Bulova 1958 Military Issue

Submitted by Tayloreuph on June 2, 2015 - 4:35pm
A-17A
Manufacture Year
1958
Movement Model
10BNCH
Movement Jewels
15
Movement Serial No.
-
Case Serial No.
38097
Case shape
Round
Case color
White
Case Manufacturer
Star
Watch Description

Black dial, faded lume, white inner 24 hour markings, white seconds track near the dial edge,  white Bulova signature, recently serviced.  Serviced hands, replacement second hand It came with a seemingly replacement crown, the inside has been turned to fit the case stem, and possibly refinished. The crown has a camber to it that I haven't seen on other similar watches. Base metal dust cover over the movement Unsure of the manufacture year (*edit perhaps M7?) Case back reads: WATCH NAVIG. - TYPE A17A - SPEC. MIL -W6433A - MFR. BULOVA PART NO. 10BNCH - MRF. BULOVA SERIAL N0. 38097 (in a different font)  - ORDER NO. DA-36-038-ORD-20328  - STOCK NO. 6645-526-5063  - U.S PROPERTY

1967 Military Issue Bulova Watch
1967 Bulova watch
1967 Bulova watch
1967 Bulova watch
Geoff Baker
Posted June 14, 2015 - 5:44am

I'll go along with Military

bourg01
Posted June 14, 2015 - 8:53am

I have never seen a Military with Bulova signed on the dial. That does not mean it was never done so I'm good with A17A Military.

bobbee
Posted June 14, 2015 - 3:32pm

Still needs the root record sorting out, main watch date/movement type.

Can we have a movement pic showing the date please? Or confirmation of date letter/number.

bourg01
Posted June 14, 2015 - 4:52pm

Hmm, very interesting. I must be losing it as I even voted on some those.

bobbee
Posted June 14, 2015 - 7:49pm

[quote=bourg01]

Hmm, very interesting. I must be losing it as I even voted on some those.

[/quote]

 

Join the Summertime Sometimerz club buddy, I'm a long time member!

Where's my slippers?

William Smith
Posted June 15, 2015 - 5:54am

Isn't subject watch an A-17?

Tayloreuph
Posted June 17, 2015 - 6:59pm

Update:

Date code on the movement is possbly M7. Movement is 10BNCH. There's a new pic of the movement, which isn't much better, but there it is.