The Breitling Watch Source Forums

So a member here openly smacked a 7806 I have for sale here by stating he thinks the dial is a "service dial from the 80s" and not original to the watch.

Here's the watch in question:



And here are some other ref. 7806s with a very basic search of the net:















My apologies to the image owners but I need to show a good size sample of 7806 dials. So as we can see there is a lot of variety to the way these dials have aged and the color of the tritium (the last two in the sequence are also interesting re: the placement for the T SWISS MADE T but we can look into that another time). BUT we do see several dials that are pretty similar to mine with the kind of "toothpaste" lume application and even a little shine to the finish of the lume.

Therefore, based on sample size I continue to believe my dial to be original to the watch, i.e. it is not radically different from a lot of other 7806s out there that have not had the "replacement dial" accusation tossed at them. This is how I bought it several years ago, though I'm obviously not claiming to be the first owner, and it was not changed by me. It is in really nice shape but not perfect to say the least and does show age, as does the slide rule.

IMO, we find a a lot of variation in these dials, particularly the late breaking models like the 7806, 7806-S and 8806 etc, due to the fact that many went unsold for years and some got sold right away. Probably the big waterproof Chronomatics were more popular and that led to slow sales for manual winders and non-waterproof cases. I also cannot see a compelling case for the "service dial" theory on these models as the company went tits up in 1979 only 5 five or so years after production of my particular watch. So who would be producing service dials after the original company folded? Sicura, which was concentrating on quartz? And why would they need service dials when they had a ton of unsold stock and likely plenty of original 70s parts, as well? Just remember a few years ago one could find plenty of NOS Breitling out there. For example:

http://www.joseph-watches.com/Paginas_m ... ling_1.htm

So I'm afraid don't buy this "replacement dial from the 80s" theory. Sure anything's possible but unless someone can prove or at least make a strong documented effort for this contention that a large percentage of the very short production 7806s got service dials because they have similar lume I think it's a lot of "false wisdom" on the internet, which is all too common these days. If you want to convince me otherwise you will have to show your work and not just say stuff like "it looks too good," "why isn't there more water damage?" and "I have a dial from a totally different model that looks similar that someone told me was made in the 80s." As we all should know, many vintage Breitling did not get circulated in the real world for years and even decades after their original manufacture, particularly the models from the last years when the company was being crushed by the quartz revolution. There was a lot of deadstock sitting unused when Willy folded the company in '79. And that, in my opinion, is why we see such great variation in the aging of many 1970s models. Some got sold and some just sat for years until the vintage market picked up and they became desirable to own again. And that led to very different lives for those watches and definitely different, non-uniform aging effects to the lume.
Best,
T.

Tomvox

Most of the pictures you post look ok. The last 2 however are service dials ( the ones where the hands don't match the dial). Those are confirmed because the Breitling logo on the dial is incorrect (flat) . These are a more current version of the service dial from Breitling (and Horological Services).

Anyway I won't comment on the post anymore because you've already disregarded my opinion. We are all of course continually learning in the absence of a huge company currated archive to reference. I'm in no way offended if others here view anything differently.

Well then I would say the placement of the T SWISS MADE T would be a give away on those, although why they are still marking these dials T for Tritium is a bit peculiar. Perhaps 90s issue?

Anyway, two more 7806 in really great condition with toothpaste lume (probably better than mine, in fact, which you seem to think is impossible):





So please explain why my dial must be a replacement while all the others are not aside from the hands showing slightly more wear (which is a very silly standard, IMO).
You took the time to tank an active sales post of mine so you should be willing to back up your assertions with some hard evidence not just "gut instinct" and so-called "experience". I cannot properly regard your opinion without something more than a random 806 dial that you say is from the 80s and pronouncements from on high (and again who precisely would be making these dials in the 80s for an essentially defunct company?? And why when there were probably many, many original 70s dials still floating around from poor old Breitling's liquidation not to mention plenty of unsold models?).
Thanks,
T.

