Bulova 1926 Conqueror

Submitted by jared.riffe on July 23, 2012 - 3:24pm
Manufacture Year
1926
Movement Model
10P
Movement Jewels
17
Movement Serial No.
1.020.287
Case Serial No.
6417438
Case shape
CornerCut
Case Manufacturer
American Standard Bulova
Crystal Details
21.60mm x 21.30mm, this is actually the measurement of the crystal and not the inside case. I didnt wanna take it out =P
Gender
Mens
Additional Information

Case Dimensions 32.40mm x 25.65mm

Case Reads: BULOVA, 14K GOLD FILLED, AMERICAN STANDARD, Pat. JUN.10.1924, 6417438

 

Underneather the backside of the Balance Wheel the word BREVET (Swiss for Patent) can be seen with the Swiss Squared cross. Next to it strangely, there is a Light House clearly stamped. Anyone know anything about that?

 

False
Bulova watch
1926 Bulova watch
1926 Bulova watch
1926 Bulova watch
1926 Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
DarHin
Posted July 23, 2012 - 3:40pm

Very nice Conqueror.

bourg01
Posted July 23, 2012 - 3:55pm

Exactly what I was going to say. Needs the original hands but those will do for now. I agree with "Conqueror".

William Smith
Posted July 23, 2012 - 4:39pm

Nice Conqueror. Great mvnt SN format (w/ the "."s).  Not surprised there's no date symbol on the movement...or none that I can see. 
Jared - PM member JP about available original hands if your interested.

jared.riffe
Posted July 23, 2012 - 4:47pm

I have already talked woth JP about the hands :D Thank you!!! Im excited to get them on there. I was gonna go Cath Short. Sound correct to you guys??

bobbee
Posted July 24, 2012 - 7:00am

That is no "6" at the start of the case number, it sure looks like a mis-struck "8" to me. We have seen a lot of the early cases with the mis-struck first number, do any of you agree? I'm thinking the cases came from the factory with six serial numbers, and the seventh was struck by hand at the Bulova factory.

Lone Eagle to me.

bobbee
Posted July 24, 2012 - 10:01am

I've just been checking the DB for the number fonts used on these period cases, and have found the sixes have either a "tail" that curves acutely over the top of the lower circle, or goes up like this: 6. The first number on the subject watch has a "wasp-waist", like a reversed 3, and as such can only be an "8". The link you provided above, Darren, only goes to prove this as the mis-struck number has no wasp-waist, so is a "6".  In my opinion, of course.

Definitely a lot of mis-struck first numbers in watches DB.

jared.riffe
Posted July 24, 2012 - 2:34pm

If you compare the mistruck/rubbed/worn number with the 8 in the serial number there are obvious differences in form.

The 8 appears more bold. The curves in the appear more oblong however the total width of the number is smaller. If the incomplete number were to be completed (as an 8) it would be wider than the 8.

These details however are difficult to percieve from the picture. Im making many of these remarks after examining it under a loupe.

Most convincing should be the 1924 Patent Date... shouldn't a 1928 Case bear the 1927 Patent Date? This however I'm uncertain of.

We only have evidence of the 10P being produced during 1925-26

Further.... evidence shows that a 1928 Lone Eagle would have been fitted with a dial bearing the closed 9, rather than the open 9.

This all being said is not proof but rather indications.