Bulova 1953 Ambassador

6/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.
2.67
Manufacture Year: 
1953
Movement Model: 
10BT
Movement Jewels: 
17
Case Serial No.: 
5828950
Case shape: 
Rectangle
Case Manufacturer: 
Bulova
Gender: 
Mens
Additional Information: 

Cannot find model yet.

 

10K R.G.P Bezel,  S/S back.

Marked L3  1953.

Great Runner

JB Champion Bracelet Strap

EDIT: 2012.10.17  removed 15J from movement model field and entered as 17jewels as per movement photo.  Will

Not For Sale
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted October 18, 2012 - 9:43pm

Club 5000Panel Member

Well.......1958 ad.

DarHin's picture
DarHin
Posted October 18, 2012 - 10:15pm

'53 Ambassador A. Need to correct the jewel count to 17 as seen on the movement.

DarHin's picture
DarHin
Posted October 18, 2012 - 10:16pm

Why does this watch show up as "Bulova Watch  Details" on the Home page?

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted October 19, 2012 - 12:33pm

Club 5000Panel Member

Darren  This happens to the oldest records.  This is watch record # 300, and these old ones don't show model name when updated. They often show "Bulova Watch Details" and sometimes don't even show up in the recent comment queue at all when new comments are added or root record is updated.  I don't know why.

JP
Posted October 18, 2012 - 10:22pm

Panel Member

Hands on advert are not daphine as subject watch has. No swiss on ad watch but is on subject. Sub seconds trak looks shorter on ad than subject watch which appears to be rectangle and ad watch looks square.

Tenative  53 Ambassador.

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted October 19, 2012 - 4:32am

bobbee's picture
bobbee
Posted October 19, 2012 - 5:18am

Here we go.....

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Posted October 19, 2012 - 1:33pm

Club 5000Panel Member

yea the ad's on leather, but...

Do we see this dial/case/jewel count combination in the ads or other current documentation as anything else in 1953?  If not, then this "watch" cannot currently be confused with another variant or model based on ads/documentation to date.

The correct answer to the above question is not an opinion. It is a fact. It can be "answered" with an opinion, which may or may not be the true "answer".  If it's not in the ads/documentation as something else, an opinion may be expressed which indicates this possibility exists or is likely- but it is just that- an opinion.

We were unable to come up with a "rule" for how to ID based on above, so we decided to ID based on consensus of panel votes.  Without a rule, any single vote is an opinion. 

So I ask myself, does a tentative A variant ID convey more info and better describe this watch than a confirmed generic Ambassador ID? I vote based on my answer.  Other members also vote based on their evaluation of the proposed ID, using what ever criteria they like. Each members "vote" is tallied, and we ID based on consensus. This is how the current process works without a "rule".  Regardless of the outcome of the vote, If an ad comes along in the future showing it is something else based on mount, we can always reconsider the ID.

I haven't expressed an opinion on whether this is best ID'ed as a variant "A" or generic, however I have assigned ticks based on current ID.  Three ticks as currently ID'ed.  If it were currently ID'ed as an "A", I would give two ticks.

 

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
FifthAvenueRest...
Posted October 19, 2012 - 2:29pm

The subject Watch is a 1953 'AMBASSADOR' - 3 checks, confirmed by ad.

The subject Watch may or may not be the 'A' variant. 

a No brainer.

bobbee's picture
bobbee
Posted October 19, 2012 - 5:39pm

Just ID it as a Bulova.