# Help for Glycine Incursore



## saleswatcher (Nov 25, 2010)

Hi, I ask an help please...
I have this Glycine Incursore Automatic, 44mm, but I have doubts about its authenticity.
Have movement Eta 2824-2
The quality of construction and graphics seem correct, but I have many doubts about the date at 3 o'clock and especially for Reference 070
What do you think?
Thanks for the help.


----------



## mihai_m (May 26, 2012)

Incursore big date has an 3 o'clock date, but it's white on black...
And Incursore Automatic 46 which has a black on white date is 200m wr.


----------



## Sodiac (Dec 6, 2008)

Hard to say, the date window doesn't look right, shouldn't it be at 4 o'clock? Also the Glycine word with the crown doesn't look correct.

Here's the closest I can find in the Glycine Archive: ::: Glycine Watch ::: Bienne 1914 ::: Swiss Made :::


----------



## saleswatcher (Nov 25, 2010)

Thanks...I think it's a fake ...but it's too well done. 
Probabily cost of the fake (if it's a fake), superior at the original! Boh!
I don't know, I'm confused...


----------



## mayostard (Dec 31, 2007)

I am guessing it's a franken. Likely at the least a redial. This looks like it's based on the 200m incursore auto:










However, you don't see a lot of fakes of modern glycines. Perhaps this is a factory prototype or something? A lot of things fakes get wrong (eg subtle shapes of the indicies, etc) look correct here. The 6 and 9 shape in particular are unique to glycine as far as I know and these look dead on. But as previously noted, no incursore of this vintage that I've seen has the crown and glycine logotype in that position (also note the 200m auto incursores have the newer more modern logotype from what I remember). The crown and case, from what I can see of them, look correct as well. The caseback I'm not sure of, though. I haven't seen that many 100m incursore casebacks, this one I'm not familiar with but it looks well-executed, not what I would expect from a fake.

Also, I don't remember seeing any incursores that say "100m" on the dial. Usually only the 200m versions have the depth rating on the dial.

Overall, this is an interesting piece. I think more investigation is warranted.

Please post more pics.


----------



## saleswatcher (Nov 25, 2010)

Thanks Mr. mayostard, more pics...In live the watch in comparison with my other manual Incursore is same ... steel, crown, glass,...boh!


----------



## Sodiac (Dec 6, 2008)

Maybe send the pics to Glycine? I know that's been recommended several times in this forum but not sure if Glycine ever responds to them.


----------



## saleswatcher (Nov 25, 2010)

I've sent the pics to glycine but don't respond


----------



## saleswatcher (Nov 25, 2010)

Glycine Incursore automatic, have two distinctive type of characters for the numbers (12-3-6-9), mine have type 2 totally correct ... don't seems to be a fake...It's a realy mistery!


----------



## Zarith (Nov 5, 2007)

I don't think it's a fake. There are, as far as I know, no counterfeit Incursore out there.

It's most likely a modified watch or a prototype. If something is not original, it must be the dial.


----------



## saleswatcher (Nov 25, 2010)

I have found that it is a fake watch...Thanks for all!


----------



## mayostard (Dec 31, 2007)

How did you determine that?


----------



## saleswatcher (Nov 25, 2010)

This is the response of Glycine SA:

Dear Mr ---------Unfortunately we can't recognize this watch, we think it could be a fake.
Did you get a warranty card?

with best regards
GLYCINE WATCH SA
S.Lack


----------



## mayostard (Dec 31, 2007)

I wouldn't consider that authoritative without further explanation.


----------



## Sodiac (Dec 6, 2008)

mayostard said:


> I wouldn't consider that authoritative without further explanation.


He got it "from the horse's mouth", so to speak, not sure how much more authoritative it could get?


----------



## petew (Apr 6, 2006)

FWIW, I've seen a major manufacturer do the opposite. Represent a watch as genuine when it was in fact a fake. They do make mistakes. The fact that they asked if there was a warranty card and the statement "we think" actually made me think that maybe they weren't sure and they were looking to see if there was further proof one way or the other.


----------



## mayostard (Dec 31, 2007)

Sodiac said:


> He got it "from the horse's mouth", so to speak, not sure how much more authoritative it could get?


It just sounded like a response from an intern or something like that who just did a cursory search through a catalog of actual retail models. I still think a prototype is the most likely explanation. A redial is possible but doesn't make much sense as I don't think many redialers would come up with a unique dial design.

A fake just makes no sense. this isn't an expensive model, there's a very limited demand. Those two facts make a fake of this quality extremely unprofitable.


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

mayostard said:


> A fake just makes no sense. this isn't an expensive model, there's a very limited demand. Those two facts make a fake of this quality extremely unprofitable.


I've seen fake Invicta watches floating around the internet. The disgusting con-men out there who make a living doing this will fake anything. Even a small profit is better than nothing.


----------



## mayostard (Dec 31, 2007)

Invicta is a brand that is known by the masses and they sell a ton of units. Glycine is not. Plus, I'm sure those were low-quality fakes. This one, if it is a fake, is not low-quality. The cost of the tooling etc to make fakes of this quality would be prohibitively expensive, there's no way they could make it back.


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

mayostard said:


> Invicta is a brand that is known by the masses and they sell a ton of units. Glycine is not. Plus, I'm sure those were low-quality fakes. This one, if it is a fake, is not low-quality. The cost of the tooling etc to make fakes of this quality would be prohibitively expensive, there's no way they could make it back.


Ironically, that's probably what they tell potential buyers. How could it be fake? It's a Glycine. Quality Swiss company. But not as popular as Rolex or Omega. Who is going to bother with making a fake Glycine?

Guys who know they can get away with selling a fake one to someone based on such an argument, that's who.

The OP at worst has a fake. At best, he has a franken watch. Would be best to hand it to an indepent watchmaker. Have him confirm if the movement inside is an actual ETA 2824. If it is (instead of a cheap copy of one) then it's likely a franken. In that case, it's still a very nice looking watch.


----------



## mayostard (Dec 31, 2007)

That still makes no sense. There's only so many people that A) want a glycine and B) will be fooled. You can't possibly recover the costs associated with tooling to make the cases, design work for the dial, etc, not to mention the materials involvled. Even cheap clones have fixed, sunk startup costs.

There's a reason why if you go to the replica sites that openly acknowledge what they're selling is fake that they don't have any glycines. It's extremely unlikely that someone decided incursores are suddenly a good target for faking and that this particular model would be the one to start with.


----------



## ebsaltzman (Nov 23, 2010)

I sent the pics to the Glycine distributor and he stated that it looks like a model that had a short run in the early thousands or late 90's, but the pics appear real. Cannot be sure without a hands on inspection, though.


----------



## saleswatcher (Nov 25, 2010)

Thanks at all, but I don't have the courage to keep it ... bring it back to the seller ... someone wants it?


----------

