The Breitling Watch Source Forums

this watch has been around for years, discussed here:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24657
and here, for example:
http://forums.watchuseek.com/f10/poljot ... 27836.html

this was the original claim the previous owner made:
"This is a beautiful example of a RARE Pre-owned Vintage Breitling Co-Pilot ref 7651 Chrono-matic Self-winding Water-resistant Wrist Watch. According to a number of Breitling representatives working out of Breitling’s main headquarters in Grenchen, Switzerland, this particular watch, based on its Serial Number 1252319, was manufactured in late 1968, making it a precursor to the Model 1806. This makes this particular watch a proto-type, of which there are only 3-4 known to exist today! What’s more, Breitling re-badged the face plate П ОЛ Е Т and awarded these proto-types to a select few Russian Air Force Top Ace Pilots before releasing Breitling's commercial version to the general public in mid-1969."

he relisted it this summer, with a BIN of 6k: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1968-Ru ... 908wt_1396 and several NR listings where he ended the listing when the price did not reach the expected level.

now Bill Shaine has picked it up and is trying to use his (frankly a bit damaged, for me) credibility to sell it.

re the 1968 claim: remember the Chrono-Matic Cal.11 was officially launched on 3rd of March 1969, at the Basel trade fair.

Thanks Fred, not another one:). Is Bill Shaine planning on partnering with our German friend?:). I wonder why he's hell bent on damaging his past reputation but maybe he hasn't come under the radar that seriously before. But not surprising when big money is involved and crucial character decisions come to the fore, I have seen reputed heads roll on other forums before, if only they knew that reputation is irreplaceable!

I think Kurt and Mark and Theresa Heist should ask him to stop using their names in his ads
to sell his junk like the franken V72 pre 806 grail he just sold, if only the guy who bought it knew the truth about his steal price grail!


http://www.ebay.com/itm/330804351228?ss ... 1423.l2649

Not sure if I believe the story on this watch. If it was going to be awarded to someone Breitling would probably alter the dial with some special printing commemorating the occasion or event but keeping the Breitling name on the piece. They did that before on earlier pieces and after this one was produced. Can't see enough detail on the dial to say it's been altered or not. I also don't think Breitling EVER rebranded any of their watches from this period. Yes there are LIP and other special additions to the dial but they all say Breitling on them (that I've seen) and don't have another watch company name on them. Maybe you could argue AOPA was a similar occurence but AOPA didn't make watches like Poljot.

Comparing Bill Shaine to a former member is going a bit far don't you think cruvon, especially as you have had no personal dealings with him. His reputation is certainly taking a bit of a hit at the moment, but you shouldn't be making accusations like that in Breitling forums without a lot more evidence, this seems to be turning into a bit of a vendetta and is not appropriate in my mind.

1968 cased Chrono-matics are not that uncommon, although we can debate forever whether they were pre-series of cases that were produced earlier. In this case, I don't buy the branding, but don't have an explanation either.

San, I must admit I am not too happy with some of Bill's latest listings, but in all my personal dealings with him, he proved to be an outstandingly friendly, reliable person. I hope there are no personal reasons that Bill currently strays from his normal ways (those who know him will understand) to - apparently - funds.

Hi Roff, surely have no personal vendetta against him, no reason to, but think advertising watches as the real deal on a watch like the V72 that he is selling is outright criminal in my book and it's the behavior I am criticizing, not how good he is personally. I have more empathy for the poor buyer who bought that franken V72 thinking is the real deal Grail or for the one who bought that Wakmann triple date thinking it was a Breitling Datora or the questionable watch above. So in that sense he was just like the German seller to me but apologies if that sounded offensive.

Cheers Fred, as mentioned to Roff, Bill surely sounds like a great guy and am surely not contesting that, true he might have his own personal reasons why hes doing what he is but still is not a good reason why an innocent buyer should have to face the brunt for having laid trust in his past credibility. From what you know about his past, I hope for his own credibility and for the credibility of vintage Breitlings in general, that he does the right thing going forward.

Honestly,

I think you guys should back out a little when it comes to Bill Shaine.

The Valjoux 72 he just sold on ebay was neither a fake, or a frankenwatch, you can call it junk as using that word is a subjective judgement, but the watch does not deserve that verdict IMO, and Bill does certainly not deserve to be compared with the member in mention …..!!!

The Valjoux 72 was all original as far as parts are concerned, the dial was repainted, the sliderule was redone, the hands was redone, the case was polished, but again, all original parts was used (I can’t guarantee that the pushers was original), does that make it a frankenwatch or a fake ? ? ?

It was the best redone dial I have ever seen on a Vintage Navitimer, and somebody paid a lot for having that work done.

And with this explanation 2 days prior to the ending of the auction, one can hardly blame him for not being honest.

Hi friend, the dial is original??

