Bulova 1942 -Unknown

Submitted by honeyimhome99 on October 19, 2012 - 4:50pm
Manufacture Year
Movement Model
Movement Date Code
Movement Jewels
Movement Serial No.
Case Serial No.
Case shape
Case color
Watch Description


Case:  This could be another, different, example of the ‘Attorney’ model. Stepped bezel with engraved border next to the crystal. The case back is stainless steel.

Crystal: Glass, thick - durex

Crown: Not original ‘Bulova’.

Dial: Deep pearl in colour, with black ‘Bulova’ sub-second and minute dials

Hands: Bulova 'Modern', hour, minute & second hands, gilt

Movement:  BULOVA Swiss manual wind movement. 10AX calibre, with 17 jewels. The movement is running well and keeping good time.

Size:  Approx. 38.8mm long X 25.2mm wide (excluding crown). Lugs are approx. 13.5mm wide.

Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Posted October 19, 2012 - 6:25pm

Movement dates to 1937, case dates to 1941 so I say it's the " Galahad " with a movement swap.

Posted October 19, 2012 - 7:31pm

Yep, I think you'r right Shawn. Galahad  case with movement swap. Not an uncommon practice with some people.

Posted October 19, 2012 - 7:39pm

In reply to by JP

Despite the 37 movement, it's a very good lookin watch when considering it's great condition.

Posted October 19, 2012 - 7:47pm

Yes it most definitly is. Do we classify it as a non-conforming or what?

Posted October 19, 2012 - 8:22pm

In reply to by JP

I'm still good with " Galahad ". Movement is still Bulova but I'm lookin at the case, dial and hands matching the ad.

William Smith
Posted October 19, 2012 - 8:46pm

It's close to the non-conforming definition.  The movement is four years after the case date, and the jewel count doesn't match the ad. 
I ask myself, is it more useful to ID as a Galahad w/ a movement swap vs a non-conforming. Which of the two choices better meets site ID'ing goals while staying within our "guidelines". 
I've softened on this stance, and could argue it's non-conforming, but am fine w/ Galahad w/ a movement swap w/ non-matching jewel count. 

Posted October 19, 2012 - 8:47pm

I didn't think we did id's on just case and dial and hands. It is also not a 21 jewel watch as the ad calls for a 21 jewel movement.

My vote would be a non-conforming due to incorrect movement date and jewel count.

Posted October 19, 2012 - 9:05pm

If it were a 21 jewel movement I would go with Galahad. But the combination of fewer jewels and 4 year difference in movement and case I would say Non-Conforming.

Posted October 19, 2012 - 9:32pm

Can't say 'GALAHAD' as the steps across the lugs differ, the subject Watches' terraces are slanted and form a lip over the glass.


the advertised 'GALAHAD's do not, or appear not to.

engraved 'ATTORNEY', 'BREWSTER, or what not. a 'GEDNEY' has been mentioned in prior discussions although currently there are no ads to support its existance.

If the Movement symbol is the 'T' (1942) and not the arrow it would tie in nicely with the 1941 Case