As some of you will recall, a while back I posted a watch that had for it's only support a listing in the "Complete Price Guide to Watches". It was a tonneau shaped model dated 1928 and listed as "The Ambassador" in the Price Guide. The general consensus--though there was some notable descent--was that The Price Guide must be in error, because we all know that the Ambassador was square. Some even argued that the Price Guide is full of errors, though when challenged to present an example of an error in the Bulova listings, no one did.
So, to get to the point of this new post, a recent trip to the Library of Congress revealed a 1929 ad for a tonneau shaped "Ambassador".
Still think it's not possible?
I continue to maintain that many things are possible, and we might just discover them, if we do not close our minds with unnecssary, and often false, assumptions.
1929 ad from the Atlanta Constitution.
Now, to prove my theory that these two watches were named after the Ambassador Bridge, built between 1927 and 1929, connecting Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, Canada (the watch on the left is called the Windsor), per the 1929 ad below.
Although barely legible, the 1929 ad from the Atlanta Constitution is displaying a Watch very similar to what We now know as the LONE EAGLE II - which is not the same Watch shown in the Cooksey Shugart guide.
IMO, maybe someone with better eyesight will chime in.
The watch shown in the ad is a Lone Eagle IMO, and does not resemble the subject watch other than it tonneau shape. The subject watch may still be an Ambassadore, but the advert proves nothing other than someone ID'd an LE Ii as an ambassador. Depending on the age of the advert it may very well be correct if Bulova called it this before it changed to the LE. We see changes in names all the time during this period.
Maybe true, maybe not.
It is another tonneau shaped watch labeled as an Ambassador, so now we have two.
admin, You got Your eyes fixed!
: p
Also, the ad states 15 Jewels - Cookseys' 'AMBASSADOR' is 17 Jewels
The details were never the point, nor was I proposing an exact match. I was, however, showing a second listing for a tonneau shaped Ambassador dated in the late 1920s. I think that should be worth some consideration rather than immediate dismissal simply because you've already made up your mind that it can't be true.
I don't think we are doing that, but we do see what looks to be a very well known watch ID'd as something unexpected. As I said above maybe the LE II went by the Ambassadir before it changed. We all know that with Bulova anything is possible. Any chance of getting a better picture of the above advert or is this the best we hope to get?
That's the best I've got right now, but rest assured I'll be looking for better. The ad should be in your inbox, along with quite a few others, all zipped together. Let me know if you didn't get it.
In reply to That's the best I've got by NOVA
Wonderful Lisa. I'll make sure to get them up on the site as soon as possible for everyone to peruse and enjoy!
...as an added note the 1929 Atlanta Constitutions' 'AMBASSADOR' and 1929 'LONE EAGLE' are priced identically.
database ad Dated 1929
same Watch, IMO.
Yeah, and it's so logical to conclude that they would have gotten the ad completely wrong for what is probably the most famous and popular watch Bulova ever made, particularly when you consider how much more likely they were to sell the watches under the Lindbergh name. Makes a lot of sense (NOT!).
More baseless assumptions.
I would have to agree with Mark on the new ad, it looks like it has two distinct patterns on the bezel between the lugs like a LE.
I also would not dismiss the ID provided by the watch bible, they found these ad's for the book and probably found them the same place that you found all of these super ad's Lisa. Most of the ID's provided by the guide can be confirmed right here on this site.
I also think your Ambassador/Windsor theory has a lot of merit, it seems that Bulova was into "Big Happenings" and named many of their watches as a tribute.
One thing I just noticed with your watch at the top Lisa, is the open 9 and cathederal spade hands, to me these are typical of 1926 and early 1927. What's the date code on your watch?
Everything points to 1928. The case serial is 8291815. The movement symbol is the crescent moon. The movement serial is 809533.
In reply to Everything points to 1928. by NOVA
Ok thanks.
Lisa,
Given the evidence presented and in light of the new ads, I would have to agree with you on this one.
As for Cooksey - Shugarts quide...............well it's not a reliable source for ID's and in fact very few are ID'd in the guide. Not very reliable for pricing either for all that matters. The market place drives the prices so, so much for that.
The subject watch you've presented is an exact match to the ad that supports the ID. I vote "confirmed" as an Ambassador.
In reply to Lisa, Given the evidence by bourg01
The advert above is not the same as Lisa watch. It tonneau in shape but thats about it. You can clearly make out the top and bottom fish notches synonymous with the LE II and Richard.
In reply to The advert above is not the by mybulova_admin
Hi Stephen,
I was referring to the ad Lisa posted at the beginning of the thread. My Bad, it's not an ad but the excerp from the C-S price guide. Lisa's going back to the library, I'm Sure.
I realize that the Price Guide gives few model names, and, in that sense, is not a reliable source for finding a name. But what I would like to know is if there are any examples where The Guide gives an ID for a Bulova watch and that ID has been proven wrong with advertisements or other equally reliable information? Do we have an example of that?
In reply to I realize that the Price by NOVA
No
From what I can see, most every named watch can be confirmed with ad's on this site, the Curtis, your Ambassador, Argyle, and Spencer looks to be the only ones in my guide (2007) that have no ad's to back them up.
In reply to No From what I can see, most by OldTicker
The Spencer has an ad.
The Argyle also has an ad, thought I can't prove it. I saw the vintage advertisement showing the Argyle as the background in an eBay listing. Unfortunately, I didn't ask the seller for a copy of the ad.
In reply to The Spencer has an ad. The by NOVA
My bad...
That only leaves 3 with out ad's...
In reply to I realize that the Price by NOVA
From what I can see, they seem to have the 1920's watches ID'd correctly. I just took a quick look but I'll dig a little more if I can find some time.
Here are the model names that I see in The Price Guide for Bulova watches. I'm looking at the 2011 edition.
- Ambassador (the one that is the subject of this post)
- Curtis
- Athlete
- Governor
- Wellington
- Spencer
- Norman
- Argyle
- Ambassador (rectangular one)
- Lone Eagle (First)
- Lone Eagle (Second)
- Lone Eagle (Fourth)
- Oakley
- Senator
- Masonic
- Ford
- BMW
- Right Angle
- Photo Watch
- President, wandering sec.
- Duo dial (perhaps a description rather than a name?)
- Drivers watch (description or name?)
- Accutron (many of these, including Deep Sea, RF AG, RF CK, etc.)
- Accuquartz
- Astronaut
- Mark IV
- Railroad Approved
- Spaceview
- Accutron "Mickey" (hard to get that one wrong)
Have any of these, or any others that I haven't listed, been shown to be incorrect?
I don't know the answer to that but if my vote counted I would vote Ambassador. If you look at the LE it has engraving on the verticle as well as the horizontal and Lisa's watch is only on the horizintal.
Ambassador
JP
The new "Ambassador" ad
Note the position of the engraving below the lugs (Red), and the square seconds track (Green) and compare it to this ad...
Now tell me why we have 2 different Lone Eagles in the same ad??, compare the top watch in the second ad to the one in the display case...
In reply to The new "Ambassador" ad Note by OldTicker
perhaps this model sold w/ different dials while being listed as the same model :) ...or no one else looked at these ads as close as we do. Or both.
Seconds register barrel in bottom watch, rectangle in top one, numerals thinner and rounder in top watch, case has thinner sides in top watch and different engraving on the sides, bottom of number 6 showing at bottom of seconds register on bottom watch, not in top one. Very, very weird advert....