I've got to admit that I tend to think the dial isn't original on the OP's watch also. Here's a pic of a completely original one (down to the sticker on the back and original strap & box) I had a couple of years ago and traded to a collector friend. Note that the green lume in the hands does match the green lume of the dial. The lume on these original dial numerals does seem to shrink and become sort of irregular due to age. The lume in the hands of the OPs watch is the same green as mine but doesn't match the dial lume. If the hands are original too why wouldn't they match the lume on the dial?

It's a worthy discussion that should be had in a mature way, which it is here - bravo.

The other point to consider are the motivations of the buyer and seller. Not everyone is interested in an investment/collector grade watch. So long as the seller is honest and fully informs (to the best of his or her ability and knowledge) the marketplace, the buyer is free to choose whether to buy, and the together they can come to an agreement on price.

The problem I have seen here and on other forums surrounding vintage pieces is that every little defect and change is to be seen as something negative and ripe for disparaging. I have specifically noted that this is mostly done by aspiring collectors (who hang on the coat tails of the true collectors) and have a tendency to see things as black or white. The true collectors have come to understand the marketplace is about shades of grey, with price being the ultimate differentiator.

I've seen the OP's watch for sale, and too me it looks like a fine example that I would be happy to wear if I was in the market for such a watch. However, I can appreciate that it might not be what others would want - each to their own.

I appreciate the concrete nature of your example. However, as I mentioned before hands and dial lume do not start out in life at the same time or from the same provider. Hands are made by one company, dials another. So you can have hands and dials that age perfectly in sync and those that do not. Of course environmental factors -- moisture incursion, sunlight exposure, etc -- also play a role through the years. Breitling's "Pepsodent" green lume during this era is also strange where you can find the same models with both green and then normally aged tan Trit lume and even within the same serial number range. And even in different brochures & printed material! Couldn't tell you why but it seems to happen for whatever reason. Again could come down to the dial/hands manufacturer and the actual lume supplier, another component in the equation. I wouldn't even rule out a verdigris reaction between the hands lume and the hands metal.

Here are some more examples with "mismatched" dial & hands and uneven aging (not all same model but similar era):







I think that when you see these sorts of variations across a wide swath of examples it becomes very difficult to say what is replacement and what isn't based on simple cosmetic differences and absent more documented evidence. But maybe that's just me and my empirical nature.
Best,
T.

[The best way to identify a service dial is to look at the double plane logo . On the original dials , the upper line of the wing is not straight . On the service dial it is straight


Original



Service dial


Service dial


Navi 7806 and 7806-S were very late versions, and for sure they were not bestsellers compared to the Chrono-Matic versions .

Now , I want to go to the problem of spares . When L. G. Breitling company went to closure, work in progress, MM. Ollech and Wajs bought the production benches and tools, the spares stocks and the work in progress watches .
Some of the bestsellers of their Aviation range were made by recycling 7806 and 7806-S . All the spares have been used by O&W for issuing their watches . So most of the dials were stripped and re-printed . New hands batches have been manufactured by Universo and Aiguilla , the former subcontractors of LG Breitling , but tritium - yellowish - has been replaced by Luminova - green . Replacing hands during service is not exceptional - Breitling SA systematically replaces hands - so my theory is that hands with green material can be considered as service hands .

Interesting about the "flat" logo for verified service dials, as was mentioned by buddman originally. Which mine does not have, BTW. And of course now we can also see that the T SWISS MADE T being squeezed in more towards the "6" than the originals is also a tell.
So the position about my dial must be evolving towards "original dial but maybe relumed in the 80s". I certainly doubt it was printed in the 80s since by then there was no need for new batches and the non-Breilting companies were making dials for their own watches not poor old Breitlings from a few years prior. So the $64,000 question is how does one tell when the dial was lumed and who did the professional Tritium lume assuming the dial was blank or stripped (which I still don't feel has been proven in any concrete way)?

One peripheral thought on the common issue of Breiltings during the last years -- with all those NOS parts floating around how do we know when a case with serial number from 74 was actually assembled? Well if we look for evidence from the inner caseback markings in my particular 7806 I think we see some clues (excuse the large scan but better for legibility).



