The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Well, this is probably going to lead to some very interesting discussions, looking forward to this.

Some months ago Phil (member Saabreit) was kind enough to send me excellent scans of some early 1940s Breitling catalogs; some weeks later a watch was listed out of the UK that I had never seen before, a ref. 761 - pictured on page 11 of the 1942 catalog, non-working, but in quite acceptable condition.

Excitedly pm'ed a well known member - held my fingers crossed and won the auction. As my early 40s ref. 734 has the "old" rounded Venus 178 bridge I just had a cursory look at the movement pics, but when I emailed Craig - who looks at movements, not catalog pictures - he informed me it was a Landeron 42, the tricompax version of the Landeron 39.

I am convinced the watch is correct & authentic and so is Craig, who had to work his miracles with this one:

" ... started on the 761 today. I wanted to install the balance 1st but the one I bought for it had a flat spring and yours is a Breguet spring - not interchangeable unless the regulator is changed so I restaffed the old one and its running and keeping time (chrono function not engaged) now even though I have not cleaned it yet. Off to a good start for a Landeron 42.

I took a bunch of pics to you could see some more details. The Breitling script is interesting in that it is the same as the script on Paul's 3 pusher Landeron (a movement that is not in my books). It is slightly different and/or smaller than later script signatures but it looks real for sure. This dial is original for a L42 and has never been changed or altered.

I do not plan to do anything with this dial given its rarity. The only mark on the movement is KXF on the balance bridge which is a Zodiac/Clebar import code. Regardless, the watch appears to be completely original including the crystal and crown.

Hopefully there will be someone out there someday that knows the real story behind these Landeron Breitlings."

"update on the 761.... One of the chrono bridge jewels was cracked and came apart when I removed it - see attached pic.

Have one on order. Had to spend over 2 hours today to get the hour counter operational. The direct drive off the mainspring barrel cap was loose and had to be tightened. The biggest problem was a part that was missing the disengages the hour counter when the second sweep is stopped. I knew that I would probably never find another one so I made one.

This is only the 3rd Landeron 42 I have worked on in 12 years - they are very rare and parts are non existent. In fact, you can't find this movement in any watch books and Best Fit does not list any part even though the acknowledge that it was made."

"I finished your 761 today. This was one of the biggest and most complex projects I have done in quite a while (Rene's 2005 was bigger). I have only worked on 3 Landeron 42s in 12 years and everyone was a bitch to work on. They come apart and go together like a 3 dimensional jigsaw puzzle.

Access to simple things on most chronograph movements is not the case with this one and the hour counter mechanism is like no other. Whoever had it apart in the past circled the hole where the missing hour part went through the movement (inside the case halves) so I suspect they knew they had a problem? Regardless, this was a great original starter watch that has never been molested. Its done and running perfectly! "

here it is:

Wonderful looking piece, maybe a few years later than I would have expected.

I find no reason to doubt it, and it does appear to be the first piece to back up some of the documentation previously seen that points to Landeron use in the 30s (and apparently now early 40s).

It was a pleasure to work on this one regardless of the missing part(s). The last Landeron 42 (Chronographe Suisse) that I worked on a couple of years ago was in horrible condition. This one had not been molested. Some of the most dreadful projects are watches that have had really poor prior service/repairs making it near impossible to figure out what was done to make them run and operate so badly.
I hope to see more of these early signed dials with this script in the future. It is different than the later 40s/50s script. Finding someone with 1st hand knowledge of really early Breitlings like this would be difficult given the fact that they would probably be in their 90s if they were still alive.

_________________
S. Craig Bergsma

Congrats on another great watch Fred and well done Craig!

Thanks for the great read and pics! Will it be getting any wrist time, or straight to the watch cabinet?

Nice job Craig! I really like this one since it's so unusual. My theory on these early Landeron movements in Breitling's is that Breitling put together very few of these models in the early 1940's primarily to diversify their product offering. Basically they wanted to give consumers more choices in the blossoming chronograph market. I don't think they did this for long and the popularity of the new Venus movements probably had a major impact in Breitling not continuing to purchase Landeron pieces. Unfortunately, the Landeron Breitling's will always be in a grey area since documentation is almost none existant.

That makes a lot of sense. I wonder if Breitling invested in Venus to allow them to ramp up production to meet needs and they decided to focus on a single chronograph supplier at that point.

The added problem with Landeron Breitlings today is that the movements are so readily available for the fakers to get hold of, this is the first piece that I have ever seen where I had no doubts about it.

Would really like to hear from Bill - we are worryingly unanimous here and he has an excellent eye for anything fishy and a lot of experience.

Still, I really think this one is all correct; the Landeron 42 apparently was produced in miniscule numbers only, not even making it into Bestfit, do you know more about the production numbers of the L39, assume those were extremely rare too ?

Interesting to notice that the ref. 761 is completely made from stainless steel, not chromed base metal, a material Breitling typically only used for the high end watches that later were branded Premier.

There is an outstanding French site with an in-depth article about the use of Landeron calibers by Breitling, here is the google translation:
http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... tling.html

Below is a parts page from the Breitling 1942 catalog, according to invenetfecit these are Landeron 39 (and 42, I assume) parts, maybe Craig can verify this ?



It actually seems quite well documented, as far as we probably can get without the support of Breitling, whose interest in their own history apparently ends with displaying some (often quite questionable) vintage pieces during a Travolta launch speech .....

