10K rolled gold plate case
David,
Is there an ad showing this Case as the 'COMMANDER' ?
a 1936 Database ad Names it the 'GOLDCRAFT'.
There is an ad for the Commander dated 1936. This issue has been discussed previously here: http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1937-commander-747?page=1
The essentials of that discussion were as follows:
- Hancock - unengraved bezel; white or yellow gold, markers rather than numbers, 15 jewels, white dial (1933,1935)
- Commander - engraved bezel, yellow gold, numbers rather than markers, 15 jewels, white dial (1936)
- Goldcraft - unengraved bezel; yellow gold, numbers rather than markers, 15 jewels, white dial (1937)
I believe that all three of these cases are the same size and shape, but I don't yet have a Hancock with which to do a detailed comparison. I have been able to compare an engraved case with numbered dial and an unengraved case with numbered dial, and they are the same size and shape and take the same crystal.
Based on the ads we have, I believe the subject watch was correctly named the Commander.
In reply to There is an ad for the by NOVA
Yep,
I'm not seeing the Case detail in the 1936 'COMMANDER' ad so I believe that assumption is inconclusive
unless there's clearer ad?
I think the 1936 ad for the Commander does conclusively show engraving on the bezel, particularly when you enlarge the ad and compare the Commander to the unengraved Ranger and the engraved Phantom on either side of it in the same ad.
The ads for the Hancock and Goldcraft definitely do not show an engraved bezel.
The ad shows an engraved Case I agree, but I'm not seeing any Case side enhancements beyond the engraving.
Well, I'm pleased to see that we're finally acknowledging the existence of an ad for a 1930's Commander, rather than repeating, once again, the suggestion/myth that no such ad exists. It's time to move on from that once and for all.
As for the Commander ad, it is not the clearest representation, and it would be difficult to detect the subtle shift in the case profile from the head-on, hand-drawn, and very small representation that we have. For that reason, I would agree that there is a tentative element to this ID. However, I think it's a better tentative ID then the Hancock--which shows no engraving and a different dial--or the Goldcraft--which shows no engraving on the case.
Perhaps a better ad will come along soon and shed additional light on these very similar models.
1936 ad. You can see the "little wings" on this one.
