WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Re: Huber Chronograph pocket watch

It was just firmly suggested to me by someone who owns the same piece that the movement exactly matches a Montbrillant movement so it must only be a Breitling under private label,Huber is the Jeweler who sold it....plausible?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Re: Huber Chronograph pocket watch

Just saw how tiny my uploaded pics were...sheesh, will get appropriate ones up asap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 · (Edited)
Re: Huber Chronograph pocket watch

A seller of the identical piece ,except white dial, maintains that although unmarked, this movement can only be a Montbrillant 17''' caliber. The only markings on mine are a serial# near the balance wheel, reads 140550M. Can this movement easily be misidentified as another ? Or by appearance alone must it only be a Montbrillant?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Re: Huber Chronograph pocket watch

How to tell the difference between an early montbrillant caliber 17'''and the later valjoux you posted? Am I correct to say that the handmade Breitling Montbrillant would be 1932 or earlier and the later valjuox would be machine produced and began 1940 with no caliber 17''' produced in the years between? Does the serial number I posted help identify?
 

·
Zenith Forum Co-moderator
Joined
·
19,058 Posts
Re: Huber Chronograph pocket watch

I suspect that the Montbrilliant you saw also had a Valjoux 61 in it. Breitling were not exactly famous for making their own chronograph movements - most of the time, they used ebauches (in their wrist watches, mostly Venus whereas rivals Heuer concentrated on Valjoux). Any differences between this and the Montbrilliant would be due to end user finissage.

Hartmut Richter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Re: Huber Chronograph pocket watch

Thanks Harmut. Was under the impression that since the valjoux is the same as the montbrillant caliber 17''' except for production dates, the key to understanding and valuing this watch is dating the movement....it's either pre-1932 or post 1940 with none produced in between? I imagine the value would vary greatly between the two production dates. Here is a link to the one I'm referencing it from.
Huber-Breitling Pocket-Chronograph-BA018
How to tell? Does my serial number ring a bell with other Montbrillant owners? Greatly appreciate your thoughts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Nada,only a serial number and it is stamped deep down and aside of the balance wheel. In my pic of the open back it is at approximately 7:00...It is followed by an "M"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
494 Posts
The white dial version you posted a link to is a mess !! The chronograph runner is way too short , the regulator is push complete off the bridge and the minute hand is too long !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,887 Posts
The white dial version you posted a link to is a mess !! The chronograph runner is way too short , the regulator is push complete off the bridge and the minute hand is too long !
+1, a mess like many watches listed by Mr. M.

to the op: you link to the pages of a well known frankenfaker. guy has been banned from most fora, banned by ebay, keeps changing names and web site addresses, keeps inventing Montbrillants and Breitlings, listing them at outrageously, ridiculously inflated prices (Breitling Datora, badly refinished, Felsa 693, for a cool $450k; any takers here ? Breitling Perpetual Calendar Triple Date Datora 86 28 18 KT Gold Watch 1951 | eBay b-)); "selling" them in shill bidding auctions, though they keep reappearing again and again.

there is no documented connection between Huber, Montbrillant or Breitling as discussed on another forum, your watch has a beautiful Valjoux movement - be happy with it. even if it clearly isn't a Montbrillant ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
Thanks very much for adding to the thread. I understand you have reasons to doubt the other sellers integrity. I don't have a history with him or anyone on these forums so I'll do my best to sort through opinions for information that can ultimately prove useful. I respectfully ask about my piece using any additional references when possible...his watch happens to be a reference and the only physical match I've dug up. I don't mean to say his is correct,I don't know. The history you have with him may warn you that it should automatically be considered a frankenpiece but to be honest,his piece is identical in many specific ways and I haven't gotten the same feeling about my piece. I am ruling out that he franked it! The dial,shape of the hands, matching movement, and close serial number of the movement must support something-that's what I'm after of course. . So I'm asking everyone everywhere on every forum for opinions and I value yours.(Found the Breitling crown, thanks!) I've gotten quite varied responses among forums so that just means I will have follow up questions. I'm looking for proof of it's origin. I compared my movement in person this morning with my own eyes against an authenticated early hand produced Breitling Montbrillant movement and it is a dead ringer and I feel it is very far from the finish of a production Valjoux of more later years. It's a neat piece and I really truly am not a guy who wants it to be something it's not, not trying to inflate it's value, don't even want to sell it. That being said, the first step in establishing it's true value is understanding it as fully as possible.Hoping to beat the bushes and flush out something tangible that supports whatever it is. You know, weird stuff like a catalog or examples to give clues, anything. There may not be documented proof of a relationship of Breitling to Huber and I'm not trying to prove they had a relationship but can't this piece still have the early Breitling movt? So please, if you have a moment, educate me ( and anyone else who gathers such information) of your Valjoux positive id with real specifics that at the same time disprove it as a pre-1932 Montbrillant. Grateful for your time, Glenn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,315 Posts
I'm not sure you understand the relationship between Breitling and Valjoux. Valjoux makes base movements; companies like Breitling buy those movements and finish them to their own specifications. As such, there is very little difference between a Valjoux finished by Breitling and a Valjoux finished by some other equally competent but not as well known company. In the absence of something that specifically denotes it as having been finished by Breitling, you need to assume that it isn't. Anything else is speculation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 · (Edited)
Yes, I have an understanding of valjoux's role in movement making/supply. I run a jewelry shop in Richmond and buy/sell/trade/collect modern and vintage swiss wristwatches frequently. The ones I see are simple to pinpoint production dates with no real guesswork about "what and why" is under the hood. I am believing that my movement may indeed be a Valjoux 61. I'm the type who wants to know what are the identifiers that disprove it from being a montbrillant. Pictures go a long with me. May seem like a routine ID to some or even an insignificant exercise to others but I am flipping rocks, so to speak, for the sake of knowing 100%.
 

