The Breitling Watch Source Forums

True enough - it's a nice addition.

In terms of 52 Navis, well it's certainly possible that they were announced but not publicly available - there is generally a delay after announcement and before availability, although as we have consistently seen the delay is often short - Calibre 11 was commercially available soon after Basel 69 and the B01 was commercially available by summer 09.

Like everyone else I can't prove whether the first Navitimers were 52 / 53 venus or 54 Valjouxs. I wish I knew what Breitling has - they must have had some reason to issue a 50th anniversary piece in 2002.

I wonder if the 806 was debuted at Basel 52 and perhaps after this catalog was printed, maybe with the old Venus non-Incabloc movement, but there was some issue that delayed its production. Could have to do with Breitling wanting a shock resistant movement in the public version of the watch and maybe Venus was behind on this and that is why Breitling had to turn to Valjoux for the "first" series.

Or possibly there was a problem with the actual name "Navitimer" and that is why public availability had to wait a few more years? For example, we know that some very early Rolex Submariners do not in fact have the name on the dial (ref. 6200) and some have had the name blacked out (6204). This is thought to be due to Rolex not yet securing their trademark on the name "Submariner" at the time the watches were originally produced and being unwilling to put Submariner on the dials until they had done so. Perhaps Breitling had a similar period of bureaucratic delay before they felt secure enough to sell an 806 with "Navitimer" on the dial?

In any case, one of these possibilities could indicate that the 824,k 806s without Incabloc were not misstamped but rather simply not sold until ca. 1960, as Kurt contends. While these early serial Navitimers might technically pre-date their illustrious Val. 72 brethren, perhaps they sat for some 8 years before having the "new" Breitling B Geneve/Navitimer dials affixed and then sent out for sale by their ADs.

As to why Breitling might sell such a watch with inferior shock protection totally out of chronological sequence, I can only point to the mantra of the Swiss watch industry: Move the Metal!

Totally hypothetical stuff, I know, but that is half the fun...
Best,
T.

And as a counterpoint.........

The AOPA brochure with the 72 version that says 'never before has a watch been offered......" that is from 1954 also says "Over 1,000 AOPA members have bought this watch" (I may be unintentionally paraphrasing as I don't have it in front of me right now, but it's essentially correct) which raises the question of when did they buy those 1,000 watches (and were they incabloc free 178s?

Love the catalog. Especially like that ref 6003 tank on the first page with what appears like a metal bracelet on it. Totally cool! Would like to find one of them.

Indeed... beautiful catalog...

One question though... don't want to hijack the thread but...

I see that there's a 789 on the page and I have a 789... if my watch was made in 1946/1947, then how come it's in the 1952 catalog also?

_________________
"I don't got the bright watch I got the right watch" -Jay Z

Model was made for multiple years - nothing more sinister than that.

My appologies for re-opening this thread (and a can of worms) but I have read through this and see one Q that seems unanswered
for argument sake I am not taking into consideration the movemnt, the incabloc , the Venus vs Valj or even the serial numbers .

I always thought that the the relative age and generation of the 806/809 watch could be roughly established by looking at the bezel

Gen 1 - small rice bead bezel
Gen 2 - large rice bead bezel
Gen 3 - small coin bezel
Gen 4 - large coin bezel

How come the 52's and 53's , the "misstamped" 8xxxxx , all have a "large rice bead" bezel when , at least according to the reasoning here , they should have a "small beads bezel" ? Do you think Breitling first released them with a "large beads" bezel , "reverted" to small beads and then back again to "large beads" ? this doesnt compute in my brain .

The bezel is an intricate part of the design of the watch and I know of no designer that reverted back to an earlier design , designers wont even admit that an earlier design was better looking ! they just want to continue with the new design, and be praised for that. Reverting to an earlier design = loosing face having to admit the prior one was better looking

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

That logic is one of the largest arguments in favour of the '53s' being misstamped.