The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Hi,

have a look at this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Vtg-1973-Breitling- ... 4aa905aba1

Something wrong here, no? The caseback says 806 but its a Cosmonaute. Also, look at the Breitling and "806" numbers. They are pretty clearly engraved (poorly) not stamped.

No pics of the movement, dial and case look OK, confusing....

The engraving is enough to put me off this,(since my name is not Sean) but the weird caseback has me even more skeptical.

Any thoughts? Fake/Franken/ or someone lost the original caseback and tried to wing it?

-Erik

I think your right regarding the caseback, O.D. looks too small ?

Early (pre 1962) Cossies had 806 reference numbers, and the use of Cosmonaute was a bit hit and miss.

At least one of the photos of the caseback makes the stamping look very jagged (especially Breitling and the B) but that may be the angle. I would want to see better photos, and obviously we would need movement shots.

It’s a genuine 809 Cosmonaute with a wrong case back, the box could be period correct but the instruction booklet is not.

I can’t tell you why it has a 806 case back but it’s not correct to the watch, whether it was born like that or not the collectible value is non existing, as collectors want it to be 100 % correct according to the book. My guess is that the case back is a replacement, fitted there because the original was for some reason not available.

Roff.:

Will you be so kind as to tell me why you believe that Early (pre 1962) Cossies had 806 reference numbers, and why you believe that there was pre 1962 Cosmonaute watches at all ?


Kurt B

Kurt, I have personally seen what I believe to be a correct 24 hour dial Navitimer (not marked Cosmonaute) with a 1961 caseback. I don't have access to it now, and can't guarantee that it was right, but I couldn't find issue with it. I believe that Alan Trott also considers there to be 1961 examples and has a photo of a non Cosmonaute branded piece in his article that he attributes to 1961 - http://forums.watchuseek.com/f39/breitl ... -4034.html

Ok, let me tell you my opinion about that.

Alan Trott is a nice guy, I knew him quite well some years ago, and I helped him by answering some questions and sending him some pictures, both for his 806 & 809 articles, I also worked together with Jean Michel of Navitimer.net in trying to unveil the mystery of the Navitimer.

I am constantly updating my article and working together with the best in the business in trying to solve the mystery completely, as far as I know Alan’s articles and JM’s Navitimer site has not been updated for many years.

By that time Alan owned an 806 Navitimer, and I was the one who had to inform him that it had a non original replacement dial with luminova on the hour markers; it is pictured in his 806 Navitimer article.

I have many times enjoyed reading both of his articles, but the Cosmo he pictures as a 1961 Navitimer 24-hr, model reference 806 has the pattern of a 1963 Cosmo.

The 1962 24 hour Cosmonaute / Navitimers all had the wider bezel, the 1963 ones had the normal beads of rice bezel (like this one), they both had white sliderules, and this one has a sliderule with red arrows that first appeared in app 1967.

He doesn’t show the serial number or the case back as either, and my guess is that he found it somewhere on the internet, as he did with almost all of the pictures he shows (which there’s nothing wrong in doing), but IMO it’s definitely not a solid reference in order to state that there was a 1961 24 hour Cosmo / Navitimer.

Based on what we know about the Cosmos, my guess is clearly that it is a 1963 Cosmo with a 1961 806 caseback.

I will leave it up to you to decide - if a guy who can’t even see the difference between an original and a non original dial – he states & picture the little he does, and the fact that you have seen what you believed to be a correct 1961 24 hour dial Navitimer that you can’t even guarantee was correct, is enough proof for a moderator of what appears to be the best source for vintage watches, to state as you do.

Remember that according to the best in the business, and everything you will find out there the first Cosmos came in 1962, so we are looking at changing the history of the Cosmo if what you say is correct.

I would say that we need more then that, and I still go for the 1962 wide bezels being the first ones.

Kurt B

It's the nature of this hobby that there are very rarely any guarantees. I can't guarantee that most of the pieces in my collection are correct - that is I don't have faultless provenance from factory to today, and I am sure that many of your pieces are similar.

In this case the more you make it the nature of this hobby, the more it becomes so, I’ll forever prefer to go for what we know for sure, or – like in this case - what makes most sense, and IMO the available material in this case is not enough to actually go out and say that there was a 1961 Cosmo, as there has been done enough research that points in the direction - and indicates - that the 1962 Cosmos was the first ones.

I’d say that based on where we are (Breitlingsource) and who you are (the moderator), you should instead have said that it is your opinion, that Early pre 1962 Cossies had 806 reference numbers, as that way you are not telling anybody that what you state, necessarily is correct.

I can guarantee you that none of the pieces in my collection are questionable, if you judge them by what we know today.


/ Kurt B

I'm sorry Kurt, but that just reeks of double standards.

You are entitled to make statements of fact, but I have to veil everything that can't be proven with statements of opinion?

What "we know today" is still very much up in the air - look at the lack of consensus on mesh bracelets. Your positions are clearly stated and backed up with a lot of experience, but they are still not scientific proof.

Since the engraving was done in 1992, I can easily imagine that something went wrong and the caseback was compromised. This is either a newly sourced replacement caseback or something improvised. Maybe a "do-over."

Have asked for an image of the inside caseback?

http://cgi.ebay.nl/original-alte-wertv- ... 0664843311

they should just get together and swap their casebacks .. will improve value of both watches

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

Well basically I’m not in a position to tell you what to state or not to state; I just aired my opinion about how I think you (and we all) should do it.

I believe that it is in everybody’s interest that we stick to what is believed to (and to some extend proven to) be the truth, and don’t try to mesh up things that are difficult enough to solve, by jumping to conclusions based on material with (IMO) no reliable content at all.

But let’s agree to disagree, it’s not the worse thing that can happen, and at east it doesn’t make the forum look like a Saturday afternoon tea party.


/ Kurt B

I've never tried swapping casebacks (and don't have a bunch handy to try the experiment), and my limited experience is that snapback cases are difficult to swap around satisfactorily. In other words, maybe it is only possible to do with watches made off the same workshop consignment.

Can a 1973 snapback caseback be fit satisfactorily onto a 1967 case? A 1963 case? A 1958 case?

The answer (in my opinion) is...

Probably not.

Obviously there is only so much variation that can occur, so some backs will fit some cases, but they aren't generally interchangeable from watch to watch.

Hahaha! Awesome...