The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Was this all original?

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/281083799779 ... 920wt_1037

we've seen a suprising number of these mismarked casebacks;
no real explanation - human error at Breitling, maybe ?
very nice piece, btw.

Here the dial is amazingly fresh - genuine but fresh . It could be an aftermarket modification ?
Clearly, what I tell is not based on real informations, just from the speculation register .

Technically, transforming a Cosmonaute into a Navitimer just needs to replace 2 wheels on the Venus 178, and the dial . Quickly read the hour on a Cosmonaute is not " instinctive" , so I can imagine that at overhaul occasion some customers got their Cosmonaute refurbished and turned into a Navitimer for the extra cost of an aftermarket dial +2 wheels.

It would be interesting to study if there is a correspondance of wrong back stamping and replaced dial ?

Thanks for the explanations guys. Irrespective of whatever happened to this watch, even genuinely, makes it loose its collectability for me. Now if we had a batch of examples to prove the 806 with 809 caseback theory, then that would be proof enough of authenticity.

as I said, seen maybe half a dozen or so, though iirc they were all from the mid 60s, would have to go through my records.

as it is almost impossible to mount a caseback on a watch it wasn't built for, it either was a wrongly marked production batch (something we all now accept for those 1953 Navitimers w/ late 1950s characteristics) or Phil's explanation might be on the spot