Just joined & wanted to share my collection

[DAZ666]

G'day all,

I just joined the forums and thought I would share a few of my watches with you guys. I am a long term watch enthusiast, have a look at some of my collection on my personal website and some comments, maybe?

I have added a pic of my Bentley GT A13362. Dated the 21st week 2005. Go to my site [no links to commercial websites please] to see more pics of this one and my others. Including my custom made 7750 from Switzerland.

Cheers,

Daz

http://www.daz.com.au/b4b1.JPG

[DAZ666]

Sorry about the link, it is actually my personal website. But I assume it's because I sell some stickers on there.

[Don Indiano]

Welcome here Daz!

Well -- is it just me, of something looks strange with your date windows, and the anchor on the second's hand? I confess not being an expert in the field of Breitling for Bentley's, so don't take this as an offense, just curious if there were different batches of the same watch with different characteristics.

Best wishes,
don

[Alan M]

Hi Daz and welcome.

I must with apologies mirror Don's post (let us hope we are both wrong).

Best

Al

[mjbryant]

Welcome DAZ666!

I am a loooooooooooooooooooong way from being an expert on any of these watches, but will stick my wrist out and say the watch looks good to me. Maybe the angle of the pic has cut off an anchor point and slightly distorted the date window. The hour indice cuts next to the subdials, the tachymeter marks and alignment, bezel & crown looks like what is in Breitling's "2006/2007" catalog. The subdials should show a circular pattern that doesn't show in your pics, again picture angle.

The only real watch that I have to compare the GT to is my 6.75, there are some similarities -

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f93/softouch693/IMG_0011-1-1.jpg

[trueblue40]

I'm afraid i have reservations with that watch also.

The hour batons at 5,7,8,10 & 11 don't align with the lume dots as they do on the B website, and the centre pin holding the hands on shouldn't be a different colour.

As has been said, hope i'm wrong

Nick

[gooter]

there are many things about this watch that look suspect to me, where did you purchase it?

edit: I went to your website and looked at your other pictures. I am no expert on Bentley's, but something just doesnt sit right with this watch. First off the numbers are too far from the bezel on the chapter ring. Secondly the serial number on the back is in the wrong position and appears to be deeply engraved rather than the light engraving of others I've seen, I think it has too many numbers as well. The bracelet doesnt fit the case correctly. The location of the pins on the GT is towards the very end of the horns, whereas with yours they are right against the case. Also the batons on the GT, when cut off by the chronographs are supposed to end in a point, yours dont.

Again, I am no expert, these are just things i noticed while looking at your pictures. I hope I'm wrong

[O2AFAC67]

Are we waiting for pics of the caseback or are we just tap dancing around the issue?... :-( :rodekaart o|
Cheers,
Ron

[AAH]

Are we waiting for pics of the caseback or are we just tap dancing around the issue?... :-( :rodekaart o|
Cheers,
Ron



Fake.....or the Politically Correct saying Replica...... Is that what you mean Ron....:rodekaart

[gooter]

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=f9k_RUz7A4Q looks like this one, same issues with the serial number, and has the red color date

[gooter]

here is a pic of the caseback from his site, hope he doesnt mind
http://daz.com.au/b4b8.JPG

[rik]

My contributions to discussions on validity or otherwise can be comfortably counted on the fingers of one . . . finger, cos I'm so far from being an expert it hurts but can I throw an observation into the mix . . .

The misaligning of the batons could be down to the light? Although they look misaligned it could be that we can only see the light parts of the batons? For example, in some of Davey's pics of his SOH the batons almost disappear into the face cos they are in shadow. Just an observation.

[longskate87]

No AR-coating? Looks that way to me = /

[gooter]

My contributions to discussions on validity or otherwise can be comfortably counted on the fingers of one . . . finger, cos I'm so far from being an expert it hurts but can I throw an observation into the mix . . .

The misaligning of the batons could be down to the light? Although they look misaligned it could be that we can only see the light parts of the batons? For example, in some of Davey's pics of his SOH the batons almost disappear into the face cos they are in shadow. Just an observation.
good points, but sadly its not the lighting nor the angle. And the anchor as mentioned above by another member is wrong
http://daz.com.au/b4b14.JPG

[bnewbie]

The anchor is wrong and the upper B belly is too small, day & date color and font are wrong. Date wheel is sunken, white outer ring above the too small numbers on the slide rule is too thick. He tried to advertise his replica site.

