Skip to main content

Bulova 1954 Nugent

5/10 votes
Model ID rating explained.

Manufacture Year: 


Movement Model: 


Movement Serial No.: 


Additional Information

 15j Superb design. Previously  ID'd as a Chadwick by another user below. But i think this now to be the NUGENT (as also mentioned) and as newly added advert shows below. Agree or not?

Not For Sale
1954 Bulova Chadwick watch
Bulova watch
Bulova watch's picture
Posted May 27, 2011 - 2:57pm

Takes the same crystal, as the "CHADWICK..."



FifthAvenueRestorations's picture
Posted January 24, 2011 - 7:22am


In respose to Your query update about this model:

The ad shows an identical Watch. 

I agree with this model being called a 'NUGENT' being there is visible and written confirmation.


Club 5000Panel Member
Posted January 24, 2011 - 7:34am

Another one bits the dust. Good pickup gents!

William Smith's picture
William Smith
Club 5000Panel Member
Posted March 29, 2012 - 6:29pm

Three stars Good ID'ing gang.

DarHin's picture
Posted March 29, 2012 - 9:45pm

I don't think this watch is the one depicted in the ad.

The subject watch is only slightly longer as it is wide, not counting the lugs. The ad watch is almost twice as long as it is wide. The add itself say's the "Nugent" is a "long" case.

Granted, the dial and the case are the same design as the ad watch.

Posted March 29, 2012 - 10:31pm

I think the ad is distorted, and this watch is a match.

DarHin's picture
Posted March 29, 2012 - 10:38pm

But the other watches aren't distorted.

Posted March 29, 2012 - 10:46pm

I think the Director beside it is distorted also.  It looks more rectangular than it is in actuality. 

You can see the distortion of the ad by the way the watch is curved off to the right.  We're not seeing it head on, enabling us to better evaluate the proportions.

Posted March 29, 2012 - 10:41pm

The ad was scanned and the subject watch was on the bound end of the magazine or publication, so it was not flat on the scanner.

DarHin's picture
Posted March 29, 2012 - 10:46pm

Then shouldn't it be wider, not narrower?

Case and crystal dimensions may solve the question. (I know I'm the only one questioning as of now)