10AN 15J dated 1934
10k RGP
Hinged case with Bulova signature, serial number 499694
The ad is from 1936
Crystal: 25.75mm long x 16.5mm (at the widest point); curved in both directions
Think this is a Commander? That little side step is not evident in the ad, at least not to my eye, but I don't see anything else that has just that one little step and the engraving and that case shape.
The 1935/6 (+?) "HANCOCK" in the Illustration... (i.e. w/no Engraving...) The "COMMANDER" is an engraved case, apparently?? Or is it the "CLAYTON," perhaps?!? (i.e. the watch in your photo looks to be wider than the "167/8/9" width? Or is that merely an optical dillusion???)
:-) Scott
American Clipper (30s) 1 CMH525 2 MH2575 167 1 MI256/1 168
Clayton, Hancock (30s) 1 CH462-15 2 H2405 191
In reply to The 1935/6 (+?) "HANCOCK" in by WatchCrystals.net
I'm not following your thought process. The illustrated ad is the 1936 Commander. Not sure why you're referencing the Hancock. In other years, the Commander was not engraved, but, according to that ad, in 1936 it was. The case style does not match the American Clipper, so I'm not sure why you've listed that above. You don't appear to have listed any dimensions for the Commander. Seems like those would be helpful.
In reply to Oops, I think I see the by NOVA
(Wink...)
And I didn't have anything on the "COMMANDER," except maybe glass for it? Incidentally... does the bezel opening have a lengthwise curve, or is the opening FLAT? I see several models listed (as most would be) in the latter 30s as "H" (Hexagonal) style, but NOT "MX" (Military, Rectangle) or curved lengthwise+. The "Hancock" appears to be the model in your illustration, BTW??? Hereafter's an image of the 1934/5 version:
.jpg)
Shawn sold this watch a few months back...
I don't see any mention of a "COMMANDER" in any crystal catalog, in a "Hex" shape, from the 30s...
I'll post it (if nothing similar is up in the results, already?) for further debate...
30s: Clayton, Commander? Edison, Hancock
1
CH462-15
1
H2405 191
:-) Scott
Scott,
Here's a pic of the crystal and the flat bezel. I still don't know why the Hancock keeps coming up. The watch in the ad above, which I cropped from the ad and zoomed in on to make it clearer, is labeled as the Commander. The full ad is in the database--it's the second of the two 1936 ads. There are seven men's watches listed in that ad: Ranger, Commander, Phantom, American Clipper, Apollo, and President, in that order. In my post above, I cut off the Ranger, leaving the top watch as the Commander.
Hey - wait a minute (he said to himself) I have THAT watch somewhere. Here comes another twist, mine is a 1934 date code, 10 AN, case is marked 10 k rgp but the engraved parts on the sides and the top and bottom of the case that connects them in yellow gold, the rest is white!. Now Lisa's appears all white gold and Wayne's appears all yellow. Lisa - I find no 1934 ad showing either your's OR mine?
-gb
So, there were yellow gold, white gold, and two tone versions of the same model. That's not really unusual, is it? Within the past week, in regard to another watch, I was assured that the ads never show or discuss every possible variation of a given model.
The 1936 ad is the only one I found that appears to show any version of that case in any color. I think the absence of an ad from 1934 is insignificant. If we were to require that, to prove the identity of a watch, the ad must be from the same year as the specific watch in question, we would have to throw out at least half of the IDs in the database. Watches were produced and sold over multiple years, and it's pretty unlikely that we have every ad that was published.
So, does anyone want to argue that the 1936 Commander as shown in the ad above is not a match for the watch I presented (and/or Wayne's watch)?