The Breitling Watch Source Forums

I came across these earlier movements which have a different shock protection (at least I assume that's what it is)

And this from a 1945 chronomat.
Pictures from Finertimes.com

The picture (ex 'Breitlingmuseum') of the BREITLING SHOCK is a photo of page 15 of the 1967 'FLUME-Stoßsicherungs-Katolog'. This shock absorber has not been produced by Breitling but by a company producing also shock protection systems.

Regards,
Chris

However one wants to parse this, it is apparent that whoever produced it, they produced it exclusively for and at the behest of Breitling. That cannot be in dispute. How long this window of non-Incabloc "Breitling Shock" system was in use and during what period is the question at hand, especially as we can only speculate as to the "why" (cost would be my guess but that's all it is).
Any thoughts on the latter issue based on your experience of this 1950s-early 60s period, Chris?
Thanks & best,
T.

Sorry, Yaffle, the AVI w/SN 820441 has the BREITLING SHOCK !

Regards,
Chris

Questions like 'how long was this Breitling Shock system in use' or 'during what period' or 'why' are of secondary importance to me. Via the shock protection system we are not coming even close to an answer to the question whether there has been a Navitimer in 1953 already. The lie "All Breitling watches are shock protected with Incabloc system and Incastar regulator" (ex 1950 advertisement) forces either tears to my eyes or makes me laugh. It is like a bad omen for this discussion.

My approach is different. Why don't we encircle the matter by asking questions being connected with known facts?

a) Those dubious "53ers" have the same dial as the 806 Navitimers produced in 1959.
Why was this dial held back 6 years until 1959?

b) Both movements, the Valjoux 72 (13''') and lateron the Venus 178 (14''') were fixed with a spacer.
Why was it necessary to fix also the Venus 178 with a spacer, if there existed already suitable cases from this miraculous 1953 production?

c) We have learned that those dubious "53ers" had bezels with 92 beads.
Why has Breitling in 1954 decided to use bezels with more and smaller beads for the Valjoux 72 Navitimer and then gradually reduce the quantity of beads until there were exactly 92 beads again in 1959?

It is no secret that I advocate the theory that the first Navitimer ever produced was the Valjoux 72 Navitimer.
You've just read why.

Regards,
Chris

All right, let's go point by point here:



I don't understand this thinking.
We are looking for clues on chronology and this Breitling Shock/non-Incabloc system is a clue because:
We have seen it on all of the 824,k Venus 806s.
It is not present on the Valjoux 72 Navitimers or the Venus versions from the mid-1950s.
Breitling Shock "reappears" on some various models with low 900k SNs, as Yaffle has painstakingly pointed out.
So whether this is a question of "secondary importance" to you personally is not really all that relevant. It is a key anomaly that is hinting at the true chronology. I might also ad that at present it seems to be indicating late 50s/early 60s production for movements with Breitling Shock.



Agree, this is advertising hyperbole and not a sound basis for extracting genuine information.



OK...



Sorry this is not a fact; this is circular logic to support an established belief. The dial could just as easily have produced for the 1953 model and then the question would be: Why did Breitling use this old dial on the 1959 models again?



I don't understand your point here. AFAIK, all 806s have a spacer from the beginning to the end of production and the cases of the all 1950s 806s are the same size and dimensions, even if the bezel changes slightly. The need for a spacer has to do with the very large case of the 806 and the fact that even a 14 ligne movement requires a spacer in this large diameter case. You may as well be asking why Breitling did not make the Navitimer a smaller watch like the Chronomat or the Premier so as to eliminate the need for a spacer. Or if Valjoux 72s are the first 806s, why didn't Breitling tailor their case to 13''' and then need to produce a larger case for the later Venus version? In fact, why the need for such a very large spacer for the Val. 72 if these cases were produced with that movement in mind?

So for me, this argument is not relevant to chronology or the switch in movements unless you can clarify the point you are trying to make.



This I do not know. But if the Valjoux Navitimers were manufactured to different specs because of the pusher asymmetry or some other reason (special commission by military, AOPA, etc?), this could just be a quirk of that particular manufacturing process. I think maybe Kurt has shown a Venus 806 from 1955 with the smaller beads but I have not counted them out:



And as I say above, the cases are identical so if they had these Valjoux bezels left over they'd certainly pop them on a Venus powered Navi. And if they had big bead logarithmic bezels from earlier production, they would have used those up at any time as well. Again, this might indicate chronology if you already believe the Valjouxs were the very first but it doesn't really if you're not as convinced of that. Watch companies did a lot of out-of-sequence things in the 1950s and they would almost always use up whatever parts they had in surplus, whether in a linear manner or not.



