This is an odd one. It's not a Bulova case, Its actually marked Providence Watch Case Swiss, probably some kind of jeweler creation or a recase, but that's not my main point of concern. I'm more intrigued by the movement. Its dirty, i know, i was going to wait to post until i had it cleaned up and more clear photos, but I'm getting anxious to hear what everyone has to say. I listed as 1925, but i am not so sure. 1925 10A should be free of serial numbers and date coded with an 'O" but this movement has a serial number and i cannot find a date code. i can find something that looks like it might could be an 'O' but really could just as easily be a scratch or imperfection. Also, the general geometry, the bridges and such, do not match that of the other 10A movements we have in the DB. The engraving font and placement are all different as well. The caliber stamping of 10A is a little off, the A looks more like an upside-down V, it's just all very inconsistent and appears to be an older style of markings that the 10A's I usually see. Take a look and tell me what you think
Even though it is not a Bulova case, i still love it. Large with a 21mm lug width. strange for that time period.
I did find the following example of a 10A with an 'O' marking on ebay. while it also has the same bridge arrangment as mine, you can see all the markings on it are very different.
In reply to I did find the following… by catangen
I've converted the ebay listing image to a local site image as this would have dissappeared in due course. I've also added this to the 10A movement listing.
I feel your watch has a twice mistruck circle. Failed once....failed twice.....
1925 Non-conforming is what I would ID this watch as.
In reply to I've converted the ebay… by mybulova_admin
Yes. I have been waiting to see if anyone would go down that road. It was my initial thought as well. It was mis-struck and a second attempt was made to fix it, but made it worse. Lol. I didn't want to put that out there and influence the opinions, I wanted to see if anyone else would come to that conclusion. If that's the case, I'm fine with it. I wish there was more reference material to explain the differences in markings and bridge design.
In reply to Yes. I have been waiting to… by catangen
It certainly doesn't make a lot of sense to have two distinctly different movements, yet assigned the same calibre ID. Would have been a pain when ordering parts, unless they are fundamentally the same components, just with different bridges.
In reply to I've converted the ebay… by mybulova_admin
the Bulova hallmark is too primitive for 1925.
I don't think this is a Bulova watch. I think it a cool looking watch just not a cool looking BULOVA watch.
In reply to I don't think this is a… by Geoff Baker
The hands are incorrect, that's a given.
What I do not see is any evidence that the Dial has been in a different Case, also that the dial has been on another movement.
Providence Watch Case Co is undeniably associated with Bulova, how cool would it be if this were a pre - 1924 Gents' wristwatch. Something We have never seen......
In reply to The hands are incorrect,… by FifthAvenueRes…
A thought that keeps popping into my head is that we know the symbols used in date coded appear in more than one year. Some of them are used several times. Is it feasible that these codes existed prior to the beginning of our chart, prior to 1924, and that possibly the 'O' was used in say...1919 when the Providence logo seems to have been registered??
In reply to The hands are incorrect,… by FifthAvenueRes…
To examine the dial further, i have made and linked a new video below. I aslo found a logo embossed on the back of the dial. Perhaps a makers logo, could help to know who made the dial and when they were making dials for Bulova. The logo is shown at the end of the video.
Check it out
an enlargement of the area of interest.
I do not see a Circle datecode.