Bulova 1950 Duo Wind

12/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.
Manufacture Year: 
Movement Model: 
Movement Jewels: 
Case Serial No.: 
Case shape: 
Case Manufacturer: 
Additional Information: 

Fancy Cased Automatic measures 40mm lug to lug x 33mm non inclusive of the Crown using Calipers.

Original Butler finish Dial shows a combination of applied Gilt hashmarks and Arabic numerals. Hour and Minute hands are Gilt Alpha style, Sweep center seconds hand is Gilt Modern style. Bulova logo is applied Gilt, Duo Wind insignia is printed Black, Black printed track is numerically calibrated at 5 Second intervals.

Crown is original.

Snap fit Caseback is Stainless Steel and stamped as shown.

1950 was the first Year an Automatic movement in a Bulova.

Not For Sale
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
Reverend Rob's picture
Reverend Rob
Posted October 14, 2012 - 10:54pm

Panel Member

I was going to say something about the placement of the words on the dial, like below the hands being a feature and above being a model name, but I am now confused. Perhaps Bulova arbitrarily changed its mind regarding what was initially a "feature", to become the model, or vice versa. 

Thayer could refer to  any number of American writers, soldiers, poets, artists, or politicians. It also wouldn't be the first time Bulova had a named model, and then changed it midstream to honour somebody.  If memory serves, we see the same thing with "Water Tite", being a feature and a model. It appears that in Felsa development, the dual wind movements got smaller. It's interesting that in the same time period, they used other dual winding movements also. (AS 1323) 

As a side note: Dual winding is really unnecessary in a wristwatch, unless the wearer is very sedentary. Speaking as someone who sits for hours at my bench with minimal thrashing around, I have only had one auto model  fail to maintain power, and ironically, it was a Bulova Ambassador. I'm referring to the Buren Micro-Rotor series, and this is a common complaint. 


Posted October 15, 2012 - 10:34am

Well after all of this discussion I am convinced that the subject watch is a 1950 DuoWind and my vote goes that way.

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted October 15, 2012 - 2:06pm

Club 5000Panel Member

RE the June 1953 ad.  The wording makes it sound like this watch/technology (as well as style) is "new".  Maybe this jeweler used Bulova source material from c1950 for this ad vs. it being new in 1953.  I'm keeping an eye out for similar/same ad/wording from earlier years.

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
Posted November 21, 2012 - 11:21am

ad is Dated 1950


William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted November 21, 2012 - 2:17pm

Club 5000Panel Member

It looks like duo wind in 1950-51, and Thayer in 1952 and beyond.  The one ad I found for a duo-wind in mid-1953 makes this statement debatable, but at some time, I go with a general pattern and note the discrepancies.  The ad date flow logic works for me.
I'm still at two ticks for the 1950 Duo Wind as model name for this watch, but that's not because I don't think the watch is a 1950 Duo-Wind, but because there are noted discrepancies, which make this a little more challenging.

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted November 21, 2012 - 4:41pm

Club 5000Panel Member

Actually, I vote for 1950 Duo Wind "F", as subject watch most closely matches that "F" variant ad.  The Sears ad in the root record also shows what looks like the Duo Wind "F", and perhaps they didn't bother listing the variant.  I may assign two ticks if published as an "F", and three ticks if published as simply Duo Wind, but for me, it's more important to match the ad to the watch then to have a two tick tentative vs a three tick confirmed.
All merchant marines are sailors, but not all sailors are merchant marines.
So three ticks from me as currently published.

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted February 5, 2013 - 5:23pm

Club 5000Panel Member

Fifth  I don't see an outside case back photo, or any indication in the root record as to whether the case had a date symbol.  I didn't re-read the 6 pages of comments to see if this info was discussed later, but based on the dating debate, I'm assuming no case date code on case back? Is that correct?

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
Posted July 3, 2013 - 8:09pm


Page 4