[Alan M]

Daz.......Daz?

Just noticed that WUS Admin edited the original post.

[areyes926]

Welcome! Love that watch but unfortunately I have a small wrist for its size.

[bnewbie]

I also like Mike's 6.75, but not a fake GT. :-)

[TxKarateDude]

Look how ya'll treat a new member!! Probably done scared him off for good. :-d I wouldn't know a fake Bently if it hit me on the wrist, but I'm glad to know people here do.

[SnapIT]

One thing about this forum, many eyes make for a fearsome beast!!

Nice but fearsome. |> After all we do have a dedicated fake busters section and we have trained many observers who are dedicated to the truth, a nice sort of attribute I believe.

DAZ, I hope you can help us here, what is the provenance of this watch?

[spogehead]

This text is taken directly from the 'daz' site with reference to his GT



Breitling are a world leading famous Swiss watch-maker, probably most well known for their Navitimer series. They have an elite line built for Bentley, this model is the GT, model # A13362.
This guy (Who? Mr Breitling) uses the same base movement as in my DAZ watch, the ETA Valjoux 7750. Breitling, like Omega, Tag Heuer etc all use this base movement and then tweak it to their specs. They add the appropriate brand logos etc and a BIG price-tag.


This bad boy retails in Australia for approx $11,000.00AU.

Nuff said <|

[DAZ666]

Thanks for all the comments guys, too many to reply about all of them.

But first up, to one members comment, I do not sell watches on my site. It is my personal site with my watch collection and various other stuff. Admin removed the link because I sell Porsche stickers on my site. And maybe my links page?

Now to the watch...

About the batons not lining up: Download the screensaver from the official Breitling website for this model and you will see in fine detail that the batons are EXACTLY the same as on mine. And it has the RED day/date.

Also here is a pic of this model from Breitling source, once again, offset style batons. I am not sure why it is so on this model, but it is?

http://www.breitlingsource.com/images/watches/gt_01.jpg

I also removed the bracelet from the south end of the watch from info on another watchuseek thread by 02AFAC67

http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?p=366250#post366250

and the date is there exactly as described for the 21st week of 2005. I am not sure they would go to that much trouble for a replica, would they? And it is very well done, not a cheap job.

The back has been opened and it does have a Breitling 13B movement, now that is certainly not one found in a replica.

The engraving on the back is probably just emphasised due to using the close-up mode on my camera. I am not sure about the hook on the anchor?

But most importantly I have the box and papers and it was purchased from a reputable well known pawn broker that deals in hig-end swiss watches and has for many years.

[rik]

In the absence of Daz replying (ha, simultaneous posts - doh!) yet can I, in the interest of balance, appoint myself as 'public defender'?

I take the point about the anchor but I think the misaligned batons could still be light related - in the second picture batons which are correctly aligned in the first picture are 'off' and ones that were off are right so I'd still argue that the misalignment is light/shape related.

With regards to the text from the website - I read that as him referring to the watch as 'this guy', you'll see later that he refers to the watch as 'this bad boy'. I agree it could be ambiguous but hardly enough to hang someone by

I don't have the knowledge to address any of the other queries like fonts and colours but I haven't found anywhere on the site that refers to fakes/replicas so what would he gain from putting info about his watch collection if they were fakes? He doesn't appear to be pushing them.

Guys - let's cut the guy some slack 'til he responds, if I was new here I wouldn't recognise us for the welcoming chaps we really are.

[DAZ666]

In the absence of Daz replying (ha, simultaneous posts - doh!) yet can I, in the interest of balance, appoint myself as 'public defender'?

I take the point about the anchor but I think the misaligned batons could still be light related - in the second picture batons which are correctly aligned in the first picture are 'off' and ones that were off are right so I'd still argue that the misalignment is light/shape related.

