If no reliable source has thought it worthwhile to write about it why include it in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Exactly so. Watchophila and myBulova are not reliable sources under Wikipedia's content guidelines. The "watch community" - whoever that is - may consider them reliable, but that does not satisfy the bright-line requirements of Wikipedia on self-published sources. If there are no reliable sources to support the content, Wikipedia's guidelines say that the content does not belong in a Wikipedia article. It is that simple. So no, "Option B" is a non-starter, and "Option C" is the only correct answer. As a Good Article Reviewer, you should know that without having to even ask. Banks Irk (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Watchophilia is supported by a reliable source -- Collectors Weekly, which has included watchophilia in its "hall of fame" -- https://www.collectorsweekly.com/hall-of-fame/view/watchophilia --Jburlinson (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do you realize the article Collectors Weekly has exactly three references, all citing the website itself, and has been tagged as potentially unverifiable and non-neutral for almost a year? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not any more. Jburlinson (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Are you joking? Collector's Weekly.com is not a reliable source either. It's more of a store like eBay or Etsy with a blog.Banks Irk (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Looking through the rest of the article, about 1/3 to 1/2 of the sources are e-commerce blogs, not to mention all of the primary and self-published sources. I'd estimate that half of the article is cruft. Woodroar (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply