Bulova 1929 Fleetwood

Submitted by Wayne Hanley on February 4, 2011 - 2:11pm
Manufacture Year
1929
Movement Model
10AN
Movement Date Code
Shield
Movement Jewels
17
Movement Serial No.
667647
Case Serial No.
9487659
Case shape
Rectangle
Case color
Two-tone
Case Manufacturer
Bulova
Crystal details
20.0mm x 20.0mm
Gender
Mens
Watch Description

Case Material: 14k Two-Tone Gold - Rolled Gold Plate-Fairly Rare

Case Measurements: 20.0mm Between Lugs, 33.0mm Lug-Lug x 26.6mm Wide

Dial & Hands Original

estateauctions Sellers Description mentions mybulova.com

This auction is for a circa 1929 Bulova Wrist Watch, we think it matches the face of the 1929 Fleetwood, but this one has a 17 Jewel 10AN movement. (We matched it on the mybulova com site - what an incredible Bulova resource!!) We may have it wrong, if so, let us know and we will get it up here.”

You have it exactly right Sir!

Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
bobbee
Posted November 7, 2012 - 3:09am

None of the Fleetwood ads match the subject watch, only the Ambassador has the double rows of engraving.

JP
Posted November 29, 2012 - 5:17pm

Fleetwood for me

William Smith
Posted November 29, 2012 - 5:21pm

In reply to by JP

My committee is still out.  The two rows of horizontal engravings continuing all the way out to the edge of the bezel....Three ads showing one row on Fleetwood.  The "length" of the little golden color rectangles on horizontal bezel (between the two engraved areas).  There was a subtle difference with the length/shape of these gold colored rectangles extended between Fleetwood and Ambassador. Perhaps an Ambassador with a movement swap to account for diff in jewels?

JP
Posted November 29, 2012 - 5:54pm

Still sticking with Fleetwood

DarHin
Posted November 29, 2012 - 7:13pm

2 ticks Fleetwood.

William Smith
Posted November 30, 2012 - 1:03pm

In reply to by DarHin

DarHin, you laid out a nice argument in page 3 of the comments for this record (1931 Ambassador) for case comparisons.  There is a two year difference btwn these two watches, but I'm not seeing the suggested "differences" in the ads as year or case- short of the "missing two-tone ad" for Ambassador.  Noting the dial differences. 
 

bobbee
Posted November 29, 2012 - 7:23pm

The only ad for a watch with the double row of engraving is for an Ambassador, none of the ads for Fleetwood show a double row of engraving, only the single row on the top and bottom of the bezel.

This seems to be another case of "the boot don't fit, but let's squeeze into it anyway!"

William Smith
Posted November 30, 2012 - 12:59pm

In reply to by bobbee

I think we need to consider reviewing the other two Ambassodors published as such, as their ID's may be incorrect. If we want to be consistent w/ our ID's...  It could be the 1931 Ambassador listed here is a Fleetwood with a movement swap, vs subject watch being an Ambassador with a possible movement swap.  
Is it the jewel count of subject watch which is favoring the Fleetwood ID, since the case engravings sure don't match any Fleetwood ads?

Janet
Posted November 30, 2012 - 12:30am

Hi Wayne

That sure is a fine watch, but once you get it restored it's going to be a real beauty.    Cannot wait for the restoration.

Cheers Janet

bobbee
Posted November 30, 2012 - 1:09pm

It's the only reason it can be, as the only match is the Ambassador engraving-wise.