The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Anybody else think this one looks a bit iffy?

Too much reflection and the case back looks a little odd, also only 5 digits on the serial number (thought it should be 6)

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Breitling-Titaniu ... 230fa703a3











Stef

_________________

I think that it's OK. Serial numbers can be anywhere from 4 - 7 digits.

It's real.

I'm comparing it to my CA (circa 2001) and this is what I have observed:

1. The dial fonts appears to be 'fat'?
2. OP mentioned about the glossy sapphire crystal. But then again, the owner could have removed the AR coating
3. The glass looks to make the dial look concave looking?

But then again, looking at the photos in the ebay link, the case looks pretty real. Perhaps its just the camera lens effect up close.

Real for me.

_________________

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

Only disturbing thing is the crystal. If it is a fake, its almost perfekt.

BG
Thomas

_________________
http://www.ellert.at

Yeah, it was mainly the crystal that didn't look right to me, the caseback seemed a little too rough when compared to mine too.

Stef

_________________

If this is a replica, it's a new one on me.

The chrono seconds hand was too short on the original fake and the pearl was badly wrong on the second one. The currently available fake is steel, not titanium.

_________________

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

Look how bad the lume dots are positioned especially noticeable on the 8..

That's QC.
The watch is real.

@Sharky
I don't think they still manufacturing CA rep.

Here is what I see wrong.. Crown guard way to big. To much of the 8 showing next to the sub dial. The 4 on the left counter appears not to have a flat top. 10 to close to the sub dial. Where the large chrono had is attached to the cannon pinion is silver should be all white. Lume dot next to date window is to large and to close to the window. Lume dot on bezel doesnt look right. Bezel engravings not very crisp..

There were two types of dial.

Now with closer look, doesn't look right to me also.

Date font is perfect and any CA I've seen have wrong font.
Pushers are always longer on the reps, that look good.
I still believe it's ok, if it's not those photos would fool me.

looks fake to me
crystal with no strong ar and fonts are wrong...

To me, it looks like a franken fake, using the 1st version of the CA replica as the basis.
It may have a genuine dial and datewheel/b13 (not impossible to source).

If you look closely at the last pic, and how the numbers on the 30 and 45 tabs are slightly thinner and closer to the outside.
Compare with the genuine which have slightly thicker and inboard tab numbers.
Also, the centre chrono hand should have a white post tube. The eBay one doesnt.
Google any CA pic (of a genuine) and you'll see its white.
The crystal looks like single AR, which is reminiscent of the v1 CA rep.
The caseback brushing should be circular, although this could be a 3rd party 'refurb'



This watch really needs factory papers to validate it for sure.
I would be calling the Jeweller on the receipt to check their records for a start.

_________________
Oyster Date '78, Blackbird chrono DLC '10, Blackbird chrono' 02, Navitimer Fighters '02, Aerospace Evo , Seamaster Chrono Diver 300' 02, Carrera cbm2110

"the centre chrono hand should have a white post tube.."

Glad Im not the only one to point that out.. Whos not to say his watchmaker isnt his buddy and gladly verify iis authenticity. I dont much like the 4 on the caseback as well.
Im still going with franken or fake .