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.

. . . 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.

1. It's not a Breitling case (and it also appears to be missing a bezel or other case part).

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?

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

I'd like to read some counter-arguments.