The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Hi,

I've got a Superocean Steelfish X-Plus, but I'm having doubts about its authenticity and I was hoping some of you experts could help me out.

I bought it second hand about a year ago from you know where. It came with no papers or box.

However, before buying it I had it authenticated at a watch shop on Bond Street in London, who stated in writing that it was real.

I've since found out that these watches should have a 6-digit date stamp etched in a box on the space between the lower lugs. Mine doesn't have this.

As far as I know the X-Plus (if that's what mine is) is a 2006 model. From what I've now learned on this site, date stamping on the Steelfish started in/around 2004, so mine should have the stamp etched on right? If so, then sadly mine looks like a fake/replica.

If anyone has any opinions on the authenticity of this watch then I'd be pleased to hear them - either way.

Thanks a lot.

Steelfish replica is very good - length of the tail on the S and the box around the date window are giveaways. I think that this one is OK, but wait for more opinions.

Thanks a lot for taking the time to have a look and reply. Sorry to be dense, but to clarify are you saying that mine looks to be genuine because the tail of the "S" and the date box ARE correct?

How about the lack of the date stamp etched between the lugs? I was worried that the lack of one would mean it was definitely a fake/rep.

I have never heard of a real one missing the date stamp but Im not an expert on fakes..Wait for someone who is before getting concerned.

_________________
SA-Baton White Dial/ProII
Tissot Le Locle

I am saying that I think it's real, but not an expert on this one so wait for others. Don't know why there is no code, which is 4 characters, not 6.

Is it possible that it's an '03 model that wasn't sold until '06. I really have no idea what the differences would be.

_________________
"Leave the gun, take the cannoli."

Thanks for your reply.

From info on this site, it seems the first Steelfish only came onto the market in 2005, and the X-Plus in 2006. Can anyone confirm this?

I guess my watch could have been manufactured pre-date stamping. In this link - http://www.breitlingsource.com/articles_dating.shtml - the writer talks about a Steelfish manufactured in October 2004.

Thing is, I always thought mine was the transitional X-Plus (44mm) version, so I would have thought it was manufactured in the days of stamping.

Can anyone confirm which version/year my watch is (or at least purports to be)?

The model number is for a 44mm piece (X-Plus or new Steelfish).

Thanks, that's what I thought. I think it's (supposed to be) an X-Plus because of the square-ended second hand.

I think I'm going to have to bite the bullet and have it opened up for a closer look. The thing is, apart from the missing date stamp, I can't see anything else that gives it away as a fake. I have scrutinised it from every angle against pictures of the genuine article and it looks spot on. But despite this, for me the date stamp is the killer blow.

Can anyone out there offer any plausible explanation of why my watch doesn't have a date stamp on the space between the lower lugs? Other than the increasingly obvious...

Alternatively can anyone see anything else on the face or case that says: "fake"?

I just hate to think that I've been carrying this load around on my wrist for a year only to discover that it's actually full of rocks...

Take a breath, you don't know anything bad yet.

Where's Bnewbie when you need him?

_________________
"Leave the gun, take the cannoli."

Look there is no doubt that watch has been around a while. It's only in the last couple years the Steelfish fakes got very, very good. Sure someone could have beat this up to make it look older but who would do that??

bottom line - the 3 biggest tells are (1) the engraving on the bezel (2) the date font (3) the tail on the "s" on the dial. The bezel engraving looks OK, the date font is correct, and the "S" is unmistakably Breitling. I guess once in a while a Chinese guy could get it perfect, but they really don't even try. Throw in the age of the watch, it's VERY hard for me to believe it's a fake.

No explanation for the lack of date etching. Did the watch guy who validated it look at the movement??

_________________
SHARKMAN

Interesting one.
I think it's OK. For me the characteristic replica Steelfish flaws such as the spacing between the date window and the 15, and the 45 tick and the number 9 are OK. The 45 rider tab has the correct font size. The date box window looks to be the normal size. The "S" Superocean taper looks alright. The pearl looks good and is not enlarged as on some of the replicas.

All in all it looks alright to me. I don't however have an explanation for the lack of date stamp. Wait for Bnewbie and Sharkmouth to give their opinions.

Could it have been polished off? Jut a thought during dinner out with my gf that came to me.

_________________
SA-Baton White Dial/ProII
Tissot Le Locle

Thanks a lot for your replies/advice. They have been very reassuring.

Ridiculously, I have now also found the date stamp, which is a big relief, though I now feel a bit sheepish.

All your replies saying the watch looked genuine and GZGym1's post about the date stamp maybe getting polished off got me thinking it MUST be there.

Once I'd cleaned off all the crud that had accumulated, I found it - "2405 B5". This places the watch around early June that year, which seems about right for a 2006 X-Plus. The thing is, this stamp is absolutely TINY, much smaller than I expected, and it was easily obscured. Though I still should have found it.

Although the stamp alone is no guarantee of the watch's authenticity, its absence was a bit of a deal breaker. So although I haven't been able to show you pics of the movement, I'm now pretty happy that its genuine, thanks to all your comments.

Shark, you are right: the watch does look like it has seen some action. However, although I try to take care of it, I do wear it everyday and have to expect a few knocks. It was largely in this condition when I bought it, but I only paid £750, which seemed reasonable. That said, I think it's time for it to pay a trip to the Breitling spa. Does the service usually restore the watch to its former glory or is it mainly a mechanical jobby?

No doubt whatsoever from the first dial shot I looked at.

Glad you found the date stamp.

Sorry I wasn't around to ease your fears earlier.

_________________

For more information on identifying Breitling replicas, please visit my web site
http://f4buz.com/watches/breitling/fakes/fakes.html