Fully serviced and running strong.
In reply to Either this is not an by Jim Townsend
Jim, consider this: your watch has notches where the lug overlaps the bezel, whereas the American Eagle--as shown in the ad--does not appear to have those notches.
Take a look at the following ad and photo and let me know what you think.
Contrast that ad and photo with this ad for the 1947 His Excellency. I would, by the way, date your watch to 1947 based on the case serial number.
There are several His Excellency variants with this same case, so the safest course would be to rename your watch the "His Excellency" without a variant designation, unless you want to get in a heated debate about the possible differences between all the variants.
P.S. Just one year earlier, in 1946, this same model was called the Statesman. So the correct date really matters here.
Here's another ad from 1948, where they kept things simple and just called it the "His Excellency".
In reply to Thanks Lisa is it possible by Jim Townsend
In reply to I didnt all i did was put it by Jim Townsend
I wonder if that reset the number of checks, or if no panel member had voted yet. I had not voted until now. The checks changed from zero checks to three checks, based solely on one panel member vote- mine. I removed my vote of three checks, and it returned to no checks. This indicates to me that no one else had voted, and the checks were displayed by only my vote. It would be useful, IMO, to see the number of votes representing the model ID rating, as a vote of confirmed by one member does not carry the same weight as say 3 or 7 votes constituting the checks displayed. This information is not available the way the checks are now displayed. Perhaps there could be another field next to the check rating indicating the number of panel member votes from which the checks are derived. IMO-It would be an easy way to indicate the relative "strength" of the checks w/o complicating the process.