Bulova 1941 Lone Eagle

6/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.
2.505
Manufacture Year: 
1941
Movement Symbol: 
Asterisk
Movement Model: 
10AX
Movement Jewels: 
17
Case Serial No.: 
1565918
Case shape: 
Tonneau
Crystal Details: 
23.2mm x 17.2mm
Additional Information: 

 1941 Bulova Unknown 17J 10AX movement, Clean 10K RGP Bezel and Stainless Back, Nice Off White Dial and Gold hands, B/R 12K Gold Filled Band. Very Nice Good Running Watch!

 4-16-11

This watch was previously ID'd as a Ambassador "A", but after acquiring a 1939 Ambassador and compairing the two, it belongs in the unknown catagory for now until another  Lone Eagle "A" ad shows up. ;-)

* Photo update 11-13-11

Case & crystal dimensions  41'  Unknown

Lug to Lug, 37.2mm

Length, 28.6

Between lugs, 8mm

Width without crown, 24.8

Crystal Groove, 23.8 X 17.8mm Curved both ways

Crystal, 23.7 X 17.7mm Curved both ways

Not For Sale
1941 Bulova Lone Eagle A 17J 10AX
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
OldTicker
Posted April 17, 2011 - 7:03pm

I think my eyeballs are bleeding but here is what the write-up under Jerin's ad reads;

$33.75

"Lone Eagle A"

(H) Smart elegant

styled 10-K yellow

rolled gold plated

case with curved

stainless metal

back and stirrup

ends 17 jewel

Bulova movement

matching adjustable

slide link bracelet

4M 01564T

Post

ppd.  $33.75

The Ambassadors have a matching Gold filled case back and this unknown 17J has a stainless back with a 10K RGP bezel.

NOVA
Posted April 17, 2011 - 7:18pm

Doesn't mention engraving. 

plainsmen
Posted April 17, 2011 - 7:07pm

Club 5000Panel Member

Looking at the bottom picture of those two watches together... those are SOOOOO two absolutely different watches.

NOVA
Posted April 17, 2011 - 7:14pm

Yes, but there are different Ambassadors.  I don't think anyone is saying that those two watches are the same.  Compare, for example, the Ambassador "A" with the Ambassador "C".

OldTicker
Posted April 17, 2011 - 7:27pm

Same case, Strap & Dial is the only difference on those two

NOVA
Posted April 17, 2011 - 8:01pm

OT - that ad cleared up something that I was wrong about.  I did think the Ambassador "A" was smaller than the "C".  I guess that was just because the watch I have, which I had identified as an "A" is smaller than my "C".

So, I have this watch (pictured above) that looks similar to yours, although not engraved, is smaller than my Ambassador "C", is a 17 jewel, does not have the rings on the lugs, is 10mm between lugs, and does not match either set of dimensions that you posted.  Wonder what the heck it is.  It does not seem to fit the profile of anything discussed in this thread, but rather is a combination of several elements from different watches.

OldTicker
Posted April 17, 2011 - 8:14pm

Is that the one in the picture with the leather strap??

NOVA
Posted April 17, 2011 - 8:36pm

Yep.  And it has a stainless back.  Dated 1942, 10AX.

WatchCrystals.net's picture
WatchCrystals.net
Posted April 30, 2011 - 3:47pm

This is again where it will likely come down to crystal specs and catalogs? (The catalogs + a slew of NOS crystals...) Otherwise, it will remain "tentative," even with the correct crystal specs... There are generally at least two models that take the same glass+ and quite often more... as for instance, or example... So how is it more ACCURATE to guess between say (2) similar models, vs. 4+ (in this CASE) with a couple of ads, and even the watches, as you're STILL then missing the other part of the equation, as par... (i.e. confirmation via catalog of the POTENTIAL model namesakes, plus a "Perfit/=" glass, to confirm the correct fit and 95%++ ID!) 

Furthermore... until more ads, jewellers catalogs, or additional sales promo lit surfaces... crystals are THE best way to discern what a model (95%+ of the time) actually IS... (i.e. that is to say IF you have enough catalogs... showing the likely release year, plus perhaps a few months?!) IF no unique model is illustrated, in 2+ period ads? SO... the way to make more PROGRESS on these models, IS:

A.) An UNKNOWN section, with top view+ images of all "unknown" models

B.) Scouring  the net for more vintage display ads and postcards, etc.

C.) Taking up a collection to BUY $500.00+ worth of vintage ads, from one of several sources

D.) Taking up a collection to buy vintage watch crystal catalogs (I know the sources on those, ALSO...)

E.) Buying up 1920s - 60s +/- NOS glass, to fit into collectors finds. (I have or know where to get' em...) 

F.) PUT MORE EMPHASIS ON SOURCING THE ABOVE, etc... vs. ONLY MORE WATCHES!!! LOL...

 

:-)  Scott

 

P.S. If anyone would like to take this task on, perhaps we can work something out (?) as I have little TIME (in 2011/12, anyway) and limited resources... but 1500 Bulova crystals, 30ish catalogs, 200+ mens model entries in Excel, 18 old ads (?) And thousands of Bulova watch images. Most ID'd and foldered... (i.e. At least 1000- 1500 hours invested, just in Bulova!!!) My time/funds went into ID tools and glass, not emassing timepieces... The two must MEET in order to be a "serious SLEUTH," IMO... 

Case in point: I have most Hamilton catalogs (digitized) from late1920s- 1960... A collector emailed me last night, and I ID'sd his 1935 Hamilton "Caroline" is 10 minutes... Then added the crystal specs and found the glass, in under 30... So I'll get $14.95 IGP for my time... and he got photos of the model+ from the Hamilton catalog, and a fairly scarce glass crystal, for next to nada...   

 

NOVA
Posted April 30, 2011 - 3:56pm

Another tedious, patronizing lecture from Scott ("as par").

I have my approach, you have yours.  You obviously have a problem with me and my watch collecting as well as my approach to making IDs.  So, I have a suggestion--from now on, why don't you just ignore all my posts?  Then you won't have to be irritated by me, and I won't have to read your inarticulate rants.  I think that would save us both a lot of time and irritation.