1952 Ambassador. Watch # 22 shown below.
It's apparently not a differentation between "expansion" and "leather", but only the style of the expansion band? If a "year of manufacture" or "year advertised" thing, then perhaps sometime pre 1952 these were Ambassadors? and 52 on they were Everrette?
We can assume the 1952 ad for the Ambassador 21 jewel is an "error" - but that doesn't address the two models having the same unique model number above. At some point in time, there was an Ambassador and Everette with the same case/dial- probably just not at the same point in time? If one was named for a "forgien" market, the ads don't suggest this- Bourg01's catalog ad was for a US catalog, as were the newspaper ads.
In reply to Will, Does model number 38103 by FifthAvenueRes…
Spring 1964 list has both the Everette and Ambassador w/ same price and number (38103).
Fall 1961 list also has both.
Fall 1958 list also has both.
Fall 1955 list (dated August 1955 in cover letter) also has both.
Spring 1955 list (dated January 1955 in cover letter) also has both.
November 1954 list doens't contain either- but this list appears to be a supplement to the Fall 1954 list- which we don't have on site. This Nov. list is just a few pages of what appears to be only new models released since missing Fall 1954 list.
The first five lists above have many pages, while the Nov list (supplement) only has a few pages.
In reply to Shawn, as owner of the watch by mybulova_admin
I agree, let's name it and get it out of the red zone. I'm good with either ID as both have been proven out.It was both ID's at some point in time as has been proven but transitioned into just an Everett. I'll let the rest of the panel decide on this one. Time for a final vote boys.
In reply to A new 1952 ad for Ambassador by bobbee
In reply to another 21 Jewel Ambassador by William Smith