The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Ive read several references , 1952, 1953, 1954

But when did they move ? Which year did breitling start using Geneve on the dial and was legally allowed to do so because they were located there ?

http://people.timezone.com/breitling/bfaq/

Says 1952

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

As far as I am concerned, 1953 - and later in the year too. Don't have it to hand right now but pretty sure that 'The Book' concurs.

A very fast Google got 1952 from Christie's and Antiquorum articles.

Wayne

Perhaps they could provide us with some pictures of some 1952s with Geneve dials, would love to see them

When, in April 1952, Breitling opened its new headquarters in Geneva, the address was:

G.-Leon Breitling Ltd.
6, Place du Molard

When the company closed in December 1978, the Geneva headquarters was located at:

26, rue Adrien-Lachenal
1211 Geneve 3

"The Book" says that happened sometime during the 1960s, but I don't know just what year.

From this ad in Swiss Horological Journal, it appears there was a Breitling sales office in Geneva that opened in 1950.

As to the dials, the catalog copy shown in Richter and "The Book" makes me think the transition took several years, since you can see catalog pages and ads that sport watches with "Geneve" and without.

Thanks Bill
Really inconclusive then

I was hoping for something like "cut off date" for Geneve markings on dials instead of a gradual replacement but I guess that is too much to ask/hope for

Does anyone here have ideas or thoughts when the transition happened from no-geneve to geneve on the dial ?

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

The problem with 'moving to Geneve' is that it wasn't a one time thing. Head office functions moved before production, but I'm not sure what drove the dial transition (that may even be regulated by the Canton???)

I have seen pieces that I believe to be correct with late 1953 cases and without Geneve on the dial, I don't recall ever seeing a 1952 with Geneve.

Production never moved from rue Montbrillant, La Chaux de Fonds. Only the business operations relocated to Geneva.

It was a bit of a curiosity, then, when Breitling AG bought Kelek and "Breitling" once again had a presence in La Chaux de Fonds. Sicura/Breitling had never moved from Grenchen.

Since you brought up 75th anniversaries, I note that the company we now call "Breitling" was founded in 1939 as "Joh. Gobber Horlogerie" and became Sicura AG in May 1955.

I hereby propose a 75th Gobber Anniversary contest and prize. Nominate your favorite Sicura-branded watch or clock. The winner will receive his or prize on 1 April 2014 (nyuk). The prize is likely to be a limerick, but might be a haiku or just a silly poem.

You're right - dumb comment by me, put it down to weekend brain (which may be a problem as I'm working)!

Based on the above , can we safely say without Geneve is 1953 or earlier and with geneve is 1954 and later ?

I have said that in the 765 AVI investigation just wanted to verify my thinking

2 watches , both with serialnumbers from 1953 , one without geneve on the dial the other with geneve

I would date the 'without geneve' as 1953 and the one 'with geneve' as 1954 or later

Further dating could be done with the export code , ie 'with geneve' and a 'BOW' is a 1954 / 1955 build and a 'with geneve' and 'WOG' code is a 1956 or later build, regardless of the case serial number that may have a 1953 date range

Just seeking confirmation to my thinking

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

I would say that 1953 is more likely to have Geneve than not, although that's not a scientific statement, more a 'sense' of what I have seen. However, the fact that late 1953 serial numbers (or perhaps more accurately a serial number that is late in the 1953 range) that appear correct don't always have them adds confusion.