Nice garage sale find is one I have never seen before. Appears to be mechanically sound, just needs a service. Crystal is glass, appears original and scratched. No plating wear. 11AC movement dated L7; as is the gold plated caseback. As close as I can come in a speculative guess is an Engineer. Found ads for 56 and 57 in the short ads and they are slightly different in the transition from crysyal corners into lugs; but the only thing I could find even remotely similar. One would think a design this unusual would be an easy ID.
Just found one on Lisa's site - same year. It appears this is in all probability a 1957 Gedney. Per Lisa:
"Model tentatively ID'ed as a Gedney through crystal specs. G-S catalog #60 ID's the crystal that fits this watch as belonging only to the Gedney." "21.4 x 24.2 (G-S CMT352-43) "
I recalibrated my digital calipers and the G-S specs she quotes are spot on for this watch referenced and pictured above.
Looking at the crystal specs, that G-S CMT352-43 does call for only the Gedney; additionally the similar sized W-C P22MC240 calls for the Gedney, and also the Broker (which is a similar case style to the Ruxton). The Gedney models that we have in ads would use a more rectangular crystal. It would seem likely this style is the Gedney, but identifying based only on the crystal spec is not always accepted.
Unknown model, similar to this one.
I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong here, but I see no ads in the dB that show the Gedney. The watch here does match Lisa's, and it does match the watch we have that is still unknown. Beyond that, I am finding zip. I agree that crystal specs are not always the last word on a watch ID, I have thousands of them, and some are labelled as being identical to several major brands, like Gruen and Bulova, for example. In actual practice, I have found this is not always the case, I think they were lumping them together within a certain tolerance, based only on the bezel opening and not taking into consideration any other characteristics of the crystal like thickness or curvature or special faceting, etc. The crystal we are referencing does say Gedney on the package, I am looking at one right now, but this is by no means a definitive or comprehensive ID. Within a range of a few years there may be other watches that the crystal fits and the catalogue may not have ever been updated to include them.
For example, the CMT 356-7 says Bulova Pelham on the package, and it looks custom made for our subject watch here, (It follows the contours of the case sides) and is off only by .2mm of the other crystal. We don't even have a 'Pelham' in our drop down menu, but could the subject watch be a Pelham?
I'd have to say unknown at this point.
In reply to Crystal for the Gedney by mybulova_admin
In reply to That's the one on subject by neetstuf-4-u
I just revisited this watch, and the Gedney crystal appears slightly smaller than the opening on the watch, suggesting the Pelham crystal may actually be the correct one for this watch. The slight variance in size is apparent in side view of watch above the 12 position. The "gap" is approx .2mm. Contours of Pelham marked crystal do indeed match up to side contours of watch case.
Based on size variance and this watch
http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1957-pelham-6803
I think Rob is correct, this is a Pelham.
Here's another picture of the Bulova Pelham crystal. RMU 152-15C 24.2 x 21.4
Seems like it would be a perfect match for the subject watch case design.
Ok, I know that I'm grasping at straws here, but thought this might be a little fun.
This is the bridge that spans Pelham Bay. Grasping.....
In reply to Here's another picture of the by mybulova_admin