Bulova 1953 -Non-Conforming

Submitted by JimDon5822 on May 28, 2018 - 11:36pm
Manufacture Year
1953
Movement Model
10AK
Movement Date Code
Triangle
Movement Jewels
15
Movement Serial No.
-
Case Serial No.
6811208
Case shape
Tonneau
Case color
Yellow
Case Manufacturer
Bulova
Crystal details
Domed plastic crystal 24mm x 20.5mm
Gender
Mens
Watch Description

This is a 1953 watch in yellow gold with silver dial with gold applied arabic number hour markers.  It is 40MM long and 25mm wide.  It as a 10AK 15 jewel movement with a triangle date code.   Based on my research this might b e a Minute Man D.   

1953 Bulova watch
1953 Bulova watch
1953 Bulova watch
1953 Bulova watch
Kathy L.
Posted May 29, 2018 - 2:18am

It looks like you might have a marriage of a 1953 case and a 1945 movement.  I am going to look through the ads a bit more to see if I can see a more detail photo of the Minute Man.

Kathy L.
Posted May 29, 2018 - 5:50pm

This is the closest ad I could find.  If this is the one it would have had a 17 jewel movement.  

jabs
Posted May 29, 2018 - 4:50am

It looks like 1953 Ambassador case with swap 15 jwls movement from 1945

Non-conforming for me

JimDon5822
Posted May 29, 2018 - 6:25am

The Ambassador says it has a stainless steel back but this one is gold.  Also this is longer than the Ambassador.  It is 40mm long.  

neetstuf-4-u
Posted May 29, 2018 - 7:55am

Hi JimDon, I'm a little puzzled by this one at present. Case shape appears to be a match to watches previously ID'ed as Ambassador, although ad referenced by Kathy seems to show a difference in lugs. Face, back and movement aren't a match tho. Date gap between movement and case and jewel count says movement swap. Watch may be a marriage.

Non-conforming based on date difference. Still looking.

JimDon5822
Posted May 29, 2018 - 1:25pm

I thought it might be with the date code on the movement.  It is a long one at 40mm.   Does anyone know how long in ambassador is Lug tip to lug tip?  

Kathy L.
Posted May 29, 2018 - 5:26pm

I agree the lugs do not look exactly right.  I didn't find anything closer.

Non-Conforming based on the movement date not matching case within two years.

Geoff Baker
Posted May 30, 2018 - 6:14am

As Kathy points out, we have three watches in the dB with this case, all ID'd as Ambassadors. Interestingly all three have a dial different than all the adverts we have. The panel generally agreed that, at best, the ID was tentative on each of them. I'm still not sure this case even matches the advert, the lugs are different. Having said all that there is the movement question. I think this watch has to be Non-Conforming for that reason alone.