Bulova 1950 Military Issue

Submitted by FifthAvenueRes… on May 7, 2011 - 1:58am
A-17A
Manufacture Year
1950
Movement Model
10BNCH
Movement Jewels
17
Case Serial No.
14182
Case shape
Round
Case color
White
Gender
Mens
Watch Description

Bulova 'Type A17A' - Korean War Era U.S. Military issue. Parkerized Steel Case measures 40mm lug to lug x 32mm wide non inclusive of the Crown while using Calipers. Black Dial shows Luminous and White printed numerals. Hour and Minute Hands are Luminous filled and the sweep center Seconds Hand is unique with a Luminous Arrowhead tip. A Steel dustshield and gasket appears between the Caseback and Movement. 10 sided Caseback is Parkerized, screws on and is stamped as shown. Crown is Steel. Hackset. The A17A is shown on its original issue strap. * 100% correct as found - from the estate of a retired U.S. Naval Officer.

Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Bulova Watch
FifthAvenueRes…
Posted November 25, 2012 - 5:02pm

Movements can be and were swapped as all A-17A's issued were ordered returned when the Pilot left the Military - this indicates Uncle Sam recycled the A-17A for re-issue.

Note the Caseback states: US PROPERTY.

All of the information You have gathered (all within the past 24hrs) is from an outside source bobbee, which is sort of like the Pot calling the kettle Black? and speaking of links, here's one You should read http://www.mwrforum.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11308

The original owner of the A-17A dicussed earned His wings in Korea and retired before Nam.

Thread is Dated 2008.

Happy hunting as more substantial info on this Military timepiece would be greatly appreciated!

William Smith
Posted November 25, 2012 - 6:13pm

In reply to by FifthAvenueRes…

Are we reading the same thread linked above, and I'm misunderstanding?  The owner of the watch on that thread above lists what's on the back of his watch, and it looks like it's in the same format as on the back of Fifths watch.   I see thread is five years old, and the links in that thread don't work any longer, but I'm reading it as saying milwatchnut thought the watch in that thread was post 48/49 but before 1952.   Use of stock numbers didn't become "standard practice" until 1952, but I think he's saying they were used on some before.... 
EDIT:  It's not milwatch nut who gives this date range, it's lysander, another senior member, but it follows suit with what milwatchnut states.

FifthAvenueRes…
Posted November 25, 2012 - 6:30pm

In reply to by William Smith

Will,

That is correct.

bobbee,

If You read through Mr Hanleys posts You will note that He was issued the A-17A and ordered to return it upon His departure from the U.S.A.F.

bobbee
Posted November 25, 2012 - 6:40pm

In reply to by William Smith

Will, milwatchnut states that Stock Numbers did not come in until 1952, and the watch in this thread has a Stock Number, therefore could not possibly date pre-1952.

Your reference to 1948/49 was posted by another member, Lysander, but don't forget a lot more has been learnt since then, nearly five years ago.

The non-working link is possibly to a refence made about the MIL-W-3818A, a later military watch model, and it's use of Contract Numbers.

EDIT:- Are you reading your own link correctly fifth? Read the above it clearly states STOCK NUMBERS DID NOT COME INTO USE UNTIL 1952, THEREFORE YOUR WATCH CANNOT PRE-DATE THIS YEAR!

William Smith
Posted November 25, 2012 - 7:02pm

In reply to by bobbee

No I don't think he does Bobbee. That may be one translation of his comment.   I'll just copy and paste that one sentence below.  I don't think anyone will mind my use after all the other stuff we have "cited" and discussed :)  This is that one sentence from milwatchnut's comment.

The use of "Stock Number" (instead of the later FSN or NSN) became standard
practice starting in 1952.

Perhaps the other senior member lysander made a mistake in his translation of milwatchnuts comments... but I was reading this "standard practice" meaning it was on every watch beginning in 1952, but not stating it wasn't on some watches before that date.  Milwatchnut gives an example of a 3818A, which may not have had stock numbers before this date, but that doesn't necessarily hold true of the  A-17A- either the example in the MWR thread or in this thread. 
I'm sure learning lots from this thread, even if Fifth's watch gets one tick from me. 

bobbee
Posted November 25, 2012 - 7:21pm

In reply to by William Smith

Note Will,it says Stock Number, and look at the subject watch , and on the case back is the legend "Stock No.", and as the use of a "Stock Number" became standard practice in 1952, how can the subject possibly pre-date 1952, as it uses a "STOCK NUMBER"?

bobbee
Posted November 26, 2012 - 3:36am

I am not pretending to be an expert on mil-spec watches though, and am thoroughly up-front about where I get my information as can be seen from my post above.

Your link is to a post from February 2008, and a lot of new information has been found on A-17A's since then, nearly FIVE years ago, and one of the posters in the thread (milwatchnut) states:"the use of a Stock Number,(instead of the later FSN or NSN)became standard practice in 1952", which makes the subject watch LATER THAN 1952, as it has a STOCK NUMBER, so if I were you I would be a little more careful when choosing your links.

"movements can be and were swapped as all A-17A's issued were ordered returned when the Pilot left the Military- this indicates Uncle Sam recycled the A-17A's for re-issue."

So where do you get off making claims like you have about this watch, which may or may not have a new movement after re- issue? Jeez, you just want to drop that shovel right now, before you can't get back out!

FifthAvenueRes…
Posted November 25, 2012 - 6:40pm

Yes I would have to agree, much has been learned by the Military Watch community in the five Years post 2008, the revelation that Bulova used an alpha numeric system to Date their Movements being one. 

I'd also agree that You're no 'expert' and reading Your jibberish in this thread has been a complete waste of time.

 

bobbee
Posted November 26, 2012 - 3:56am

Hmm, gonna send me another "love letter"? I have never, anywhere professed to be knowledgable about watches, I just have a love for mechanicals, and in the past year or so, my interest has moved to Bulovas, and has gotten deeper, almost an obsession. As I say, I'm no expert on horology, but I have a great eye for detail, and a fantastic nose for bull%*+t. You reek of it.

EDIT:- your Narcissistic reference to your "discovery" of Bulova's use of an Alphanumeric system to date the watches shows just what matters most to you.

By the way, my scribblings may look like gibberiish to you, but it is known by another name.

English.

EDIT:- These are the pics that for some reason I could not load before. Note date on movement.

Note the similar Case serial no. only three thousand higher than subject.

DarHin
Posted November 26, 2012 - 6:28pm

Bob, I agree that we need some sort of proof that dates the case of the subject watch but I don't think that your example of a '61 movement in a similarly numbered case disproves the 1950 date put forth by Mark. Just like I don't think a movement date of '50 in Marks watch will be enough to confirm the date for me. We know that movements get swapped. What we need is a way to date these cases independently of the movement.