With regards to the text from the website - I read that as him referring to the watch as 'this guy', you'll see later that he refers to the watch as 'this bad boy'. I agree it could be ambiguous but hardly enough to hang someone by

I don't have the knowledge to address any of the other queries like fonts and colours but I haven't found anywhere on the site that refers to fakes/replicas so what would he gain from putting info about his watch collection if they were fakes? He doesn't appear to be pushing them.

Guys - let's cut the guy some slack 'til he responds, if I was new here I wouldn't recognise us for the welcoming chaps we really are.

Thanks!

[gooter]

You very well may have a set of box and papers, but they are pretty easy to get. The slide rule is wrong, the location of the serial number is wrong, the bracelet pins are in the wrong location, the bracelet should fit snug up against the case while it appears to twist on the pins on yours.

And let me clarify, i DONT want to be right about it being a replica. there are just too many inconsistencies that I, an others, notice.

[gooter]

oh and one more thing, maybe some other Bentley owners can chime in. All of the Breitling's I have owned have had a 6-digit serial number. Yours has 7. Perhaps some other Bentley owners can chime in on if this is the case with theirs?

[DAZ666]

Retraction on the batons position. I just looked at the watch, which I should have done in the beginning. They do line up properly, so it is a light trick in photos, even in others it looks like that. As the one from Breitling source shown earlier, but looking close they do line up so it's the light.

I will leave it at that and not post any more.

[O2AFAC67]

Retraction on the batons position. I just looked at the watch, which I should have done in the beginning. They do line up properly, so it is a light trick in photos, even in others it looks like that. As the one from Breitling source shown earlier, but looking close they do line up so it's the light.

I will leave it at that and not post any more.Hi, Daz and welcome aboard! I am in complete agreement with you about not posting any more because that GT is an absolute fake and we both know it. Besides the "B" on the second hand simply not accurate, the wings logo is too large. Position of the serial number on the caseback is certainly incorrect as well. The most obvious and worst part about that fake is the chapter ring. Look at the position of the numbers 7, 8 and 9 on the chapter ring of your fake watch. Those markings are well outside the tips of all but the 1/2 unit markers on your fake whereas on the real GT the bottom of those characters are positioned below the outside tips of six of the 1/10th markers. Further, the spaceing distance from the top of the numbers to the outside diameter of the chapter ring is way too much on your fake watch partially because the font is a tiny bit smaller than on the real watch and partially because the chapter ring width on your fake is larger. Is that enough politically correct tap dancing for you DAZ? If you still want to believe that watch is an authentic Breitling purchased from a "reputable well known pawn broker" then I too will "leave it at that" and not post any more. :-|:-x
Ron

[Ticked]

I was reading through this thread earlier and just came back to comment, but he has removed the pics, I don't blame him.

I think you guys may have been a bit rash in your comments. I looked closely at the images earlier and saved them. I have done some research and most of the comments made by other members are incorrect.

There is a listing for a couple of genuine ones (no doubt with this seller) as all he sells is genuine high-end swiss watches. Both have 7 digit serial numbers and are in exactly the same place as the watch in question. The position of the numbers 7, 8 & 9 referred to by the previous person are the same as on the genuine watches listed.

And pretty much everything else you guys had a dig about (apart from the B on 2nd hand) don't make sense as they match to the ones I have listed a link to plus others I have researched.

Some of the other comments I believe are just from photo's not showing true imagery. These are my thoughts.

Here is the links to the genuine ones listed for sale...

http://cgi.ebay.it/8-563-BREITLING-Bentley-GT-A13362-Chronograph-Men-Watch_W0QQitemZ220274012580QQihZ012QQcategoryZ3138 7QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l126 2


http://cgi.ebay.it/8-741-BREITLING-BENTLEY-A13362-Chronogarph-Mens-Watch_W0QQitemZ200249757558QQihZ010QQcategoryZ3138 7QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l126 2

[gooter]

I was reading through this thread earlier and just came back to comment, but he has removed the pics, I don't blame him.

I think you guys may have been a bit rash in your comments. I looked closely at the images earlier and saved them. I have done some research and most of the comments made by other members are incorrect.

There is a listing for a couple of genuine ones (no doubt with this seller) as all he sells is genuine high-end swiss watches. Both have 7 digit serial numbers and are in exactly the same place as the watch in question. The position of the numbers 7, 8 & 9 referred to by the previous person are the same as on the genuine watches listed.

