I picked up this one as an example. Was curious on the size and look in person. I believe this is a Violet. I was surprised that it was such an early year. The photos on the listing weren't very good and I thought it had a later date code. I am guessing it just wasn't advertised much until 1946.
It is 14k rose gold plate with a stainless back. Have seen it advertised as coral and pink. The dial is a mess but it still looks good on the wrist and I am happy with it as a model example.
Nice one Kathy. I think you nailed it
1942 Violet
noting unusual artist perspective and shadow in the ad to accentuate the "bump" on left side of case.
In reply to Nice one Kathy. I think you by neetstuf-4-u
Thanks Bob. Yes I found that interesting as well. I had the ad so I used it but in the newspaper advertising it isn't as exaggerated as in the ad above. Many of them exaggerating the crown side which is also not accurate per this example anyway. All these ads are from 1946. I couldn't find anything earlier.
In reply to Nice one Kathy. I think you by neetstuf-4-u
So it does seem to be all about the shadows and angles for the sides.
Nice watch Kathy
1942 Bulova Violet
In reply to Nice watch Kathy 1942 Bulova by Geoff Baker
Thanks Geoff. I figured the band would be worth the $9 I paid for it and would let me see if I liked it. It really is a pretty model. I can see why it was well advertised.
A nice Cord band would bring her back to original state.
If there is no other model version that sports an expandable band then for now I think we are safe to go with a Bulova Violet.