The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Interesting piece - dial looks appropriate for the age of the watch, but the surfaces of the movement look freshly machined. Not even a hint of a watchmaker's marks, lubricant, dust specs, etc.

Curious.

The movement is signed, below the spring there is small text 206 and kind of a round star on top of it.

Maybe, but not signed with "Breitling".

That's because it's a Venus 206 movement.

as always; I'm on the fence w/ the Datora 3-hands, as we do not have enough documentation about them, but very close to tipping over to fake.

watch is from 1956; this would be the first piece from the 1950s without a signed movement - and the virginal movement is very clearly not in line with the other part's condition .....

actually like the fact the case is unsigned.

me too

but I dont like the unsigned caseback for a piece this late nor the fact that it has a thin caseback

_________________
"I spent most of my money on Booze, Breitling and Boats. The rest I wasted" - mostly Elmore Leonard

might have been a bit unclear, unsigned caseback is probably wrong too; but as we've seen so many incorrect signatures added to early casebacks I like the fact they didn't tamper with it. unsigned movement in the mid 1950s is VERY hard to believe, as is the "virginal" state; so if the OP does not come with a good explanation & proof for this (irreparable water damage, Breitling found another batch of those NOS movements in oil cloth in their basement and did the restoration); I'm actually very close to falling off the fence.

The unsigned movement troubles me more than the condition of the movement when taken in isolation. Ultimately it is a Venus 206 and it is in that condition - it's survived. Definitely needs an explanation, but there are some legitimate reasons why it could look like that. It becomes less understandable when the movement is considered against the condition of the rest of the watch.

. . . I would expect "Datora" somewhere on the dial for a 1956 watch. I don't think the circa 1950 versions always had "Datora" on the dial.

Thanks for all the replies. They are great as I can't find a lot of info online.

From what I can gather, most of you think that the dial looks legit, caseback, unsigned movement SN not so much. Which doesn't make sense really, but who knows.

I found this finished ebay sale which gives the exact same watch as mine with far worse dial (possibly a redial?) same movement, same ref number but signed case back

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-1956-BREIT ... 7675.l2557

The only difference is unsigned bridge and unsigned case back. If this was an early series from 1951 that won't be such a big surprise, bigger watch companies had different and larger discrepancies in their production.