Overall Length: 37.7mm Width: 21.2mm Inside Lugs: 15.8mm Solid 14KYG
DarHin
Your Watch cannot be from 1946 if the Movement is Dated 1948 however the Case seriel number would suggest 1949.
Although I have not studied the Case seriel numbers' relationship to Movement manufacture Date of this era in this instance it appears to work.
The Watch formerly known as a 1946.
In reply to DarHin Your Watch cannot be by FifthAvenueRes…
The first digit of the case # is the year of the case? Thanks, I didn't know that. So the case/movement could be original. Also, I noticed later, in the ad that I referenced, that the dial matches which means the dial could be original also even for a '49.
The '46 ad that I referenced appears to show what I have exactly. That is why I originally went with that.
In reply to There's also a '48 ad that I by NOVA
In reply to There's also a '48 ad that I by NOVA
In reply to Is this the same ad? It's by DarHin
The ad is listed in the database as 1948. All the ads have a title that indicates the year of the ad. Admin lists them that way.
However, the file name on this ad does indicate 1947. This is the second time in the last two days that I have seen this discrepancy. Not sure what's going on with the dates.
In reply to Is this the same ad? It's by DarHin
Darhin,
Your watch is dated 1948, not 1949. It doesn't matter what the date of the advert is. Your watch has it's own date.
Your watch is not likely to be the "OO" variant of the His Excellency, because, as discussed below, that variant is not specified--at least not in the ad we have--as a solid 14k model.
Please read the rest of the thread, and you'll see what we concluded about what you should name this watch.