Bulova 1940 Marshall

6/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.
Manufacture Year: 
Movement Symbol: 
Movement Model: 
Movement Jewels: 
Case Serial No.: 
Case shape: 
Crystal Details: 
Amber, curved, 27.1 x 13.8mm, MX432
Additional Information: 

Curved shape, Omega date mark (1940), bought 1999 in Palo Alto, CA for $250.  "B-10K Gold Fill" on case.  

Watch has a white face, appears yellow through amber crystal. Watch is 9.5/10 functional and aesthetic condition. Crystal size is an exact match for MX432, which corresponds to the "Palm Beach", the original designation of this watch.

However, in August, 2012, an ad surfaced which almost certainly demonstrates that this watch is the 1939 Marshall model.

Pix of the movement and inner case are available in the comments section.

Many heartfelt thanks to the denizens of MyBulova, who generously shared their time and expertise to help ID this watch!

EDIT 2012.08.09. Changed from 1939 Palm Beach to 1940 Marshall by request of owner. Will Smith

Not For Sale
Bulova watch - Front
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
Posted April 25, 2011 - 5:16pm


The watch is from 1940, not 1938.  That issue was clarified earlier in the thread.

But if you want to discuss 1938, then look at the ads.  There is one ad alone from 1938 that shows three different Minute Mans.  And that's just one ad.  I made that point earlier in this thread.  You must have missed it.

There is a difference in the shape of the glass in this watch and the shape of the glass in your watch that you are calling a Minute Man. That does not resolve the question.  Not even a little bit.

The lugs are not different, IMO.  They match the ad.

The dial has been redone, as discussed, so it cannot be relied on for validation.

The ONLY point on which I agree with you is that the case has a slightly raised bezel which is not evident in the ad.  The ad is an artist's rendering, which could explain that subtle difference.

- Lisa

Noah - please note that we are not all "Gents".

Posted April 25, 2011 - 5:22pm

My sincere apologies, Lisa. I should not have assumed.

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
Posted April 25, 2011 - 5:44pm

1940, My bad.

When comparing the 2 Watches side by side by looking at the Crown (taking into consideration these are not to scale) the OP's Watch is much longer than the 'MINUTE MAN' most likely 52mm lug to lug, the MM is 42mm lug to lug

The lugs are not the same Lisa, the Case horizontal forms a break and the lugs then extend off, MM has lugs which follow the lines of the Case.

.....plus, all of the previously noted variants.

 1940 'TIME KING' perhaps

Posted April 25, 2011 - 7:23pm

Fifth, I agree completely that Noah's watch is not the same as yours.  I just don't agree that that fact alone rules out all Minute Man models.    In my opinion, the lugs do match the 1939 ad of the Minute Man.  I am just not making the assumption, as you apparently are, that the 1939 ad posted above shows your watch.

There are other watches in the database identified as Minute Man models, and they don't look like yours either.  There is NOT just one Minute Man.

Elgin Doug
Posted April 25, 2011 - 5:46pm


The OP has kindly posted a pic with a ruler.  It looks like 1.85" to me, which works out to 47mm.  Longer than your 1938 Minute Man, but not quite 52 mm.

Posted April 25, 2011 - 5:50pm

What is the size of the crystal??

Wayne Hanley's picture
Wayne Hanley
Posted April 25, 2011 - 6:35pm

Pictures of a 1939 model of the watch are on page 707 of the "Complete Price Guide to Watches" as cropped. The prices not shown were for 14k solid gold case.

Posted April 25, 2011 - 7:35pm


Thanks for the find! I agree that this is by far the closest yet, if not an exact match.

Please let us know if you can find a model name (if not, maybe we can all pick a name, like discovering a new element or star!).

Cheers, N

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
Posted April 25, 2011 - 8:01pm

Yes, We do that here also.

Posted April 25, 2011 - 7:07pm

Good find, Wayne.  It clearly shows the contoured bezel.  No name given, I guess?