1943 Arnold
Case back:serial number only
Inside case back:BULOVA 10K ROLLED GOLD PLATE BEZEL STERLING BASE STAINLESS BACK NEW YORK
10 BA 17 jewel movement isdated 1943(x symbol)
Dial:butler finish dial with gold applied numbers,sub seconds dial,dauphinegold hands and reads BULOVA
Crown broke off in shipping but is unmarked
After seeing the example and the ad posted by Andersok I'm thinking Norman also.Funny,I think this is the second or third time I post a watch as an Arnold only to be shot down.Damn BULOVA for making all these similac cases.Someday I'll find one and get this right LOL.Norman is fine by me.
I have to disagree with the Norman call, the case looks different to me, especially the sides of the bezel. I think we also got it wrong with the other example.
The side engravings seem to be one solid piece with the Norman. This watch doesn't have that.
Still looking to see if it's an Arnold or something else.
I've been looking at this and the 15 Arnolds we have in the dB on and off for the past week and I think I've come around. The Norman advert shows a continuous flow of engraving all the way to the tips of the lugs, the Arnold, on the other hand, shows a slight step where the engraving transitions from the bezel to the lug.
I'm flipping to Arnold on this one, I think the 15 in the dB are all correctly ID's as well. I think Alan's Norman watch however, needs to be re-evaluated. I understand that the movement jewel counts may differ from the adverts and can only attribute that to movement swaps. In this example I think the case design is substantially different and the ID should be based on it.
I'm looking at the area below and above the crystal opening and in the Arnold I clearly see (in database watches and ads) a secondary horizontal ridge. I also somewhat see this in the Norman ad. The subject watch does not have this.
Subj watch actually looks more similar to the Stamford, but with the engravings. I cannot find an ad to help id this otherwise and am at Unknown.