Glad we got this one... Seems like ads from this era are pretty hard to find. Whatchya think?
In reply to Looks like the Ivanhoe turned by OldTicker
In reply to It was the Delegate that by NOVA
In reply to Where DO you get these ads by bobbee
We have a slightly earlier ad of the 'DELEGATE' which appears identical other than the ad states "Stainless Steel back".
The 1956 'DELEGATE'(?) I own has a Gold Caseback.
Could 2 similar Watches be named differently based on the Caseback composition?
The 1940 'LONE EAGLE' and the 1941-'42 'ENGINEER' share the same dilemma.
The Delegate ad is dated 1953, while this new ad is dated 1957 or 1958. Four to five years is not a "slight" time difference in Bulova-World. Lots of things can change during that much time.
I think it's a mistake to assume that two similar, contemporaneous watches would be called the same thing with the only difference between them being the metal used on the case back. I do not believe that we have seen that phenomenon before, and it just really doesn't make sense (to me).
However, it would not be unusual at all for a watch to change names from one year to the next, without or without changes to the design. Take, for example, all the models that changed from various names to versions of the His Excellency in 1947/48. Same watch, different name. So, is it surprising that this watch would change names somewhere in a four to five year span, not at all. Nor would it be surprising that, with that change of name, an element of the design changed as well.
The problem here is, with just one ad for each of the Delegate and the Statesman, we don't know when each one started and ended.
I have a "Delegate" with a gold back dated 1954.
No, the only difference is not the case back. You are ignoring the very important fact that, according to the ads we have, they were not produced contemporaneously--neither the Delegate/Statesman nor the LE/Engineer. So, another difference--in addition to the gold vs. stainless case back--is the year of manufacture.
We have many examples where the same watch was called something different in a different year.
Also, you are making assumptions regarding the 1940-something Engineer. We don't even have any confirmed examples of that model, so we don't know much at all about it (e.g., case size, crystal specs). Those same kinds of assumptions led to the mistaken belief that all the watches we now consider Lone Eagles were Ambassadors.
Or because their gold case back LE is dated 1939, before stainless backs were used, and long before we have any evidence of an Engineer. Those are pretty darn good reasons for going with the LE. It has nothing to do with being "cool".
And that's before you get to the fact that the only ad we have for the LE is for the LE "A", dated 1940, which would most likely have come after the LE with no variant designation, which would, therefore, likely have been pre-1940 and before stainless backs were used. It's very simple, really, but some people just won't look at all the circumstances, vs one ad for one variant of a model.
which does not address Shooters' 1941Case example, with a Gold Caseback.
once more:
The 'DELEGATE' is advertised as a Gold Filled Case w Stainless Steel back.
The 'STATESMAN' is advertised as having a Rolled Gold Plate Case.
It just so happens that the 1956 example I own has a Rolled Gold plate Case, the 'STATESMAN' - this Watch has a Gold Caseback. http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1956-statesman-2144