I will always think of this man as a gentle, helpful and above all very friendly man, and I received this and another watch from him today, as a gift. I thank him for this very generous addition to my collection, to be cherished always, even though I don't know the model! Thanks, JP.
Thank You, JP.
Anyone know what this is? Can't find one in DB.
Mark can help out here. I think it is a president but I am not sure.
JP
No Presidents in the db with a 10BT.
Bobbee, how many jewels?
It's probably an Ambassador, judging from the style and date.
Crystal specs may be able to support that theory or provide an alternative.
In reply to It's probably an Ambassador, by NOVA
19mm. X 22mm. as near as I can measure with ruler, Maybe 18.8 or .9X21.8 or .9
16mm. lug gape, case 37X23mm.
In reply to 19mm. X 22mm. as near as I by bobbee
Bob, get yourself some digital calipers. Crystal measurements are in fractions of millimeters and are very precise.
15
Maybe a 53 Ambassador.
JP
I just don't remember. I know Mark had an ad to verify id.
Not more tools! If my crystals don't fit I make 'em fit! angle grinder, chain saw and emery cloth!
In reply to Not more tools! If my by bobbee
Can you tell me if the crystal is curved, and, if so, in what direction(s)?
Yes, laterally and longtitudinally.
Sorry, going now, musssssttt sssleeeeeeep.........
Mine is a 1954 Ambassdor
In reply to Mine is a 1954 by Jim Townsend
Very different watches, Jim. Crystal specs tell us that there were quite a few Ambassadors during that time period.
The second one is a Delegate or Statesman, depending on the date.
In reply to Mine is a 1954 by Jim Townsend
Bottom watch is the " Delagate ".
In reply to Bottom watch is the " by bourg01
. . . or Statesman, depending on the date.
The crystal size is in the right ballpark for an Ambassador. For example, the Ambassador F is listed in the 1957 Watch-Craft catalog as 22.1 x 19.1. But a lot of watches are close to that size, and I'm not confident of crystal results without a more precise measurement.
I would keep this one as an unknown until a matching ad is presented.
In reply to The crystal size is in the by NOVA
Both i posted are the same watch just differnt pictures.
In reply to Both i posted are the same by Jim Townsend
Huh? The pictures you posted are of two entirely different watches.
In reply to Huh? The pictures you posted by NOVA
Yes i see that sorry got my pictures mixed up sorry.
Not like mine, mine has flat bezel all round lugs different too.
Going now, ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.......
Hmmm i noticed my lugs are a tad differnt.
night night sleep tight
It could also be a Senator. They used the same movement and jewel count. I just don't remember what Mark told me it was but it was 3 stars and in the data base until I pulled it to sell.
JP
John,
the 'ARDSLEY'
http://www.mybulova.com/sites/default/files/vintage_ads/bulova-ad-1953-…
ad Dated 1953.
Thank you very much Mark. Bobbee was probably going to go bonkers trying to find that info. I'm sure he will be very happy now.
John
The Ardsley lugs seem to "stick out" on the sides of the bezel a little more than lugs on subject watch. Is it camera angle and/or ad angle?
Where the lugs attach to bezel in ad is further "out" and a little closer to dial on bezel.
It's not just the camera angle, Will. The lugs not only stick out more from the sides, but they also come up over the bezel frame, unlike the subject watch. The subject watch is not the Ardsley.
Here's my Ardsley next to the ad. Last time I checked, there were Ardsleys in the database also.
Correction: There should be several Ardsleys in the database, but they are still mislabeled as something else. If you do a site search for "Ardsley", you'll find the discussions. Here's one example: http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1951-brunswick-2076. I believe there are a couple more like that.
it's the 'ARDSLEY'
In reply to it's the 'ARDSLEY' by FifthAvenueRes…
No, It's not the Ardsley, Nova has shown the Ardsey in her comment.Clearly different than the subject watch.
In reply to it's the 'ARDSLEY' by FifthAvenueRes…
Sorry, Mark but the subject watch is not the Ardsley.
I think someone should schedule a visit with the eye doctor ASAP. It is clearly not the Ardsley.
Will's side-by-side shot shows the difference in how the lugs are shaped (flared out) and in how they overlap the bezel, as compared to the ad.
The dial is also not a match.
The lugs match the ad - look to the lower right lug in the image.
Camera angle is the issue.
In reply to The lugs match the ad - look by FifthAvenueRes…
Nope, they do not.
Mark, look at where the lugs end on the subject watch versus where they end in the ad. The Ardsley ad is unmistakable in that the lugs come all the way to the inner edge of the bezel. They don't do that on the subject watch--not even close.
The subject watch also shows, using the photo you posted, that the outside of the lugs are in line with the outside of the bezel. In the ad, the lugs flare out from the bezel sides significantly.
The dial of the subject match also does not match the ad.
It is not camera angle. We have numerous examples of a watch that looks just like the ad, including mine, above, and several on site listed under the wrong name, because we had not yet found the Ardsley ad when they were posted, and the watch owners have not been around to update. On one of those watches--the one linked above--you agreed that it was the Ardsley. It is not the same watch as the one posted here; rather, it resembles my Ardsley with the clearly flared lugs.
Here's a link to an actual Ardsley, which looks just like mine posted above. All agreed--even you, Fifth--that it's an Ardsley: http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1951-brunswick-2076
It does not resemble the subject watch.
Here's another one: http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1951-treasurer-2932
And yet another possibility for the case (but different dial): http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1953-unknown-1326