Head-to-Head Comparison

Updated September 5, 2026

Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 vs Casio Vintage A168WA

Bulova's timepiece meets Casio's chronograph

Quick Verdict

The Casio Vintage A168WA (Under $50) delivers Casio Quartz (Battery) technology in the tier below the Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 ($250–$500). The Vintage A168WA measures 36.3mm and is rated 30m (3 ATM). The Classic Automatic 98A139 justifies its premium with Japanese Movement heritage and Automatic, 21 Jewels. Both represent excellent choices in the luxury watch category.

BulovaClassic Automatic 98A139$250–$500 Check price CasioVintage A168WAUnder $50 Check price

Transparency — We earn a small commission on purchases made through our Amazon links. This doesn't affect our editorial independence.

Bulova

Classic Automatic 98A139

$250–$500

Check Price Full Review

Casio

Vintage A168WA

Under $50

Check Price Full Review

Specifications Compared

Feature	Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139	Casio Vintage A168WA
Price	$250–$500	Under $50
Case Size	45mm	36.3mm
Movement	Automatic, 21 Jewels	Quartz Module 3298
Caliber Type	Self-Winding Automatic	Casio Quartz (Battery)
Power Reserve	—	—
Water Resistance	30m (3 ATM)	30m (3 ATM)
Crystal	Domed Crystal	Mineral Glass
Case Material	Black Ion-Plated Stainless Steel	Stainless Steel & Resin
Origin	Japanese Movement	Made in Japan

Category-by-Category Analysis

🎨

Design & Aesthetics

Edge: Draw

Bulova's design language vs Casio's approach

The Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 features a Black Ion-Plated Stainless Steel case at 45mm with Domed Crystal protection. The Casio Vintage A168WA offers Stainless Steel & Resin construction at 36.3mm with Mineral Glass. Both represent their brand's distinct design philosophy and heritage.

⚙️

Movement & Performance

Edge: Draw

Automatic, 21 Jewels vs Quartz Module 3298

The Classic Automatic 98A139 runs the Automatic, 21 Jewels (Self-Winding Automatic, standard power reserve) at standard frequency. The Vintage A168WA uses the Quartz Module 3298 (Casio Quartz (Battery), standard reserve) at standard. Power reserves are closely matched.

📏

Wearability & Fit

Edge: Casio

45mm vs 36.3mm — different wrist presence

At 45mm, the Classic Automatic 98A139 has a bolder wrist presence compared to the Vintage A168WA at 36.3mm. Water resistance differs: 30m (3 ATM) vs 30m (3 ATM).

💰

Value & Cost of Ownership

Edge: Casio

Casio sits in the lower tier

The Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 sits at $250–$500 and the Casio Vintage A168WA at Under $50. On the specs that outlast any price: the Classic Automatic 98A139 uses Domed Crystal with a standard reserve, against Mineral Glass and a standard reserve on the Vintage A168WA. Service intervals are typically 5-7 years for both.

💧

Water Resistance

Edge: Draw

30m (3 ATM) vs 30m (3 ATM)

The Classic Automatic 98A139 is rated to 30m (3 ATM) while the Vintage A168WA handles 30m (3 ATM). Both offer identical water resistance ratings.

Our Verdict

Bulova

Classic Automatic 98A139

Choose the Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 if you prioritize Self-Winding Automatic engineering, Japanese Movement craftsmanship, and 30m (3 ATM) water resistance. At $250–$500, it delivers Automatic, 21 Jewels with solid power reserve.

Check Price on Amazon

Casio

Vintage A168WA

Choose the Casio Vintage A168WA if you value Casio Quartz (Battery) technology, Made in Japan heritage, and 36.3mm proportions. At Under $50, the Quartz Module 3298 with ample power reserve makes it a compelling choice.

Check Price on Amazon

Try Prime Free — Free Shipping on Both Watches Students & 18–24: start Prime for Young Adults free

The Bottom Line

The Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 and Casio Vintage A168WA represent two distinct approaches to fine watchmaking — the Bulova bringing Japanese Movement tradition while Casio delivers Made in Japan engineering.

Frequently Asked Questions

The Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 is the better buy if you want a mechanical movement; the Casio Vintage A168WA is the better buy if you want quartz accuracy with no servicing. On price, the Casio Vintage A168WA sits a band lower (Under $50 against $250–$500), so it is the cheaper way into the category. Neither is better at everything; the spec table above shows movement, case size, water resistance and crystal side by side so you can weigh what matters to you. We do not test units, so this is the makers' data, not a bench result.

The Casio Vintage A168WA offers better upfront value, sitting a tier lower at Under $50. However, the Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 may justify its premium with superior finishing, heritage, or resale value.

Both are suitable for daily wear. The Classic Automatic 98A139 at 45mm with 30m (3 ATM) water resistance handles everyday situations. The Vintage A168WA at 36.3mm with 30m (3 ATM) is similarly capable. The Classic Automatic 98A139 uses Domed Crystal while the Vintage A168WA uses Mineral Glass.

More Comparisons

Tag Heuer Carrera Chronograph vs Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139

Tag Heuer's chronograph meets Bulova's timepiece

Tag Heuer Carrera Chronograph vs Casio Vintage A168WA

Two chronographs compared — $2,500–$5,000 vs Under $50

Tissot PRX Powermatic 80 vs Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139

Two timepieces compared — $500–$1,000 vs $250–$500

Explore These Watches

Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 — Full Review Casio Vintage A168WA — Full Review Browse All Guides

How This Page Was Made

Our comparisons are generated from a hand-maintained specification database and reviewed under our editorial standards. We use AI tools to assemble pages from that data. We don’t invent specs: every number traces back to the database, and when we correct an entry, the fix is applied site-wide. As an Amazon Associate, The Horologist earns from qualifying purchases.