The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Hi

My name is Oliver, I used to be a quite active member in german speaking forums. Recently I reactivated my passion for watches - but now more interested in Vintage models.

So, as I am an inpatient guy I won an auction of an old Breitling last friday and wanted to know some professional thoughts about it!

Total waste of money or a nice piece?

Any help is highly appreciated!

Thanks!

http://www.ebay.at/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll ... MR:AT:1123

Well it was a nice watch....

Until someone tried to make it a Breitling. Sorry, nothing Breitling there.

somewhere in between for me, Oliver.

serial number would date the watch to the late 1930s, so I would expect a reference number on the case, the stamping depth of the number is also a bit too uniform for my taste; the fact that we see a dial logo but no reference number is also an indication that a bit of creative work went into this; the logo on the bridge is definitely wrong for that period - but wee see those added quite frequently on watches that originally did not have them.

hands are restored, but basically correct for a late30/early40s piece, dial is nice and the lumed numerals are similar to correct period pieces; the logo seems a bit too well preserved.

others will chime in.

And incorrect no?

Too stretched, not refined, etc.

some early pieces have a certain "clumsiness", Roff.

Thank you so much! Amazed about your fast and acurate reply.

What movement is in there? No Breitling I understood? And the dial is not greatly harmed but not Breitling as well?


THANK YOU!

Movement is a Venus 175 (or it might be the slightly smaller. functionally equivalent V150, still not good at telling them apart w/o in depth comparison pics; Craig & Roff might help), the same high grade column wheel chronograph movement used in the high end Breitling Premier chronographs, just the bridge marking is incorrect for the period, Breitling used unmarked bridges, started marking the bridge in the mid 1940s, but w/ a script logo, capitals were much later.

175 I think.

Fred, I love your way to tell things , "a bit of creative work went into this" !

I personaly saw this auction and spent some time to examine details , same conclusions than yours and in doubt I choosed to pass . I thought maybe ... but a bit too much. I am not a specialist of pre war versions but sure the Breitling marks look too evident for the period . Clear for the bridge engraving , stamping of the back too perfect for the SN but no type indication . For the dial itself , looking at page 3 of the ' 42 catalog you can see that dial design N°2 is very similar to this one ... but looking in the same catalog you can see many illustrations of non marked dials .... types 747, 777, 749 . Some prewar dials had just a cursive LB.
Nobody spoke of the case horns ... I feel them a bit too straight for the modern style period ... Breitling had more variety in case designs .

Well, Oliver, as far as I understand you won the auction ... Did you already paypal the watch ? The seller' s profile looks "clear" , so with the help of Roff's and Fred' s accurate analysis , he would not make difficulties to cancel the transaction ? If you already paid it could be more tricky but maybe not too late ?

. . . and I think it's one of those that we have rest on a balance of probabilities. I think it is probably not a real Breitling, but I'm open to being swayed.

1. I think that case has been re-chromed. See the bubbling on the pushers and back of the lugs, as well as overall appearance. Someone dug into it on the 11 o'clock lug.

2. I think it is a more modern and thinner case, with extra ridge in the bezel (or I'm picking up a reflection).

3. The crown is replaced, so at this point I'm believing it's had an extensive restoration, but how far, I'm not confident.

4. The dial is very credible, but the script "Breitling" seems a bit messy, thick, and just not as crisp for an original circa 1940 Breitling. Still, on it's own, it doesn't put me off.

5. I don't think the bridge would be signed without a signature on the inside caseback. The inside caseback should probably be blank with a reference number with the serial on the outside caseback. The bridge, then should probably also be blank. Otherwise, signed on the bridge and the inside caseback.

6. The handset and dial are otherwise spot on. I see the lister makes a point that the dial is original. Maybe.

I think it might have been a more convincing without and additions, if there were any. I might change my mind tomorrow.