The Breitling Watch Source Forums

I have seen very few pre-WWII Breitlings offered for sale or pics posted by forum members.
Is it because of thier scarcity?
Is it because of the difficulty of determining the year of manufacture due to incomplete records of pre-war serial numbers?
I would appreciate the wisdom of the forum members.

Thanks, Horder

I am guessing dial size has something to do with it? Not exactly sure if it toes the same story as with vintage Rolexes where the older Rolex bubbleback vintages (which were once hot collectibles) with a smaller diameter face that is not in fashion anymore are not as collectible/desireable anymore as the 50's and onwards ones. So older doesn't necessarily mean more collectible in the Rolex world. Guess the experts here will share their insight on vintage Breitlings and if there are any vintage Breitlings that fall in the Rolex bubbleback category that have fallen out of favor and fashion?

Probably a combination of scarcity and the size issue. Very few of the wristwatches prior to 1940 were of, what's considered now, a wearable size. However the main problem, as I see it, is the lack of records from this period which can confirm authenticity. If the watches aren't represented is some sort of period publication the chances it can be proved authentic is slim. Unmarked movements, inconsistent back engraving, and various dial configurations make it extrememly difficult to determine authenticity. In these cases just because you haven't seen one before does not mean it's a fake. Very early pieces may have attributes that can be found on many different brands from this period. Even the serial number sequencing wasn't totally unique to Breitling. Plus, it's common to see restored dials from this period due to the aging factor. All of the Breitling's I've had prior to 1940 have had some aging issues with the dials but I think it's best to leave them alone as redoing them brings into question again the authenticity of the watch.

Agree with Paul.

In addition, legitimate pre 40s movements were unsigned which is just crying out for people to use them as donor movements for other pieces or to fake them with another name on the bridge. With relatively low values there is very little reason for the less scrupulous to retain them in original condition.

I think there might be numerous reasons we see so few pre-1940 watches, and these are just some ideas.

1. I just don't think there were that many. [I wish we had the numbers.] Times were hard and a chronograph was expensive. Breitling made a big market in time-only watches after WWII, but they were a company specializing in timers. I think we might see as many pocket stop timers as wrist chronogaphs for sale from the pre-1940 period. As an indication, maybe we look a the production rates of companies with more complete records. [http://chronomaddox.com/omega_serial_numbers.html would suggest that Omega made a lot more chronographs/watches after 1945.]

2. It's a longer time to ask a watch to survive, and through a pretty rough patch of the 1940s. I also think the materials got much better in the 1940s and the survival rate is better.

3. I also differ from my colleagues here and find that Breitling chronographs are consistently marked on the movement and case as "Montbrillant" until 1940 or close to it. It's the 1940s that seem to be difficult for movement and case markings. The exceptions are the 1930s military-style aviator watches and probably the time-only models, for which we see very few.

4. And for dial durability, there's nothing like fine porcelain. Well, until you drop it.

Bill,
Some great points and that's a lovely watch in the attachment! Why can't we see watches from Breitling that hark back top that more restrained and refined ideal?