I respect your opinion but I remain open to other possibilities.
Best,
T.

I have a question of my own, and unfortunately no answers............

Why does Breitling maintain that Navitimers were born in 1952? They haven't to my knowledge made any recent comments, but they did issue a 50th anniversary piece in 2002. I realise that it's a different company, but presumably they have access to some information.

According to Richter, the Trademark document for the Navitimer was issued on the 26th of February 1955 (as if that’s any help)…….!!!!

I honestly can’t see why Breitling of today should have the answer to our question, and I don’t believe that they care either. They bought the name “Navitimer”, and now they are just using it as a money machine, the Navitimers of today are reproductions, so they make money selling reproductions.

I asked a source I have with Breitling for an answer to our question 2 weeks ago, and have had no answer.

Honestly, what do we expect, what could make us change what we believe, a respond from Breitling telling what they “believe” ?

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind, The answer is blowin' in the wind.


/ Kurt B

. . . for how Sicura AG came up with that date (recalling the name didn't change to Breitling AG until 1993. It's not a loss of records or memory if you never had either. For what it's worth, I don't see a reference to the Navitimer until a 1957 Swiss Journal of Horology (but I don't have a complete set). If someone had a complete set of AOPA Pilot, I wonder when the first ad appears.

It occurred to me, however, that maybe the "Navitimer" name was first used on those time-only watches we see. I have now seen three that match a common pattern, including one that was really beat (Richter's and Altro's are suspiciously fresh). But, I think those all have 1956 serial dates, and it makes me doubt that Breitling would share such a trademark across two wildly different models. But, hey, the double aircraft logo was on the backs of SuperOceans and TransOceans before it made it to the dial of the Navitimers.

And, if you're going to lose a hockey game, it might as well be to the Canadians, eh? Same for curling, eh? A really great day for the NHL.

Richter again, for what it's worth - again......

Page 26.

/ Kurt B

So do I.

Sentences like "all 806s have a spacer from the beginning to the end of production" or "cases of the all 1950s 806s are the same size and dimensions" or "they had big bead logarithmic bezels from earlier production" make me shiver.

End of Discussion.

Regards,
Chris

OK, then please educate me on the following points:
1) Do all 806s have a movement spacer from the beginning to the end of production or don't they?
2) Are the cases of all 1950s 806s the same size and dimensions (inside and out) or are there differences in construction between, say, a Valjoux version and a Venus version or one made in 1955 and one made in 1959?

BTW, the discussion only ends for you if you choose not to participate. For the rest of us, it will go on with or without you. Better to clarify your points and add to the knowledge base for Vintage Breitling enthusiasts rather than leaving us all in ignorance don't you think?
Best,
T.

IMHO a Forum like Vintage Breitling Discussions is supposed to house discussions about vintage Breitling watches only, not teaching the basics, e.g. what a watch is, how it functions, purpose and name of parts, etc.

I'm not going to do your homework here. At first find out what a spacer (movement holder ring) is and what it is needed for. Then have a look at your own Navitimer and deliberate, whether it has a spacer or not. The result of your deliberations should give you the answers to the rest of your questions. Your excellent capabilities in finding samples for your own argumentations surely will help you. Also logoical thinking helps a lot. Open eyes and an open mind do the rest. It's as simple as that.

Good luck.

Regards,
Chris

I could not disagree more.

One of the things that we at BreitlingSource are proud of is the fact that we create a friendly atmosphere for people to comne and learn. We do not take a superior attitude to people who aren't as familiar with watch terms as we are, and we certainly don't require a certain level of knowledge before allowing people to contribute.

I seem to recall a certain member who PM'd me asking how to post pictures after I had already sent them the link with the instructions on how to post pictures. Should my response to that person have been that I am a moderator on a watch forum not a teacher on how to most pictures into bulletin boards?

What may be obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to others and there are a lot of people here who do not have the knowledge and experience to contribute to these discussions but are very interested in them. This forum is not a private platform for you to espouse your knowledge and beliefs, rather it is a public forum where hopefully a group of like minded people can discuss a shared passion and perhaps advance the knowledge of this brand.

If you aren't willing to partake in that discussion in the spirit that BreitlingSource champions then I wish you good luck finding an alternative platform, where your requirements for members to have a level of existing knowledge and to share the beliefs that you hold are more acceptable.

Good luck to you & adieu!
T.