The Breitling Watch Source Forums

I think the Incabloc argument is interesting. To add to the debate I've found a couple of adverts, the first dated 15 Jan 1950.
It comes from this magazine.
And a second one from the same magazine dated 1 June 1950
Both obviously pre-dating the Navitimers release.

Perhaps this goes back to an argument Bill Shaine made about Venus needing to upgrade their movements to Incabloc and Breitling using the 72 until it did.

That might make some sense, but if they were making the claim that all their watches used incabloc in 1950 then it seems hard to believe that it would take 5 years for a movement as (relatively) common as the 178 to take 5 years to have an incabloc version (if we assume that there were no 178 806s until post the Valjoux 72 era).

After all, Venus and Breitling had an established commercial relationship by the 50s and adding incabloc to the movement isn't a particularly complex change.

This advert reminds me of something else: " USA AGENT : BREITLING WATCH CORPORATION OF AMERICA..."

Why not Wakmann watch corporation ?

Going off topic, but Icko Wakmann registered both names in 1943. Your advert dates from very late 1946 or later because the script Breitling wasn't used until late 46 and was trademarked by Brwitling Watch Company of America for the US market at the end of 1947.

I would tend to agree with you, I don't know what the answer is. The only thing I could point to in comparison is the Lemania 15CHT movement, to my knowledge a movement produced at least from the thirties, it doesn't use incabloc until I believe the Fifties. Why did Lemania wait so long to include incabloc in one of it's top chronograph movements? I don't know, but they did?

Unless I've misunderstood the discussion, the 1953 Navitimers being discussed with Venus 178 movements (the would predate the Valjoux) are the subject of debate over whether the date serial number was misstamped, thus a Navitimer actually produced in 1953 is dated 1960. The logical argument being put forward is that these Navitimers don't have Incabloc movements, which one would expect to see in a 1960 Navitimer, so the evidence would point to them actually being correctly stamped and dating from 1953.

However, to throw a spanner in the works, we have Breiting in 1950 making the assertion that all their watches have Incabloc. So by 1953 unless you believe Breitling were misrepresenting themselves, you'd think that the first Navitimer would have incabloc.

A little back to front on the 806s. The argument is that pre 1954 Navitimers were actually produced around 1960 and dated incorrectly. The argument against that is that the 1953s are non incabloc which is not correct for 1960 but might be more accurate for 1953.

Of course your finds dispute the relevance of that argument as well.

In terms of Lemania, I agree that incabloc was a late comer in some of their movements, but in this case it is Breitling that is making the claim and presumably therefore pushing the movement manufacturers to provide it.

I hesitate to bring this up again, but why did Breitling not register Navitimer as a trademark until 1955? Why would you market a watch and the trademark the name after the fact?

Also according to a Wakmann advertisement in a Sept 1947 issue of Life magazine their address was 452 Fifth ave. New York.

As I said, Icko Wakmann registered both Wakmann and Breitling companies, no surprise that the address was the same.

In terms of the trademark, it's not unusual to use a mark before filing for a trademark - the Breitling script I referred to above was by Breitling's own admission in use for 14 months before they applied for the trademark, and the process can be fairly lengthy. The 1955 date (February 26th to be precise) was the date that the Swiss trademark was issued.

The address information was meant as confirmation not revelation.

Is date de depot the application date? If so , the application date was 22 Janvier 1955 for the Navitimer. The Cosmonaute name was applied for on 14 April and trademarked June of 1961 before its release in 1962. Why would the sequence of events have been different for the Navitmer? I am not saying it isn't possible, just wondering.

I think it could be either way, it might be that Incabloc asked Breitling to promote it on their advertising as a way of making themselves more credible to other manufacturers. Presumably you had to pay Incabloc to use their system, so maybe companies like Venus were reticent to pay some third party for the pleasure of adding a part to their movements?

"The design was improved in 1938. In the U.S., The trademark "Incabloc" was registered on October 8, 1957. In the UK, it did not appear on most of the 'everyday' watches until the late 1940's and early 1950's, although by 1952 37 million Incabloc units had been sold worldwide"

http://www.clockswatches.com/showpage.php?em=1166

It crtainly seems that Incabloc took over ten years to establish themselves and maybe they were looking to increase their market share.

It seems extremely unusual for Breitling to promote third party products in its advertising. Maybe the converse argument is true and Breitling were promoting the use of Incabloc to their retailers because it gave their movements an edge over the others, an extra selling point with customers. Who needed who more is the question?

Interestingly Heuer is using Incabloc in the early Forties, much earlier than Breitling. Maybe Breitling felt they had to play catch-up with competitor.
http://www.onthedash.com/Guide/_Chronog ... onographs/