The Breitling Watch Source Forums

that one has the correct dial , hands etc
which is what I have been trying to tell you

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

Well that is what I have been telling you- there was a manufacturing defect with the bezel in the early runs of the AVI - This is the 1st design of the 765 AVI case with this style rotating bezel and usually when you have a glaring manufacturing defect you change production immediately - of course they did. The bezel flaw was set right and AVI production continued with all new movements, cases and bezels, chronograph modules, watch hands, subdial hands and whatever - all from different companies. The cases were modified to squeeze in more than one movement or chronograph design since they did not know which movement they would continue using in '53. Shock systems were changed also in the early 50's. Also this one has steel 178, again early design since the rest of these in 1953 and afterward are all gilt. The Incabloc shock system appears to me to be the earliest style in a Breitling AVI. Considering all that Breitling had on their plate in 1953 - the Navitimer was the hope for the company at this time, they were excited about selling lots of watches in the US with Wakmann and they had alot to loose/ or gain (with the benefit of hindsight).
It is obvious that they were rushing the new manufacturing and importing transition period and many mistakes were made, not just this bezel issue. What would have happened to the Navitimer if the Wakmann deal had gone poorly for them. Who know's? I mean if we(the Breitling community) cannot agree on the date of first Navitimer production it stands to reason the year proceeding or surrounding it would be unclear/unperfect and a manufacturing/ marketting nightmare. It does not surprise me, considering the production changeover and time constraints on them in '53 that Breitling was using different parts or subassemblies in a rush to sell watches and increase cashflow to continue the new flagship Navitimers production.
They were receiving at least (2 or more) 178 movements steel/gilt - at least (2) different chronograph modules digital/non-digital, (2) case designs one of which one(1) which was defective - a new shock protection system Incabloc and all pieces/ modules made by different companies - Who knows exactly what parts Breitling was using even from day to day it seems during this year. Again no surprise to me whatsoever that different parts were used together in '53. Also no surprise to me that I finally was able to confirm the bezel defect (on the previous page) and it is not one of a kind. Too bad no pictures of the movement or serial#.

That's a lot of claims. Sources please?

+1 !

sources to substantiate these claims would definately be a tremendous help in Breitling community as a whole and will expand my knowledge in particular and your name will forever be remembered and carved in stone Fudda !

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

It is very apparent that Fudda has fallen into the avaricious hole of just making stuff up as part of a sale pitch. That is consistent with his abuse of our collegiality in his original eBay posting and his overall web-assault. He's no wolf in sheep's clothing. He's more of a wolf in dingo's clothing.

As to the image you posted, Rene, I note that the dial excludes the "Geneve" below "Breitling." That strikes me odd, as I would expect all models of AVI to have the post-move dial. I'm trying to think of an example of a Navitimer dial showing the "B Breitling" without the "Geneve." I'm wondering if that's consistent with my hunch that the bezel is perfectly aligned, but that the dial has been replaced unevenly. In other words, isn't it the case that the misaligned bezels correspond to observed irregularities in the dial, too?

[You're right, Roff. That's a fudda post. Sorry, Rene.]

The image that Fudda posted at the bottom of page 5 as the other one that he found (the one without Geneva on the dial) is ripped off from Jean-Michel's site - http://www.lesmala.net/jean-michel/navitimer/index2.htm (Collectors, Vintage Page 2)

speculation & hypothesis warning !

Ive been looking at those images again as well , and as far as I can see the 'V' is perfectly aligned between the 2 lugs with even spacing on each side.

So without actually holding the watch in hand and remeasuring to my amateur eye it looks like Bill was right from the start and that somehow either the dial is somehow shifted OR movement with dial is slightly turned counterclockwise . The latter suggestion seems too far fetched as the pushers for the chrono wouldnt correctly fit to operate the chrono, or would they ?

On the other hand, the dial has 2 feet that fit into the movement quite snug , if the dial somehow rotated either way the chrono hand stem would touch the dial

strange..

But I still stick to my 1st observation :
"Dial, Case, Hands and Movement do not belong together and this watch did not leave the Breitling factory like this"

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

If you loosen the screws holding a movement in the case there is some 'play' where the pushers can move and the crown stem shifts in the tube, but not significant. I do have to wonder whether there could be a similar amount of dial movement if one of the dial feet were broken. The arbors / cannon pinion would allow for some movement in that situation.

But Roff , surely Mr Heist would have mounted it correctly if he could or even fitted new feet on the dial ?
For me the Heist visit is what makes this misalignment of the bezel so hard to explain ?

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

That I agree with.

Hey Bill what's up? I guess you are as well informed as the rest of us (mainly myself) but don't you remember stating that until 1955 all US Breitling's were stamped 'BOW'? Maybe you would like to refresh your memory by reading your post#10 http://www.mwrforum.net/forums/showthread.php?t=22291
OK, now take a look at your post on this forum on page 3 I believe - in which you state that the code was changed from 'BOW' to WOG' in 1957?? I was trying to avoid embarassing you, I read this during my research this year and I held on to it, agreeing with you but I guess you are as fallible as I am. Keep cool dingo - just fightin' fire with fire.

Take a look #1 DEFECT (unless you agree with some here that some watch repair guy over the last 58 years did not know how to center a bezel?? And...he did it twice? C'Mon Man
#2 why are we so defensive that a guy research Breitling stuff at another site or place than your forum.? Unless someone here was manufacturing these AVI' in 1953 OR you have undesputed proof yourselves about anything in '53 - conclusively - Lay it down on the table.
As far as the backing up of suspected facts - that is what a forum does, right? I mean that is the definition of forum in my view. When was the Navitimer first produced? Ok...If we all knew the facts, this would be a watch-sale site.
All I have done is research myself - again thanks to Bill in Sacramento - also have researched on this site including reading the detailed thread regarding Incabloc etc. Many strong arguments there. Also I do not read about watches with a photographic memory you know. Let everyone read for themselves and decide themselves and reseach anywhere and everywhere and you will know as much about the 53 AVI's as anyone here.
Forum Readers - please read this entire thread and associated threads. I cannot say that all 'I have said' since August is spot -on. How could I? could you guys? No.

forgot to mention dial hands identical (subdial hands, minutes and hour) but agreed the seeping seconds hand is new to me and weird

Ripped Off?? Man take it down a notch. So now anyting on another site is bogus. I considered you well respected in the confines of this forum site. Not anymore.