It's either a Craftsman or a Tuxedo, though I don't have the original band. I went with Tuxedo because of the contrasting color of the sub-seconds area. Overall Length: 38mm Width: 21mm 14KWG
It would appear from your description that it is solid gold (correct?), in which case, I believe it would be the Tuxedo.
There is at least one ad in the database for the Tuxedo, so adding a supporting ad to your post should be do-able, and it would be a very good thing.
Without the Solid Gold bracelet it becomes the 'less formal' 'CRAFTSMAN' according to the ads.
Yes, solid 14KWG. Will add the add.
In the '46 add it has the WG version with the matching bracelet only. Shouldn't this be a Tuxedo without the original bracelet? I read MANY threads over the past few days one of these in which the members were debating this very thing. Was there ever a consensus?
Here are the two 1946 ads for the Craftsman and Tuxedo. I don't see any indication that the Tuxedo had a solid gold band. Both ads read the same. One is white, one is yellow, which, I believe, accounts for the price difference. A solid gold band would cost a lot more than $100, even in 1946, IMO.
* see post above.
The Watch itself is identical, the determining factor in its Name in this instance is the bracelet.
according to the ads
'TUX' is on a Solid Gold bracelet Lisa, hence the $100 price difference.
The ad does not say that it has a solid gold bracelet. Where are you getting that? And, as I said above, I think a solid gold bracelet would cost a lot more than $100. The watches are different colors of gold.
Okay, you win. I just found an even better ad than that one, also from 1946. It explains the Tuxedo A, Tuxedo B, Tuxedo C, Craftsman A, Craftsman B. It also refers to the gold bracelet.
(Y) explains the differences.
Yep, that's the one.