| The Breitling Watch Source Forums https://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/ |
|
| My Cosmonaute Picture Test https://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4521 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | ar963 [ Fri Aug 22, 2008 6:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | My Cosmonaute Picture Test |
Hello Everyone, I have owned a Cosmonaute for years and never really knew much about it. It was given to me by a friend in Key Largo. He did not have the bands or anything else for that matter. I have never serviced this watch and in years past made a few attempts at getting bands, but was never succesful. Anyway here are two pictures that are not very good, but I wanted to try to post pictures. If this works I will take some better pictures and post them. Thanks 
|
|
| Author: | Roffensian [ Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ouch!! That guy needs some TLC. He's 41 years old now and looks like some pretty heavy living in those years. He's lost one of his hands and had a bad replacement job done, but there may still be some hope. |
|
| Author: | ar963 [ Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Ouch |
Forgive my ignorance, I am a newbie. What do you mean by lost a hand ? |
|
| Author: | Roffensian [ Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ouch |
ar963 wrote: Forgive my ignorance, I am a newbie. What do you mean by lost a hand ?
The hand on the dial at the 6 o'clock position isn't original - it should be the same as the hands on the 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock dials. |
|
| Author: | ar963 [ Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thats just a shadow, I am honing my closeup photography skills this weekend so that I can post some proper pictures on Monday. I am surprised to find out that it is 41 years old, it looks much better than the pictures. The glow at the ends of the hands still glow. Wow |
|
| Author: | Roffensian [ Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ar963 wrote: Thats just a shadow, I am honing my closeup photography skills this weekend so that I can post some proper pictures on Monday. Oh OK ar963 wrote: I am surprised to find out that it is 41 years old, it looks much better than the pictures. The glow at the ends of the hands still glow. Wow
Serial number dates to 1967. I'll reserve a detailed analysis until I see the better pictures - but the crystal looks in pretty bad shape, and I guarantee the movement needs attention. |
|
| Author: | ar963 [ Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thank you for your comments. I know I am a newbie, but I have visited this site before and I know you are THE expert in this forum. Hopefully I will be able to post better pictures on monday. Armando Southwest Ranches FL USA |
|
| Author: | Roffensian [ Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ar963 wrote: Thank you for your comments. I know I am a newbie, but I have visited this site before and I know you are THE expert in this forum. Hopefully I will be able to post better pictures on monday.
Armando Southwest Ranches FL USA Well thank you 
But, Paul (vintage) is the true expert - I just try and keep things ticking over until he can stop by and correct me 
|
|
| Author: | vintage [ Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wow, a new crystal will do wonders for this one! Paul |
|
| Author: | Toni [ Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Nice watch!!! Look if Your camera has a "macro" mode, then You will get better focus in the pic! Thanks for sharing Your watch 
|
|
| Author: | ar963 [ Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think these pics are a little better. I am still having a hard time with my camera. The watch does have some pitting on the band arms. 
 [/img]
|
|
| Author: | Roffensian [ Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm away from home for the next couple of days, but will try and find a few minutes to review, if not will take a proper look tomorrow evening. |
|
| Author: | Roffensian [ Mon Aug 25, 2008 2:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ooh, missed the 36 in the first pic!! The 809-36 reference means that the watch is (or at least should be) fitted with a Valjoux 7736 movement - pretty rare (but not really any more valuable). The subdial hands look wrong to me - I would expect mid 60s hands to be shorter than that, I have seen Cosmos with hands that reach almost to the edge of the subdial, but usually on later watches - mid to late 70s. I think that these were probably replaced during servicing. I'm drawing conclusions based on the pics, but it looks like the dial could do with a good clean, and probably a re-lume, and the case needs some work to address the pitting that you mentioned. It also needs a crystal, and based on what you have said about the recent history, but after that you will have a very nice piece. |
|
| Author: | ar963 [ Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thank you very much. I have not decided whether to keep it or sell it yet. I know from previous post that it should cost anywhere from $ 500.00 to $ 600.00 for a complete service plus the cost of new bands. What do you think it is worth as is ? |
|
| Author: | Roffensian [ Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ar963 wrote: Thank you very much. I have not decided whether to keep it or sell it yet. I know from previous post that it should cost anywhere from $ 500.00 to $ 600.00 for a complete service plus the cost of new bands. What do you think it is worth as is ?
If you assume restoration of the dial, and replacement of the crystal you may be closer to $1,000 for a full work up. In this case I think it's probably worth it to exapnd appeal, value in this condition is tough but I would guess close to $2,000. The 7736 is a less appealing movement, even though it's rarer. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 8 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|