The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Found another 806...

from 1954... probably the earliest I've seen so far... very very choice...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... K:MEWAX:IT

that movement looks out of this world~!

_________________
"I don't got the bright watch I got the right watch" -Jay Z

Well, I sense some controversy here.......

There is a school of thought that says that these were the first Navitimers and that the 1952 / 53 ones were actually produced around 1960 with earlier cases. Others maintain that the Navitimer was produced from 1952 as Breitling have always said.

What isn't in doubt is that the Valjoux 72 movements, universally without 806 stamped on the caseback (part of the argument that these were the first) were produced starting in 1954 and going on into 1955 (although most are 54s).

They are certainly uncommon - maybe rare, although I have seen a few.of them.

This watch looks to be in good original condition. I think that a lot of the movement gleam is flash reflection, but it looks good, and the BOW on the bridge is a nice, and less common sign (WOG is more usual).

The chrono seconds hand looks in better condition than the rest of the hands, so may be a replacement, but it is correct.

It's a nice watch, and one that I would be happy to have in my collection, but the price is unrealistic. I would love to see one of these go through the auction process to see what the market says these are worth with the recent economic challenges. The money still seems to be there for quality, and this is a quality piece, but nowhere near this money.

I suppose I'm expected to put a valuation on it, so ballpark - $8,000. BreitlingMuseum will say that's way too low, but until I see evidence that the market will support these (rather than sellers can ask these prices) I'm conservative.

I posted this up not so I can purchase it, (too rich for my blood) but I remember you Roff mentioning something about how you wouldn't mind a Navi from '52 in your collection and I wanted your input...

So this one is safe to say that it is from '54? Would that conclusion come from the serial number on the caseback? How would one look like from 1952 then? I would love to see one from 1952!

_________________
"I don't got the bright watch I got the right watch" -Jay Z

I've never seen a legitimate 1952 - I've seen a couple that were claimed to be 1952s but in my opinion they had problems.

I have seen a number of 1953s and am fairly familiar with them. They are Venus 178s, most with WOG, some with BOW, some with nothing. The serial number is on the inside of the caseback, but 806 is stamped on the outside. Visually they look the same as this one. Those that believe that the 72s were the first say that these watches were actually released closer to 1960 - note the careful wording - generally the claim is for later release, not necessarily later production!

We know that these Valjoux 72s are from 1954 / 5 for a number of reasons - the correct ones always have serial numbers that date to that period, and Breitling themselves have said that the Valjoux 72s were produced in 1954 / 5. I have seen 72s with WOG, and less commonly BOW as with this one. I have also seen a couple with nothing on the balance cock.

The argument for these being the first Navitimers is that they don't have the 806 stamped on the caseback (I have never seen a correct 72 with 806), which those that support these as being the first Navitimers say is because the watch was not an official Breitling model and was only available to AOPA members. The problem that I have with this is that there are documented pieces with 72s and with 1955 serials (I have heard of 1954s, but have not seen a correct one) that did not have the AOPA logo on, but instead had a Breitling B. If this were a first series AOPA only release why would Breitling do that? Those pieces do not have 806 on the caseback.

Of course those people willingly accept Breitling's claim that they were produced in 54 / 5 but don't accept Breitling's claim that 806s were first made in 52 - c'est la vie.

In terms of my collection - well we all know that I am reluctant to reveal details, but suffice it to say that my collection would be enhanced with a 1942 Chronomat and a 1952 Navitimer - I don't own either.

So for future reference, i don't think I'm going to spend this much on an early series Navi, but what are good year/s to look for?

I think it's time I bit the bullet and start saving for a proper vintage Navitimer very soon... my collection feels empty without one... I'm figuring I've seen some go in the range from 2k to 4 1/2 K... And I think I should start jumping on it before they go up in price...

Really doesn't matter what year... AOPA or not, as long as it's got all the original goodies on there and it's in good condition...

_________________
"I don't got the bright watch I got the right watch" -Jay Z

Well if there isn't one particular year that has significance for you then I would look for a good original first generation - all black subs, rice bezel, no red on the sliderule and first generation hands.

There isn't a definitive cut-off for those - anything pre 1959 should be that way, and after 1963 you won't find them, but in the 59 to 63 period there was transition with some pieces having some or all of these features.

I've read something about this "red on the sliderule" somewhere... probably in another thread...

what's the deal with this? Does it signify something bad?

_________________
"I don't got the bright watch I got the right watch" -Jay Z

Not bad, just an indication of a later watch (or at least later sliderule). Red didn't appear until transition from the first generations. It's not unusual to find a first generation with red on the sliderule as they were replaced during servicing if they faded, but finding an all black sliderule is a nice indicator (though not a guarantee) of originality.

Sweeeeet~~...

my Navitimer tutorial for the day... thank you professor as always...

_________________
"I don't got the bright watch I got the right watch" -Jay Z

I really love this watch! The current Montbrillant Olympus really appears to "fit" more with this generation of Navitimer than the old Navitimer Olympus. (I see the two Olympus' compared often)

Note similarities include the Arabic numerals, the more simple chrono second hand, the beaded bezel, and the lack of the modern Breitling wings on the face but still included on the buckle. A lot of people ask why they Olympus went through such a dramatic change with the introduction of the MB and I think the designers were trying to go back to the roots of the Navitimer.

The one negative feedback I have is the geared bezel is much easier to turn than the beaded!

Indeed it exist with the "B" Breitling Geneve with the golden "B" index, but only from begin of 1955. The first Valjoux 72 with AOPA where all from 1954 and with "BOW" marked redgildet movement, and later in 1967 again but with not marked movement and not gildet calibre. And all of them where sold in Amerika. Only for europe market there where sold a very smal number of Valjoux 72 Navitimers with the "B" Breitling Geneve only in the early begin of 1955. I saw only 3 in my life, its the real biggest Navitimer rarity, the real grail. Later there where the same Navitimer produced with the smal rice beaded bezel and also "BOW" , but with Venus 178 till middle of 1955.
here some photos

...an 806 with a serial # that should pre-date even the fantastic applied-B logo that Mikael shows...



...but has a more conventional dial (and the Venus movement, of course)...



I am told by several respected Breitling "experts" that the caseback serial was most probably mis-stamped and should be 900k not 800k, dating more to 1959 rather than 53-4. Personally, I don't think anyone in Vintage Breitling (and vintage watches in general) has all the answers and in fact there are no real "official" records from this period, so my mind remains open to other possibilities...
Best,
T.

P.S. It is also possible that if we accept the "mis-stamped" theory, some of this small batch of "800k" watches which should have been 900k could be where the claim of 1952 came from.

ooh... a golden AOPA logo... looks awesome~!

_________________
"I don't got the bright watch I got the right watch" -Jay Z

Very nice indeed.

I'm still a sucker for the 1952 belief, Breitling obviously believe it, although as you say there is a distinct lack of record keeping.

Hi tomvox1, me too, I have some of this early Navitimers, same design as yours. Look the first is without incablock, as yours, which speaks for the theory of a real-documented early Navitimer.



another one without incablock


one more a little bid later, now with incablock



it cannot be the 924..., because the 917... was with incablock and some other small differences on the movement


another 909...

another 924... all with incablock




me too Roff, and I think, that is the proof