The Breitling Watch Source Forums

My article has been build up over the hundreds of Navitimers that have passed through my hands over the last 10 years
Though the “real expert for Breitling watches” (at least according to what appears to be his employee Mr David Ottenlinger) Mr. März
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=16070&start=15
seems to believe that only a dozen of Navitimers have passed through my hands.

Mr. März mention in the post here viewtopic.php?f=11&t=15761&start=45

“That my story is good but not true, and that I am not god”

I am fully aware that my story is good, I also believe that it is true, just as I am aware that I am not god, I actually don’t even believe in him, as I am an atheist.

The same Mr März have also confirmed here

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=16070&start=15

that the following watches he hold for sale are correct.

http://cgi.ebay.com/BREITLING-Uhr-Navit ... 35a69ffc84
http://cgi.ebay.com/BREITLING-Uhr-Navit ... 3efc4f8efe
http://cgi.ebay.com/1963-SOLID-18K-VINT ... 3ca975a91b
http://cgi.ebay.com/Breitling-Navitimer ... 20ade19661

Trust me, he can believe whatever he wants, I couldn’t care less.

But what I care about is the following line he wrote about me.:

“A lot of uninformed novice think, they can believe on your misinformation’s, but we all know, its not true what you published.”

I will leave it up to you guys who you choose to believe, luckily I know who’s wrong and who’s right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As mentioned above, I believe that the first Navitimers became available in 1954.

My article has been build up over the hundreds of Navitimers that have passed through my hands over the last 10 years, and from having asked the most know ledged experts in the world for their opinions, we are of course all aware of the Navitimer with a serial number that indicates that it was produced in 1953.

But we believe that it is wrong, wrong it the way that we believe it to be a factory error, that somebody had a bad day and set the serial stamping machine wrong by one digit. There are enough examples, all of which match a consistent and well-known 1960 pattern to have that make a lot of sense. They don't seem to detect any tampering, just a systematic misnumbering of these cases.

My most important source is a very famous and highly respected watchmaker when it comes to Vintage Navitimers. They are a valuable resource. When they service a watch from an original owner, they keep a record of where the owner first got the watch. They have seen five or six of just this combination and have concluded that the serial number is in error. It should be "92xxxx" and not "82xxxx."
They do have a record for the 1953 82xxxx series and the serials belong to a 12" line movement watch.

Please see the below pictured advertise from AOPA regarding the Navitimer, the watch pictured here is a Valjoux 72 AOPA Navitimer, so it would make sense to belive that the add is from 1954.

It is written, that “never before has there been anything like this manufactured for pilots”, if a Navitimer with Venus 178 was produced in 1953 before the Val 72’s, then this would not be true.

I know that this in no proof that the first Navitimers became available in 1954, but as I mention in my article, it is my strong believe, nothing more.....


Kurt B

A real big cinema, what you play here Kurt. Do you real think, i dont know, how a real Navitimer looks ?

I have more as 20 original dials in my stock an if I was want, i could change the dial to a usual dial as you like. I also had my duobt with this Navitimer, but i saw, it was complet unused and with his original strap. Why somebody in past time should reprint his dial ? So I let it original as it was.

And Kurt, I think you understand german, therfore i cannot understand, why you didnt read my explanations to this Navitimer.

Here the original text in german: (offcourse I am not 100 % sure, but it looks original for me and everything looks as new old stock and untouched) And offcourse we can discuss it, but in a positiv way, not with hate as you do it Kurt.


and here the google translation, please excuse my bad english:
a very rare Breitling Navitimer 806 between 1st and 2 Generation
just as much in front, so that all missunderstandings are eliminated in from the front:
This dial will be at each of the self-wannabes Breitlingspecialists, screaming like the famous Kurt B. immediately, forgery, reprinted, etc.

