Bulova 1948 Broker

8/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.
Manufacture Year: 
Movement Symbol: 
Movement Model: 
Movement Jewels: 
Case Serial No.: 
Case shape: 
Crystal Details: 
3/4" W x 7/8" L
Additional Information: 

I'm trying to find out some information about it's value.

This watch has been passed down through geneartions and I was informed that it is a nice watch by a local jeweler.  It is all original and in working condition.  It is rose colored gold filled.  The chrystal is a little scrathed up and case needs a little bit of shining, but other than that and a new strap, it's very nice.

The movement is dated 1947 so it is assumed it has been replaced.

Not For Sale
41 Director-07202011
Bulova watch
FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
Posted August 8, 2011 - 10:28pm


You are correct Sir

It has to be a 1947 'BROKER' (as devised in the thread.)

Posted August 10, 2011 - 11:05am

Now that's just funny :-) ...... I'm going to go with the Broker ID unless and until we come up with a ad showing it as something different.... AGREED???????

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
Posted August 27, 2011 - 7:45pm


I agree - another item of interest which comes to light is the Case construction of this Watch: Gold Filled and not Rolled Gold Plate as the 1941 'DIRECTOR' advertisement describes.

1947 'BROKER'.

Posted August 30, 2011 - 3:03pm

Well it seems this discussion is far from over! Having just read Waynes analysis on the 1948 Bulova Director (pics and comparisons included) we're back to where we started.

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
Posted August 30, 2011 - 3:23pm

pics, no ads.

There is a vintage ad showing a late 1940's 'COMMODORE' of which this Watch is not, the Case lugs are significantly different.

The Crystal Catalogues say it can be only one other model - the 'BROKER'.

I'm done beating My head against a wall on this one......

Posted October 4, 2011 - 7:11pm

Admin or RobHas, can you correct the date on this to reflect 1947 as is currently listed as 1941 but movement is 1947..... can't be both!

"I'm done beating My head against a wall on this one"...... Mark 8/30/11

Me thinks, Not just yet, Mark???

Posted March 10, 2012 - 11:10am

I'm not convinced that this one has been sorted out.  I have four of these in my collection, and I just spent the better part of the afternoon analyzing them.  Here's what I found:

1. They are all the same size at 37.75 lug to lug x 20.5mm without crown (29.3 without lugs)

2. They all take the same crystal.  I tested this by taking off the crystals that came on two of the watches and checking to see if one or both of them fit the other watches.  Both crystals did fit all four watches. One crystal is a regular thickness, glass, rectangular crystal, curved lengthwise.  The other is a plastic, cylindrical style, rectangular, curved lengthwise.  The size of the crystal opening on all four watches is 23.4mm x 17.8mm (the size designated as the "Broker" by Scott).

3.  I searched the crystal catalogs that I have (not claiming to have all of them or to be an expert at searching them) and found no mention of a crystal for the Broker or Commodore, nor could I find a crystal listing that matches the size required by these watches.  I did find a listing for the Director, and it is specified as a larger crystal than would fit these watches.  However, we should keep in mind that there are many versions of the Director (see below for an ad showing a completely different 1946 Director).

4.  I do not know how Scott determined that the size crystal that fits these watches belongs to the Broker or Commodore.  I think we need to see a catalog entry or crystal packet to confirm that information. 

The watches are in date order, starting from the left:  1941, 1945, 1945, 1947.

Specs on the watches are as follows:

1. 1941 - 14k rolled gold plate bezel, stainless back, rose, 8AE, 17J

2. 1945 - 14K rolled gold plate bezel, stainless back, rose, 8AH, 17J

3. 1945 - 14K rolled gold plate bezel, stainless back, rose, 8AH, 17J

4. 1947 - 10K rolled gold plate bezel, stainless back, yellow, 8AH, 17J, engraved bezel

Movement dates match the case serial number with two exceptions:  1) no. 2 has a 1945 movement in a 1944 case, and 2) no. 4 has a 1946 movement in a 1947 case.

The two crystal that came with the watches were installed on nos. 1 and 2.


Here's another Director from 1946 that may take the crystal Scott referenced for that model.  I believe this is an excellent candidate for taking that crystal, as it looks very similar to the Duncan and Statesman, which also take the crystal listed for the Director.

FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
Posted March 10, 2012 - 11:20am


firstly the Bezel opening needs to be measured, not the Crystal that came in the Watch as it may be the wrong one - close, but no cigar if You may.

We have an ad showing the 1941 'DIRECTOR' and an ad showing a 1945 'DIRECTOR' which differs from the 1941 design.

My take is the 1941 'DIRECTOR' design would have been renamed in 1945 to ? The 'COMMODORE' and the 'BROKER' take the same glass and the 'COMMODORE' is visually accounted for by vintage ad.

Posted March 10, 2012 - 11:31am

I did measure the bezel opening. . . duh.  Those were the measurements provided, and they were the same for all four watches.  My only mention of the crystals that came with two of the watches was to show that they fit all the watches.  So, try again.

I realize that we have an ad for the 1941 Director, and a different one for 1946.  Again, duh.  I did not just crawl out of a box.  I'm using those ads as the basis of my opinion, along with the limited crystal information that we have, and the four watches in my collection, and the data published by others with similar watches.

Let me reiterate my points, since its not clear to me that you understood them:

  • I agree that the 1941 Director (with the case just like the subject watch) was renamed something else, but not until 1946 when the new Director is shown in the ads.
  • I also think that the crystal Scott mentioned for the Director belongs to that entirely different 1946 Director, and it was a mistake to confuse it with the subject watch or any watch with the same case as the subject watch.
  • I also believe that there is no difference in size or shape between any of the watches we've seen that look like the subject watch or the watches listed as the Broker in the database.  They are the same watch.
  • It is entirely possible that this model was called the Director through 1945, then became the Broker.  Without an advert, we can't be sure.  It would be nice to know where the information on Broker crystal specs came from--an official source.


Posted March 10, 2012 - 3:18pm

OT posted the crystal dimensions for his 1946 Director (not the same style as the subject watch), and they confirm that the crystal specs provided by Scott apply to that style of Director, not the 1941-style Director.

Here's OT's listing:  http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1946-director-1197