The Breitling Watch Source Forums
https://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/

Original 806 - too good to be true?
https://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4957		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  ericdw [ Sun Sep 21, 2008 10:56 am ]
Post subject:  Original 806 - too good to be true?
So after looking for what seems like years but has really only been 9 months or so, I've finally found a Navitimer 806 for sale in what seems like amazing condition. I'm about to buy it on Monday, and the only thing that has me second guessing is that it's almost too good to be true, given the great condition of the dial and almost NOS looking movement. Could I have gotten that lucky? Not the original crystal, but everything is correct. (I can just have the crystal swapped later though) And it's from a seller I trust.

Here are some pictures from the seller, who has been very forthcoming and helpful. Can some of you please weigh in before I pull the trigger? Thanks!

Image
Image
Image
Image


Oh, and if the seller is reading this, I mean no offense. Just a little skittish after a previous bad experience. :oops:
Author:  Roffensian [ Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
It's sad isn't it that we naturally fear that something is wrong when we find a good example.

Alright, well without a serial I can't put an absolute date on it, and you didn't mention what year the seller was claiming, but if we start with the obvious - black subs, rice bezel, all black sliderule - so 1952 - 1962 at the absolute latest.

The Venus 178 looks right, the engraving on the bridge suggests that it's not a very early one (when simply Breitling Watch Ltd would be more normal). The WOG isn't an absolute indicator of date, but certainly leans more towards the 50s.

The hands all look to be period correct.

The watch has to have been restored to look this good, and someone has done an exceptional job with it - just look at the guilloche on the dial detail pic!

The serial number will be on the insider of the caseback for this vintage, if I had to guess I'd say 1956 - 58, but it could be a couple of years either side.

Vintage is a far greater intellect on these than I am, but I don't see anything wrong with it - a very, very nice example.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/