Bulova 1942 -Non-Conforming

Submitted by Hamtramck Stan on
Manufacture Year
1942
Movement Model
6AF
Movement Date Code
Square
Movement Jewels
15
Movement Serial No.
137697
Case Serial No.
None
Case shape
Rectangle
Case color
Yellow
Case Manufacturer
Other
Crystal details
21.9 × 16.4 miltary
Gender
Mens
Watch Description

This is, what I consider, a Non-Conforming Bulova, but one from the '40's.  My guess is 1941-44, but I really don't know.

When I first glanced at it, I immediately thought 1940-1943 Bulova President.  Then, skepticism kicked in: 1) Yellow gold and not rose gold; 2) No sub-dial seconds hand; 3) No case serial number; 4) Case design differences.

It was for $5, so I bought it.

The case and dial, that mimics the President, are from Anchor.

The watch originally housed a 1929 Bulova 6AE.  However, I would later find that the hairspring was broken at the middle of the coil (never encountered that before!), and the wheel train would not move unless I slightly loosened the bridge.

So, I decided to go ahead with the project and replace the movement with a 1927 6AE I had.

The '27 6AE runs VERY well after a service (304° amplitude, 0.8 ms beat error, +5 sec regulation), case cleaned & polished, dial cleaned, and new Bulova 7AK #63/64 GF15 hands (the watch had modern-style hands).

Yeah, it might not be worth a whole lot, but it's a 70-80 year-old watch that gives homage to an era when a jeweler would turn a trade-in that he couldn't sell into a watch that he could.  It's lasted this long!

 

Front of Anchor-cased Bulova
Back of Anchor-cased Bulova
1927 Bulova 6AE 17J
Inside case back
Angled view
Comparison to 1940 Bulova President
Hamtramck Stan
Posted April 14, 2025 - 6:23pm

I mistakenly listed the movements as 6AE, when they were 6AF's!

Hamtramck Stan
Posted April 14, 2025 - 6:29pm

Also, the jewel count should be 15, not 17!

mybulova_admin
Posted April 14, 2025 - 9:20pm

Great looking watch and I really appreciate the level of effort you've put into returning this watch to running order and as a usable timepiece.

I like your statement "it's a 70-80 year-old watch that gives homage to an era when a jeweler would turn a trade-in that he couldn't sell into a watch that he could."

We often get hung on the originality of a timepiece and overlook the package as a whole. This watch present really well and I hope it is enjoyed as such for years to come.

Now for the bad part :-) We'll obvious need to formally ID this was as 'non-conforming'.

neetstuf-4-u
Posted April 15, 2025 - 5:06pm

A fine looking timepiece, excellent job of bringing it back to life! I would wear it :o)

Non-Conforming