Bulova 1952 -Non-Conforming

Submitted by 1955mercury on
Manufacture Year
1952
Movement Model
5AD
Movement Date Code
L1
Movement Jewels
23
Movement Serial No.
N/A
Case Serial No.
1617260
Case shape
Other
Case color
White
Case Manufacturer
Bulova
Gender
Ladies
Watch Description

This is a ladies Bulova in a 14k white gold case with 2 diamonds. I think it's the Cecile, but there's not another one on here to compare it to. It has a "L1" 5AD movement with 23 jewels. The Cecile ad shows 17 jewels. Possibly the movement was replaced sometime in the past. It has just been serviced and came with a 6 months warranty. My photos aren't the greatest on this watch and I apologize for that.

Front
Side View
Back
Movement
Ad
Geoff Baker
Posted September 15, 2025 - 10:32pm

Looks like a great match the me. 1952 Bulova Cecile , a first for the dB I think- not worried about a possible movement swap.

mybulova_admin
Posted September 16, 2025 - 7:32am

Looks like the dial in the above advert is a full numbered dial which is different from the subject watch. 

These two linebook entries looks like the same watch but also with different dials. Both examples below have the same model numbers.

Bulova Lucy "C"

Geoff Baker
Posted September 17, 2025 - 7:19am

What is the date of the linebook? Could Cecile be an earlier version of the Lucy?

mybulova_admin
Posted September 19, 2025 - 9:30pm

Certainly possible as these are taken from a 1956 era linebook.

I tend to agree with Ken that the dial and or movement may not be original to the case, unless the '23' has been remove from the dial (accidently been there done that).

Andersok
Posted September 19, 2025 - 6:00pm

My thought on this one is that both the dial and movement are not original. There is no ad for this case with that dial. The earliest 23 jewel lady's watch came out around 1955 (La Petite). One oddity is that most all 23-jewel watch would have a '23' on the dial, this one does not.

Two options which seem to be dial determinate are Cecile or Lucy.

neetstuf-4-u
Posted September 20, 2025 - 11:19am

Interesting that the movement is dated 1951, that is curious. The fact that we have neither examples of Lucy or Cecile in database makes this a tough call on whether dial and/ or movement are original or not.

Based on case date, I am leaning towards calling this one a 

1952 Cecile

noting the discrepancy between ad, linebook and actual watch.

mybulova_admin
Posted September 20, 2025 - 8:14pm

Merc, would do mind double checking the movement stamp is in fact L1 and not L7.

Ken raising a good point with ladies 23 jewelled movements not coming onto the scene until 1955, thus it would not be possible to have a 1951 23J ladies' movement.

During 1952 the vast majority of ladies watches had either a 17 or 21 jewelled movement. I've not been able to find any 1952 or 53 adverts showing a ladies 23 jewelled watch unfortunately.

If this is the case, then as the watch is presented, we'd have to ID a non-conforming.

I do agree that the 1952 version of this watch would be ID'd as  Bulova Cecile.

Kathy L.
Posted September 27, 2025 - 9:24am

Beautiful watch, the dial looks right for the time period and is possibly original but agree the movement is likely a replacement.

1952 Bulova Cecile seems like the best ID

mybulova_admin
Posted September 30, 2025 - 4:15am

I'm nominating either unknown or non-conforming due to the subject having a 23 J movement and the Cecile having a 17J movement.

1955mercury
Posted September 30, 2025 - 6:59am

I'm sorry for not commenting sooner. I've been having some health issues and am not able to get to any of my equipment or this watch presently. I think the movement has been swapped in it, but at the time of purchase I didn't care. It was the case I had never seen before.