Forgive me, for I have sinned.

[Huertecilla]

Despite the determained decision to seriously cull my collection I have bought anóther

A reportedly mint gold&garnet Bulova ´Ugly Bugger´;



to pair up as a set with the torc.

I thought it was a bargain. In Euros it is.

[abem]

I just picked up one of these in almost minty condition myself (I'm actually wearing it today). For some reason, there seems to be a decent number of these floating around in very good condition and for reasonable prices since they are so tremendously out of style:
http://www.timetrafficker.com/watches/l ... index.html

This is a watch where you either love it or you hate it.

Yes, it is ugly and it's over-the-top tastelessly blingy. For a '70s era watch, this thing was ridiculously huge and intended to be noticed. With its ostentatious gold plating, it looks like could be worn by a pimp. The hammered gold surface looks intended to appeal to manly macho man types with hair poking out of their shirts. It's about as politically incorrect as a watch can be.

But it's purposefully that way. Out of context, it would just be tacky but as an LED watch, it screams "I am the 70s, hear me roar!". It almost seems to be a parody of the disco era - to be worn with a white suit under a disco ball. It's as if a bunch of Bulova designers were sitting around a table and said "Ok, if they want bling, let's give it to 'em!!" It's SO tacky that it actually transcends common tackiness and becomes cool.

I think my favorite description of this watch is from a Japanese collector who wrote "This gorgeous design symbolizes the energy of American society in the 1970s.":
http://mondowatch.blog88.fc2.com/blog-entry-51.html

So, yeah, it makes me cringe but also kinda makes me smile.

-abe.

[Huertecilla]

Thanks for the reply and congratulations with your!

I neither love nor hate it, but appreciate it as the gold&garnet piece of personal jewelry from a very short era it is.

In have nicked it ´Ugly Bugger´ because there is not an elegant gene in the whole thing.
It is like the Mastiff dog-type of watch. Solid, quality, functional too, possible endearing, but.... úgly.

Like the dog quite a serious piece of kit though. I do not know what they cost back in ´74 but it must have been a chunck of bills too.

The current price is down to it being.... socially sensitive; incorrect.
The price difference with the Big Block is
The same thing with a different finish.



Just as ugly too but somehow the Big Block is as desireable as the Ugly Bugger is not.
The difference is the current flavour of ´good taste´.

Anyway, that was totally not an issue for me:
Gold&garnet sword and the torc were contemporay status symbols of a class.
I cannot wear a gold&garnet sword in public so a watch will need to take it´s place. Thr ´Ugly ugger´ was the best match I could think of.
I think it matches the torc Ed forwarded like both were from the Sutton Hoo burial.
When I wear that torc a stainless steel watch or anything currently tastefull is simply not one with it
It´s got to be gold and&garnet, a bit baroque too and preferrably as exctinct as wearing a torc

[Huertecilla]

Holy whatsits!!!!!!!!!






295,- tungstenhard 1973 US dollars!

[abem]

That's about what I thought sine the Big Block originally sold for $250:



-abe.

[Huertecilla]

Hard to grasp that you can buy a near pristine example of the less appreciated twin for less than the 1974 hard $ price 37 years later in todays $.
That is one heck of an underappreciation.

[abem]

Yeah, underappreciation... Oh, were you talking about wristwatches?

-abe.

[Huertecilla]

Well, nót about the $.
That may very well be overappreciated still.

I just found that the Rolex sub. 1680 cost $350 in the US in 1974.
Here some US data from 1974;
Average Cost of new house $34,900.00
Average Income per year $13,900.00
Average Monthly Rent $185.00
Cost of a gallon of Gas 55 cents
Average cost new car$3,750.00
Samsonite Case $62.00

In 1974 US the Rolex sub cost 6 Samsonite cases, two month´s of rent, one tenth of a new car and 1,5 weeks of salary.

That puts the 250 and 295 in quite perspective.

A nice 1974 Rolex 1680 sells for $5000 now. If it has some red print on the dial that doubles or triples.
I bet a 1974 Rolex has needed more maintenance than the Hughes

Desireability at work

[LEDluvr]

I just found that the Rolex sub. 1680 cost $350 in the US in 1974.

And in the newley developing digtial world, I read that the Seiko 0634 was the same price as the Rolex submariner when it was first released in 1974!

[Huertecilla]

And in the newley developing digtial world, I read that the Seiko 0634 was the same price as the Rolex submariner when it was first released in 1974!

Well, rightly so.