Bulova 1950 Treasurer

Submitted by neetstuf-4-u on January 12, 2019 - 1:12pm
Manufacture Year
1950
Movement Model
10BC
Movement Jewels
17
Movement Serial No.
-
Case Serial No.
2726237
Case shape
Rectangle
Case color
Yellow
Case Manufacturer
Bulova
Crystal details
22.1mm x 19mm
Gender
Mens
Watch Description

Case and band are a perfect ad match to a Treasurer, but face and hands are not. Face is missing detail line inside the number track and script of numbers is slightly different. I find no other instances of this case as anything but a Treasurer in 1950. Movement is a date match to the case. Could this be a marriage?  Case and band show little to no wear. Panel thoughts?

1950 Bulova watch
1950 Bulova watch
1950 Bulova watch
1950 Bulova watch
1950 Bulova watch
Bulova Watch advert
jabs
Posted January 12, 2019 - 2:00pm

I have no problem with Treasurer ID, here is identical watch

1950 Bulova Treasurer

Andersok
Posted January 12, 2019 - 3:16pm

I don't find this combo of dial and case in our ads. There seems to be an unequal amount of space between the outer track on the dial and the bezel, especially the sides/vertical space. I wonder if the dial is not original to this case?

neetstuf-4-u
Posted January 12, 2019 - 5:17pm

I'm stumped. Just did a Db search of 10BC movements hoping to perhaps find this movement paired with same face and hands as subject watch in something else. Nada. Closest was a 1950 Bruce, but it's the 15J version of the movement. Face and hands appear identical to subject watch.

It would seem that if there is an identical example in the Db (per Jabs), that this may have been a common swap based on movement and face size. If that is the case, what model was cannibalized to fix them? It would seem to be quite a coincidence that two watches (Treasurer) had face replacements from a Bruce, along with identical model incorrect hands grafted onto the original movement to the case.

I'm not making a case pro or con on ID, just thinking out loud.

mybulova_admin
Posted January 12, 2019 - 7:00pm

One example could be said to be a marriage, but multiple would suggest otherwise. 

I agree that the dial outer track seems to havr a bit too much outer padding, but this may just be how it was. It's either a Treasurer, and unknown or a non-con.

I think that for the sake of grouping, we ID it as the same as the model currently in the system. If we find out the correct ID one way pr another we can easy find and update both. 

neetstuf-4-u
Posted January 12, 2019 - 9:33pm

I just compared subject watch to a couple of the ones in the Db, as well as Brandall54's new 1950 submission. I think I am seeing the same spacing between the minutes track and bezel. Some with "correct" face appear to be "heavier" on sides than top and bottom. Maybe it's camera angle?

mybulova_admin
Posted January 12, 2019 - 7:43pm

Only thing missing is that inner box.

Geoff Baker
Posted January 13, 2019 - 7:24am

I'm not splitting hair on this one, I think it should be ID'd as Treasurer

1950 Bulova Treasurer

neetstuf-4-u
Posted January 13, 2019 - 7:27am

I am tending to agree. Put it with the other one like it under the name Treasurer, If we ever find documentable evidence to the contrary, we can move them.