The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Hello,

I've been bitten by the vintage bug lately and am happy to have found this most excellent resource for research and question asking - thanks for looking and your assistance.

Cruising around the forums, I have seen many wonderful examples of the 1969 Breitling Super Ocean Chrono Matic, ref 2105 (WATCHFRED's example is particularly droolworthy ) and came upon one for sale on Chrono24.

Based on my very amature assessment of the watch head, the bezel and case back on this example appear to not be original though the movement, dial and hands seem authentic and to be in fair condition. Is this assessment correct?






Also, it's hard to find recent sales of this particular model, though based on what I have seen this is at or near the top end for this model in this condition.

I would love to own a 2105, but wonder how much patience one must have to either wait for a proper one to come up for sale or to find one that is in reasonable shape and upgrade with spare parts that come on the market (which I believe are equally as rare). Thanks again for your assistance and for helping a newbie navigate through the very intriguing and exciting world of vintage Breitling.

Best regards,
Thomas

The most interesting feature is the back

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

Not to mention the wrong crown and oversize pushers. Back on my large case was also refinished but I opted to leave it alone even though Horological Services wanted to polish it again. Just got notification they've finished the overhaul so due back next week. Pic is before I sent it off with the crown off.

crown seems correct for an SO Chrono-Matic, Paul, these have much bigger screw in crowns.

caseback is sad, but the rest looks ok - we have seen MUCH worse.
edit: pushers ok too.

Thanks for all of the replies. It's quite an impressive body of knowledge that resides here.

Any idea of what the market rate for a watch of this sort would be?

Thank you again,
Thomas