The Breitling Watch Source Forums

I am also wondering about the evidence that 'boxed 10' dials and slide rules were only produced on 1967 models? Who is to say they didn't appear on '68 or even '69 models? Given what a mess Breitling were back then...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not a particularly useful or insightful comment. But thanks anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well not really my friend- detailed insights such as the one from Watchfred earlier in the thread are useful, not one liners stating you have a 68 which doesn't have a boxed 10 dial/sliderule. That doesn't actually prove anything...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

typo or confusion; watch has the serial 1.160.xxx, early/mid 1967; I should hire somebody to proofread my posts, I apologize.

there are several other posts on fora & IG correctly dating this piece, here is an example that also describes the period:



let me explain and try to clarify: we have seen many strange parts combinations, with Breitling and other brands, the "parts bin" theory says that manufacturers cared little about "period correct" and had no modern FIFO stock management, just grabbed the parts they happened to find on stock, Speedmaster parts clearly predating the Omega-confirmed production dates by years are widely documented.

but: the "boxed 10" dials have "small eye" subdials that require shorter totalizer hands, all later "big eye" panda have longer hands and the "boxed 10" are the only ones to have the corresponding sliderule, so it wasn't just one part you'd have to accidentally find on stock and just select, you'd have to match four ! different parts (dial, sliderule, two different subdial hands), while all other Navitimer 806 had moved on to "big eye" dials in 1967 with non-box sliderules and longer hands ?

we have seen several examples that went the other way around, there are some GP 806 with cases dating to 1964 that have (different, orange accent) "boxed 10" dials and sliderules, but most probably these are cases that had still been on stock in 1967, no way to verify, an assumption.

I must admit I fail to understand the relevance of the O&W argument, whatever "dead stock" parts were sold to Mr. Wajs in the late 1970s has no impact on standardized Breitling configurations of the late 1960s, so the Dracha point might be free of charge, but clearly worth more much than "zilch", what a strange comment by that new member....

trying to sum it up, this is a beautiful watch in excellent condition that I would LOVE to own - and there might be a perfectly good explanation for these inconsistencies; but isn't it clearly better to discuss these openly and mention them, than having a new owner proudly post this watch on fb, IG or fora and then be confronted with these discussions ?