Bulova 1949 Tuxedo

8/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.
3
Manufacture Year: 
1949
Movement Symbol: 
49 (A9)
Movement Model: 
8AC
Movement Jewels: 
17
Case Serial No.: 
2610842 A9
Case shape: 
Rectangle
Gender: 
Men's
Additional Information: 

The watch was purchased as New Old Stock.

3 Diamond dial    

Not For Sale
Tuxedo
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
mybulova_admin
Posted July 26, 2011 - 12:19am

Club 5000Panel Member

17 Jewels = Director

GVP
Posted July 26, 2011 - 5:14am

 Excellencies only have 21j movements so it is not an excellency.  The case is very similar to that of the 21j Academy version but this has the two tone dial and no scroll work. I have always identified this as a director but I cant remember if that was because I saw others on here.

bourg01
Posted July 26, 2011 - 1:46pm

Panel Member

My vote is for "Excellency". I have the same watch, all the dates match and it's 17 jewels also. I also have this same watch,  without the engraving also in 17J ewels exactly like the ad above so I would tend to agree with Wayne that they were available with both.

GVP
Posted July 26, 2011 - 1:51pm

 The whole point of an "excellency" is that it is of a "higher standard" hence all excellency models having 21j movements. No excellency model has a 17j movement in.

Wayne Hanley's picture
Wayne Hanley
Posted July 29, 2011 - 2:49am

Gentlemen

There are only three ads for the Rectangular shaped case named Director. Two 1946 ads & one 1948 ad. All 3 of these Director ads indicate 21 jewel movements.

In 1950 the Director is a cushion shaped case and has a 15 jewel movement, but it has nothing to do with this discussion.

There is no ad for a five humped rectangular shaped case with the Director name in our ad database. His Excellency is the only watch advertised with the five humps.

The dial on Bob's watch does show up in a 1948 ad for a Director with one hump & 21 jewels. Bob's watch and 2 other watches in the db have 17 Jewel movements & the five humped case & same dials. 

It's easy to declare them Directors, but where is the proof that they should be named Director.

 

 

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted July 29, 2011 - 8:47am

Wayne,

There is none.

Member GB has an identical listed as 'DIRECTOR' which possibly came with a hang tag, I've posed the question.

Wayne Hanley's picture
Wayne Hanley
Posted July 29, 2011 - 12:17pm

Bob

For clarification sake, the ad adjacent to your description does not depict an Excellency in question nor a Director.

Bob Bruno's picture
Bob Bruno
Posted July 29, 2011 - 1:01pm

Club 5000

Wayne

 My poor eye site has struck again. I posted the wrong ad. Thanks for pointing it out.

Wayne Hanley's picture
Wayne Hanley
Posted July 29, 2011 - 4:40pm

No problem Bob! We do have our good days though.

Wayne

bourg01
Posted July 29, 2011 - 6:28pm

Panel Member

Bob, We know it is not a "Director", there is no evidence to support that what so ever. So the debate goes to whether or not it's an "Excellency". Again no evidence and a strong opinion from the membership that it would have to be 21 Jewels. I happen to disagree with that theory though the 21 jewel movement is noted in so many Excellency ads and does support the opinions posted. For now, I think this needs to be parked at the UNKNOWN lot until something comes up to give us a good ID.  JMO at this point.

Regards Shawn