With regard to the pic of the Landeron movement parts, only the cal 39 parts are shown. Note on Fred's movement pictures that the 42 has a special long tension spring for the coupling clutch (upper left side - open hole below it for the 39 spring attachment) that is only used on the 42 and not shown with the parts. Also, none of the top side parts are shown like the hour wheel and parts that operate it. So far I have been unable to find any illustrations of any of the additional cal 42 parts.

_________________
S. Craig Bergsma

I was putting off a response in the hope of getting some time to explore some of the issues. But, Fred called me out, so I think I will toss out my first impressions. I think that with this piece, as most from before 1945 or so, we are going to have to live with probabilities and have to weigh multiple sides of issues. My inclination is think it is an authentic piece, but more likely from 1944 or so. My current leanings follow, subject to change at a moment's notice:

1. The three-minute phone marks on the minute register dates the dial to after 1941.
2. The pattern of the caseback markings is also more mid-1940s. As to the serial itself, my current working hypothesis is numbers before the post-1944-table (see Fred's posted table above) are a jumble of order. I believe that's a result of the manner and order in which they were numbered by the case makers (plural) in that period. We can only say that the number relates to an order before sometime in 1944 (noting that we don't when in 1944 the case ordering begins systematically).
3. I have no difficulty with Landeron movements in Breitlings in the 1930s and 1940s. They were exclusively used by Breitling in the small 10" chronos, as shown in the parts lists in the 1946 catalog. I think the were used in many models in some years, some years not. I imagine the robustness of the movements as described by Craig may be one reason Venus movements were favored.
4. The Clebar mark on the movement is the most troubling, especially since there are not any other Clebar marks on the movement or inside case back. I wanted to check consistency with other examples, and I just noticed that last August, "timelysales" ripped off my previous note here on the lash-up between Tauner and Breitling in a posting on eBay. [grrrrrrr.] If it is a Tauner/Clebar import from Breitling, I think it has to coincide with the resumption of Swiss export trade no sooner than mid-1944. That's pure conjecture.
5. I'm not sure the 761 case is the same as the one in the circa 1940 catalog, but we would probably need to have one in hand to tell for sure.

Does anyone know when the Swiss Import codes were required? I have no problem with mismarked balance cocks if everything else on a vintage Brietling is correct. It's easy to see how the balance cock, with import code, could have been swapped out sometime in the watches 60 year history during a normal watch repair. It's not hard to imagine someone having a inop Breitling in the 1940's or 1950's and telling the watchmaker to get it running again cheaply. The watchmaker then ruffles through his parts watches to find a good balance and there you go. Different balance with a different import code but not really fake Breitling. There were little mom & pop watch repair shops in just about every small city 40 years ago and I can't imagine many would go looking for the original manufacturer for a repair.

friends, what import codes were on US-imported Breitlings before the founding of Wakmann in 1946. Are we sure Tauner did not import Breitlings during the war years ?

Bill, I did not "call you out" and I am definitely not trying to prove my assumptions, but trying to push the envelope just a little further - the reason all of us currently are here seems to learn and try to get as close as possible to understanding the brand history.

The "call out" quip was unfortunate. I was looking for a cute way to say I wasn't completely satisfied with my opinion. I hoped it would be read as "calling out to play." If we set up a dueling zone on this website, I don't plan to enter the field against Fred or any of our merry band of regulars.

Fred and Paul are raising some important legal questions. I have hunted for good documentation on US tariff and marking regulations for wristwatches on line, but I'm convinced it's going to take a law-library, dust-inhaling, effort to dig it out. I hope we eventually find a graduate student or watch collecting lawyer with free time to want to puzzle this out. I, for one, am not willing to pay legal fees for such a search. I do know that import codes were required on chronograph movements starting in the 1930s, but I don't know just when or by what regulation. I do not know the sequence of regulations thereafter, but I do think makers names had to be added later. In the absence of chapter and verse, these are just my impressions/suppositions.

On the Wakmann history, Icko's 1981 obituary [http://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/07/obituaries/icko-wakmann.html] states that he came to the United States in 1943, and Roff has noted he registered his name as a trademark in that year. According to Dun and Bradstreet, the Wakmann Company was registered in October 1947. which is after Breitling America in July of the same year. I observe that several US companies were bringing in Breitlings between 1944 and the establishment of Breitling America (BOW). [I'll have to check my notes later, in case I'm confusing 1947 with 1948. Richter has a page on it, with original shares signed by Icko.]

Bill, afaik Wakmann was established/registered in 1946, BOW/Breitling USA (apparently also financed and owned by Icko Wakmann) in 1947, will try to doublecheck the sources, but quite definitely later than this watch was most probably shipped to the US.

The import codes were required by the Tariff Act of 1930, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff act, so any Breitling that came to the US must have been marked with some import code ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot–Hawley_Tariff_Act

I have been reading this thread with a lot of interest and I am glad the import code was brought up
shows there's a bunch of mature collectors willing to see all sides and come up w/ hypothesis about 'inconsistencies with current knowledge'

I just dont know enough about these early pieces so I am on the fence waiting for more info before making up my mind

Fred (or Craig) are there any other manufacturing , scribbles or brand marks in or outside the case ? or is the only Breitling marking the ref number and the Breitling brandname on the dial ? I cant really see the inside of the caseback due to the decoration

p.s. , it is my understanding that watches with a higher than 17 jewel count were in a higher tariff bracket , hence the '17 jewel' marks in most watches to prove , together with the import code, which tariff bracket they should be in and who is the importer of record

_________________
"I spent most of my money on Booze, Breitling and Boats. The rest I wasted" - mostly Elmore Leonard