cruvon wrote:
Roff, in my opinion the Breitling of today is licensed to speak for the original Breitling and in that sense, they are still the same Breitling. How else can we explain that when the Breitling of today gives out an official statement that Valjoux 806's were infact manufactured in 1954-55, that we than take it as gospel? Or when the Breitling of today comes up with a Navitimer 806 commeorative watch, that people buy it because it's essentially seen as coming from the same company?
We don't take comments as Valjoux 806s as gospel. Some buy the argument, some don't, but anyone who knows anything of the 1970s history of Breitling recognises the shortcomings in current Breitling's knowledge and factors that in to any comments that the modern company makes. Breitling comes up with many variations on the Navitimer - including a 50th anniversary piece in 2002 (do
we take that as gospel as well?), but so what. They are no more an 806 than a Chronomat B01 is a 1942 Chronomat - it just looks more similar.
cruvon wrote:
But that is separate and not to be confused/mixed with my argument and belief that to be interested in collecting vintage Breitlings, most new collectors like me draw their inspiration from existing successful companies that have suvived and have a rich heritage to draw upon. I for one would have been less than half interested in collecting Rolexes or Breitlings or any other(the exception being if were very rare pieces from non existing companies) if the company didn't exist to this day and if they were not keen on promoting the rich heritage that they are entitled to project. I think the Breitling of today does tick the boxes of being a viable company today and is interested in promoting it's rich past heritage judging by it's interest in releasing heritage watch reruns and releasing statements about vintage Breitlings. Plus they also have vintage Breitling servicing centres. It just needs to work harder at promoting it's heritage and that's the only way they can survive today's marketplace where the wristwatch is quickly becoming an obsolete item amongst the younger generation with the advent of portable computers and mobile phones. Does it really matter if somebody else or another country or new management legally owns it today? Not really, aslong as they promote Breitlings heritage, it's all good to me.
So many things here.
1) It's not new owners - it's a new company. Breitling up to 1978 was broken up. Schneider (the current owner), bought the name - that's it. The "rich past" belongs to someone else
2) Breitling does not have vintage service centres. Some regional service centres have a couple of watchmakers who can work on them, most don't. Ask BUSA to service a vintage piece and they will refer you to Mark Heist who has nothing to do with Breitling. Breitling also has no more access to parts than anyone else - they only bought the name.
3) Why would Breitling today wish to promote it's heritage (which is actually somebody else's heritage), when as you keep saying, people buying watches today don't care?
4) Watches becoming obsolete - umm, did you see the stats on Swiss watch exports? It's never been better.
cruvon wrote:
Same goes with vintage car companies, not many would collect vintage BMW's, Porsche's etc. if those companies didn't exist today and draw on their rich heritage, offcourse the exception being if were very rare and exceptional autos. Would BMW's ownership of the Mini or the Rolls Royce or an Indian companies ownership of Jaguar and Land Rover makes them any less desirable in this time of global integration? I don't think so, their survival,as long as their rich traditions and heritage are nurtured, is more important both to vintage collectors and modern car fans in making these cars more collectible for future generations. Same with watches.
But I do see the other point of view expressed by you too and understand and appreciate that you come from a collector background where you have possibly lived with or have been associated with most of these heritage models in their lifetimes and yours and I haven't, so my inspiration for collecting vintage Breitlings, besides offcourse thanks to this beautiful forum and collectors like you, comes in part because of the survival of the current Breitling company and it's heritage. For me, alienating the old and new Breitling into two brings a huge risk to attracting new collectors, who are the custodians of Breitlings heritage into the next generation. Just my 2c:)
Kinda lost me on the car analogy. Duesenbergs seem to be pretty collectible, and I'm guessing that doesn't have much to do with their 2012 models. Same could be said for Auburn, Packard, Studebaker, Austin-Healey, Nash, etc, etc, etc
On the watch front, the one watch that I would never get rid of was made by a company that effectively hasn't existed for more than 50 years - and the reason that I wouldn't part with it has absolutely nothing to do with its history or lack thereof.
If I look at a watch from the 30s / 40s / 50s / 60s or from the 17th / 18th / 19th century for that matter, I will consider buying it if it appeals and if it would appear to be good value. For me, what that brand is doing today is completely irrelevant, and I suspect I am not alone. If that weren't the case then I would have no interest in vintage Breitlings because of the modern company's insistence on creating 1980s Tag designs, using red rubber for bezels, and trying to break a world record for the number of different fonts used on the same watch.
Login
Register
FAQ
