The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Hi !

All is not original - it's a bad frankenwatch / fake of the type that was not being made when your grandfather would have been travelling to San Francisco. The Breitling engraving on the caseback is laughably bad, the movement engraving is printed while the dial is script, there are more types of hands on that dial than I can count, a Venus 178 is incapable of operating that many functions and Breitling never used 40 micron rolled gold.

Sorry if I sound short, but your story is completely inconsistent with the evidence of the watch.

Yeah... it's "rare" in its own right

*cough*

_________________
"I don't got the bright watch I got the right watch" -Jay Z

Why remove the picture? It's impossible for me to see if I think this is a real Breitling or a fake.

Regards
Jarl

_________________
www.classicheuers.blogspot.com

[quote="Jarl Fr."]Why remove the picture? It's impossible for me to see if I think this is a real Breitling or a fake.

The pictures seem to be a lot less clear than they were originally - the wonderfully bad Breitling engraving can't be enlarged anymore, but my opinion hasn't changed - fake / frankenwatch.

Where´s the story? And what was the question about this watch? Think I missed that.....

//Wetty

_________________
"Nice from a far, but far from nice"


Breitling "pre" Chrono-Matic 1969
Omega Seamaster 300 1969
Rolex Submariner 16800 1982 (birthyear watch)
IWC Aquatimer 3548 2008

+Misc

Yeah interesting isn't it.

The original post, which contained larger pictures, was (I'm paraphrasing slightly) that the watch was bought by the gentleman's grandfather on a visit to San Francisco - no timeline given, though the implication that I read was that it was some time ago. The gentleman has now got the watch from his grandmother. They know that the watch is 100% genuine because it has never been to a jeweller / watchmaker.

The member stated that it was a Venus 178 movement, and there was a little more information - can't recall and don't want to mis-state.

The problems with the watch from my perspective are documented in my first post, although the current photos don't show them all quite so clearly. My comment about the story being completely inconsistent with the watch relates to the fact that this was a seemingly older purchase of a watch that has been maintained in original condition.

WOW !!! you know more as the Breitling Company themselves ?????????????????
I hope I find in this forum other people with the
right know how about vintage breitling watches !

There are several other people on here with considerable knowledge of vintage Breitlings, and I'm sure they'll offer their thoughts when they see this.

Not that we need to prove anything to mr. Hemi Charger here but I can vouch for the professor... the pictures are different from the ones he posted originally and the story has been edited out...

I read the story myself and saw the pictures too...

_________________
"I don't got the bright watch I got the right watch" -Jay Z

Ahhh roff! Always so humble.... Even though you know so much... Well.... at least most of us think so

Have a nice friday!

_________________
"Nice from a far, but far from nice"


Breitling "pre" Chrono-Matic 1969
Omega Seamaster 300 1969
Rolex Submariner 16800 1982 (birthyear watch)
IWC Aquatimer 3548 2008

+Misc

Aww shucks....

I'm not perfect, any more than anyone else is, Paul and Craig have corrected me in the past and doubtless will again. The fact that the OP linked to a Breitling Lounge / Breitling Museum sale as a comparable isn't exactly making me nervous - we all know their reputation for 'creative restoration', and I will challenge anyone to show me a caseback with the Breitling logo looking like that on the inside of the case, and where it's 40 micron 'plating' (though that thick would have to be rolled / filled).

The bottom line for me though is that the movement simply looks wrong for a moonphase movement. The Venus 184 is the 178 based moonphase, and if need be I can put pictures side by side and demonstrate the many differences.

I've looked at a lot of vintage watches and offered my thoughts to many people on here - some with good news and some with bad, and even though we all know that at times the owner is simply trying to find out whether the watch can be passed off on eBay as the real thing I'll always try and state it as I see it, warts and all.

The only difference this time was the OP's story to go along with the watch. A good provenance is of great value when looking at a watch, but if the story can't hold water then to me that too tells me a lot about the watch, and if the OP isn't prepared to even leave the story on the post then I really have to wonder what's going on.

Paul usually stops by on the weekends and he won't be afraid to give an alternate opinion if he thinks I'm wrong, so maybe we'll get into a discussion about moonphase movements yet!