The Breitling Watch Source Forums

I thought members might be interested in seeing images of my Breitling Premier square case chronograph.

You know I'm not really feeling the love with this piece. There's a few points that concern me. The dial appears to be an old redo, the font of the dial is very strange for a Breitling, the square Breitling chrono's I'm aware of come from the late 1940's to early 1950's, all of these chrono's will have a reference number on the back cover, the serial number (if I'm seeing it correctly and it begins with a 4) is really too early for the square models, that hand enscribed 'Breitling' inside the back cover would make me run. Just one mans observation. The Valjoux 69 movement is a bit of an oddball to find in a Breitling also.

Hmmm... not much to say either... but if I did... I'll have to go with my knowledge and observations and second the opinion about the serial and the Breitling script inside the caseback. Doesn't look consistent.

_________________
"I don't got the bright watch I got the right watch" -Jay Z

Nothing to add.

Thanks very much for these images, Mr. Enigma, and I hope your life is not completely filled with mysteries.

You asked the question about dating the watch from the serial, and you will see others (mostly sellers) asserting that the pre-1944/560000 serials can be sorted out to give a date. But I believe that it is not possible to give more than a wide range of dates. My findings indicate that serials in this range might cover the late-1930s to 1944.

I think this is probably an original Breitling that has undergone a restoration, maybe a long time ago, maybe more recently. We have seen so few complete sets of images of these that I'm anxious to stand on wobbly ground. I really do thank you for this complete set of views.

1. That looks to be a real 755 case as shown in the 1946 catalog (Richter page 112). If another company used the same case, I am unaware of it (but I haven't really looked, either), but these are very rare birds.

2. My first note of the use of the word "Premier" is on watches serial dated to 1945. Note that the first catalog use is only on the intro page of the 1946 catalog and no models in the catalog sport the use, even though we have dozens of examples of 1946 Premiers. Model 755 has never hitherto been associated with the "Premier" line of watches. I wonder if someone was working from a catalog or other illegible image, they mistook "Antichoc" as the line under "Breitling."

3. I'm not very good at movement spotting, but the 10 1/2 ligne movement in this example seems to match the "fournitures" shown in the 1946 catalog (Richter page 114).

4. The engraving of the serial on the back looks un-original, but if this watch went though a restoration, the original markings may have been removed and this serial replaced it.

If you could tell us what you know about the watch's history, that would help a lot. How long have you had it? How did it come to you? Who was the original/previous owner?

I ask that all Breitling model 754-757s come forward and present themselves for thorough examination.

As a result of the comments posted regarding my Breitling model 755 square chronograph and the doubts expressed about it being genuine on 29th March I decided to contact Breitling U.K. at their service centre in Tunbridge Wells who informed me that they have a department dedicated to the authentication of vintage watches and asked me to forward the watch to them for inspection. This I did and yesterday, the 4th April I was contacted by Jenny Fairthweather who informed me they had inspected the watch and found it to be genuine and that they would be sending it back to me along with a letter confirming authenticity. The watch duly arrived today, 5th April and I attach a scan of the aforementioned letter which, as can be seen contains further comment about the watch. I trust that this will satisfy the sceptics and suggest that perhaps an apology is now in order.

I don't think anyone said your Breitling was a fake. We were just saying there were issues we weren't comfortable with. Unfortunately whomever you sent the watch to at BUK hasn't got a clue about movements. Obviously there's no way someone familiar with vintage Breitling's would misidentify a movement as a Valjoux 23 when it looks nothing like the Valjoux 69 that's in your watch. Bill in Sacramento correctly identified the Valjoux 69 as being in Richters book so I'm happy that is probably correct. I've attached a picture of the Valjoux 23 in my 1945 Datora. BUK doesn't have a steller reputation for knowing much about vintage Breitlings and they have proved that here. You have probably got a real Breitling but I don't believe it's 100% untouched and original. Their "circa 1946" on the serial number is a little out there too.

BUK claiming that this is a 1946 serial number is rather embarassing - the serial numbers are not freely available.

The movement is clearly a 69 and not a 23, and those movements are vastly different sizes (10.5 vs. 13 ligne) apart from the visual difference, so again surprising mistake by BUK.

I'm sorry, but that paper is not of much (any) benefit.

Dear Mister Enigma (or Mr. Naxos),
excuse me, but an authentication letter by an expert who can not tell the difference between a 10.5 ligne Valjoux 69 and a 13 ligne Valjoux 23 is not too convincing.

I think the level of expertise and attention given to your watch in these threads is much more impressive than this Breitling letter, and nobody here has any reason to apologize for - always friendly and respectful - expressions of healthy scepticism.

I am going to merge this thread into the other thread as the OP has posted duplicate items, both of which have replies.

After noting the comments concerning the movement being described by BUK as a Valjoux 23, I have contacted them further and received the following letter and hopefully this will be sufficeient to confirm that my watch is genuine, one final point of interest is their observation about the differences in the signature on the dial being due to the fact that at the time they were hand painted which should answer those who doubted its originality.

And what was their explanation for claiming this as a 1946 watch with a serial number that is clearly not 1946?

Breitling Switzerland have consistently said that they do not have records of Breitling pre 1978 (they are totally separate companies) so would be interested in how they were able to determine that this watch is accurate.

I have now spoken with Breitling in Switzeland who told me that the serial number range beginning 45 was allocated in late 1945 for the 1946 range of Premier chronograph models which included the 755, 756 and 757 however, they went on to tell me that these were not well received by their dealers and they dropped them after a short period with very few being sold. In conclusion I can therefore assume that this accounts for their extreme rarity with only 2 examples known to exist which is why my original post on the forum asked if anyone else had either seen or owned one. Should you have any further questions I suggest that you address them direct to Breitling Switzerland because I get the distinct impression that for reasons known only to yourself, no amount of documentary evidence produced by me is going to convince you that my watch is genuine....

I'm really not sure why there is such defensiveness, I have never offered an opinion on your watch one way or another.

I will question documentary errors - like misidentifying the movement, and I am very surprised that Breitling SA in Switzerland have records indicating that a serial number range that is almost 200,000 different from the generally accepted range for 1946 was used at that time. That's not a reflection on you or your watch, just genuine surprise that they have that information as it is counter to anything that they have previously indicated.