The Breitling Watch Source Forums

A guy on another forum poted pictures of this watch asking to know more about it, I replied with this

I am really sorry to tell you this but I really don't think this is a real Breitling, The didn't use The B until the 60s this watch if it was a genuine would have Breitling Geneve Written on the dial, I am guessing this watch came from South America somewhere like Argentina as they have being doing this a lot lately, They take an old watch and stamp the wrong markings into the dials,case backs and movements. I would also back this up by saying that early Breitlings only used Venus and Valjoux movements so I am really sorry but the watch has been stamped Breitling but its not an original. Don't just take my word for it though although I have a good knowledge of the brand I am not an expert however I do know a few experts on Breitlings and could ask them what they think for you.


So Could I have your opinions please

_________________

Actually Phil it's probably authentic. If anything the dial has been redone incorrectly without the proper lettering. If you look at the wear on the watch, especially on the back, it looks right and the reference number is correct. Still has the original fish eye crystal too. The real measuring stick would be if there's a serial number inside the back cover. I think it would be from the fifties.

an absolut genuine Breitling

I can't see anything wrong with this either, and I don't believe that the dial has been redone.

Breitling didn't move to Geneva until 1962, and this watch is likely earlier than that. Not sure why you think that the B wasn't in use until the 60s - the recent 806 discussion includes some information about some of the Valjoux 806s having an embossed B instead of the AOPA wings, and that was 1954.

The comment about Venus and Valjoux movements only is also incorrect, virtually all non chrono watches were non Venus / Valjoux.

Well you learn something every day. I shall gop and tell him the good news.

_________________

The watch should definitely say 'Breitling' under the 'B'. Most likely would also say 'Geneve' under the 'Breitling'. They may have moved to Geneve in 1962 but were using Geneve on the dials in the fifties. Richter's book is full of examples. The movement is most likely a Felsa.

Agree on the Felsa, not sure on the dial; but not convinced enough to argue

Thanks guys I have posted your replys on the forum in question, Never let it be said I dont admit when I am wrong.

Next time ask first and post second

_________________

I would want to see the both sides of the back and the movement signature on the REAL one before deciding on authenticity of what I see in the top pics? Craig

_________________
S. Craig Bergsma

Cheers for that Craig it just didnt look right to me but I welcome all opinions.

_________________

Breitling moved to Geneva in 1952, not 62 and the watches are signed with "BREITLING GENEVE" since august 1951, when Breitling dicided to move to Geneva. But some periods the watches where signed only with "BREITLING" without Geneve, I have the 1952 catalog.

I knew that - in fact I posted it on Monday - viewtopic.php?f=11&t=16578

My brain has clearly died since Monday - time for alcohol to perk it up

Come to germany, we just have carnival here.

The Op has just put this


Further to the previous discussion, the inside of the back case reads 876496.

Also, after using an eye glass, the face has definitely been painted black. Under the 'B' are the letters 'Breitling', and underneath that 'Geneve', and below the centre of the face '17 Jewels', all just visible underneath the black paint.

Does that clarify things?

_________________

MEans that Paul was right, I was wrong, and the watch is real!