I also wanted to make the watch in the first moment cheap because of this supposedly non-original dial, because I had not seen it that way before. But then I looked at the watch, accurate, completely unworn, not polished in like new condition with original unworn Breitlingstrap of the time. Here, nothing can be manipulated, the dial is completely original instead of the "B" Breitling Geneve of the two flyers and black subdials, an intermediate between 1 and 2 Generation

and here the photos:

wow~!

Only 87.50...

I'll take ten please...

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

. . . it bothers me most that you admit that you swap dials to suit your sales and really don't seem to know the details of how authentic watches should look. Either you are ignorant or a scoundrel.

You're only here to promote your sales. You should be banned.

What does not compute about this for me regardless of who has provided the information is why a 92x,k serial is supposedly mis-stamped 82x,k but still does not have Incabloc:



..obviously this is a 14 ligne movement.

Sorry, Kurt, but I don't understand this sequence unless Breitling was holding on to older movements (a la the supposed 1967/1.16mil Valjoux 72s) and assembling them out of sequence...which I am certainly willing to accept given proof. Otherwise, by 1960/9xx,k, all Venus 178 movements should have Incabloc.
Cheers,
T.

P.S. All due respect to the Heists, but if they are not willing to share their supposed documentation, we have only their word to go by and obviously that is not a good enough standard for anybody else around here.

P.P.S. Advertising copy is notoriously unreliable, so something like “never before has there been anything like this manufactured for pilots” should be taken with a very large grain of salt as far as actual chronology goes.

Tom,

basically one can say that there should have been Incabloc on all Venus 178 mvts, as the Incabloc was introduced the first time in 1933 http://www.clockswatches.com/showpage.php?em=1166

The bridge on your watch can have been replaced, I'm not saying it has, but it could have been.

Furthermore, I'm certain that there was 2 Venus 178 mvts, one with Incabloc and a cheaper one without, most high end brands would obviously have used the one with, and cheaper & less known ones the one without.

Was Breitling a high end brand in the 50's.......

Breitling could have held on to older movements, there can have been a shortage of Venus mvts with incabloc, questions, questions, questions, but no answers, at least not so far.

I just checked one of my 1954 Val 72's, and it has Incabloc, would it make sense that Breitling started to use Venus 178 mvts with Incabloc in 1953 when it already had been on the market for 20 years ?

I don't think that you will ever get the proof that you want, and until now I'll hold on to what I believe......


/ Kurt B

If I recall correctly, Incabloc is a licensed system and at one point insisted the word incabloc appear on the dial. Perhaps there was an issue with Breitling regarding those demands which resulted in their not using the system for a while. No proof, but it could happen easily.

There are period correct 194x Breitlings with Incabloc, so they were certainly using it, although I believe packrat is correct that originally licensing required Incabloc to appear on the dial - for non chronographs at least.

Don't recall seeing an earlier 178 with incabloc.

I have hundrets of Breitlings with Venus 152 from this periode without incabloc, but my first 152 with incabloc is from 1951.

not always incabloc signed
1947;


1950:



I remember, there was a periode, their where some disputes to not use incabloc without sign with "incabloc", but I dont find the source in the moment.

As I said.....

"for non chronographs"

How does one determine that this is a picture of a Valjoux 72 version, BTW? AFAIK, both the Venus 178 & the Val. 72 used in the 806 have 17-jewels. So it must be by the dial and/or the bezel that you can tell ?
Thanks & best,
T.

Not sure if this is germane but the article that Kurt links states:
"In the U.S., The trademark "Incabloc" was registered on October 8, 1957"
So maybe that is around when one would start to see the actual word "Incabloc" on dials (in the US market, at least. ), even though the device itself had been in use for some years prior.
Best,
T.

The decision to expand trademarks to other countries is always a little mysterious - sometimes it never happens, sometimes it's a defensive play, sometimes it's simply a case of an expanding market - I have no idea why 1957 became the date in the US (likely actually around 1955 when the application was made).

An interesting question Tom, does anybody know the answer ?

Kurt B