And pretty much everything else you guys had a dig about (apart from the B on 2nd hand) don't make sense as they match to the ones I have listed a link to plus others I have researched.

Some of the other comments I believe are just from photo's not showing true imagery. These are my thoughts.

Here is the links to the genuine ones listed for sale...

http://cgi.ebay.it/8-563-BREITLING-Bentley-GT-A13362-Chronograph-Men-Watch_W0QQitemZ220274012580QQihZ012QQcategoryZ3138 7QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l126 2


http://cgi.ebay.it/8-741-BREITLING-BENTLEY-A13362-Chronogarph-Mens-Watch_W0QQitemZ200249757558QQihZ010QQcategoryZ3138 7QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l126 2
both of these you have listed are indeed real. And if you did save the original images it should be pretty obvious to you of the differences. Look at the placements of the markings/numbers on the chapter ring on both. the fake has them much further from the edge. Secondly, the serial number is NOT in the same location on the fake, it is further in towards the centre, the genuine has them right on the outside edge. Also the engraving process is much different. Yes it has 7-digits, but thats why i asked if any other Bentley owners could chime in. The original is sadly a fake. The "B" and the anchor are simply wrong, I dont know what other evidence is needed.

Whether or not Daz knows its a fake or not doesnt really matter, I think most of us were trying to alert him that he has a non-genuine piece that he may have paid a genuine price for. It happens, and we're here to educate.

[Don Indiano]

Agree with Gooter. That's nothing personal, we're just a couple of discerning people, and it's simply second nature to spot when a watch looks a bit "wrong". Sometimes it's just the pics, hence the (friendly) discussion that followed. Be sure that I'm the first to be sorry that this had to end that way...

In order to document my previous message, here is a comparison pic between the date window of Daz's watch (top), and a picture of a Bentley GT found on the net (bottom), which in turn is consistent with many other pictures of the same watch.

http://donindiano.lanetcie.com/pictures/watches/bentley_gt_comparison.jpg

The "WED" is clearly off.
Again, live and learn -- perhaps I'm wrong and there were two different kinds of date wheels, but this discussion and its outcome didn't prove me otherwise so far...

Best wishes to everyone,
Don

[Alan M]

I was reading through this thread earlier and just came back to comment, but he has removed the pics, I don't blame him.

I think you guys may have been a bit rash in your comments. I looked closely at the images earlier and saved them. I have done some research and most of the comments made by other members are incorrect.

There is a listing for a couple of genuine ones (no doubt with this seller) as all he sells is genuine high-end swiss watches. Both have 7 digit serial numbers and are in exactly the same place as the watch in question. The position of the numbers 7, 8 & 9 referred to by the previous person are the same as on the genuine watches listed.

And pretty much everything else you guys had a dig about (apart from the B on 2nd hand) don't make sense as they match to the ones I have listed a link to plus others I have researched.

Some of the other comments I believe are just from photo's not showing true imagery. These are my thoughts.

Here is the links to the genuine ones listed for sale...

http://cgi.ebay.it/8-563-BREITLING-Bentley-GT-A13362-Chronograph-Men-Watch_W0QQitemZ220274012580QQihZ012QQcategoryZ3138 7QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l126 2


http://cgi.ebay.it/8-741-BREITLING-BENTLEY-A13362-Chronogarph-Mens-Watch_W0QQitemZ200249757558QQihZ010QQcategoryZ3138 7QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l126 2


Ticked,

First off welcome.

Secondly, I'm interested that this is your first post to this forum and it was Daz's fourth, and that you appear to know about his watches rather well.
My first was to say hi and to ask advise,.

Thirdly, we all seem to think Daz's is a bad one (sorry Daz, it would look that way (and I'm trying not to read any more into this...........))

however



Best

Al

[O2AFAC67]

I was reading through this thread earlier and just came back to comment, but he has removed the pics, I don't blame him.

I think you guys may have been a bit rash in your comments. I looked closely at the images earlier and saved them. I have done some research and most of the comments made by other members are incorrect.

