Hi all,
I recently won this Lone Eagle on eBay. After I received it I exchanged emails with Stephen about whether it’s one of the 5000 based on the case number (6637743), and the movement, which is a 10AN and has a serial number of 227325. Oddly, I can't find a date code on the movement, other than an arrow. I'm aware of the arrow that is sometimes on 1926 movements. I had commented on it recently on the 1928 President I had posted that has a 1926 9A movement with a triangle and an arrow.
http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1928-president-7639
So, perhaps this is another Bulova anomaly; a 1926 movement with only an arrow and no other date code?
Anyway, I just got the watch back from my watch guy. It needed a new mainspring and it’s now up and running (and on my wrist as I post this…). Stephen had asked me to look again to see if there was a triangle date code, and I’ve looked and looked, but all I see is the arrow. In fact, when I took it to my watch guy, he also tried to find a date code. He was also puzzled by the arrow, pulling out his chart with the Bulova date codes and pointing to 1937!!. At that time we both looked and couldn't see one other than the arrow.
I’m anxious to hear what the panel thinks. Hope it’s a 5000 LE…
David
It's a great watch, no doubt about it. I like how the adjustment indicator arm is dead centre on a near-ninety year old movement.
Not seeing a date mark, perhaps one of our numbers men can tell you more.
1926 Conqueror, or a 1926 Conqueror sold in 1927 as a Lone Eagle.
Just how can we know for sure?
Yea I'm not seeing a date symbol either.
Based on case serial number and movement serial number, it fits within the range of SN's that are a big part of the first 5000 Lone Eagle senario. It has been our convention (whether right or wrong) to ID these as Lone Eagles, although this has not been confirmed.
Having noted that, however, it also fits the convention we are using on almost every other watch for dating- which would have this be a 1926 Conqueror case with a period correct / close movement lacking a date symbol.
It does have the "arrow", however we have found several other movements which have the arrow and are either not 10AN's, or are in watch cases other than a cut corner case, or have the arrow but have movement serial numbers which are outside the range of SN's for the First 5000.
One thing of which I'm pretty sure, the case was manufactured in 1926. So this fits either First 5000 senario, or the 1926 Conqueror senario- or both. But we don't have that "both" choice.
If we just had one First 5000 Lone Eagle example with which we could "set the clock" somehow- maybe a sales receipt suggesting the original sale date was 1927, or a receipt w/ matching SN's sayin Lone Eagle, or some strong provenance, I could place less importance on the outliers which exist.
This is a similar situation to our recent ID'ing process to determine if various watches (e.g. Princton), which became His Excellency's in Mid 1947, could be ID'ed mid-year. In that example, we decided we could not make a break point in mid year, even if we had early 1947 ads for the Statesman, and later 1947 ads showing the Stateman saying "introducing the new His Excellency watches" in April and May. We decided all in that year would be named part of the His Excellency group. We could have made an exception, and said its both or either one, but we didn't.
If this watch were ID'ed as a 1926 Conqueror, I'd give two ticks for tentative.
If it were ID'ed as a 1927 Lone Eagle, I'd give one tick for not confirmed- as I have done on all other first 5000 Lone Eagles in the database, including my own example.
.
Remember, Not Confirmed does not mean Not Possible.
Gosh, everything points to LE except that Triangle. Other than that is seems to match all the criteria.........I am torn but I'm leaning with Will that it's a Conqueror. The numbers of the movement and the case are right, the dial and hands are right, the small font 10AN is right..........I am torn but I'm leaning with lone Eagle. There is just no triangle.......
Gents, if not a tringle then what else could it be? Looking at all the other components of the movement and comparing them with others we have in the database it could only ever be a triangle, we just can't see it yet. The watch in this configuration when matched against those already in the database indicate that it's a 1927 Lone Eagle.
David, whilst the photos you sent through were good, it would be great if you could try and retake some nice sharp photos of the movement with the dust protector removed.
Please feel free to send them my way via [email protected]
In reply to Gents, if not a tringle by mybulova_admin
In reply to Admin, I'll also forward you by William Smith
Will,
I also had sent the pics to Stephan. The first two are without the dust cover. It was loose when I got the watch, before I brought it to my watch guy for the new mainspring. I have to admit I'm hesitant to try to take it off by myself, but I could ask my watch guy to remove it if neccesary and help me take a few more pictures if that might help. His shop is only about ten miles from where I live and I go there often...
Otherwise, I certainly understand the concern regarding the missing triangle date code, but it seems to me the serial numbers on the watch and case are the more compelling factors. If Bulova rushed a grouping of watches to market to take advantage of the craze occuring with Lindbergh's successful flight, I would think that grouping of watches would have been in stock and have sequenial or nearly sequential case and movement numbers. If I understand it correctly, the date codes were added later. It would seem plausible that a date code was missed in the haste of getting the watches ready for market...
Of course, I'm biased and hoping the conclusion is that its one of the 5000 LEs...
David
I moved my observations about the patterns seen in the 1st 5k Lone Eagles to this forum thread. My moved comments are based on a table admin presents in another Lone Eagle watch record, which ws in this thread a short while ago, but is now missing.
David, sorry to hijack your watch post with the discussion of the first 5000 LE theory.
Getting back to your watch, would you mind re-examining your watch under a magnification and checking the areas I've highlighted in red, especially the one next to the UNADJUSTED.
In reply to David, sorry to hijack your by mybulova_admin
The one near the UNADJUSTED is obscurred by the dust cover. I tried to look at the other areas you outlined, but still can't see a triangle, other than maybe the beginning of something near the screw that is close to SWISS. The lens I have may not be strong enough to see it very well though... You had mentioned they are sometimes obscured by a screw hole? Does the screw need to be removed to check this further? I may need to print off this discussion and take it to my watch guy and ask him to look more closely??