The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Did Breitling sign their bridges in a curved fashion like this one?

Of course, any other info referring to a ref. 790 would also be appreciated~! The caseback is one I've never seen before too...

He said it was from the 60's... I'm assuming early 60's then?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Breitling-G ... 27ada6f4f9

EDIT:

So after some snooping around the net, I was looking for an SS Premier when I stumbled upon this:

http://www.watchmarket.co.za/Breitling/ ... remier.htm

and this:

http://www.chrono24.com/en/search/index ... mresults=5

So... (drumroll please)

which one is correct?

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

the signatur on the bridge is absolut correct, but their is another mistake. The watch is from 1945, but the signatur on the dial is the new one, which was created end of 1951, when Breitling moved their headquarter to Geneve. So the dial is repainted or changed.

Absolute rubbish - this watch is from 1952 and is absolutely correct.

I don't know about the dial issues, but I am uneasy about the B Breitling engraving on the back. It appears like someone tried to make it more authentic by adding that when it wasn't appropriate.

Yep, someone completely ruined the watch by adding the Breitling engraving to the back cover.

Agreed on the bridge (never even looked at that )

I would probably agree too on the "addition" on the caseback... because if you look at the other two, it's not there...

however, the dial on the one on ebay looks pretty legit~

But the other two I found are supposedly Premiers...

Perhaps dials swapped out?

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

Please Roff, stay correct.
The serial number ist 610269, it is a chronograph from 1945, not non-chronograph

Please look here: http://lesmala.net/jean-michel/navitimer/year.htm

the signatur on the bridge is absolutly correct, but the dial not and "B" Breitling on the back is not correct as vitage said. This signature came also after august of 1951.

The first Co-Pilots from 1953 where signed so too.

Oops - my bad (having a bad day) - did look at the wrong list - apologies

That dial is definitely correct - but likely didn't start life with that caseback.

So pretty much right dial... wrong caseback...

makes sense now... not the other way around... which would be right caseback and wrong dial...

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

If we are just talking dials (as opposed to hands) the WatchMarket one doesn't look too bad. The Chrono 24 looks a bit off to me, but not sure why - it may just be me. I can live with the casebacks on them too I think - this time the WatchMarket one looks a bit bashed about, but not wrong. Of course no movement pics

Sorry for confusion Roff, I was referring to the one for sale on ebay...

We can conclude that the watch on ebay has the wrong caseback?

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

I think caseback and dial are both Breitling correct, but not from the same watch.

I think that the caseback is a match for the case, but the dial is later.

yes... i agree 100%... case closed

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