Advice on a Breitling Top Time 810

GuiltyGear
Posts
591
Likes
1,778
@hansaboy beautiful watch, thanks for sharing. Like the love child between a 810 and a Navitimer. Really down my alley.
 
fibonacci
Posts
170
Likes
386
I have the reverse panda version of the Top Time 810 1.1 execution and mine is for sure a monocoque case (I was charged extra for it at service). I put some pictures below so you can compare. Yours does look like a snap back to me. Based on the info in the Fratello article that silver dials came with 1.1 cases and snap backs with 1.2 cases, it may be that yours is a 1.1 dial in a 1.2 case. I'm not really as familiar with the silver dial variant though and suggest you ask at Breitling Source if you'd like more information.

image_67211265.JPG image_67199489.JPG image_67198465.JPG
 
GuiltyGear
Posts
591
Likes
1,778
@fibonacci appreciate the input. Beautiful watch! According to the Fratello article, the 1.2 case is a slightly different design. The 1.2 should also be a 19mm lug instead of 21mm.

EDIT: My bad, I mixed mark 1.2 with mark 2. You're right about the 1.1 and 1.2 cases being the same except a snap back.

In your watch, is there a tiny bit of separation between the back and middle cases? This is what mine looks. Not enough space to put a case knife, but a visible seam.

1729494-14f68e39b471e3cf98aad02152737d4f.jpg
Edited:
 
fibonacci
Posts
170
Likes
386
On mine there is no seam or separation, just a subtle step from mid case to back as you can more or less make out in the photo. The case is one solid block of steel and the only way to reach the movement is through the dial, aka a top loader.
 
Geezer
Posts
453
Likes
1,302
Looking at the movement picture in the original post again, you can actually see the female part of the split winding stem.

So it seems clear to me that this is indeed a front-loader. Still unusual to put the "stainless steel back" engraving on the case back, but I think we've all seen stranger stuff. 馃榾

Congrats on the cool watch, by the way!

GuiltyGear GuiltyGear
WhatsApp Image 2024-01-26 at 11.07.03 AM.jpeg
 
GuiltyGear
Posts
591
Likes
1,778
@Geezer well spotted. I missed that detail. Still I think that @fibonacci has a sound theory. Maybe they took the movement and dial of a 1.1 and transplanted it into a 1.2 case, throwing in the case back of a gold plated model.

I've already sent it for a service so we should know in a week or two.
 
Geezer
Posts
453
Likes
1,302
Good point!

Looking forward to your update.

GuiltyGear GuiltyGear
@Geezer well spotted. I missed that detail. Still I think that @fibonacci has a sound theory. Maybe they took the movement and dial of a 1.1 and transplanted it into a 1.2 case, throwing in the case back of a gold plated model.

I've already sent it for a service so we should know in a week or two.
 
GuiltyGear
Posts
591
Likes
1,778
I realized just now it's been over 2 months since my last update here. Finally my watchmaker called to let me know he's done with the Top Time and I should be getting it in a day or two.

He sent me the following photo of the case. Definitely a removable case back, which makes it a Mark 1.2. Serial makes it from 1966, which is correct for a 1.2. He still treated it as a monocoque and opened it from above, as to not risk damaging the case back.

IMG_20240409_021124.jpg
 
hmmmcamu
Posts
3,313
Likes
17,022
GuiltyGear GuiltyGear
Thanks for the input. Not sure what base material and plating it would have, but it does look like stainless steel from the way it's scratched, color, etc. Not an expert on material science though.

It wouldn't bother me that much considering the price is good. Just afraid of frankens.
from what i know about vintage watches is .... if the case back states " STAINLESS STEEL BACK" ... the rest of the watch case is chrome-plated,
 
Sign up or log in to reply...