There is a mixture of opinion on that. I don't believe it is. On the other hand, some experts who know as much as I have disagreed. There are only a handful of experts who know that the the emblem on a Valjoux 72 Navitimer dial is pink compared with a more yellow Venus 178 dial, although more people will know after reading this explanation. My belief is that the absence of the AOPA lettering in the emblem such an early dial, while common in later Navitimer dials, was unheard of in 1955. I also can point to some script issues and to the overall condition of the dial which is too good for such an early Navitimer unless it lived in the desert or a drawer. The case, while very nice, does show some wear, so it didn't live in a drawer, but I don't know the watch's history, so it may have lived in a desert. Of course, the dial could have been a factory replacement from the 50s or 60s, and would be considered original in that case. My position with regard to the AOPA letters is based on circumstantial evidence. I have no proof for my position, as has been pointed out to me over the years, but it is still my position until proven otherwise. The other script issues fall within the subjective judgement that one makes and could easily be within the normal printing variations, but I don't believe that they are for the aforementioned reasons.

I assume that Fred and I are being lumped into "you guys", and I stand by my comments about Bill and his listings - they (my comments) have been consistent over many years as te search function will reveal to anyone who wishes to investigate. Only one person has gone too far regarding Bill in my opinion and I called him on it immediately.

Bill is also a member of this site who has visited very recently and can speak for himself should he wish.

No - no, I just picked a post to respond to, with "you guys" I ment the guys that have doubts about him (there can be others then the ones who aired it here) I completely agree with you, and basically I believe that it was your post that trickered me to comment.

/ Kurt B

edit: Roff beat me to it, but this was the response I was writing:

Whoa, Kurt !

You talk about "you guys" here - apparently including Roff, Paul and me. Member Cruvon went quite a bit too far in his reaction, and Roff reacted immediately - we who know Bill have always held him in high regard, as you can see in our reactions and comments - we just stated the same facts you are mentioning about the V72 - none of us called it Franken or fake.

The subject of this thread, the "preseries Breitling Co-Pilot" listing, is a bit questionable too, to put it mildly, claiming a Cal. 11 ref. 7651 was produced in 1968. Bill has now amended the listing, stating he will add more information over the weekend, looking forward to it.

edit 2: Kurt, you have clarified the misunderstanding, thanks !
I would love your comments on this piece, btw.: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=42958
watch has been relisted and now sold at a relative bargain, but would be interested to read your comments, please ?

I am constantly trying to waste as little time as possible on non interesting watch related stuff, posting a comment on this one would be a complete waste of time, I guess it deserves the title of being called both a franken, a copy & a junkwatch…..!!!!

/ Kurt B

Kurt, none of us thought the watch was authentic, just surprised a V72 could fit into a mid-60s case ?

Hi Kurt, I can understand some of you know Bill from before and hence would like to defend him as a friend since quoting you'll, he was a good seller prior to this. I have no such associations to him so am just going by his recent poor ads including the V72 one that I raised an issue on here viewtopic.php?f=31&t=43087. The evaluation that you stated of the V72 deems that watch to a hospital bed rather than as somebodies "Outstanding" Grail mantelpiece. I wouldn't give him a dollar for it based on what we knew about it and based on your evaluation of it. His explanation to somebody who asked if the dial is original is highly ambiguous, even worse that he didn't state it prior to being asked though he knew. Plus an honest seller puts that critical info in the body of the advertisment so that a buyer can make an informed decision. He calls it a proper Grail while slipping that ambiguous evaluation of the dials originality in a reply to someones pointed question, very sneaky at the least.

About whether the watch qualifies as Franken(am flexible with your definition of the term though), to me it does since repainted/redone parts without explicitly stating they are is as good as franken to me since that's not the original paint/markers on the dial, the dial being the most expensive/important part of a vintage watch. A redial, etc. is fine if one has to do it to a personal watch but one doesn't call it a "Outstanding" grail collector piece when money is involved without stating the other facts. Parts repainted and redone especially the most important part, the dial, is unbecoming of a honest collectible V72. Maybe junk is a better word for me to describe it though with all these issues you described But different collectors have varying explanations of what Junk or Franken exactly means to them and what is going too far for them for a watch to be collectible so I can see your point of view for not explicitly calling it franken.

Putting the Franken definition aside and say for a moment it isn't franken, this watch ad was meant to decieve a prospective customer for financial gain and if we placed ourselves in the buyers shoes, especially the buyer who paid 6k for it, we should ordinarily feel the way I do about it and the seller. Afterall it's somebody's hard earned money. Same goes to the Wakmann triple date that he advertised as a watch made by Breitling and calling it a Wakmann Datora to make more money viewtopic.php?f=31&t=42452 when everyone knows that one wasn't or the questionable once off Russian Breitling above.

Based on my experience on the Rolex forums with such sellers and advertising and you will find a few examples paging through one of the threads here http://rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=180461, if this was a vintage Rolex advertised as such or as a once of prototype, the seller would be booted out in the blink of a eye and I dont see why those same basic standards shouldnt apply here but I can understand if he needs a second chance at redeeming himself. Afterall vintage collecting is not just about the watches, it's about mateship but also about honesty and business ethics too. Without the social angle to watches and watch collecting, they are just old metal.

As stated before, my tirade against such deceptive selling is not personal but directed at sellers using unethical selling practices especially to unsuspecting newbies, especially since new collectors are the future of this hobby. But all this is just my opinion and forumers are free to buy if they believe that level of advertising is honest and fine by them. Plus after all this, maybe Bill will return to his old self of being a good honest seller again and stating the facts about watches he sells as they are, leaving it upto the buyer to make an informed decision after all facts are properly and honestly laid out.