Bulova 1940 Rite-Angle

6/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.
2.01
Manufacture Year: 
1941
Movement Symbol: 
Asterisk
Movement Model: 
8AE
Movement Jewels: 
21
Case Serial No.: 
8976062
Case shape: 
Rectangle
Case Manufacturer: 
Bulova
Gender: 
Mens
Not For Sale
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted December 14, 2012 - 9:38am

1938 Case

ad Dated 1938

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted December 14, 2012 - 3:31pm

Club 5000Panel Member

The case appears to be that of a 1938 rite angel.  21 jewel movement a little later- it looks like the date code on the movement is that of the X as opposed to the asterisk.   X =1943.  * = 1941.
The ad Bobbee posted w/ similar dial in diff case is from 1949. The watch Spencerline linked at auction shows similar dial, but I'm unsure of the date of watch production or originality of that dial in linked watch.

Fifth's ad directly above shows a balck dialed 1938 ad for a 17 jewel Rite Angle.

It is highly unlikely that subject case is an Unknown Model named something other that Rite Angle based on it's black diamond dial  (and jewel count difference- from movement sway?).

Based on 5 yr difference (if mvnt date code is an X) and unadvertised dial (maybe aftermarket?), jewel count difference, this watch fits my definition of Non-Conforming.

It's a very nice looking combination of dial/case w/ younger 21 jewel movement.  I doubt we will ever find an ad showing us a model name for this unique, custom watch.  It is cool though!

 

bourg01
Posted December 14, 2012 - 3:50pm

Panel Member

Will, if anything it should be classifed as Rite Angle - Non conforming due to the movement date and non original dial but the case is definately a "Rite Angle" and no, we will not see an ad with this dial and a different model name.

I'd say some watchmaker put together this little beauty for and at the request of a customer who wanted to save the watch rather than relegate it to the sock drawer.

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted December 14, 2012 - 4:30pm

Club 5000Panel Member

I like that suggestion Shawn.  I agree.  For these watches whose case can't be confused as anything else, we can have some latitude on dial/movement swap (and a nice combo at that-for this example).
I think DarHin, myself and others had suggested a possible "BLABLA Non-Conforming" for these fairly obvious examples.  We now have a simple mechanism to list them as such.  In the new variant field, we could simply list "non-conforming". Is this something to consider? 

For subject watch, using this method, it woudl be listed as a "1938 Rite Angle non-conforming"

bourg01
Posted December 14, 2012 - 4:47pm

Panel Member

That works for me,

DarHin's picture
DarHin
Posted December 14, 2012 - 4:43pm

"We now have a simple mechanism to list them as such.  In the new variant field, we could simply list "non-conforming". Is this something to consider? 

For subject watch, using this method, it woudl be listed as a "1938 Rite Angle non-conforming"

YES!

plainsmen
Posted December 15, 2012 - 1:55pm

Club 5000Panel Member

I'm cool with that...  it's obviously a Rite-Angle... custom dial.  So Rite-Angle Non-conforming is cool...

Hey Shawn those come from Amy's shop?  I'd had love to have gotten whatever old watch stock she originally got her hands on!

 

spencerline
Posted December 16, 2012 - 4:40am

Cheers guys, thanks for your  work in identifying my watch. you sure know your stuff, I am really going to enjoy wearing it.