The Breitling Watch Source Forums

I'm not so sure about the chronology here. I would say that Breitling's 3-register chronos of the earlier 1940s would be Venus 152s, not 178s (and the 2-Registers, cal. 150), and that maybe people are just assuming these 1940s calibers are 178/175s because they look virtually identical. Yes, I know the 769 Chronomats are assumed to have cal. 175 but most of the Premiers dating from the 1940s that I have seen have the 152 or 150, so why wouldn't the contemporaneous Chronomats? So I would say that the 178 is a late 1940s/early1950s movement and would not agree that Venus had been producing them since the early 1940s.

Please see my new post above where I flesh out this theory:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=16087
And of course I could be completely and utterly wrong...
Best,
T.

Ebauches SA actually is Swatch Group!

Ebauches SA started as a holding company for many manufacturers and although they retained independence there was an increasingly close relationship by the 50s.

Which looks like it may well be the case...
T.

Thanks Roff. Are you saying that companies in the holding company would not be competitive as they would be controlled centrally by Ebauches SA?

BTW - have a great weekend.

Pretty much.

Ebauches SA started as a collective to represent the interests of movement manufacturers at a time when movements were seen as necessary evils in a watch - the focus (and money) was on the decorative elements. Initially it was really just an attempt to stop movement manufacturers from cutting one another out and forcing everyone into bankruptcy. By the 1950s Ebuaches SA had acquired most of the major players, and ASUAG had acquired most of the remaining players.

Although they still had creative independence they were aligned in terms of business practices and they certainly were looking to support other parts of the group where they could.

Here, I think is one of the first 806 with Venus 178 and incabloc after the Valjoux 72 movement of 1955.
(the earlier models of 1953 where without incabloc, as we saw some pages before)

http://cgi.ebay.de/Breitling-AOPA-Navit ... 2c52df770b

And again, a later SN, as opposed to the 824,k w/o Incabloc:





True chronology, i.e. movements without Incabloc are found in earlier watches, is the only thing that makes sense to me here. Personally, I am ready to declare the "mis-stamped cases from 1959" theory dead pending concrete evidence to the contrary. Occam's razor dictates that the simplest simplest explanation tends to be the best one: thus, the 806s with the earliest serial numbers have the earlier style of Venus 178 and are therefore the earliest Navitimers.

Game, set and match for me.
Best,
T.

P.S. There is an outside possibility that the dials on these watches were replaced sometime later due to a defect or some other circumstance; or that the watches were assembled much later than the time when they were stamped (to make this fit the belief that this textual layout is anachronistic and should not be found this early for whatever reason). But again, that would be another complex explanation for what seems to be a straightforward question of simple chronology.

I absolutely agree Tom.

I don't put any credibility into some kind of 'replacement due to defect' history, while we all know that the documented records are awful from this period I have to believe that some anecdotal evidence would have been forthcoming.

Thanks Roff, thanks Tom,

his (Kurt B.) story was good, but not true, and he is not the god.

No one's infallible Michael - no one

Yes Roff, only this is true, ( but many here have too quickly and too often thrown stones )

I think that both sides here--Kurt/Bill D. vs. Michael--should try to be a bit more gracious towards each other. No one has all the answers about Vintage Breitling and we should always be trying to learn. All these gentleman have done yeoman's work trying to untangle the mystery that is pre-1960s Breitling and I for one am very appreciative of all their efforts and have benefited from all of them personally.

But the personal attacks/one-upmanship I could live without, as I feel it is irrelevant to the greater goal of learning about a great brand's history and sharing information that sheds light on its many mysteries. For me, this is what makes researching Breitling pretty much as interesting as Rolex and thus fairly unique in the vintage watch world--because the collectors have to do most of the work to figure out things like chronology and legitimate variations and there is not much in the way of concrete information coming from the manufacturer. Coming primarily from the realm of the latter marque, I can state unequivocally that it is best to keep one's mind open and not to cling to categorical opinions. These companies did a lot of very strange and unpredictable things in the Golden Age and without records, it's best IMO to be open to new information that can sometimes completely shake up the generally accepted wisdom.



OK, I'm done.
Best to all,
T.

P.S. If you cut out all the dealers from all the forums, I think we would lose some valuable insights, as they tend to handle a lot of watches. Zaf Basha and James Dowling spring to mind: whatever one thinks of them personally, they bring something to the table. This is not to say that one shouldn't be aware that it is a dealer presenting an opinion, merely to say that a dealer's opinion is not automatically irrelevant simply because they happen to make a living selling watches. Grain of salt and all that.

P.P.S. In my experience, it's also important to keep in mind when a poster is not a native English speaker, as translation/posting style can lead to a lot of misunderstandings.

Hi Roff,

I have the original big Breitling 1952 cataloge, and their is no Navitimer in it.

I have the 2009 Chronolog and there is no B01 in it!

Yes its true, the 2009 Chronolog was printed, before the B01 was in the shops, even at the Baselworld 2009 Breitling had only some prototyps.

So, what I was want to say: May be the Navitimer 806 was in planning in 1952, but it was no piece in the shops for sale, the first was come in 1953.



but rejoice of the beautiful catalog, this you dont get to see every day.