Bright finish case dated 1924.
N.O.S. Glass Crystal fitted 4/2011.
Rare 15 Jewel 13AF
Non - running and under restoration.
Sry Wayne, didnt see this post for awhile. Could be a swapped dial or artists rendition, or a change from ad print to actual manufacture of the dial, or an outsourced dial made incorrectly for Bulova. Who knows.
I just mention it because it IS a discrepency, how much of one is the question.
In reply to Sry Wayne, didnt see this by shooter144
The seconds hand is lower on Marks watch than the ad watch, thus, the seconds track obscures all of the 6. Different movement?
We already know the ad watch dial is full on tonneau and Marks dial is tonneau shaped but everything else says rectangle. I don't think it was a rectangle dial cut down to fit a tonneau case because there's too much real estate beyond the 3 & 9.
One tick incorrect ID from me.
The dial clearly is a mis-match to the advert.
Agreed, as we have more than one ad showing Templan for this time period, and none of them have a square minute track dial in a tonneau case. Probably just a dial replacement with other than original (or very close) square minute track dial.
So is it better to leave as lower tick Templan w/ probable mis-dial replace than a Non-Conforming?
Whilst the dial may or may not be original to the watch, this case (as far as we know at this time) was only used on the Templar model. The dial is not the key to the ID of this watch IMO.
In reply to Whilst the dial may or may by mybulova_admin
Or is the Dial original to the Watch, the 'wear marks' suggest it is.
here is a second example of the anomaly, dated 1930.
same 13AF movement.
another example of the Dial oddity
1930 - 13AF
Obviously a trend of 1930, none of the watches showing any evidence that the Dial / Movement have been recased.
In reply to another example of the Dial… by FifthAvenueRes…
hi FIFTH !
May you please tell me the # of the crystal you put on this beauty please?