The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Hi All!
Excited to be part of the forum. I'm pretty new to Breitling but have always admired the heritage of the Navitimer, so when I saw one in a reputable dealer here in Australia I decided to pull the trigger.

The watch appears to be in great condition so I'm assuming it's probably been restored. but I noticed that unlike the examples I've seen online it was missing the "t" after Swiss Made.

Just wanted to check if this is something that could have happened with a replacement part or something that I should be more concerned about?

Appreciate anyone's expertise and guidance!
Cheers
Quan

well...... there is no "T" because this is pre-Tritium
you happened to find one of the rarest Navitimers of all, the Mk3 "beaded bezel" panda

the first panda dials were installed in the Mk2 cases of the Venus 178 "all blacks", only produced, as far as we know, from late 1963 to early 1964.

can you be so kind and try to post a pic of the inside caseback, or at least the first 5 digits of the serial; should be 97x.xxx to 99x.xxx

Hi WatchFred,
Thank you for the information!
The serial is 972310 so seems to sit in the 1963 bracket.
I haven't opened the case back yet.....

very, very lovely piece, congratulations !!!!

I am new to this forum, and also somewhat new to Breitling, expanding my interests beyond Omega. I've been trying to educate myself on the nuances of the Navitimer 806 so that I may purchase a decent no-excuses watch, but with so many variations with the Navitimer 806, I'm struggling with some of the details. For example, the dial on Qomix's nice 1963 does not have a T after Swiss made, with WatchFred informing that this watch was made pre Tritium. Currently on offer on eBay is another transitional 1963 watch, apparently identical except it does have a T following Swiss Made. Can someone illuminate me?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/252666458725?_t ... EBIDX%3AIT

I think this billshaine listing is authentic despite the 'T' after SWISS MADE. However, this seller has a bit of a reputation on this forum, so I am not 100% confident. The serial number is correct for the transitional period, and the dial & lume appear original. It is a bit newer than the OP's watch, so it may have been that Breitling starting using Tritium right around the time this watch was produced (or like many things Breitling, there may have been a transition period with some Tritium and some Radium dials).

Also, see Dracha's 63/64 Navitimer in the first response on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=53374

EDIT: upon closer look, I think the small hand in the 9 o'clock register is a replacement on billshaine's listing.

I had to get a loose pusher fixed so finally got the back open.




https://imgur.com/JzGmMej
https://imgur.com/WJfD6tB

perfect

lovely piece congrats

Well - I could name at least 10 reference 806 Navitimers that I consider more rare, and on top of that a good handfull of 809's

Kurt B http://www.kurt-b.com

Kurt, "one of" does not mean the rarest of all - but less of these were produced than R72 Navitimer
for mere mortals, this is pretty rare

Thanks All!
I am definitely a mortal, so I'm pretty happy!

"For mere mortals?” Is this the most serious Vintage Breitling Forum in the world, or a place where we joke about members being mere mortals, and categorize watches accordingly?

The pre-806 Valjoux 72 AOPA Navitimers (a Grail - but not really rare) are not a reference 806 Navitimer, so obviously not on my "at least 10 reference 806 Navitimers that I consider more rare" list, but the ref 806 Valjoux 72 AOPA Navitimer is.

I'll agree that the ’63 beads of rice bezel AOPA Navitimer (mark whatever u call it) is not the version we see many of, so, yes, "pretty rare" - but nowadays most Navitimers in very good condition deserve that description.

If we divide them into two groups, rare ones and common ones, and set aside condition, then the fact that there are 10+ (close to 20 including ref 809 Navitimers) that are much rarer, it's definitely closer to being one of the common ones, than to being one of the rare ones, imo.

Not to discount the coolness and quality of Quan’s watch, but to give him an accurate picture of its place in the spectrum.

Kurt B http://www.kurt-b.com

Kurt - I read in your post a slightly mean-spirited tone that I hope you did not intend? Fred is just helping out a poster (which was from 2016 I might add) who clearly has a cursory interest (8 posts compared to your 445 posts or Fred's 13380 posts) in Breitling. Fred's just telling the OP he has a somewhat special piece, which he does. If you lined up every Navitimer ever made, the OPs is in the top 99.99% of rarity, so "one of the rare ones" I'd say. Im pretty sure Fred's intention however was not to define a formal statute of metrics on the rarity of 806/pre 806 and whatever else might lie within, or to open a debate. The comments was not meant for scholarly archive.

I would agree that this is without a doubt the most serious vintage Breitling forum around, but is only so because of the good natured generosity and ever evolving knowledge of it's participants. Both you and Fred have helped me out countless times for which I am very grateful.

David,

It's really not so much about what Fred is telling the OP, it's about what everybody reads he's telling the OP, as once it's out there, it stays out there - it will be read again & again, and slowly by slowly it becomes a belief.

Whether it's Indented or unintended mislead, I always try to set the record straight when I see it.
It only tends to make wrong more right, when it's being carried out by persons to whom a lot of peoples listen to.

To me Navitimers is a serious thing, and not just a game to please others.

Dating and setting the record straight on Navitimers, is an ongoing process, and I'm am constantly working on placing the Navitimers in a correct Timeline, and according to rarity as well, and this just doesn't help me at all.

Yesterday I was noticed my mail that the following was posted in IG, short time ago.

"Navitimer Mk3.1 (no idea what it means), only produced in 1963 (heard claims about earliest 1964 but haven't found verified examples) these are among the rarest of all". And again - it's just not correct.......!!!

The "heard claims" most likely comes from my own Timeline http://kurt-b.com/sample-page, and it's a mistake.
When we worked on doing the timeline, I was informed by a guy who guaranteed me that he had one with a 1964 serial number, and that he would sent pictures to me.
I did not receive what he promised in time for the publication in The British Horological Journal, so I had to chose it believing him or not, and unfortunately I chose to believe him.
Later on he excused himself, and told me it was wrong, but I am working on updating my timeline, and will get it right.

It's a free Forum, everybody have a voice, but why not try to do things right instead of misleading.

At least Fred have gone from "one of the rarest Navitimers of all" to "pretty rare", (huge diference) and depending on the eyes that reads it, that is imo acceptable, but yours "top 99.99% of rarity" is just completely out in the Woods...

I just did a count, and I found 14 versions of the Navitimer that by far is more rare then the watch in mention, and at least 5 24 hours Navitimers (Cosmonautes with only Navitimer on the dial).
I found app 13 versions I'll consider less rare. This was done over 1/2 hour, a deeper investigation might change those numbers slightly.

I am devoted to the Navitimers in a way that few people understand, I have used close to 20 years in trying to sort them out, and as you know - I happily help and answer questions.

Kurt B http://www.kurt-b.com
IG kurtbroendum