Bulova 1945 Cadet

Submitted by Bob Bruno on March 22, 2010 - 12:13pm
Manufacture Year
1945
Movement Model
10BC
Movement Date Code
Triangle
Movement Jewels
15
Movement Serial No.
-
Case Serial No.
5293019
Case shape
Tonneau
Additional Information

After seeing the 1944 Montgomery Ward ad listed on this site, I've decided to change the model from Aviator to Cadet. This is the most conclusive proof I've seen as to which model this is. Thanks to Jerin for providing the ad and Stephen for posting it.  NOTE: The dial on this watch has been refinished and the numbers on the sub dial were left off by the refinishing CO. This seems to have added to the confusion as to the model of the watch.      Confirmed with 1944 Montgomery Ward ad

 

Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
rsmith
Posted September 23, 2010 - 9:48pm

In reply to by Bob Bruno

If you look at the 1948 vintage ad (on this site) the Cadet pictured only has numbers at the 12, 3, 6 and 9 positions (like the Bruce model I pointed out before) I believe the ebay seller might be wrong with his date. Also don't the 1940's watches have a date code stamped on the back? i.e. "A8". His picture of the case backing doesn't have that. His watch looks identical to ours although there is logo and text stamped on the inside of his case backing where as mine is blank. His serial number starts with a 1, mine starts with a two.

Actually, there is a small asterix symbol on the movement. According to the date chart posted on this site it should be either 1941 or 1924.

Bob Bruno
Posted September 24, 2010 - 9:40am

In reply to by rsmith

Rick, I don't think Bulova started dating with the "A#" until 1949 so that would account for the A8 not being on the ebay watch. As far as the 12,3 6, and 9 being the only numbers on the dial I think that is just the difference between the model years. Same case different dials.

Bob

Bob Bruno
Posted September 23, 2010 - 10:43pm

I see the * symbol on the movement. I've heard that the symbols on the movements only indicate  when the movement was made not when the watch was manufactured. Confusing isn't it? I'm hoping Stephen or anyone else will verify what I'm saying about the movement and date stamps.

Bob Bruno
Posted September 24, 2010 - 1:31pm

I got the back off my watch today. There appears to a triangle on the movement which would date it to 1945. It's a 10BC movement. I hope this will help to identify my watch.

 

 

Bob Bruno
Posted September 24, 2010 - 5:06pm

In reply to by rsmith

Yes your right Rick. 1935 makes more sense because of the family history behind the watch. I missed that when I checked the date code page.

Thanks

Bob

Stephen Ollman
Posted September 25, 2010 - 6:52am

Appologies for that I did in fact mean J9 = 1949. I've updated my post . Thanks!

Stephen Ollman
Posted September 25, 2010 - 6:54am

OK just so I have it straight, Bob your one has the triangle (1945). I don't believe it to be 1935, looks more 40s to me. rsmith, yours has the J9 (1949). This certainly puts them in the same era.

Both have the same case and dial type. Bob yours has 15 jewels and rsmith yours has 17.

Could this be our mystery watch? It's from a 1946 ad but I can't make out the name, begins wih "CAMD...' or 'CAMB...'

Bulova Watch1949 Bulova watch1945 Bulova

Quest continues!

Bob Bruno
Posted September 25, 2010 - 11:01am

In reply to by Stephen Ollman

Stephen, you have all the information right. The reason I went with 1935 after seeing that the triangle was used for 1926,35,45 was because of the family story behind this watch. you see the the watch was my uncles and it was told to me that he wore it through WWII. If it was made in 45 than that story can't be true. Iv'e had the watch since 1964 got it when he passed when I was just a kid. If you look at my web page http://bobswatches.webnode.com/ you can see it looked like it went through a war. I thought for sure it was a Cadet or a Bruce but now you have found a third watch! and another mystery as well. The only difference I see on the third watch is the numbers are a little different on that watch. I always check the number 7. That's the easiest number to see if there is a slight difference. Don't know if it really matters though. This is frustrating and fun at the same time. Stephen thanks for taking the time to help Rick And I to get the correct information on this watch.

Bob