Skip to main content

Bulova 1953 Ambassador

5/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.

Manufacture Year: 


Movement Model: 


Movement Jewels: 


Movement Serial No.: 


Case Serial No.: 


Case shape: 


Case Manufacturer: 


Crystal Details: 


Additional Information

1953?Caseback,10K ROLLED GOLD PLATE,BULOVA,L3.Inside caseback BULOVA FIFTH AVE NEW YORK.Signed Bulova crown.Plain dial with very simple markers and dauphine hands.

Not For Sale
denupnorth 1953 Bulova 02 12 2015
Bulova watch
Bulova watch
Bulova Watch
Panel Member
Posted February 12, 2015 - 5:17am

look as this identical watch that is declared as Ambassador

but Ambassadors have 17 jewels movement, the question is whether the identification was correct

Posted February 12, 2015 - 7:19am

It's a perfect match jabs.The one you mention has a tentative Ambassador ID and  some people seem to think of it as a marriage of some kind but mine is identical to it so....

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Club 5000Panel Member
Posted February 12, 2015 - 2:20pm

With two of these of same configeration/date now, it helps rule out or downplay the marriage.  Based on the available ads, the break from 21 jewel Ambassadors to 17 jewel is c1952.

I'd go tentative Ambassador on this one (like I did on the other example).  

Is subject 10BM movement date coded?  I can't see it in the mvnt photo.

Posted February 12, 2015 - 6:54pm

The movement is dated L3 and there are another two examples of it in the database.Two might be a coincidence but three of them seems to me like they're the real thing.Maybe not Ambassadors but an unknown model.

1955mercury's picture
Posted February 12, 2015 - 7:41pm

I think you have one of those intriging unknowns Den. I like unknowns. I think there were fewer of them made. If Bulova made millions of them, ads wouldn't be so difficult to find identifying them.

Posted February 13, 2015 - 3:22am

I would rather have it named as an unknown than be mislabeled as something else.Someday an ad might show up.I still like this one.


bobbee's picture
Posted February 13, 2015 - 4:25am

For some reason unknown to most, the other models like this got posted as Ambassador against all the evidence for it being an unknown.

Pointless voting on it, or even discussing.

Posted February 13, 2015 - 9:23am

I thought discussion was the point of posting these watches.


William Smith's picture
William Smith
Club 5000Panel Member
Posted February 14, 2015 - 1:30am

Yea there's no ads to suggest its an Ambassador.  I think it was based on style and jewel count at/near the end of the 21 jewel Ambassador line....  Unknown would work too  That's why I only gave two ticks on any of the three watches.

Club 5000Panel Member
Posted February 14, 2015 - 11:04pm


When a watch shares many aspects of a series and when that series has a good number of variants it makes sense to tentatively label that watch as part of the series until such time that we come across an advert with a match. The rating system allows for this possibility and watches get updated all the time when new evidence presents itself.

Whilst panel members don't always agree on some model IDs, watches are listed based on the panel majority.