The Breitling Watch Source Forums

I haven't found anything in my stuff one way or the other - and I can't find too much infor on the other numbers (patents??). A few references to 800 moonphases of the same era. There are multiple examples of this watch with 799 references of this era - we've seen two of them here (yes I know - consider the source), and that obviously lends more credibility than just one. The Israeli site also has one - although that may be Michael's.

Thank you for your research, it is really very difficult to get an accurate opinion ...

it seeks also in France, I come from Belgium

http://forumamontres.forumactif.com/for ... t78028.htm here

Thank you very much

. . . and thanks for the link. We seem to have fallen behind in the discussion.

Can you or a better French speaker give a bit of a precis of that discussion? I can't quite make out all of the points being made about the dial being re-painted.

Of all of the examples we are looking at, I think the one you are showing is the most credible. That signature on the dial looks very correct, although the placement seems low and I'm not persuaded that the hands are original.

I don't know what to make of the collection that Herbert/Michael/Norbert has assembled, most are pretty obviously not authentic. Should it bother us that we're not web-searching up images of a ref. 799 that matches the 1946 catalog?

Here's a wild thought. Can the mis-match with the 1946 catalog and the case serial in our numbers gap indicate that watch was made at a later time? In other words, are we off by a few years in dating this watch?

The close proximity of serial numbers lends some credence to the possibility of later watches and the gap between documented 1946 or 47 serial numbers is rather large (11,000) - as you suggest Bill these could easily be later. I don't know enough about time only pieces of the mid 50s to see how many of those fit into the 'gap' (1955 being the comparable year for time only)

Web searches can always be hit and miss with this vintage anyway - we do know that the 800 is a documented reference number with moonphase of the period and I would like to see a caseback of that model to see what numbers are on the back of those.

I think it's very difficult to make an assesment of this watch without having it in your hands and getting the dial under a loup, etc.

However based on what we've been shown there are some questions about it for me both pro and con.

On the Pro side we know that different dials could be ordered for the same watch, so could an argument be made that the dial is similar to the 800 ref be possible. The wording of the catalogue IMHO could be interpreted that way.

"No. 800 same as 799, but with double hands (split-second hand), calendar and Phases of the moon"
Is the catalogue saying that you can have either dial with either movement? I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt.

On the con side, the markings on the back of the case give me pause. First of all they are clearly two sets of numbers with different fonts (to my eye) and different engraving/stamping styles, to me they look like they have been added at different times?

Also they don't really make sense in terms of Breitling refs, two numbers are standard, the date and style and even at a pinch a third number perhaps as suggested a patent number - although I don't know why this watch would be patented, it uses a Venus movement and a dial design commmon to many other brands. Unlike say the patent on the Chronomat with it's unique features, which even that doesn't have the patent number on the back.

http://www.farfo.com/menswatches/Page2/ ... tches.html

Why a forth number? I can't recall seeing any other complex Breitlings from this period with anything approching these types of numbers? If there are any out there (not from Michael's collection) then it would be great to see them.

Looking at the Universal Geneve moonphases (I am far from an expert on this brand so am happy to be put right) it comes with two very similar case back numbers.
http://www.finertimes.com/asp/watches/q ... anCode=106

Is it possible that someone added the Breitling ref numbers to say the case of a Universal or other brand moonphase? Perhaps we should be looking at other manufacturers of this style of watch with this movement?

BTW - did we confirm the movement as a 187?
http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-db. ... &Venus_187

Here are some more moonphases I've found online.
http://www.heirloom2.com/moonphases_o%29.htm
http://www.heirloom2.com/my_private_collection.htm

To the best of my knowledge it's impossible to tell without seeing the dial side of the movement.

Thanks Roff.

Could this Mulco have the same movement?
http://www.katoso.com/watch4sale/watches/A434.html

Looks like it - though without incabloc.

the base is Venus 178 !!

==> réf 17890

Sorry, not sure I understand.

Your watch is a 178 base (i.e. it's a Venus 190)??

I think yes, the shape of the central bridge, is not that from a 187, but from a 178, so certainly from a 190 ...

which corresponds to the reference background ==> 17890

Good catch - you're right.

So now we need to confirm what the 799 should have had in it. I'm travelling until the weekend so won't have access to my reference material.

Richter says
799= Venus 187
800 = Venus 190

It seems that the Venus 190 is a split-seconds movement.
http://www.ikada.de/kal-v190.html

Which I don't believe this is, unless this movement came in two versions?

To confuse things the 801 in the Breitling vintage collection doesn't seem to be split seconds either but should be according to Richter.
http://people.timezone.com/breitling/bf ... ction.html

Yeah well Richter ain't perfect as we all know!

I think you are right about the 190 being a split second - don't have access to Bestfit this week to confirm. I can't think of another 178 family movement that has a moonphase though (200 maybe - that's moonphase, and I think it's a 14 ligne 175 base movement - don't remember when it first appeared).