Anybody ever seen one like this? With a second counter and a serial number that says the watch is from 1964.
I thought they got to production in 1965, is this a kind of prototype?
Serial no:991494
Very interesting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
| The Breitling Watch Source Forums https://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/ |
|
| Ref 2005 from 1964? https://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=63735 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Mortys [ Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Ref 2005 from 1964? |
Anybody ever seen one like this? With a second counter and a serial number that says the watch is from 1964. I thought they got to production in 1965, is this a kind of prototype? Serial no:991494 Very interesting. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
| Author: | Dracha [ Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ref 2005 from 1964? |
Its a bullshit piece , like 20 others in that auction Mk3 dial and movement in a mk1 case |
|
| Author: | Dracha [ Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ref 2005 from 1964? |
Oh , and the dial has been reprinted incorrectly as well  the mk3 dial has square lume on the hour markers , they made these round they 'forgot' the numbers on the running seconds and the breitling 'B' is in an incorrect font |
|
| Author: | Mortys [ Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ref 2005 from 1964? |
I wondered why they just put up one pics online. Thanks rene. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
| Author: | Mortys [ Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ref 2005 from 1964? |
Dracha wrote: Oh , and the dial has been reprinted incorrectly as well the mk3 dial has square lume on the hour markers , they made these round they 'forgot' the numbers on the running seconds and the breitling 'B' is in an incorrect font Did you see ref.108 by Henry’s? It exists  not just in pictures  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
| Author: | Dracha [ Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ref 2005 from 1964? |
Mortys wrote: Did you see ref.108 by Henry’s? It exists not just in pictures link may help? and the SO 2005 existed in pictures ? |
|
| Author: | Mortys [ Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ref 2005 from 1964? |
Dracha wrote: Mortys wrote: Did you see ref.108 by Henry’s? It exists not just in pictures link may help? and the SO 2005 existed in pictures ? https://m.invaluable.com/#lot/2C64B2191D Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
| Author: | Dracha [ Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ref 2005 from 1964? |
Mortys wrote: thats a well known late 1970ies quartz watch ? |
|
| Author: | Mortys [ Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ref 2005 from 1964? |
Well the one SO in that french auction just existed in their picture and not left the factory in that shape Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
| Author: | Mortys [ Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ref 2005 from 1964? |
Dracha wrote: It’s not a quartz it’s an automatic selfwinding. I think from ‘75   Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
| Author: | Dracha [ Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ref 2005 from 1964? |
Mortys wrote: Well the one SO in that french auction just existed in their picture and not left the factory in that shape maybe I am misunderstanding something Are you saying that because the ref 108 is undocumented in an official catalog (or at least not a catalog we have been able to find) the french SO2005 , which is also undocumented , therefor is a a genuine prototype watch ? If that is what you believe to be a correct assumption ,who am I to argue ? |
|
| Author: | Mortys [ Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ref 2005 from 1964? |
Dracha wrote: Mortys wrote: Well the one SO in that french auction just existed in their picture and not left the factory in that shape maybe I am misunderstanding something Are you saying that because the ref 108 is undocumented in an official catalog (or at least not a catalog we have been able to find) the french SO2005 , which is also undocumented , therefor is a a genuine prototype watch ? If that is what you believe to be a correct assumption ,who am I to argue ? No Rene i do not have any assumptions, certainly not with knowleageable people like you, fred, kurt, dave, .... Just curious and eager to learn. That’s all Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
| Author: | WatchFred [ Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ref 2005 from 1964? |
well... remember the 2005 uses a Breitling-exclusive modification ("slow motion" chrono minute center hand, activity index at 6) of the original Venus cal.188... When Venus SA was closed down in late 1966 production was moved to Valjoux, the Venus 188 was then renamed Valjoux R7730, the modified Breitling-variation R7731 - but the "running seconds" variation of the SuperOcean ref. 2005 was only introduced with the Mk2 in 1970 or 1971 - so how did that running seconds slow motion movement end up in an undocumented 1964 "prototype" ? |
|
| Author: | Mortys [ Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ref 2005 from 1964? |
WatchFred wrote: well... remember the 2005 uses a Breitling-exclusive modification ("slow motion" chrono minute center hand, activity index at 6) of the original Venus cal.188... When Venus SA was closed down in late 1966 production was moved to Valjoux, the Venus 188 was then renamed Valjoux R7730, the modified Breitling-variation R7731 - but the "running seconds" variation of the SuperOcean ref. 2005 was only introduced with the Mk2 in 1970 or 1971 - so how did that running seconds slow motion movement end up in an undocumented 1964 "prototype" ? That's exactly what i thought and i could not think of an answer. The reason why asking the professionals
|
|
| Author: | WatchFred [ Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ref 2005 from 1964? |
re the "undocumented" Chronomat ref. 108, see "B" on the left 
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 8 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|