So looks to me like 3 individual documented services for my 7806 through the years (prior to the one I just had done) -- one in what looks like 1978 with a note for a "Bezel plate", one in 1981 and one in 2013. So based on these service marks IMO this watch was originally sold pretty close to the time its case serial number indicates. Also from those service marks it seems like a watch that was initially regularly maintained every few years and then left fallow for quite a while after that (I don't believe this movement is capable of running properly for 32 years without care & maintenance). And again that could lead to the difference in aging of the dial if, for example, it was worn for a while after the '81 service and then put away at some point after that and for quite some time as opposed to a watch that was worn continuously for 40 years.
Best,
T.

Great thread and great info. Love this!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since there's a lull I'll just leave this picture of yet another "tan & greenish" dial/hands combo on a 7806 right here:



I'll post again about the inconsistencies between dial & hands in 1970s Breitlings in general soon.
Best,
T.

This one has a service dial, look at the straight top edge of double plane wings

Yes true! And I should have also noted the narrow T SWISS MADE T as we also discussed. End of a long weekend.
Best,
T.

OK, to add to some of the other "mismatched" dials & hands I've already posted here are some dials of the 7806-S, a kissing cousin of the 7806 if quite a bit more uncommon, and produced around the same time obviously:







Please note the varying degrees of greenish tint to the hands and how they do not exactly match the dials.
So sure, would we like our hands lume to match that of the dial as closely as possible? Of course. Is that always possible? Depending on the model and the effects of time on the individual components of dial & hands, I don't think so. Therefore as a metric, I don't think hands condition/color alone can be relied upon as "beyond a shadow of a doubt" proof for overall originality. A factor, sure. The determining factor? Probably not. YMMV, of course.
All this said, I have dialed back the "original" claims in my ad, as I respect that opinions differ and I would never want to mislead. I don't really appreciate how the matter was initially raised on an open sales forum like that rather than by simply contacting me with those concerns via email or PM. But if nothing else there's been some interesting debate to come out of it.
Best,
T.

@tomvox1, I think your point is well made, and the takeaway is that almost no one can talk in absolutes when it comes to vintage watches (or vintage anything for that matter) unless they have continuous knowledge or evidence of provenance, or can clearly demonstrate deviation from the norm (and even then, there have been cases of unusual finds) - you cannot say that a watch has been modified and equally you cannot state that something is original.



I think this was common with Breitling in the 70s, and your thesis that this was because of different supply chains is more than reasonable. Witness the difference in the aged lume on the hands and dials of these Breitling 817s that were apparently stored since the 70s until they were released for sale by the Ministero Della Difesa last year.





Not sure that I agree. Would it make the process of authentication easier - absolutely; but I love the little variations that age and wear can reveal. Surely that is one of the attractions of vintage watch collecting, as evidenced by the premium paid for tropical dials and coffee coloured lume.

Yes but all things being equal wouldn't you rather have the hand and dial lume matching? On my vintage watches that I have had restored I make it a point to match the lume on the hands as closely to the dial lume as possible, even if the dial lume has darkened badly over the years. The watchmakers I engage totally know that and are very good in matching the lume color. To me there's nothing worse than sticking green lumed hands on a vintage piece if it doesn't match. I did do that years ago before I realized a watchmaker could pretty much match the lume color. I think those that have been around as long as me on this forum know I'm a big patina fan and I love Navi's that have been beat up in a cockpit on real world missions. Wouldn't change a thing other than make sure the mechanicals are up to snuff. Heck, I've even left scratched crystals on watches if it increases the over all look of a patina piece. And, I just hate the term "tropical" that seems to have originated with Heuer's. Call it what it is, patina, aged, weathered, whatever but inventing the term "tropical" gives the impression that it's something special or desirable when it's just plain weathered or sun burnt. All that being said this all boils down to individual taste and the market will eventually show what will bring the best return, if that's what's important to you.