The Breitling Watch Source Forums

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/BREITLING-FO ... SS:AU:1120



Reported

A hideous caseback in honor of the first day of the NFL preseason!

Well I moved it out of vintage because it isn't, and would love to know what makes everyone so sure that it is a "frankenball" and a "hideous fake".

As far as I am concerned it looks almost perfect for a 1994 watch called the Navitimer 92 Football. The only think that I find puzzling is that that watch had the same model number as the regular 92 - A30022 and this appears to have a different model number. Can't explain that, but other than that oddity this watch is perfectly correct.

Sorry, jumped a little quickly on that one, making a joke about football (I know it's football and not NFL that it refers to of course).

As you stated the caseback is weird and not right for that model as far as I can tell, also for the 94 shouldn't it be ##/200 and as you stated it's still an A30022 not whatever thats supposed to be written on the back. Font on tachy seemed off (might just be the lighting).

Not something I would consider bidding on but certainly there is more to it then me calling it a fake, probably should have just said hideous caseback (corrected original post)

Nope, has a four digit number starting with a 4 which is pretty typical for these.

Whoops, meant if for the main identification forum and not vintage!

And I've once again displayed my ignorance. To my amateur eye the logo looked fake, and I'm surprised to hear that's the right font on the slide rule and hour markers, looks quite cheap compared to the others I've seen, but obviously I mistook a real B which is slightly stylistically different for a fake. Just too used to the busier slide rule on other navi's from the 1990's.

According to the Israeli site, this was a LE of 200 from 1994. There was also a 6-9-12 layout version of 500 pieces.

http://www.breitling-museum.com/Breitling-Navitimer.html

_________________

For more information on identifying Breitling replicas, please visit my web site
http://f4buz.com/watches/breitling/fakes/fakes.html

Yeah, their definition of LE is sometimes interesting. We have always said that an LE would be xx / xx and neither the 200 nor the 500 have that so not convinced that those numbers are exact. In fact the 200 has 4 digit serial numbers which seems to argue against an LE of 200, but as I noted above, they always seem to start with 4. Yet another bizarre Breitling approach to LEs / SEs.