Case Dimensions 32.40mm x 25.65mm
Case Reads: BULOVA, 14K GOLD FILLED, AMERICAN STANDARD, Pat. JUN.10.1924, 6417438
Underneather the backside of the Balance Wheel the word BREVET (Swiss for Patent) can be seen with the Swiss Squared cross. Next to it strangely, there is a Light House clearly stamped. Anyone know anything about that?
Member for
11 years 8 monthsMember for
12 years 11 monthsMember for
13 years 7 monthsMember for
14 yearsIn reply to Nice Conqueror. Great mvnt SN by William Smith
Member for
13 years 7 monthsIn reply to Will I can see the 1926 by mybulova_admin
Member for
11 years 8 monthsMember for
12 yearsThat is no "6" at the start of the case number, it sure looks like a mis-struck "8" to me. We have seen a lot of the early cases with the mis-struck first number, do any of you agree? I'm thinking the cases came from the factory with six serial numbers, and the seventh was struck by hand at the Bulova factory.
Lone Eagle to me.
Member for
11 years 8 monthsBob, I neither agree nor disagree since it's so hard to tell even with very good pics. Dreamweaver has another '26 Conqueror and he notes the appearance of the 6 in his serial #.
Member for
12 yearsI've just been checking the DB for the number fonts used on these period cases, and have found the sixes have either a "tail" that curves acutely over the top of the lower circle, or goes up like this: 6. The first number on the subject watch has a "wasp-waist", like a reversed 3, and as such can only be an "8". The link you provided above, Darren, only goes to prove this as the mis-struck number has no wasp-waist, so is a "6". In my opinion, of course.
Definitely a lot of mis-struck first numbers in watches DB.
Member for
11 years 8 monthsIf you compare the mistruck/rubbed/worn number with the 8 in the serial number there are obvious differences in form.
The 8 appears more bold. The curves in the appear more oblong however the total width of the number is smaller. If the incomplete number were to be completed (as an 8) it would be wider than the 8.
These details however are difficult to percieve from the picture. Im making many of these remarks after examining it under a loupe.
Most convincing should be the 1924 Patent Date... shouldn't a 1928 Case bear the 1927 Patent Date? This however I'm uncertain of.
We only have evidence of the 10P being produced during 1925-26
Further.... evidence shows that a 1928 Lone Eagle would have been fitted with a dial bearing the closed 9, rather than the open 9.
This all being said is not proof but rather indications.