The Breitling Watch Source Forums

well cal_11
If you say they're exactly the same I have nothing to add here other than 'I disagree with you'

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

Surely not exacty, more similar. What do you mean?

This does not make any sense. If we were talking maybe a small watch house that allowed free reign of its watchmakers to identify who made each piece I could believe it. Not here. A "/" would be a clear cut no-no as these are not handmade. They put these case backs in a machine and WHAM-O, you got numbers. Not some guy popping each number and dash by hand. As Jackie Chan would say.....
Ahhhhhh, Soooo Sorrrrry.

Wayne

I'm not sure if understand you correctly. Are you thinking, my watch is a fake?

His has a / and yours and the correct way is a dash or (-). So, that being said........ Marz's watch would be incorrect and what seems to be par or even for the course, this being a golf term, for him. I am not saying yours is wrong, understand?
Sorry if I come off funny. I thought I was quite clear.

Wayne

Sometimes it's hard for me to understand you native english speaking/writing guys

As I've written, I don't think that a "--" or a "/" is an indication for a fake. And again - don't hit me - I don't think, this watch and also Mr. März' 244 is a fake.

cal_11

Here are the things I don't understand, although I confess to not being interested in moonphase watches.

1. Why should "26" be on a hand-wound moonphase watch, when "26" is the designation for an automatic-wind, date, time-only watch?

2. Why is there any mark in the model reference number, when Breitling didn't put any punctuation in their reference numbers, as is shown in all the examples I know and all of the advertising and catalogs?

Good questions, I certainly dont have the answers but its definately more food for thought

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

my problem with the threehand Datora is that they are grossly tainted by The Sage - no trusted collector has come up who has a selection of multiple documented pieces we can use as a basis to build up relevant knowledge.

cal_11, no mistrust towards you, but fakes go back sixty years or more, there are just too many inconsistencies between the watches we see and the miniscule amount of documentation we have available that I feel uncomfortable with every piece I see.

+1

and now even more so with the info Bill just shared , but again, afaik not a single piece with enough provenance to say 'yes' or 'no'

back on my fence it is

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

Watchfred, you're right and I thank you for your objectivity. Sometimes it's really hysterical here - especially in Datora-threads. As I have written in another Datora-thread: Not every Datora is a fake only because Mr. März is offering a similar model. They're - because of their age - really not well documented but they're existing!

It's better to say "we have currently not enough informations about a Datora to say if it's a fake or authentic" than "This watch is a fake because in the ref is a '-' instead a '/' included or the movement-sign is not located at the expected place". If someone has made this really good fake in this period (in this case 60 years), he had to have a original to make a copy. Why should he make such a mistake with the "/" instead an "--"?

cal_11

well Cal, why would he make a mistake by 'signing' the watches twice on the back cover
once inside and once outside, thats totally out of the norm and put a big question mark on any watch that has this as , as far as I recall, Breitling never did this

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

OK, I'm giving up. We won't come to an result in case of Datoras and I don't like to defend anymore...

cal_11