The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Would you P L E A S E finally have a look at your own Navitimer? P L E A S E !!! (viewtopic.php?f=11&t=16896&start=15)

Your Navitimer (SN 824xxx) is from this miraculous 1953 production and has N O (or in your own words: 'ZILCH') spacer.

Q.E.D.

Regards,
Chris

@ Roffensian: OK so?

Look again Chris. The picture is small to make it out precisely, but while it might not be Incabloc (although it looks close) it is clearly not the system we are calling "breitling shock"

820441 movement
Incabloc
Breitling shock?

I think Tomvox has answered a lot of the questions that you raise, as always, in a clear and logical manner.

I am confused as to the nature of this argument, since we all seem to agree on the answer, Chris you seem to be arguing only about the methodology of my observations, yet to date you have presented no proof of any other argument.

The discussion seems to me to be centered around a simple idea, the only evidence of the Navitimer being manufactured before 1954 and the Valjoux 72 series is the 824xxx serial numbered Navitimers. My argument, and I've not seen any evidence yet to the contrary, is that these watches could not have been produced in 1953 since the movement used didn't exist with this alternative (to Incabloc) shock system until at least eight years later.

So my question is simple once you discount the 824xxx Navi's, is there any other evidence of a Navitimer produced earlier than 1954?

I believe that we can agree that the answer to that question is simple - no, there is no other evidence.....

Kurt B

I must have concentrated to much on the ruby and that the spring is not covering as much as usually a spring of an Incabloc system does or that the spring seems to cover more on one side, completely overlooking/neglecting the way it is fixed in the regulator. I have to admit, it is not a 'Breitling Shock' system. Cleaning my glasses or the screen didn't bring much of an enlightenment, the picture doesn't reveal more. Contrite I join you with: It's an Incabloc!
Seller says it is a Venus 178. Never before saw a 178 like that. Maybe someone can explain/confirm to me that a minute counter wheel with only 16 teeth is used for the date.

Chris

OK, finally a direct answer and I see what you're saying. You see how helpful you can be when you're not being condescending and obtuse?

So we are speaking of cases with non-integrated spacer (additional part required) and those designed with the "spacer" built in, as it were, with thicker walls.

And your contention is that those with thick walls and no spacer are later cases and cannot be from any point prior to the Valjoux Navitimers. Additionally, you are saying that some of the Navitimers with Venus up until the late 1950s/900k SN range still required the added spacer. (You see how easy and clear I am making this for everyone, BTW? )

So for you, this is definitive proof of chronology, yes?

Except...

Here is an 824k with a non-logo AOPA dial with no spacer and Breitling Shock:







825,k with Breitling + Navitimer + AOPA with no spacer and Incabloc:







A 909k with spacer and non-logo AOPA + Navitimer dial and Incabloc:







909k with spacer but also Incabloc:



924k w/o spacer but still with Incabloc:



So maybe this is a definitive characteristic as relates to chronology. Or maybe Breitling produced non-spacer cases first but then had to scramble and redesign when they couldn't get enough 178s and went to the Valjoux movement (that could also explain the small bead bezels)? Maybe that thick-walled 825,k example points to this possibility?

But even if we grant that it is a chronological indicator:

If an 824,k 806 is really 924,k and 1959 because it has no spacer, why do these other examples from this early 900k range, some with spacer and some without, all have Incabloc? Note also the position of the "17-jewels" nomenclature next to the bridge on all the verifiably later models but not on the 824,k versions (it is on the upper left on the these):



(See, I looked at my 806 after all! )

And finally, if it is a mis-stamp and should read "924" why are the fonts of the stamps different between an 824,k and a 924,k which would have to have been stamped in sequence they are so close (these two would ostensibly be only 312 units away)?



So maybe, just maybe, the cases are from later but the backs are most probably not from the 924 SN range and mis-stamped by someone having a bad day at the machine. At the very least, we can put that fairy tale to rest I think.

So what we still don't know is:
Why Breitling Shock and not Incabloc on the 824,k 806s?
Why no "17-jewels" nomenclature in the usual position on the 824,ks?
When were these watches really produced: Actually in 1952-3 with a non-spacer case for the 178 and "B Breitling Geneve" dials from the beginning or only the casebacks stamped then but the entire watch assembled much later and with the new non-spacer case and with an anomalous movement?

As an aside: with all the subtle variations we can see within a very short period of time--bridges, dials, movements, cases, bezels--my advice to all Vintage Breitling collectors would be to show some flexibility with "The Rules."
T.

My aversion to using the shock protection system as a help to prove the non-existence of a 1953 Navitimer production is basing on my belief to have seen Venus 178 movements with this Breitling Shock system in other chronographs than Navitimers before. I don't remember where and when I've seen it or the SN of these watches, but I wanted to avoid a pretty awkward situation, when we might have come to a conclusion that this 1953 production is not existing and then somebody turns up with such a watch with e.g. a SN 82xxxx and telling us to better start all over again.
Finally it is my belief that there is no 1953 Navitimer production. Vide 'My Point Of View'. Why should I be contra-productive?

