The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Anyone have information such as when this AOPA chronograph came to market? How rare is it? It is signed on the bridge Wakmann and on the balance cock it has the Breitling WOG code. It has a Wakmann crown and a Gigandet stainless case. Thanks for your replys!

The dial is starting to show some age, however I just got the watch back from my watchmaker and it's running great after a complete overhaul.

Phew - this is tough for me - I know nothing of these things!

WOG is a good sign, it means that you have a Breitling movement rather than a Wakmann sourced ebauche. The watch looks like a Datora Duograph, not sure about the movement - it's Venus, but not one I recognize. Given the number of complications it could be a modified 178 or similar, or it could be one of the less common ones - 190 is a complicated movement, but don't think this is one of those.

The reference number on the movement is 786, which is inconsistent with Venus numbering, and I don't think that's the Breitling equivalent reference number.

The Datora Duograph has been around since the early 50s, this seems more recent to that in terms of style - more late 60s?? - a total guess. I've not seen one before, but I don't really take much notice of Wakmanns so that might not mean much.

Sorry - not very helpful I'm afraid.

Oh and one more thing - nice watch!!

Hi Roffensian:

Thanks for your quick response!

The movement in this chronograph is a Valjoux 72C ("C" for Calendar) to this I am certain. You can see the ebauche makers mark under the balance wheel. The scripted "R" identifies Valjoux and the model 72C is visible. I also own a Wakmann with a similar dial layout and it is probably from the late sixties so I would agree with your date estimate.

I have read that Wakmann was the distributor for Breitling in the USA and that movements during that timeframe were cosigned WOG on the Wakmann movements.

How were AOPA watches being marketed during that timeframe? Just through AOPA magazine or also through Breitling and Wakmann?

Oops - that's a bit embarrassing - you're right of course

The Wakmann story is a little complicated. Basically the US government passed a law designed to protect the US watch manufacturers - Hamilton, Elgin, etc. Basically it prevented swiss watch manufacturers from selling imported models.

To circumvent this rule Wakmann was established as a US company and acquired by Breitling. Breitling then shipped unassembled cases and movements to Wakmann in the US and they assembled them into finished watches - identical to Breitlings but carrying the Wakmann name. These were then marketed by Wakmann. Movements were initially supplied by Breitling and stamped WOG as you say, although in later years Wakmann also sourced generic swiss ebauches which did not carry the WOG stamp that indicates the movement was produced for Breitling.

Wakmann survived for a while after the act was repealed and became the distributor for Breitling in the US.

The AOPA relationship with Breitling dates back to the original 806 Navitimer in 1952, which the AOPA claims to have helped Breitling design, and from then on both Breitling and AOPA publicly promoted the relationship - it wasn't just an AOPA thing. Not sure if the Wakmann relationship was any different to that.

Hi Roffensian:

Thanks again for your reply and informative information.

I have always enjoyed the dials that have the AOPA emblem (perhaps due to vocation). I probably should have picked up a nice AOPA Navitimer when I had the chance, before the incredible demand and price escalation. I was more focused perhaps on finding those watches that you don't see everyday, such as this square cased Breitling Chonomatic with an AOPA dial and a calibre 11 movement.

I see these surface from time to time. Any information on these? As always, thanks for your input.....

I don't know of any specific history with the AOPA. It's a pretty standard chronomatic other than the logo - I assume it was some kind of marketing arrangement.

Can't remember the years of these, sometime in the early 70s if memory serves. What's the model number on that one - 2111?

Hi Roffensian:

Yes, it's a model 2111. Serial number 1267XXX. Calibre 11. For me, the AOPA logo and condition of the watch makes it desireable.

A little out on the year - 1969.

Richter actually lists 2111 as a Breitling 15 movement, I can't remember the differences between 11, 12, 14 and 15, but they were all pretty similar - and Richter is far from perfect so you are likely right that it's an 11.

According to this website, the serial number dates this Chronomatic to 1969. That was the first year of sale, right (for the calibre 11 automatic chronograph)?

http://lesmala.net/jean-michel/navitimer/year.htm

Right - that's what I meant - the serial dates to 1969, versus my memory in the previous post where I said early 70s.

I don't recall exactly when calibre 11 was introduced, but it was around this period - I'll have to look it up.

...verrry interesting that the Wakmann model code matches that on the outside caseback of my Breitling 804:



The matching codes could well indicate that Wakmann & Breitling were sometimes sharing the same cases on both sides of the Atlantic, perhaps with Breitling requisitioning some from Wakmann for oddball complications like the 804 that did not fit the regular production line (don't seem to be a lot of Breitling-badged complications in the 60s & 70s but a lot of Wakmann Triples).

In other words, it's possible that some cases produced originally for Wakmann might be double-stamped with a different model # and SN if they were to be marketed as Breitlings and sold in Europe, perhaps as in the case of my example. This might explain some of the peculiarities of my 804, including the presence of the wordy caseback nomenclature and dual ref. #s ("804" stamped with the SN, "1309" originally engraved with the other rubric) and perhaps even the potentially anachronistic SN, which may have followed a different chronology than Breitling's usual sequence.

And no need for the "WOG" code on the bridge, as the watch was always intended for European sale:



So interesting!
Thanks to Chronomania for this thought-provoking post & cheers,
Tom

Hi Tom:

I am not sure of the significance of the 1309 number. Could it be a reference from the case manufacturer Charles Gigandet? Below is a view of the inside of the caseback. Due you have the same signature on your Valjoux 88?

Gigandet supplied cases for the Wakmann Triple Calendar Chronographs, however I don't see the 1309 number on my other Wakmann triple chronos (I have several of them, although I beleive that they may be newer than the AOPA).

...Triple Date Chronos:






Some also seem to be marked "1307" & "1308."

However, there is no Gigandet signature inside the back of mine...



Best,
T.

Hi Tom:

Perhaps the reference numbers also correspond with dates/year of manufacture.

A quick glance at two of my other Wakmanns have the following numbers:

71.1311.21 a gold plated Wakmann Triple Date Triple Chrono
1315.30.75 a stainless Wakmann Triple Date Triple Chrono

The one in your picture above has the numbers:

71.1309.70

.....and you mention that you have found 1307 and 1308 numbers.

If you notice, there is a pattern in the above three numbers:

1309 with the lowest 4 digit number has 70 and 71 on either side
1311 has the next highest number with a 71 number
1315 has the next highest number with a 75 number

Perhaps the 70's numbers are the year of manufacture?

I will check my other Wakmanns when I have a chance (one is presently with my watchmaker). I am curious to see if there is a similar reference number hierarchy to the 70's number.

If the correlation is correct, then perhaps our watch cases with the 1309 reference were made either in 1970 or 1971?

Please post some more Wakmann caseback pictures/reference numbers if you find them.