Bulova 1927 Lone Eagle

Submitted by William Smith on December 30, 2011 - 9:18pm
Manufacture Year
Movement Model
Movement Date Code
Movement Jewels
Movement Serial No.
Case Serial No.
Case shape
Case Manufacturer
American Standard Bulova
Additional Information

Inside case back BULOVA GOLD FILLED 14K American Standard Pat.Jun.10.1924


Bulova watch
1927 Bulova watch
1927 Bulova watch
1927 Bulova watch
1927 Bulova watch
William Smith
Posted December 30, 2011 - 9:24pm

Maybe another one of those conquoror cases w/ a dial and some hands put on an older 10AN ?  Frankenbully?  low SN on mvnt.

Posted December 31, 2011 - 12:42am

Will this is an original 5000 with later 1927 dial and hands.

Both the case and movement are from the orginal 5000 batch IMO.

Did you have the dial and hands redone?

Do you currently own the watch?

William Smith
Posted December 31, 2011 - 3:29am

Yes this one is mine.  I actually wore it today, partly to remind me to enter into the database. It's just like I got it, and I think I got it for the case and movement anyway....and the info the seller had at the time.  I'll dig out the paperwork and see if by some chance the seller included any other stuff with this one.  Until I read your comments above, I thought I bought it from you about four years ago...

Posted December 31, 2011 - 10:14pm

In reply to by William Smith

The serial numbers do ring a bell, but you must have had the dial and hands redone as I've never had one like this.

Posted December 31, 2011 - 8:13am

Interesting that the Case and movement are both from the original batch of 'LONE EAGLES' - the Case screw marks on the movement block clearly show that this movement is not original to this Case.

A nice Watch.

Posted December 31, 2011 - 10:07pm

In reply to by FifthAvenueRes…

Fifth could you please circle the areas you are referring to. I'm having a difficult time seeing what you mean.


William Smith
Posted December 31, 2011 - 1:50pm

I got this one from Gary at Retrostyle101 in Nov. 2007. He was very helpful and honest in his representation of this watch.  It's probably in admin's database already, as both admin and I were emailing the seller several times before I finally bought it.  I think Gary sent admin and I confirmation on the SN and some close up pictures etc.... as there was chatter between the three of us about the possibility of this being a very early lone eagle....   I musta paid more than admin wanted to pay for it, cause I ended up getting it myself. 
I bought three similar Lone Eagle watches in that year....and each seller claimed their watch was "likely" among the first 5000.  One of them had a 1931 10AN movement in it when it arrived.....which didn't surprise me at all.  At that time, this seller had several "completely original" watches listed within a few months.... I had asked about the unclear movement pic on that one...but only got long Lone Eagle history emails in return, and never a date of the movement until it arrived.  I didn't bother emailing back when it was an original 1927 lone eagle w/ a 1931 movement.  I expect these things, so I'm not disappointed when this assumption pans out.

William Smith
Posted December 31, 2011 - 3:19pm

In reply to by William Smith

...just to be clear in my message above... It was NOT Gary at Retrostyle101 who misrepresented anything.  I have purchased a few watches from Gary over the years, and he is straight up and very open in his listings/descriptions.  I don't have to question his representation or knowledge because I know already- he has repeatedly come through...and has even updated some listings before they closed stating that someone has contacted him with some possible difference of opinion and he wanted the potential buyers to be aware of this.  He's on my very short favorite sellers list, and I hope he is a member of this site because when he says something, I listen carefully.

There always exists the possible conflict of interest with watch makers/jewelers/horologists/historians/collectors who also subsidize their habits by selling/trading some of their pieces.  For some, it is their vocation as well as advocation.  In my opinion, this can allow them the unique opportunity to have more time/resources to participate on this site with info/knowledge which an armchair like myself lacks.  Believe me, this isn't my day job!

William Smith
Posted July 15, 2012 - 5:16pm

....so for this watch, I'm seriously considering doing a dial swap with a 1926/27 Conqueror dial I have.  This dial has open nine and is what we believe came on these very Lone Eagle CC's.  I now also have the hands which would have come on the first LECC's.  I absolutely hate doing any changing from how I get the watch, but for this watch, I'm thinking about it.
I won't change the original root record pictures, as it represents the watch as received.  The info in this thread is based on that configuration.  I will, however, post a pic in the comments of this thread to show the watch after dial/hands swap.   I'm really torn on this decision to swap, but am gonna go for it. 

Posted July 15, 2012 - 5:41pm


There is nothing wrong with bringing a watch like this back to original with a dial swap and a hand change. If you have the correct parts, go for it, I would. If it's going to be a keeper all the more reason to make it right. I bought a 1927 a bit back hoping it was one of the 5000 but not! I have 4 spare dials, 3 with the closed 9 and 1 that's open that pairs with my Conquerer as I did a custom dial on it but kept the original. I know alot of collector's frown on redialing but sometimes it has to be done because a dial is trash, going custom is something I will do to suite my tastes, not others because I'm the one who's going to wear it. IDC does a great job with these older dials and hands, I can't say much more than that.