Regards,
Chris

You mean the large flower shaped gear attached to the bridge? That's because this AVI and the later ones with subdials at the three are 15 minute counters not 30 minute counters as the Navitimer is.

The AVI shown has what looks like a date where the three is, but is in fact a fifteen minute counter.



It's hard to legislate for that. Personally I have no bias to discovering that the Navitimer came out in 1952, but so far the evidence suggests 1954 .

There is nothing like a "non-integrated spacer" or a "built in spacer".
You are not talking of your shoes as with a "built-in spacer" when leaving your stockings inside, are you?
Right. My Navitimer (Venus 178/BOW/SN 868xxx/1955) e.g. has a spacer, and I've seen others with spacers which looked very original and having SNs of 1958.
We better forget about this example.
SN --> dubious 1953er. Dial --> 1st generation. Luminous redone + all hands wrong resp. 2nd generation, painted white --> somebody 'created' this watch new --> Frankenstein watch.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
IMHO not very realistic 'maybe's'.
No comment.
VENUS is the manufacturer of the movement, not BREITLING.
Different pressure changes the look of stamped/punched numbers enormously.
'..only 312 units away..' ? ... only if both series are lying side by side ...
Either you have a toolmaker handy who can make a 'wild' cover fit, or you don't mind to spend a very looooong time trying to fit such an amount of covers: Only appr. every tenth might fit !
I'd say, either they needed the space in the shelves, or Incabloc couldn't deliver sufficient quantities. Where is the 'usual position'?Why not open another thread for the "B Breitling Geneve" ?Which rules?


Cheers,
Chris

Having just reread this entire thread I hesitate to post. It seems like an invitation for more opinions to become facts simply through the process of being strongly stated, but I have to ask........

What evidence do we have that casebacks are not interchangeable? I understand that cases are different, and while the 'integrated spacer' concept may not be good wording, the concept is understood that there are cases with spacers and cases with thicker walls to avoid the need for spacers. What I don't see is any evidence that the ridge for the casebacks is significantly different. I'm also fairly convinced that casebacks were not 'custom fit' to a specific watch.

I buy the argument that it's harder to match screw in casebacks as there are more variables, but not sure I understand the logic that only 1 in 10 would fit on these snap fit ones???????

Casebacks are definitely not interchangeable I can guarantee you of that; I believe that they was made in small badges, and then customized to fit each watch case , if they didn’t already do so.

If you take a handful of watches within 20-30 margin in serial numbers, then 1 out of 10 might fit, and the rest can easily be fitted if you know how to do it, but a caseback from one year of production will not fit one from another year, it can be made to fit by a pro (I have a toolmaker that can do magic), but it takes a serious knowledge as how to do, and will require the right tools.

I was told so by a watch collector when I started collecting Navitimers, and have checked it at least 100 times, I know that by saying the above I do not make it a fact, but trust me, we collectors of the watches know much more about them then anybody else, simply because an incredible amount of watches have passed through our hands, sometimes our opinions are more reliable then so called “facts”….. ! ! !


/ Kurt B

I think as English is not your first language, you are not getting my play on words here. How do you eliminate the need for the spacer part? You build a case that does not require one, i.e. the case does the work of the part. Just a turn of phrase, not a literal description. Nonetheless, de facto "built in spacer." Get it?

As for the first watch, I agree that it is not an ideal example although the caseback & movement are representative of these 824,ks. And wouldn't it be interesting if it did come with this dial originally (re-lume is not refinished, after all)?

As for the rest, my points have all been made in this or other threads (17 jewel nomenclature, shock system, and if you cant see the differences in the 824 and 924 fonts, I really can't help you) so if you are still pretending like you don't know what I am referring to, I can only assume you are ignoring these points because they are inconvenient to your narrative and so you are not really interested in having a discussion but would rather offer pronouncements on high to the lesser mortals while presenting us with the Ten Commandments of Breitling like Moses.

Which brings me to your posting style...

In my years on various forums, one runs into your type somewhat more frequently then one would like: the self-appointed expert ex portfolio who is willing to hold court and tell the amateurs the true meaning of things but is rather less forthcoming when asked for facts to substantiate his assertions and downright obnoxious when pressed to do so.

These are the sorts of fellows that I try not to waste my time with because if I wanted a lecture from a pompous windbag with no chance of rebuttal, I would go back to university. But I've been out of university for about 20 odd years now and you remind me of why I was happy to leave.

So, Chris, thanks for the observation on the spacer. It seems to be the one concrete thing that one can take away from all your generalized storytelling. The fact that you presented it in such a condescending and offensive manner was the number one take away on your true character, so that was also quite useful.

If you ever need anything in the vintage watch world (a smaller demimonde than you may realize)...don't bother asking me for it.
Over & out,
T.

Now that is some very useful and interesting information--bravo, Kurt!
Best,
T.

+1

Thank you Kurt!