There is a listing for a couple of genuine ones (no doubt with this seller) as all he sells is genuine high-end swiss watches. Both have 7 digit serial numbers and are in exactly the same place as the watch in question. The position of the numbers 7, 8 & 9 referred to by the previous person are the same as on the genuine watches listed.

And pretty much everything else you guys had a dig about (apart from the B on 2nd hand) don't make sense as they match to the ones I have listed a link to plus others I have researched.

Some of the other comments I believe are just from photo's not showing true imagery. These are my thoughts.

Here is the links to the genuine ones listed for sale...

http://cgi.ebay.it/8-563-BREITLING-Bentley-GT-A13362-Chronograph-Men-Watch_W0QQitemZ220274012580QQihZ012QQcategoryZ3138 7QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l126 2


http://cgi.ebay.it/8-741-BREITLING-BENTLEY-A13362-Chronogarph-Mens-Watch_W0QQitemZ200249757558QQihZ010QQcategoryZ3138 7QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l126 2Hello Ticked and thank you for your thoughts. Not trying to be rash at all, simply factual. Look at the tick marks immediately to the right of the date window in Don's pics. Look at the chapter ring width in those same pics. Then look at the radial placement of the 7, 8, and 9 marking positions on the outer chapter ring of the two auction pieces you linked compared to the pics you saved of DAZ' pics. Do you still think after now doing some "more research" the comments made by other members are "incorrect"? I am truly sorry if DAZ unknowingly purchased a fake from his "reputable well known pawn broker" IF he paid a price for a genuine watch and simply didn't know better. Please pardon my cynicism but somehow I do not think that is the case here. If I'm wrong, I apologize and DAZ should post again accepting my apology and continue to post here. If I'm right and he knowingly posted the fake, then I agree he should "leave it at that and not post any more". If you think I'm being "rash", I apologize to you as well. Fact is, we're not interested in fakes on the main forum at all. That's the reason for having the "Breitling Fake Buster's" sub forum above this one. Actually, sometimes I think we're doing all of us a disservice by pointing out the specific differences between the genuine article and the fakes (Replicas?... No. FAKES.) because it provides information to the fakers which can possibly help them improve their fakes in the future. Maybe we should simply poll "fake" or "genuine" without giving the fakers specifics with which to work. Provide the member's screen name for each poll vote and let the reader research the member's posts and evaluate for himself whether the individual vote has merit. Just a thought anyway... :think: Here's a research project for you... Go to the "Purse Forum" and check out the authentication threads for certain "designer" purses. The members there (my wife is one of them) make no bones about the differences between fakes and genuine articles. There is no "political correctness" to consider hurt feelings there unless it is sympathy for the uninformed individual who unknowingly purchased a fake. Again, I seriously doubt that is the case with DAZ if for no other reason than the specific source of his fake. Spare me any platitudes, please. Just my humble opinion of course...
Ron

PS. Wifey just stopped by to read this post and added one more thought on the subject of "fakes". Should the economy continue to worsen, we'll see more of the fakers come out of the woodwork trying to peddle their wares. Just her humble opinion of course... ;-)

[shah]

Not to add fuel to the fire in any way...
I just observed that he removed the links/photos from his site and also removed the link from the signature!!

Now, if one is sure that the watch is not fake why would he remove the pictures from personal website.

[O2AFAC67]

Not to add fuel to the fire in any way...
I just observed that he removed the links/photos from his site and also removed the link from the signature!!

Now, if one is sure that the watch is not fake why would he remove the pictures from personal website.Hi, shah. PM that personal website link to me please. Just curious.... :think: :thanks
Cheers,
Ron

PS. The little one is watching cartoons on TV now so I'm typing while I can. She'll probably be going home this evening or tomorrow so I'll be able to shoot the croc pics and email them to you... ;-) :-) Meanwhile, here's a croc shot made by one of my playing partners (his cell phone camera) last Fall at Rio Colorado golf course near Bay City, Texas... :-d




http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/161/ronsfriendriocoloradowp9.jpg (http://img505.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ronsfriendriocoloradowp9.jpg)

[bnewbie]

After 30 and so posts you are still arguing about FAKE GT??:-(

[Lou]

I think this thread has had its day guys and I dont want any fallouts