The Breitling Watch Source Forums

I'm really struggling with all of this arrogance, but maybe things are simply getting lost in translation.

I've got no problem with the dial on the Sprint, but what calibre is that - if the only thing wrong is the caseback (which I agree is wrong) then the implication is that the monopoussoir case is wrong - but I don't recognize the calibre. That said I am not an expert on Landeron movements for the obvious reason that there is the for ever ongoing discussion about whether Landeron movements were ever used in Breitlings (I'm not getting into that, and not offering an opinion). So again, simply for my information, what calibre is that?

In terms of Liengme & Cie, I think I would want to understand the connection with Breitling before believing that there is one. Especially in watches that are around the war years when I struggle to understand why Breitling would need to buy movements from another manufacturer when they weren't consuming many themselves. Maybe when production was ramping up - I simply don't know. However I would like to know more about Liengme, maybe I'm just more conservative. If you know of any sources of information on them then I would be interested.

excuse for an old man



the case is not wrong, only the case back, the hinged lid was broken and loosed

Its a Landeron/Hahn, look the photo item no.174 in my shop, the similar watch with "Breitling" signatur



oh photos are working, what miracle ???

some phots more, because its so nice to show photos (as x-mas day)

If this watch was on auction I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. It MIGHT be correct but it doesn't LOOK correct. The case back has obviously seen a lot of years yet the serial number is so crisp. The Breitling on the dial looks like it was penned by a 12 year old. I'm not convinced the Breitling info in the middle of the inside of the caseback really looks right either with the Montbrillant around the outside and I'm VERY suprised it shows Breitling on the bridge for such an early model. If the watch said Montbrillant on the dial, nothing on the bridge, and minus the Breitling info in the middle of the caseback, I might feel better about it. Like I said, it might be correct but I wouldn't buy it.

Paul

Guys I admittedly don't know beans about these vintage pieces but even I can guaran-damn-te you that Breitling didn't write their name on the dial of that watch. That's absolutely atrocious! It looks like someone lettered it while drunk. I would think if you couldn't get that much of a watch correct then it certainly would call into question the authenticity of the entire watch. Just my opinion.

Way too many questions for me to want to buy it.

As I said elsewhere this morning, I must be more conservative.

Who is "they" exactly?

_________________
Navitimer, Steelfish, Colt GMT, Aerospace, Chronospace, Chrono Superocean

I remember seeing it at eBay a while back. The script on the dial is unquestionably from the shop that supplies so many eBay sellers in Argentina (I'm assuming they are all produced at the same workbench). The break in the script between the "e" and the "i" is the "tell."

Who ever makes these is using Richter as a source of information and the reference numbers are usually well-suited to the fraudulent pieces being made. They have examined more than one real piece to make them as well as they do, but alas, it is always possible to catch a mistake.

I was amused that this piece used a piece of advertising copy on the inside caseback.

Yeah, I thought I remembered it from Ebay too. Seems like it was on a couple of times before it disappeared.

Actually that isn't the problem, Richter's book (3rd edition) page 29 and 113.
This one should be one from page 29 (middle row, right picture, second watch from the left).
That one has a different case, two pushers, different minute sub and numbers 6 and 12 on the dial.

I checked Richter and IMO I still have to say the "Breitling" logo is wrong for any of those. Again it's just my opinion and as I said above I really don't know beans about the vintage stuff. Just looks wrong to my eyes.

Me neither.

And to mine when I look at the picture in the catalog leaflet in Richter's book, but logo is leaned on the original pieces as well.

I think that you are both right........

and wrong.

I have seen angled before, though this is pushing credibility somewhat.

However as Bill says the failure to join the e to the i is flat out wrong - the Richter photos you refer to aren't clear enough to see that, but there will be a line extending the e into the i.

Of course, but it can be seen other discrepancies.

Absolutely!