This is a 1953 watch in yellow gold with silver dial with gold applied arabic number hour markers. It is 40MM long and 25mm wide. It as a 10AK 15 jewel movement with a triangle date code. Based on my research this might b e a Minute Man D.
It looks like you might have a marriage of a 1953 case and a 1945 movement. I am going to look through the ads a bit more to see if I can see a more detail photo of the Minute Man.
There are a couple of 1953 watches in the database that are like yours that have the ID Ambassador. It will give you an idea what it would have looked like with the original dial.
http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1953-ambassador-7106
http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1953-ambassador-7016
http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1953-ambassador-7231
This is the closest ad I could find. If this is the one it would have had a 17 jewel movement. 
It looks like 1953 Ambassador case with swap 15 jwls movement from 1945
Non-conforming for me
The Ambassador says it has a stainless steel back but this one is gold. Also this is longer than the Ambassador. It is 40mm long.
Hi JimDon, I'm a little puzzled by this one at present. Case shape appears to be a match to watches previously ID'ed as Ambassador, although ad referenced by Kathy seems to show a difference in lugs. Face, back and movement aren't a match tho. Date gap between movement and case and jewel count says movement swap. Watch may be a marriage.
Non-conforming based on date difference. Still looking.
In reply to Hi JimDon, I'm a little by neetstuf-4-u
I thought it might be with the date code on the movement. It is a long one at 40mm. Does anyone know how long in ambassador is Lug tip to lug tip?
I agree the lugs do not look exactly right. I didn't find anything closer.
Non-Conforming based on the movement date not matching case within two years.
As Kathy points out, we have three watches in the dB with this case, all ID'd as Ambassadors. Interestingly all three have a dial different than all the adverts we have. The panel generally agreed that, at best, the ID was tentative on each of them. I'm still not sure this case even matches the advert, the lugs are different. Having said all that there is the movement question. I think this watch has to be Non-Conforming for that reason alone.