Bulova 1950 Military Issue

Submitted by FifthAvenueRes… on May 7, 2011 - 1:58am
Manufacture Year
Movement Model
Movement Jewels
Movement Serial No.
Case Serial No.
Case shape
Additional Information

Bulova 'Type A17A' - Korean War Era U.S. Military issue.

Parkerized Steel Case measures 40mm lug to lug x 32mm wide non inclusive of the Crown while using Calipers.

Black Dial shows Luminous and White printed numerals. Hour and Minute Hands are Luminous filled and the sweep center Seconds Hand is unique with a Luminous Arrowhead tip.

A Steel dustshield and gasket appears between the Caseback and Movement.

10 sided Caseback is Parkerized, screws on and is stamped as shown.

Crown is Steel.


The A17A is shown on its original issue strap.


* 100% correct as found - from the estate of a retired U.S. Naval Officer.

Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
Posted November 23, 2012 - 2:14pm

I know you aren't pooh-poohing their work Will, and that you respect the information that MWR spend thousands of hours searching out, but to have a novice refuting such work, without a shred of evidence would be galling, don't you think?

Just imagine some newbie saying something in a similar vein about research done on this site by devoted members, would you not be at least a little annoyed?

EDIT:- That "question mark" next to the dates on the mil-spec sheet is a best guess using documents available, and should be respected for what it is, a best guess by an EXPERT.



Posted November 23, 2012 - 2:43pm


As a site member of Broadarrow.net I have the upmost respect for the knowledge of its senior members.

Given the countless Hours of investigation I Myself have done on Bulova Military issue timepieces specifically please don't disrespect mine.

The original spec sheet displayed showed the Bulova A-17A as being introduced in 1960, that has now been down revised to 1954 and still remains as a question mark, for many.


Posted November 23, 2012 - 3:07pm

Prove the date of the subject watch, as you have been asked on many occasions to do.

You have been given every opportunity to back up your claims, and have avoided the issue without an answer.

Respect has to be earned, and the constant "ducking and diving" of this point must be of concern to other members too, as you are the most vocal panellist concerning insufficient data on watch threads.

I notice that earlier in this thread another member asked you several times if you had proof of date, and you said you did not wish to open the watch "at this time", but that was more than a year ago.

Please, just let us know how old this watch is.

William Smith
Posted November 23, 2012 - 3:16pm

OK  Now I see what "proof" is requested.  A conformation of the date of the movement.  Bobbee, I though you were asking for the source documents, used by Sandman's to derive dates in that table.  It would be nice to confirm both the date of Marks movement, and find the specs documents from which that ?1954 table entry was derived. This isn't questioning anyone's expertise, but only going to the source to help me understand all this stuff.   I think the source docs may be in the various links in this thread.

Posted November 23, 2012 - 3:19pm

"Respect has to be earned"

Show some, I've been a contributing member here for quite some time.

1950 is My best estimate.

Posted April 27, 2014 - 10:19am

You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself, maybe some humility wouldn't go amiss.

You have been a contributing member for less than one year more than I have been a member, you joined in October 2010, I joined in September 2011.

Your contributions seem to consist of quite a lot of way off-mark theories, guesses and best estimates, interspersed with the occasional burst of great ideas.

Your best estimate is not good enough for me, unless you got X-Ray vision.

Take the back off of the watch, take some photos, and give us some hard evidence.

Posted November 24, 2012 - 10:03am

theories, guesses and best estimates, interspersed with the occasional burst of great ideas...... these are what have made this site a valuable tool on helping owners of a vintage Bulova watches.

Remember what we are doing here. This is not an official Buliva website and the wonderful ongoing contributions if its members help answer the questions. Sometimes we 'all' get it wrong, sometimes we get it right. Either way I appreciate everyone's comments, theories and best guesses.

Working through this data can be a difficult task at best.

Posted November 24, 2012 - 11:43am

When one owns the watch in question though, and is known to have marks on the movement and/or case interior to date by, if you are going to make claims that go against the known dates of a model then proof is needed, as it would be if I or another member posted, say, a 1954 Academy Award, with no pics of the movement or case back. There would be uproar over that sort of claim, and rightly so. This case is no different, and the owner of this watch should back up any wild claims with hard evidence, not the usual "smoke and mirrors".
I am tired of asking for proof now, as it has been far too long since this watch was first posted, with the owner being asked many times by more than one person to give proof, and all requests being ignored until yesterday when we were told it was a guess.
Owner had his chance and blew it, and has lost any credibility he had.

Posted November 24, 2012 - 7:52pm

It shouldn't be that hard to remove the back and snap a photo of the date on this one, unless its not or never was in your possession?  or the info gained will not back up the claim?

The back was off at one time according to the  additional information..."A Steel dustshield and gasket appears between the Caseback and Movement."... so why the "guess" on the date?

In the past, watches without the required info, pictures,  or proof were eliminated from the database, and that is what might need to happen on this one.

William Smith
Posted November 25, 2012 - 2:35am

In reply to by OldTicker

Hey Greg  How many of Geoff Bakers watches should we delete from the database?  I'll do a real quick count of how many times DarHin has requested this type of info- not a picture necessarily, but just a conformation because we take Geoff's word for it.  Geoff has said he doesn't want to open the backs and he shouldn't have to. 
What's this thread come to.