Interpreting Vintage Catalog Ads

A recent post on another site made me realize that some people do not understand how to interpret certain aspects of vintage third-party catalog ads, and that lack of understanding can, and has, led to significant errors in making model identifications.  So, I thought a few words on the topic might be appropriate.

Vintage third-party catalog ads--I'm talking about Sears, Montgomery Wards, Aldens, etc.--made a habit of lumping together different watch descriptions while only illustrating one of the watches, making it appear that the models mentioned are essentially the same but for a few insignificant details, such as the type of strap.  In reality, the watches that are lumped together in that manner can be quite different, making it dangerous to assume too much about the watch not shown based on the one illustration provided.   Sometimes the ads refer to the unshown watch as "similar" to the one shown, giving you a hint that there are differences, but often not even that clarification is provided.   Here are some examples:

1936 third-party catalog ad for the Commodore, also listing but not showing the Apollo.  Ad gives the impression that the only difference between the two watches if the gold color.	1936 Bulova ad showing what the Apollo actually looks like.  Note the quite different lugs and type of bracelet connection.
1942 third-party catalog ad for the Brewster, also listing but not showing the Attorney.  Ad gives the impression that the only differences between the two watches are the gold color and strap.	1941 ad showing what the Attorney actually looks like.  Note the different lug shape.  The Attorney also has a longer case and takes a larger crystal than the Brewster.  Also, this ad shows that the Attorney also came in red gold, not just yellow as implied by the catalog ad.
Image of actual Attorney (left) and Brewster (right).  Again, note the very different shape of the lugs and bezel ends.
1954 third-party catalog ad for the Magellan, also listing but not showing the Seabee.  This one indicates that the Seabee is "similar" but then suggests that the strap may explain the difference.	1954 Bulova ad showing what the Seabee actually looks like.  Note the different dial, different shape of the lugs where they meet the case, and no mention of a chromed case, as compared to the Magellan.
1954 third-party catalog ad showing the Watertite, also listing but not showing the Seabee.  This ad also includes the "similar" descriptor for the Seabee but also offers the different strap material as a possible explanation of the difference.	1954 Bulova ad for the Seabee.  Again, note the different dial, different shape of the lugs where they meet the case, and no mention of a chromed case, as compared to the Watertite. It is easy to be misled by the mention of the leather strap in the Watertite ad, resulting in the incorrect conclusion that the only difference between the two watches is the strap.
1955 third-party catalog ad showing the Senator, listing but not showing the Champion.  In this case, the ad describes the difference between the two watches as "plain case, leather band" on the Champion.	1955 Bulova ad showing this version of the Senator as the "Senator A".

The last third-party catalog advertisement shown above for the Senator with the Champion model listed below is the most interesting to me and the one that inspired this discussion.  The conclusion on another site regarding that ad was that 1) the Champion must be the same watch because it is listed with the Senator, and 2) the only difference between the two watches is the leather strap.  Therefore, the poster continued, if you have a watch that looks like the Senator but is not on the expansion band shown in the ad, it must be the Champion.  That discussion and the erroneous conclusions resulting from it is a perfect example of why understanding the ads is very important to making accurate model IDs.  While we don't have an advertisement for the Champion, the ad does refer to it as having a "plain" case.  That language clearly indicates that the Senator and Champion cases are not the same.   Moreover, crystal catalogs reveal that the Champion takes a very different crystal from the Senator.  Specifically, G-S Catalog No. 60 lists the Senator as taking a hexagonal shaped crystal (CMH406-60), while the Champion takes a tonneau shaped crystal (CMT350-40).  That information indicates that the Senator and Champion are not at all the same model with only the strap being the distinguishing factor.  Rather, the Senator and the Champion look entirely different, with a differently shaped and designed bezel and crystal.

So, there's a quick review of this obscure fact about vintage third-party catalog ads for watches and how they can be easily misinterpreted, resulting in bogus model IDs.  This isn't rocket science, but it sure is possible to get it completely wrong if one doesn't take the time to fully understand and consider all the available information.