The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Seller classwatches from Beverly Hills is listing this, $6.200 BIN:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1st-Generation- ... 337e8c1645

Now, if this would really, finally be the long missing, authentic 1953 Navitimer, that Breitling and
others claim must exist somewhere, this would be a very reasonable price, wouldn't it.

But it - my personal opinion, but probably shared by most here - is not, it is an excellent example
to discuss the "mis-stamping" theory.

The watch does carry the serial number 825 618, which would really date it to 1953; the seller was
even kind enough to include a copy of my serial number chart, grabbed off this site .

He also generously quotes Kurt Broendum to prove his false claims, including the "early AOPA Navitimers
had the smallest beads on the bezel, and then up through the 50’s they grew bigger & bigger, so basically
one can say – the more beads on the bezel the earlier".

But when you look at the watch, all these theories crumble; the bezel has 93 "beads of rice", clearly dating
the watch to 1959 or 1960, as our member Dracha (Rene, where are you?) has pointed out in his excellent
post "How to date the early Breitling Navitimers by bezel beads": viewtopic.php?f=11&t=36494&p=267358&hilit=806+beads

The balance cock shows the Wakmann WOG marking, not the BOW marking of Breitling USA that all early
Navitimers until 1957 carry.

Caseback, of course, is marked "806", not unmarked like the correct early 1954 examples.

Nice try.

Watch clearly is 1959/1960 - all aspects fit; the guy responsible for caseback stamping just erroneously
exchanged the correct leading 9 with an 8; whether in a hurry, having a headache, or on the way to an
AA meeting, we will never know; 925 618 would be perfect for a 1960 Navitimer 806.

some pics here:

It does seem like a classic late 50s / 60 example and as you say, it would appear to be a perfect support for the case stamping error. I'm still holding out for a '52 anyway, not interested in a '53

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

I was looking at that watch earlier and I'm pretty sure it's an assembled piece from odd parts although the serial number on the caseback is a bit perplexing. I've also been checking something else today with early 806's. It appears that 1957 and earlier have these additional three movement retaining screws on all that I've seen. My 1957 has them. I was wondering if these were used because of a difference in case design or what? It appears later watches don't have the three screws although I haven't been able to find any 1958 806's to check yet. Here's an example;

Here is a post of Dracha in a swiss forum about the stamping error between 8 and 9 in 1958 with a Breitling's letter in this way but I can't read german...

http://www.horlogerie-suisse.com/forum/ ... =1&t=17947

yep, this was originally posted here, linked to in my post above, but happy to repeat,
probably easier for most here than scrolling through a thread in French.

indepth research into "the waning beads", by Rene/Dracha:
How to date the early Breitling Navitimers by bezel beads
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=36494&p=267358

Yes but Dracha mentionned the stamping error and joined a Breitling's letter in this way on this swiss forum. That's why i posted it

Thanks for your post, i learn everyday on this forum !

that letter, Aetius, was written to Kurt Broendum afaik and the link leads to Kurt's site; I must admit I consider that letter pure BS, just trying to maintain the ruse about those '52 Navitimers; nobody ever saw an example of these "Government Issue Navigation Timers" nor has Breitling ever published any documentation proving that claim.

Copied from my website......


The "none existing" 1953 Breitling AOPA Navitimers.

We have seen several examples of possible/probable serial number anomalies, specifically the batches with serial numbers beginning with 82XXXX. These have characteristics of later production than 1953.

Breitling service records since 1990 show Ref. 806 Navitimers with serial numbers 825451, 825277, 825365, 825094 824725, 824865 and 824984. When reviewing the factory production records, these serial numbers were for models with completely different reference numbers including Ref. 503, 1197 and 2100 containing different movements, not the Venus 178.

These appear to be serial number anomalies for several reasons. It is highly probably that the serial #92XXXX should have been used. As stated above, all of the watches under scrutiny here were not documented as Ref.806 inthe original written records. Furthermore, all do possess the characteristics of a later watch circa 1960’s:

All have the larger beads on the bezel, which is seen after 1957

In all cases we note the absence of a casing ring that was secured by 3 screws plus 2 movement casing screws.

These were used until about September 1958, as by at least July1959 adifferent arrangement was used requiring only 2 screws to secure the movement directly to the case middle.

The next issue is the import code. BOW seems to have been used up to 1957. We document an 806/897054 (November 1957) with WOG import code but do not have a movement picture.

The next issue is the shock protection seen on some of the 82XXXX. We are seeing this non incabloc shock protection being used throughout various models, not just the 806. It seems to be a later type as it is not used in any other models early on. It seems to have been introduced around 1960. It is seen in a “legitimate” Ref. 806/924310, circa 1960.

References:

Breitling chronograph production records

Photograph archives of Horological Services, Factory authorized vintage Breitling service for the USA.

Mark & Theresa Heist, Horological Services, personal experience working on vintage Breitling chronographs for 19 years.

Kurt Broendums private observations from more then 10 years of collecting.

Another example.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BREITLING-Uhr-Navitimer-806-AOPA-Venus-178-aus-1953-/190777904398?pt=DE_Kleidung_Schmuck_Accessoires_Uhren_Armbanduhren&hash=item2c6b3fcd0e

Another fascinating and informative thread

Sold for $4k

did someone save the letter? The link has expired, but if you can provide me with a copy I could translate it.

Best

Chris

3,5 years later




btw:

now, that we saw these watches in the last years and all facts in my opinion says,
checking these watches in the aspect, that the "8" should be a "9", because than
we see all authentic watches for a 9serial watch -

how is the value from a watch like this on the market?

the same as it is for a 9serial stamped?

regards

806er

Mostly the same value , I do not believe the Breitling collector community has placed a premium on these misstamped 806's (yet?)

_________________
"I spent most of my money on Booze, Breitling and Boats. The rest I wasted" - mostly Elmore Leonard

It is interesting that say in the Rolex community these would have a profound premium... But yet Ai can't bring myself to see these as a premium worthy Navi. But perhaps time will prove me wrong