Lovely vintage Speidel No. 58 GP band, this is either the Ben-Hur or the Calhoun.
Case back outside has "Bulova10K gold filled" at one end and the serial no. at the other end.
Very nice, clean dial and hands, very light wear to case back, case front hardly any wear to gold fill.
Case dimensions are 36mm X 26mm, lugs 13mm gape, both sides. Crystal roughly 27.5 X 17.5mm.
Photos by seller, Davethedrums, as I cannot get pics from my new camera to upload.
To Date:
8 Calhoun: JP, Plains, bourg01, Geoff, Admin, DarHin, Bobbee, Will (note- Rev Rob is "thinking Calhoun- Rev, is that a vote for Calhoun?)
Also not sure of Marks vote?
We have an unengraved ad for the Calhoun in 1938 and two in 1939.
We also have an unengraved Ben Hur ad in 1938. That's the only unengraved Ben Hur ad on site.
We have ads showing the Ben Hur engraved in 1939 and 1940.
I'm may assume that both the unengraved Ben Hur and Calhoun continued in production through 1940, and we simply don't have any 1940 ads. I must assume the unengraved Calhoun was still in production in 1940 to vote for this model name for subject watch.
The bands/straps are the first thing to go in old watches, so I ask:
The subject watch, at the snapshot in time when entered in the database, is presented on a replacement metal band. If one were ID'ing based on the mount on which it is currently displayed in the root record, how can it be the Calhoun and not the Ben Hur?
My answer: There are no ads for unengraved Ben Hur past 1938, so we assume it was not available in 1940. This is the only way I can vote for the subject watch as Calhoun when it's currently presented on a metal expansion bracelet. With no unengraved Ben Hur in 1940, the mount is not considered when ID'ing subject watch.
My vote is for 1940 Calhoun. I believe we may find a 1939 ad for the unengraved Ben Hur, but don't vote on that assumption. If/when we do, this will again bring up the band on which the watch is entered into the database as one determining factor.