# Can you tell year of a Breitling by Serial #?



## 1watchaholic

Hi experts...is there a way to tell how old/what year a Breitling was made? I know Rolex and Panerai utilize a letter. I don't think there is a way to tell but wanted to confirm. :thanks


----------



## RXPete

Not by the serial number,as far as I know, but there is a reference number on the case. See this link for the deciphering that number :http://www.breitlingsource.com/articles_dating.shtml

Also this link will tell you what the model number stands for:
http://www.breitlingsource.com/articles_refnos.shtml

and what the number on the bracelet means:
http://www.breitlingsource.com/articles_dating.shtml

Hope this helps.

Pete


----------



## 1watchaholic

RXPete said:


> Not by the serial number,as far as I know, but there is a reference number on the case. See this link for the deciphering that number :http://www.breitlingsource.com/articles_dating.shtml
> 
> Also this link will tell you what the model number stands for:
> http://www.breitlingsource.com/articles_refnos.shtml
> 
> and what the number on the bracelet means:
> http://www.breitlingsource.com/articles_dating.shtml
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Pete


Thanks Pete! :-! Now if I can only get the strap off! :-s


----------



## SnapIT

G'day,



> Not by the serial number,as far as I know, but there is a reference number on the case. See this link for the deciphering that number: BS
> 
> Also this link will tell you what the model number stands for:BS
> 
> and what the number on the bracelet means: BS


[rant on]

I think that answering a member's question in this manner is the lazy man's way of participating in one of the best Breitling forums on the web. It shows no effort and basically no direct knowledge of the subject.

Secondly its just bad manners to directly linking to a alternative forum. This forum was on the web at least 5 years before BS came into being. We have much original content and surely as much information to hand as they. We only need ask some pertinent questions of the original poster of this thread to provide specific details that he might want. I see no need to wholesale link back to BS to satisfy the provision of said details.

The question I would have asked, is the watch from the modern era ie. post 1981-2 or from the old Breitling which folded during the Quartz onslaught of the late 70's. 
What is the model number/serial number engraved on the back if you are uncertain of the above facts.

With that information all of the necessary details could have been given to our member.

And one of the informative threads by Ron from right here in the 
Articles section of this forum.....

https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=64407

[/rant off]


----------



## O2AFAC67

SnapIT said:


> ...Its just bad manners to directly linking to a alternative forum. This forum was on the web at least 5 years before BS came into being. We have much original content and surely as much information to hand as they. We only need ask some pertinent questions of the original poster of this thread to provide specific details that he might want. I see no need to wholesale link back to BS to satisfy the provision of said details.


Further, BS has utilized quite a bit of information from our forum including photos to enhance the authoritative nature of their forum. One example is the description of the Windrider Cockpit Lady which has one of my pics of wifey's CL for reference without attribution to the source. I don't mind contributing over there to help disseminate what little knowledge of the brand I've gained in the past but other than posting a for sale ad and pics every now and then, it's not one of my favorite hangouts...
:think:
Best,
Ron


----------



## bnewbie

You can tell it on the watches prior to 1978.


----------



## RXPete

G'Day SnapIT,

In response to your "[rant on]" , The objective of my post was to help a fellow member with a question. It seems I answered well because his response was favorable.



> I think that answering a member's question in this manner is the lazy man's way of participating in one of the best Breitling forums on the web. It shows no effort and basically no direct knowledge of the subject.


Isn't this a violation of Rule # 1 of this forum. There was no need to personally attack me for helping someone out. I had nothing but positive experiences here until now. It's a shame it came from a moderator. If you knew me personally, I don't think you'd call me lazy. As far as the effort part of your statement, I think I showed effort by answering and posting a reply that was satisfactory to the original poster. The knowledge I have to the specific question was learned at the source of my link and I was knowledgeable enough to share it with him.



> Secondly its just bad manners to directly linking to a alternative forum. This forum was on the web at least 5 years before BS came into being. We have much original content and surely as much information to hand as they.


I would never put down one of my patients for associating with a alternative practice. THAT, in my opinion, would be "bad manners".

There's no denying that this is a fine forum with many knowledgeable, kind and courteous members. I wasn't trying to convey the opposite with my post. Breitling Source is more of a reference source, in my opinion, than a forum that people, including myself, like to read, post and hang out at. The number of members and posts clearly conveys that. As far as forums are concerned, there's not much competition.



> We only need ask some pertinent questions of the original poster of this thread to provide specific details that he might want. I see no need to wholesale link back to BS to satisfy the provision of said details.
> 
> The question I would have asked, is the watch from the modern era ie. post 1981-2 or from the old Breitling which folded during the Quartz onslaught of the late 70's.
> What is the model number/serial number engraved on the back if you are uncertain of the above facts.
> 
> With that information all of the necessary details could have been given to our member.


These are the questions that you "would" have asked but you didn't. Everyone does and thinks about things differently. That's one of the great things about human beings and about this open forum. I read many of your posts and never replied that my way is better.



> And one of the informative threads by Ron from right here in the
> Articles section of this forum.....
> 
> https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=64407


I'm sorry I didn't see this reply but it wasn't readily accessible at the time I posted and I haven't read my way to 2007 of this forum yet. If you think I should have done a search, then you could say that to most people that ask questions here b/c, according to you, the answers are already here.

I hope this will be my last negative experience here b/c I didn't join for confrontation but for the camaraderie of fellow watch enthusiasts.

Have a good day,

Peter


----------

