The Breitling Watch Source Forums

I know we have had this discussion before and I agree that advertisements/catalogs are somewhat unreliable but nonetheless here are two printed materials ca. middle 1950s with both styles of logo:





Soooo...my mind remains open regarding a transitional/crossover period of logos, particularly for the more unusual/low production watches.
Best,
T.

very ingeniously observed, its possible, but one mistake in your conclusions: I know that in the catalogs, special in the 1952 catalog are old photos from watches of earlier production dates, which where not sold out, but the production-serialnumbers do not lie.

Likely you are correct: If the dial on my watch is genuine factory printing it was most probably A) printed earlier and mounted to the case/the case stamped at a later date or B) printed by the dial manufacturer/subcontractor in ca. 1953-4 but using "old" fonts.
Best,
T.

I am again and again enthusiastically of the Wakmann Datoras, which are of the quality and the processing both the housing, and the movement simply the best Datoras of the world, better as each Breitling, Rolex, Heuer, Minerva or every other brand. Here once again a fantastically beautiful early wakmann with the original caliber of Valjoux 72 C, not the late more refind Valjoux 730.



but one thing I dont understand till today: why its signed with "Wakmann France" ?, i saw this a lot of times at early Wakmanns.

Breitling picked a great partner in Wakmann. The "big eyed" Datoras are great:



I too have seen France signed Wakmanns. I am not sure of the relationship. Perhaps has to do with Charles Gigandet ("Gigandet" sounds french to me) supplying cases?

I have heard from some Breitling aficionados that Wakmann did not really produce their own watches per se, but merely imported them fully assembled from European sources.

"All the watches (sold by Wakmann) were taken from sellers in Europe and most of them from switzerland."

While I don't wish to present this as fact, the one thing that weighs strongly in this theory's favor is that there does not seem to have ever been a claim of a Wakmann "factory" proper either in the United States or Europe.

So Wakmann-badged watches may have been purely contracted affairs, with movement generally being supplied from Switzerland and then shipped from there to the USA or to France first to be cased up; or bought outright from European makers like Gigandet and sometimes double-signed, sometimes not. And perhaps Gigandet and Pingouin also had a relationship and some of the "French" Wakmanns are sourced from the latter, as Pingouin seemed to do similar work for several other "generic" brands:

http://cgi.ebay.com.sg/ws/eBayISAPI.dll ... 0462854912

http://www.farfo.com/menswatches/Page2/ ... graph.html

And that's why this showed up inside my erstwhile Wakmann-Gigandet:



Also note the back of this Gigandet and how similar it is to the ship logo on "Wakmann" Triple Dates :







Just some hypothesizing and certainly not to be taken as Gospel...
Best,
T.

Wakmann was created as a result of the US Government restrictions on the import of Swiss watches to try to protect the US watch industry. The theory originally was that Breitling would export unassembled watches to Wakmann for assembly, and I believe that happened for a time, although I also believe (as Tom suiggests) that the legislation could be successfully bypassed by having the parts shipped to a 3rd party elsewhere in Europe for assembly and then exporting to Wakmann in the US.

After the initial restrictions were removed, Wakmann continued to import other watches from Europe (besides Breitling), and they were still 100% Breitling owned so rebranding is entirely possible.

No different than most other watch companys of the time and today. The companies contracted (outsourced) to movement manufacturers (Venus, Valjoux, Lemania, Excelsior Park, Landeron, Buren, Universal,ETA,Dubois Depraz,etc.), case manufacturers, dial manufacturers, strap and bracelet manufacturers, etc.. All the watch houses did were to assemble parts and timed the movements and marketed/sold their watches. Look at each time period; same movements with their particular watch houses' names engraved on them and their names stamped on the dials. Breitling and Rolex only recently began manufacturing chronograph movements in house. Wakmann was no different in its day (assemble sourced cases, dials and movements).

Yes and no.

It is certainly true that most if not all watch manufacturers of the time outsourced certain aspects of their business to private contractors. But the fact is that while such marques as Breitling, Heuer, Blancpain, Benrus and even such in-house movement manufactures as Jaeger-LeCoultre, Longines, Movado, Omega, Rolex, Patek, Vacheron, IWC, etc, might have subcontracted the case/dial/crown aspect and sometimes even the movements in special instances (i.e. chronographs and complications), these companies employed a very large staff designing virtually all of their respective watches from the ground up. The look and features of the case, the layout of the dials, the style of the hands and crown, the fit and form of the bracelets--all were worked out and refined each and every year by a team of designers employed year round and charged by management to give their brands unique looks and characteristics. And all with the aim of displaying their final products at the prestigious competitions of the time head-to-head against their rivals.

So the great marques would send these design requirements to their subcontractors and order up the needed parts manufactured to their individual specifications, usually exact and often unique.

As far as I can tell, this was not the case for Wakmann: they simply contracted and bought finished watches from Europe to sell in the US under their own name or simply as the marketing agent, as in the case of their association with Breilting. No design team, no innovation, no real input on the style and characteristics of the watches they sold.

