hejsam
·While we agree completely that the cases were of the highest quality, that is not an entirely accurate representation of what occurred. Yes, Taubert was happy, especially early on, to market some of their cases as Borgel/FB. But those that Mido employed, to use one example, were not marked "FB".
More importantly, while Taubert did use some of the original designs without modifications, they made modifications to others, and to characterize those as "Borgel" is simply inaccurate. Ironically, you mention the Patek ref. 565, yet the case used in that model was patented in the 1930s, well after Taubert had absorbed Borgel. So that was clearly a Taubert case, albeit obviously derivative in some ways.
The most obvious modification was the adoption of the ten-sided (decagonal) design around the edge of the case back. It is one of the most easily identifiable hallmarks of the Taubert/Borgel cases that are held in such high regard, yet Borgel had nothing to do with it!
The brilliant cork-sealing crown system in Mido models was another important Taubert innovation.
So I make the distinction between the two manufacturers not only for semantic purposes.
And thanks for sharing your knowledge, I assume you are sitting on way more knowledge than most due to your profile picture and the models you have owned and shared here on the forum!















