Bulova 1941 Lone Eagle

Submitted by OldTicker on December 26, 2010 - 5:31pm
Manufacture Year
Movement Model
Movement Date Code
Movement Jewels
Movement Serial No.
Case Serial No.
Case shape
Case color
Case Manufacturer
Crystal details
23.2mm x 17.2mm
Watch Description

 1941 Bulova Unknown 17J 10AX movement, Clean 10K RGP Bezel and Stainless Back, Nice Off White Dial and Gold hands, B/R 12K Gold Filled Band. Very Nice Good Running Watch!


This watch was previously ID'd as a Ambassador "A", but after acquiring a 1939 Ambassador and compairing the two, it belongs in the unknown catagory for now until another  Lone Eagle "A" ad shows up. ;-)

* Photo update 11-13-11

Case & crystal dimensions  41'  Unknown

Lug to Lug, 37.2mm

Length, 28.6

Between lugs, 8mm

Width without crown, 24.8

Crystal Groove, 23.8 X 17.8mm Curved both ways

Crystal, 23.7 X 17.7mm Curved both ways

1941 Bulova Lone Eagle A 17J 10AX
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
Posted April 17, 2011 - 12:45pm

Take a look at the 1940 Ambassador that Jerin has in the database, and the 1940 Montgomery that Mark has in.

Note the lugs right near the end where the spring bar goes. You will see a ring about 1mm from the ends.

This unknown and those two all share that ring, they are all 17J models and I would bet they all have the same case/crystal specs.

None of the other Ambassadors from 39-41 have that.

The Ambassador "C" that Gary has in there has a 7AP movement and a recessed crown, that might be the Montgomery.

Posted April 17, 2011 - 1:01pm

In reply to by OldTicker

I strongly believe that Fifth's watch is not a Montgomery.  Check it against the ad--you'll see more differences in case design than similarities (and he agreed with that in our discussion about it).  He changed it from the Ambassador based on jewel count alone.

I have observed the rings, as indicated above.  They do not account for the differences in case and lug design between the Ambassadors and other mentioned models. IMO.

Gary's "Ambassador" is likely an Oxford, based on this discussion http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1940-oxford-1976

Posted April 17, 2011 - 1:16pm


That brings us right back to Jewel count again!

This ad that Jerin found also has the rings next to the lug ends and 17 Jewels. Is it a misprint? or a new model for 1941?

The fun never ends!!

Posted April 17, 2011 - 1:24pm


The lugs match, look closely - the lugs curve and enter the strap.

This Watch is the 'COMMODORE'.

Posted April 17, 2011 - 1:26pm

In reply to by FifthAvenueRes…

I did look closely, and I couldn't disagree more.  I think this is like your Montgomery ID--you are seeing what you want to see, simply because the jewel count doesn't match the Ambassador. 

Posted April 17, 2011 - 1:57pm

AMBASSADORS are 21 Jewels 

the Watch I own matches Tickers unknown shown, minus the engraving.

Paying close attention to the artists rendition of the lower Right lug:

The Case stops, forms a break, the lug then extends off, curves and enters the strap.

If I were to place this Watch on a leather strap it would look identical to the Watch in the ad, minus the case engraving.


Posted April 17, 2011 - 1:41pm

I think the ad is talking about the band not the bezel when it mentions end links, like the band that Plains has on his Grandfather's Ranger, it also mentions end links on the Arnold.


Posted April 17, 2011 - 2:13pm

The ad states the Watch is available on a bracelet or leather strap - these lugs are set up to accept both.

**edit, OK Greg I see what You mean.

doesn't change My view.

: )

The notch which is cast or machined into the lug is to prevent the leather strap from shifting from one side to another.

Posted April 17, 2011 - 2:11pm

Actually, with a leather band, it would look like this--really quite different from that ad.

Posted April 17, 2011 - 2:16pm

not according to My picture - would depend on the width of the band.

It could be made to look totally different by adding a narrow bracelet, as shown in the original pic of the Watch in question.