The Breitling Watch Source Forums

I think it is probably the case that some Breitling chronograph dials in the mid-1940s were marked both "Fab. Suisse" and "Swiss Made" on the dial, but I think this dial from a chronograph currently up for eBay auction is an example of a re-dial on an entirely fake Breitling. [Yet another regrettable destruction of what must have been a nice watch.]

The Venus 170 movement is otherwise marked "CHX" (I don't know whose mark that is) and the case is numbered "1944." It's a nice re-dial that shows some appropriate age (and maybe its age-appropriate), but it's pretty clear that the pattern used for the sub-registers was too small for the dial. The "g" in script Breitling is also open, which is common to both modern re-dials and, oddly, original 769 Chronomat dials.

It's interesting to see it, since we've recently scratched our heads over this combination. I think we decided it was a real occurrence, but this is a fakeroo. If that's a faked-up dial, and I'm convinced it is, it has some pretty scary close-to-correct features. I'd like to read some counter-arguments.



http://cgi.ebay.com/Montre-Chronographe ... 27b9d23647

Hmm... my personal experience has been that I've only seen FAB SUISSE on earlier models... earlier than the 40s... nothing I've seen during the 40s though...

but it's a jungle out there...

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

CXH indicates this used to be a perfectly nice Clinton Watch or Avis at birth. Dial leads back to my question "when did they start to fake Breitlings", as probably this was done many years ago, this is not a recent redial (at least I hope so, or the fakers became very, very good at creating patina) ?

I think you have to remember that some of these watches are 60 to 70 years old and have unknown maintenance histories. I wouldn't completely discount an otherwise original appearing watch just because a bridge or something doesn't appear correct. Maybe not 100% original any longer but not a fake. If a local watch repair person was asked to "get it running" he might have used what he had on hand vs an expensive repair with an original part. I see this a lot with watches with known histories of being with one family since new. Still you look inside and see something that's not correct. More than likely just a repair with a part that works like the original but isn't the original. I think it's pretty easy to tell the watches that are meant to deceive but a lot harder to tell original watches that have just had cheap, or careless, repairs over the years with non original parts.

I agree with that conceptually, although we have to consider the part that has been replaced. As we know import codes are generally stamped on balance cocks while manufacturer codes are stamped on bridges. Neither of those parts are likely to break, so should not need to be replaced. I'm sure that there were instances where the parts were damaged and replaced, and there were likely instances where the watchaker had multiple movements apart and picked up the wrong piece - there are good and bad watchmakers just as there are good and bad in every profession.

However, if a movement is incorrectly marked for the watch that it is in then well over 90% of the time (in my opinion) it's going to be a movement swap. I'll be more tolerant of incabloc balances in non incabloc movements, solid balance wheels where there should be split, etc - but not when we are talking cocks, bridges and plates.

In terms of WatchFred's question about when they started faking, I don't see this as an outright fake, I think that it's more likely that there were two incomplete / non functional watches that were merged to form this piece. There isn't the evidence that the original assembler set out to deceive because of the inconsistent import codes and lack of brand faking on bridge or caseback.

. . . but I'm standing on the side of this being 100% not Breitling.

1. It's not a Breitling case (and it also appears to be missing a bezel or other case part).
2. It's a Clinton movement for another watch.
3. The printing on the dial does not fit the dial. [I also don't think the red pigment could wear that well over the years with out the rest of the watch also being pristine.]

If the rest of the watch showed signs of being a Breitling, I would accept a re-painted dial from the distant past. Because I'm a cynical bastard and from other recently minted fake Breitlings I have seen go past us, I think someone is good enough to introduce high-quality re-painted dials with evidence of age. I think the Breitling signature is the "tell" more often.

The technology and equipment now available to fakers should have us all shaking in our collective collecting boots.

I'm not 100% convinced that the dial is faked - I've just seen too many Fab Suisse / Swiss Made dials recently to think that they are all wrong, but agree that there is nothing else here remotely Breitling.

It's the poor "fit" that convinces me.

That Breitling script is awfully good... one of the better ones I've seen if it's been redone...

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

Not much to add to what's been said. A couple of observations.

The case is both incorrectly marked and missing several marks, most of the Gold Breitling's I've seen around this period are clearly marked with the gold quality. This could be earlier than Forties, but I for one would want to see that stamp.

http://www.watchcat.com/NewListings/brei4234chrn.htm

http://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/v ... =3&t=27527



I don't believe it is missing a bezel, but is a stepped case which was common for the period.

In terms of the dial it's impossible to say without removing it, but a couple of thoughts, it could be a no name dial that had the Breitling added. Or a genuine older redial.

In terms of the movement, I haven't checked to see what it is, but if it is a Venus 150/175 then it is sitting very strangely in the case, as most of the ones I've seen have the balance at the 7 position and the bridge heads in a line between the pushers, this seems to be sitting in a strange position?

http://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/v ... 11&t=16087

Movement is a 170 and positioning is correct - everything get's moved around for the up / down subdials.

Thanks Roff. Yes I see it now. Stand corrected.

As an addendum to the Swiss/Fab Suisse discussion, page 18 of richter shows a Breitling advert that features a double marked watch.

Here's a thought to throw open for discussion. Let's assume that all else was right about this watch and the only question we had was about the dial and the signature. Breitling did not make their own dials, so the question is where was the dial signature applied and how? It's entirely possible that watches that date from 1936'sh to 1942'sh might have the Breitling logo applied by hand or with different types of stamps after the original dial was made.

I give these dates because Breitling was making the transition from unsigned to signed dials and it's possible that during the transition they hadn't locked down the signature and were adding them adhoc to the sterile dials as they came from the manufacturer. let's say they had a bunch of watches sitting in the factory in 1939 and they decide that they are going to brand them all from now on, how would they add the signature? They might do it in house themselves.

It could also be possible to argue that a later retailer added the signature to the dial themselves, maybe from originally unisgned stock that they had sitting on the shelf. It is certainly the case that key retailers in this period were used to putting their own name on a dial,
and did this themselves.