Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 vs Frederique Constant Classic Quartz Moonphase
Bulova's timepiece meets Frederique Constant's dress watch
Quick Verdict
The Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 ($250–$500) offers Self-Winding Automatic precision in the tier below the Frederique Constant Classic Quartz Moonphase ($1,000–$1,500). The Classic Automatic 98A139 measures 45mm and is rated 30m (3 ATM). The Classic Quartz Moonphase counters with Swiss Made craftsmanship and 50m (5 ATM) water resistance. Both are exceptional watches for their respective tiers.
Transparency — We earn a small commission on purchases made through our Amazon links. This doesn't affect our editorial independence.
Specifications Compared
| Feature | Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 | Frederique Constant Classic Quartz Moonphase |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $250–$500 | $1,000–$1,500 |
| Case Size | 45mm | 40mm |
| Movement | Automatic, 21 Jewels | Quartz FC-206 |
| Caliber Type | Self-Winding Automatic | Swiss Quartz |
| Power Reserve | — | Battery |
| Water Resistance | 30m (3 ATM) | 50m (5 ATM) |
| Crystal | Domed Crystal | Anti-Reflective Sapphire Crystal |
| Case Material | Black Ion-Plated Stainless Steel | Stainless Steel |
| Origin | Japanese Movement | Swiss Made |
Category-by-Category Analysis
Design & Aesthetics
Bulova's design language vs Frederique Constant's approach
The Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 features a Black Ion-Plated Stainless Steel case at 45mm with Domed Crystal protection. The Frederique Constant Classic Quartz Moonphase offers Stainless Steel construction at 40mm with Anti-Reflective Sapphire Crystal. Both represent their brand's distinct design philosophy and heritage.
Movement & Performance
Automatic, 21 Jewels vs Quartz FC-206
The Classic Automatic 98A139 runs the Automatic, 21 Jewels (Self-Winding Automatic, standard power reserve) at standard frequency. The Classic Quartz Moonphase uses the Quartz FC-206 (Swiss Quartz, Battery reserve) at standard. Power reserves are closely matched.
Wearability & Fit
45mm vs 40mm — different wrist presence
At 45mm, the Classic Automatic 98A139 has a bolder wrist presence compared to the Classic Quartz Moonphase at 40mm. Water resistance differs: 30m (3 ATM) vs 50m (5 ATM).
Value & Cost of Ownership
Bulova sits in the lower tier
The Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 sits at $250–$500 and the Frederique Constant Classic Quartz Moonphase at $1,000–$1,500. On the specs that outlast any price: the Classic Automatic 98A139 uses Domed Crystal with a standard reserve, against Anti-Reflective Sapphire Crystal and Battery on the Classic Quartz Moonphase. Service intervals are typically 5-7 years for both.
Water Resistance
30m (3 ATM) vs 50m (5 ATM)
The Classic Automatic 98A139 is rated to 30m (3 ATM) while the Classic Quartz Moonphase handles 50m (5 ATM). The Classic Quartz Moonphase offers superior water resistance.
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 AmazonFrederique Constant
Classic Quartz Moonphase
Choose the Frederique Constant Classic Quartz Moonphase if you value Swiss Quartz technology, Swiss Made heritage, and 40mm proportions. At $1,000–$1,500, the Quartz FC-206 with Battery power reserve makes it a compelling choice.
Check Price on AmazonThe Bottom Line
The Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 and Frederique Constant Classic Quartz Moonphase represent two distinct approaches to fine watchmaking — the Bulova bringing Japanese Movement tradition while Frederique Constant delivers Swiss Made engineering.
Frequently Asked Questions
More Comparisons
Tag Heuer Carrera Chronograph vs Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139
Tag Heuer's chronograph meets Bulova's timepiece
Tag Heuer Carrera Chronograph vs Frederique Constant Classic Quartz Moonphase
Tag Heuer's chronograph meets Frederique Constant's dress watch
Tissot PRX Powermatic 80 vs Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139
Two timepieces compared — $500–$1,000 vs $250–$500
Explore These Watches
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.