·
Vint. Forum Co-Moderator
Joined
·
3,799 Posts
I'm the type who wants to know what are the identifiers that disprove it from being a montbrillant.
To me this is the issue that people are having trying to answer you. Until it is proven otherwise the starting point is that it is a Valjoux 61 and you need the identifiers to prove that it isn't. It isn't a Montrbrilliant until proven otherwise, it is a Valjoux until proven otherwise.

You state that you've had a Montbrilliant in hand and that you routinely trade and collect watches, yet I can see above no evidence of that - all I see is a slightly side on and blurry photo of your watch. The watch you claim has shows important hand finished details, yet they are details no one else is able to see from your photo. Can I suggest that you post a sharp, clear, straight on, large version of your calibre with the same photo of the 'proven' Montbrilliant? Then it should be quite simple for people to point out details which indicate one way or another how this watch should be judged.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 · (Edited)
Pocket watches are clearly outside my experience, apologies if this was a bore for some, but for me it's important to understand the origins of this piece. I have gotten lots of opinions and grateful for them. Will continue digging.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,169 Posts
Pocket watches are clearly outside my experience, apologies if this was a bore for some, but for me it's important to understand the origins of this piece. I have gotten lots of opinions and grateful for them. Will continue digging.
In other forums this might be a bore... for the folks here it isn't! Fear not.

It takes a lot of information acquired over a number of years to become 'knowledgeable' on a topic. You are doing your homework. That is good.

A lot of forums have experts who pronounce and who will not countenance disagreement or doubt. Generally that is not true here. Anything can be discussed or doubted, if done respectfully, even the opinions of experts. That said, over time a member can opine how well developed someone's expertise really is... and that can be factored in when doing evaluations. There are a few people here who, if they say something, I believe it absent any disputing evidence. You will decide for yourself who these people are by sticking around.

I council one thing, beware of the very human trait of becoming attached to one item/belief/opinion. There is a natural tendency to dismiss dissenting evidence and dwell on supporting evidence. But in the end, the facts are what the facts are. Wanting something to be true is often a detriment to determining the real truth.

Good luck and I hope that helps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 · (Edited)
I council one thing, beware of the very human trait of becoming attached to one item/belief/opinion.

Good luck and I hope that helps.[/QUOTE]

It does actually. Who in their right mind wouldn't throw a might HailMary (against the odds) for a $50 craigslist hunch to actually be a Montbrillant! So it's a valjoux and so I'll place this beauty in the 1940's-1950's I'm thinking. (Unless someone can prove OTHERWISE. Think I'm getting the hang of this.) Still have a legit question here in that what was present on this movement that made it so clearly a valjoux...and please don't say that I didn't prove otherwise....tell me what is there to confirm it. Is it the striped patterning on the plates? It is unmarked but it's not like "*****-old" so I figure similar serial number Valjoux 61's or actual Huber pieces like this are available for the asking about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,315 Posts
YOu tend to identify "ebauches" by the layout of the bridges and the shape of things like the balance cock and chronograph bridge. ALthough that's not hard and fast; a lot of "early" ebauches tended to get extensively bridge-modified, so different companies using the same movement would still look different. The more definitive method of identify the ebauche is via the setting pieces, but that requires removing the dial (and often any dial-side complications) so it's not a good method for the causal collector.

The "Finish" of the watch (the stripes you mention) aren't a function of the base movement, they're a function of the finisher. Those particular stripes are known as "Geneva Stripes", I believe, and were (and still are) done by many watch finishers. I believe they're a component of such things as the Cote Geneve.

At one time, Ebauche companies also sold finished watches, but the swiss industry changed that, and ebauche companies either had to only sell their own finished movements, or only supply movements to others, not both. This caused companies like Eterna to create a seperate "ebuache" company (ETA, in Eterna's case) that sold ebuaches to other watchmakers, while Eterna made their own movements. I think Valjoux went the total "Ebauche" route. Brietling was a buyer; they didn't make their own movements. I don't' know exactly when that change occurred though...the ebauche companies went through a lot of consolidation around the 30's, but I think that predated the production split.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top