[TopGunMaverick]

Hi all,

in my very first post after a couple of years as an unregistered user on WUS, I would like to ask for your support.

I built up a small Breitling collection in the past years (1969 Sprint reference 2010, Chronomat Longitude, Colt Ocean Automatic, SuperOcean Chrono) and now I would like to get my first Navitimer.

As I like the 6-9-12 chrono layout, I am particularly interested in an Old Navitimer II or a Navitimer Heritage A13324.

The following two watches are currently ranked top on my wish list:

1) A13022: Breitling Old Navitimer for $3,444 for sale from a Trusted Seller on Chrono24
I really like the panda dial. Even though I have never seen that dial layout in any official publication by Breitling. So does this watch look authetic to you? What do you think about this very watch?

2) A13324: Breitling Navitimer Herren Chronograph von 2005, Service, B&P,... for $4,477 for sale from a Trusted Seller on Chrono24
This one seems odd to me: it says box and papers included according to which the watch was originally purchased in 2005. However, that reference number was not available back in 2005, right? But only more then ten years after 2005. So is the paperwork/warranty booklet faked? Plus it icurrently has a milanaise bracelet installed which looks genuine to me. Even though this watch model was never available on this type of bracelet according to my research in the Chronologs. What do you think about this?

Any advice is higly appreciated.

Thanks for your support

 

[JP(Canada)]

1. I've seen those pandas before. I belive that's legit. I do think that particular one looks a little discolored from age or possibly had some moisture enter the case, but I'm not really sure about that. Hopefully someone else can shed light.

2. I would probably ask the seller for a picture of the warranty papers and the serial number on the watch. The watch appears legit. The date in the title may just be wrong.

 

[Timez]

From purely an aesthetics point of view I much prefer the 2nd option in black, with the white contrast.

 

[King_Neptune]

I would not buy the non-chronometer. Just a personal preference.

 

[TopGunMaverick]

1. I've seen those pandas before. I belive that's legit. I do think that particular one looks a little discolored from age or possibly had some moisture enter the case, but I'm not really sure about that. Hopefully someone else can shed light.

2. I would probably ask the seller for a picture of the warranty papers and the serial number on the watch. The watch appears legit. The date in the title may just be wrong.

Thank you for your advice JP.
According to the actual original purchase date around 2017/2018 which I assume: shouldn’t the watch come with a digital warranty certificate anyway? The one on the pictures is a printed yellow warranty booklet.

 

[TopGunMaverick]

From purely an aesthetics point of view I much prefer the 2nd option in black, with the white contrast.

Totally understand, it’s a matter of personal preference.
I feel that the silver/black panda dial layout of the first watch above makes it something special. As it it seems to be not so frequent.

 

[JP(Canada)]

Thank you for your advice JP.
According to the actual original purchase date around 2017/2018 which I assume: shouldn’t the watch come with a digital warranty certificate anyway? The one on the pictures is a printed yellow warranty booklet.

It believe it should have been electronic since about 2013, but perhaps it was left over stock. Although we love Breitlings, they aren't always big sellers. Either way, if it doesn't feel right, it's best to move on. Plenty of fish in the sea.

 

[arcadelt]

The second one is a made up set. That box is modern, not from 2005. Watch also looks too heavily polished to me.

 

[TopGunMaverick]

Does anybody have more information about the silver panda dial with black totalizers of the Old Navitimer II. How come that this color combination was never shown in any catalogue?

 

[TopGunMaverick]

The second one is a made up set. That box is modern, not from 2005. Watch also looks too heavily polished to me.

That was precisely my first impression, too. Or that the production date is not 2005 which I think is probable.

 

[arcadelt]

Does anybody have more information about the silver panda dial with black totalizers of the Old Navitimer II. How come that this color combination was never shown in any catalogue?

These links might help:

Breitling

Breitling

www.breitling.com

Navitimer - Breitling Old Navitimer II - a13322, a13022, b13322, b13022, d13322, d13022

Breitling Watch Detail

breitlingsource.com

 

[TopGunMaverick]

These links might help:

Breitling

Breitling

www.breitling.com

Navitimer - Breitling Old Navitimer II - a13322, a13022, b13322, b13022, d13322, d13022

Breitling Watch Detail

breitlingsource.com

Thank you arcadelt.

At least the silver/white dial dial is shown on today’s official Breitling website.
There it appears to be rather clean white, whereas the watch I linked in my first post seems to be sort of cream-colored.
Is this a matter of light conditions in the picture or a sign of aging, i.e. faded color or similar?

Still I wonder why this color combo was never listed in any of the 1990s price lists and Chronologs which I have.

Any idea why?

 

[arcadelt]

Is this a matter of light conditions in the picture or a sign of aging, i.e. faded color or similar?

I'd suggest it is a sign of ageing. We see a few Navitimer/Montbrillant dials take on a patina.

Any idea why?

Sorry, but I don’t know.

 

[TopGunMaverick]

The second one is a made up set. That box is modern, not from 2005. Watch also looks too heavily polished to me.

In the meantime I was in contact with the seller of the watch.
He claims that the watch is from 2005 which is proven by the stamped warranty card with matching serial number.
Unfortunately, he said, he could not send me a picture of this page of the warranty card “for data protection reasons”.
Very strange.
It looks like you’re right and the set is made up:
1) watch model and box can’t be from 2005, but rather 2015/2016 or newer.
2) If watch and box are actually newer, the warranty card is fake.
Plus the bracelet is not genuinely for a Navitimer, which I did not even discuss with the seller.
I think that option 2) is very likely.
Which raises the question why this renowned seller sticks to his 2005 story.
He should know better, shouldn’t he?

 

[TopGunMaverick]

2. I would probably ask the seller for a picture of the warranty papers and the serial number on the watch. The watch appears legit. The date in the title may just be wrong.

Thank you for your advice JP.
This is what I did in the meantime.

The seller claims that the watch is indeed from 2005 which was proven by the stamped warranty card with matching serial number.
Unfortunately, he said, he could not send me a picture of the relevant page of the warranty card “for data protection reasons”.

What do you think about this?

 

[JP(Canada)]

Thank you for your advice JP.
This is what I did in the meantime.

The seller claims that the watch is indeed from 2005 which was proven by the stamped warranty card with matching serial number.
Unfortunately, he said, he could not send me a picture of the relevant page of the warranty card “for data protection reasons”.

What do you think about this?

I think it's time to move on. I have chased a watch before because I wanted it so bad that ignored the warning signs and I just ended up getting burned. Since then, I buy the seller first. That has served me well for many years now. Sometimes the best deal, is the one you walk away from.

There is something off here. At the very least, it appears to be a somewhat less than helpful, uninformed, or perhaps ill-informed seller. My advice is to find another watch and seller.

 

[arcadelt]

I think it's time to move on.

@TopGunMaverick, I have to agree with @JP(Canada).

 

[O2AFAC67]

And with that note, thread closed.