Nor did they pretend to be more than a vendor of many different styles of watches:

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b238/ ... 02copy.jpg

Now maybe that is splitting hairs but I think to not point out this distinction does a serious disservice to the great marques in Swiss watchmaking history.

Until proven otherwise, of course...
Best,
T.

Hello Tom,

I become very thoughtful with your statement.

At least, which concerns the Datoras,, it's exactly reversed. Only Wakmann has developed a peculiar style Datora, and inserted high-range movement. All others, inlusive Rolex, JaegerLeCoulture and other major brands all have a unit Datora sold without their own development. But I love all this Datoras - may be because they are all the same, that must have been a very popular watch on his time.

I will show you only some examples of my over 50 different brandet Datoras. Where is the own design or the own development ? Only the signatur on the dial and the bridge, excuse Heuer has designed their own bridge, but nothing else !!!

One slight difference in my understanding Tom....

The Swiss Watch Import Act in the US prevented Swiss watch companies from selling watches in the US unless they were finished in the US. Breitling acquired Wakmann with the intention of making it that finishing shop - Breitling shipped movements that were then cased, regulated, etc in the US - effectively making Wakmann an assembly shop.

When the act was repealed then Wakmann certainly became a marketing agent and little more.

Either way, it's a significant difference (in my mind) to the use of Venus, Valjoux, etc by the Swiss brands.

And here I have a difference of understanding with you about US protectionist actions against Swiss watch companies circa 1950s, Roff:

It is my understanding that the US did not quite prohibit watches from being sold unless they were finished in the States but rather imposed heavy punitive tariffs on them based on import status (as you say, a finished watch from abroad) and also things like total jewel count and adjusted positions, all at the behest of the struggling US watch industry.

This is no doubt why Bretiling decided to have Wakmann assemble some of their watches for sale here in the States: to avoid the onerous import tariff.

Similarly, we can find certain Omegas of this period with cases marked "Star Watch Co" (the Globemaster model, for example). Again, these movements were shipped and then cased in North America to avoid import tariffs, just as with Breitling sending theirs to Wakmann.

However, some watch companies chose a different route to save money. For example, Rolex (and their subsidiary marque, Tudor) did not generally rely on casing up movements in the US. Rather, they reduced the jewel count in their movements for US export. This why you can find identical watches with the same calibers, but one with 27 jewels and one with 17, for example (18 jewels appears to be the magic number to trigger increased tariffs, BTW). And you can find this jewel count differential on both the in house Rolex and the ETA (and other) movements of the Tudors. However, nearly all Rolex and Tudor watches were still cased up in Switzerland, even if they were destined for sale in the US.

So during this period of futile US protectionism which extended on into the 1970s (for example, you can find 70s El Primeros with both 31 and 17 jewels!), Swiss watchmakers did indeed go to great lengths to work around the US import tariffs. I think Breitling's arrangement with Wakmann might well be the most formalized and "official" by any major Swiss watch manufacturer, though.
Best regards,
Tom

I think you may be right Tom.

Shockingly little information available though, although I guess it's all in a dusty archive somewhere in Washington

I will certainly grant you that many of this era of complications are extremely similar, Michael, and this probably has to do with the fact that so few were produced by each manufacturer annually that it did not make economic sense for them to develop their own versions.* Thus, I agree that many of these Triple Chronos were almost entirely outsourced affairs then re-badged (and re-bridged) by the marque for sale through their authorized dealers.

But my question for you is:
Can you please point me in the direction of the Wakmann factory?


Heck, maybe many of these complications are really Gigandets beneath the badge--look at how similar the case of that LeCoultre is to the Wakmann Triples of the period:







And of course my contentious Breitling 804 has this same sort of period-correct back & case, too, although not the usual style for a Breitling chronograph (non-beveled lugs):



Note the "Wakmann" number 1309 on the back--maybe it is really a Gigandet reference???...





Also, judging by the extreme similarity between the caseback markings below, it might be reasonable to assume that Gigandet was doing the manufacturing for Wakmann complications (and possibly others?) and Wakmann was then simply re-badging them for sale in the US:

Wakmann:



Gigandet:



And here we can refer back to an older post by chronomania about an early AOPA Wakmann Triple Date Chrono with a Gigandet case.



Best regards,
Tom

*A notable exception to this "most Triple Date Chronos are nearly identical" theory would be Rolex. True, they started out with "off the rack" Valjoux 72c but gradually they made in house improvements such as a free sprung balance and Kif-Flector shock absorption and other subtle changes. And also, the cases were always pure Rolex Oyster design and featured screw down crowns:

Earliest Rolex Triple Date Chrono, ref. 4767, ca. late 1940s:


PM sent on your Rolex example, BTW.

Hi Tom, I cannot answer you this question, but my re-question: Who made this high class gold finish on the movement for Wakmann, if wakmann had no factory ?
Only Wakmann has this finish, no other brand, even not Breitling.