The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Just to add to our evolving "database" on the earliest 806 Navitimers, here is another from 824,xxx series without Incabloc on the Venus 178 but with a more conventional "AOPA" wings/no Breitling dial:







I think one thing that can be said for certain is that from the introduction of the 806 until the early 1960s, Breitling used a helluva lot of dial configurations. So maybe a linear chronology of dial variations is not really possible? And maybe some of this variation has to do with the destination market for sale (i.e. maybe no Breitling on the USA/Wakmann imported models for some reason)?

Just a few more ideas to be chewed over and perhaps even spit out...

Best,
T.

I think that's definitely true - if we look at a relatively non contentious era - 1959 - 63 when we saw the trasition from the generic 'first generation' to 'second generation' there are perfectly good examples with any combination of hands, bezels, sliderules and subdials, there really seems to be no method to the madness.

Even in this example, should we assume that the hands were a service replacement, or is something else going on......

Oh for some records!

Yes, Roff, you're right--hands are definitely not period correct--probably off a mid-60s version. Likely they are all interchangeable, as the caliber remained consistent and we often see this sort of mismatch.

Also, just for the sake of completeness, here is the outer caseback I really should have posted earlier:



So we have a standard 806 caseback. Maybe the "blanks" were reseved for the Val. 72s only? Or has someone got a documented Venus 178 without the "806," as well?


I empathize but it appears we are never going to get access to definitive records and that they probably don't exist. So, in my experience, it is best for interested collectors to share and amass their own information data sets based on real world observation of genuine models by reference and case serial. These can then be correlated at a later date into a cohesive chronological list/table and certain patterns will reveal themselves. Or at least known variations within a certain production time frame may be able to be observed and/or confirmed.



Best,
T.

Hi Tom,

you/we are absolutly right, it is a 1953 Navitimer without incabloc.
The statements in addition of Kurt B. are not correct.
The hands were always exchanged in Germany, if the watch went to Breitling to the revision. I did not have there at the beginning also watched out with the official revision and have always new hands gotten from Breitling.

I think one thing that can be said for certain is that from the introduction of the 806 until the early 1960s, Breitling used a helluva lot of dial configuration.

Breitling would never have redone the dial, they would have replaced it.

Maybe you know who did it, as the result is as ugly as on a lot of your own redone & faked dials.

And how do you know that Breitling did not have the right hand in the 60's ?


Kurt B

Hi Kurt

I dont know, if Breitling had the right hands in the 60's , but I know 100 % that the hands were always exchanged in Germany, if the watch went to Breitling to the revision in later times.

And this watch has not a redone dial. Why do you say that ?

And Kurt, is it possible that we discuss here serious about watches and you can let your primitive private hate attacks. It dont helps us here.

regards
Michael M.

B’museum,

Sorry for the confusion, it's of course the numbers that have been redone.

I will never reach a point where I'll take you and your watches serious, and just FYI, I don't hate you, I pity you.
Simply because of the way you do your business, selling faked watches to honest people.


Kurt B

Hi Tom,
my watchmaker has dismantled a 1953er Navitimer. He says the works floor, the counter for incabloc does not fit, purely in contrary to the later Navitimer. I will send photos in the next few days after Carnival .

What says Graig to this theory?

OK, 6...that we know of.
Seems like a fair amount to me anyway.
Best regards,
T.