The way I look at it is that vintage pieces sell for much more money than they did originally. New pieces generally sell for much less than they did originally. Breitling has done this to themselves by inflating prices on the newer watches. Come on, I mean over $1000 for a stainless Navitimer bracelet that can't possibly cost more than $150 to make? You get the point.

True, but that's largely because of inflation,is great they did sort of catch up with inflation but not exactly compared to some of their peers. But when new watches sell for the same or higher prices than their vintage equivalents then maybe Breitling needs to work harder at promoting their rich heritage so that Breitling vintages attract more fans which will indirectly help Breitling with new sales too, since buyers of new Breitlings would love to think that their watches will be valued and appreciate remarkably in the future compared to the competitive offerings from Rolex, Patek,etc. And what better examples for them to prove it with then by promoting the heritage of the current Breitling vintages! For example, with Rolex, most plexi age vintages sell for about 2-3 times more while the very rare ones like the Comex dial subs and Milsubs can go for more than 150K. Hope Breitling gets it right too because they do have some of the most practical watches in their heritage, just a need for direction and more appreciation of their heritage required by them I guess:).

Breitling is not Rolex or PP.

Vintage pieces were also not made by the company that produces Breitlings today. A quick browse of this forum will quickly show that most people who are interested in modern pieces have no interest in older pieces - heck you PM'd me when I locked your duplicate wrist check thread making that very argument.

I don't see how anyone would be prepared to pay more for a Super Avenger if an 806 was worth more.

Roff, in my opinion the Breitling of today is licensed to speak for the original Breitling and in that sense, they are still the same Breitling. How else can we explain that when the Breitling of today gives out an official statement that Valjoux 806's were infact manufactured in 1954-55, that we than take it as gospel? Or when the Breitling of today comes up with a Navitimer 806 commeorative watch, that people buy it because it's essentially seen as coming from the same company?

But that is separate and not to be confused/mixed with my argument and belief that to be interested in collecting vintage Breitlings, most new collectors like me draw their inspiration from existing successful companies that have suvived and have a rich heritage to draw upon. I for one would have been less than half interested in collecting Rolexes or Breitlings or any other(the exception being if were very rare pieces from non existing companies) if the company didn't exist to this day and if they were not keen on promoting the rich heritage that they are entitled to project. I think the Breitling of today does tick the boxes of being a viable company today and is interested in promoting it's rich past heritage judging by it's interest in releasing heritage watch reruns and releasing statements about vintage Breitlings. Plus they also have vintage Breitling servicing centres. It just needs to work harder at promoting it's heritage and that's the only way they can survive today's marketplace where the wristwatch is quickly becoming an obsolete item amongst the younger generation with the advent of portable computers and mobile phones. Does it really matter if somebody else or another country or new management legally owns it today? Not really, aslong as they promote Breitlings heritage, it's all good to me.

Same goes with vintage car companies, not many would collect vintage BMW's, Porsche's etc. if those companies didn't exist today and draw on their rich heritage, offcourse the exception being if were very rare and exceptional autos. Would BMW's ownership of the Mini or the Rolls Royce or an Indian companies ownership of Jaguar and Land Rover makes them any less desirable in this time of global integration? I don't think so, their survival,as long as their rich traditions and heritage are nurtured, is more important both to vintage collectors and modern car fans in making these cars more collectible for future generations. Same with watches.

But I do see the other point of view expressed by you too and understand and appreciate that you come from a collector background where you have possibly lived with or have been associated with most of these heritage models in their lifetimes and yours and I haven't, so my inspiration for collecting vintage Breitlings, besides offcourse thanks to this beautiful forum and collectors like you, comes in part because of the survival of the current Breitling company and it's heritage. For me, alienating the old and new Breitling into two brings a huge risk to attracting new collectors, who are the custodians of Breitlings heritage into the next generation. Just my 2c:)

IMO You cant even compare vintage Breitlings with Rolex (aside from the V72 based chrono's) as Rolex uses an in house movement as

An interesting theorie Rene, but absolutly not correct. All expensive Rolex vintages have a V72 or V72C movement.

An interesting theorie Rene, but absolutly not correct. All expensive Rolex vintages have a V72 or V72C movement.

An interesting theorie Rene, but absolutly not correct. All expensive Rolex vintages have a V72 or V72C movement.