My uncle left me this beautiful watch 24 years ago, and it has been in my dresser drawer ever since. It works fine, and I would like to learn the age and model. On the back it says 10k rolled gold plate, and the serial number is 4495152. Based on research I did using your excellent links, I suspect this is a 1947 Clinton. Does anyone concur?
i believe it to be a chief. there were at least 3 case designs of this type called different names. in the vintage ads page 6 picture 19 is the best look i can find of a knickerbocker, on page 7, picture29 is the best view i can find of a clinton, and on page 7 picture35 is the best view of a chief. the first 2 mentioned seem to have straight 7s, and the chief has a curl at the bottom of the 7 as does your piece. keep in mind my computer is old and so are my eyes.
Chief is the least likely in view of the ads that we have due to its much later date. The watch is most likely to be the Comptroller or Knickerbocker, assuming a 1944 date based on the case serial number. If the leather strap is original, then the Comptroller would be the logical choice. The gold hands and numerals also match the Comptroller ad.
- 1943 - Comptroller (17J, yellow gold filled case, gold hands and numerals, leather strap)
- 1945/46 - Knickbocker (17J, natural gold, basketweave band)
- 1947/49 - Clinton (17J, yellow gold, basketweave band)
- 1948/49 - Chief (17J, yellow gold, basketweave/seed band)
I don't think it makes sense to assume that all these models ran concurrently, though it does appear that the Clinton and Chief may have, assuming the dates of the ads are correct.
Attempting to make distinctions between the models based on subtle dial variances is problematic, in my view, because not all the ads are clear enough to make a comparison, and only one of them provides relevant narrative details.
In reply to Nova, So what You're saying by FifthAvenueRes…
I said nothing whatsover like that. I said the watch is most likely the Comptroller based on the date of the ad, the dates of other ads for seemingly identical models, the date of the watch, the descriptions provided in the Comptroller and Knickerbocker ads (or lack thereof), and the particulars of the watch presented. There's much more to judge this watch by then just a band.
i do bow to your superior knowledge of bulovias. however i do think we are assuming a lot. original band? dating by back? im still not sure. i do agree that the ads are very hard to see clearly and im not one that likes or wants to argue, just thought the combined knowledge of this site would be helpful. ive got the exact watch which is what caught my interest. i can see however on my watch and mr rockwells that the 7 is surly curled and the example of the controler u sent is not. i surly dont know if that means anything or not just my observation
In reply to i do bow to your superior by jfoley
I did not say or assume that the band is original. I said IF the band is original, then, based on the case date, the date of the Comptroller ad, the description in the Comptroller ad, and the particulars of the watch presented, the scales would tip toward the Comptroller (versus the Knickerbocker), in my opinion. The watch is dated 1944, which falls between the Comptroller and Knickerbocker ads, so, based on what we know today, it could go either way.
I do not think it is an assumption that the case serial number represents a date of 1944. I've analyzed way too many Bulovas to have any remaining doubts about that. Granted, we have no documentation to prove it. However, no information has been provided to support assigning any other date to this watch. 1947 was stated, but based on what?
Nova,
and I quote: "The watch is most likely to be the Comptroller or Knickerbocker, assuming a 1944 date based on the case serial number. If the leather strap is original, then the Comptroller would be the logical choice."
That statement alone indicates that the 'COMPTROLLER' came on a Leather strap and an identical Watch named the 'KNICKERBOCKER' came on a woven bracelet.
Without this distinction You have no basis for Your ID.
In reply to Nova, and I quote: "The watch by FifthAvenueRes…
My ID was either the Comptroller or the Knickerbocker, based on a number of factors, as stated more than once above, though you seem content to ignore most of what I said. My point was also that the Chief, as suggested, was not the right call.
So, let's try this one more time. . .
The watch is dated 1944 based on the case serial number. The two logical possibilities for the model ID, based on the ads we have, are the Comptroller (1943) and the Knickerbocker (1945). The watch falls between those two dates. The Comptroller ad specifies gold numbers and hands, which the subject watch has, so that's a clear match. We have no description for the Knickerbocker, other than the jewel count. Both watches have the same jewel count. The Comptroller shows a leather band in the one ad we have--it may or may not have been offered with other options, and the same could be said for the Knickerbocker. However, if the leather band on the subject watch could be shown to be original, then, based on the date of the watch, the dates of the ads, the characteristics of the watch, and the details provided in the ads, I would choose the Comptroller over the Knickerbocker. But it could easily be either.
In reply to Interesting observation.... by FifthAvenueRes…
Totally different situation from the Tuxedo and Craftsman, which were concurrently advertised watches, with an advertisement that lists the differences between the two models. In this case, we have the date of the watch vs. the date of the advertisements as the primary distinguishing factor. Only when a watch falls between ads, like the subject watch, do we need to look at other possible but unconfirmed differences. In this case, the subject watch also matches the ad for the Comptroller, in that it has the gold numbers and hands described. It also predates the ads for the Knickerbocker.