It's the end of the world....

Oh gawd no.

*takes a peek*

....

......

.......

Hey, they don't look that bad! Actually, for Invicta they're downright understated. Also a nice touch on the 'palm fronds' dial's execution.

Watching with interest.

Wow....horror show!🥵👹💀☠

That cheapens the Glycine name while attempting to lift up Invicta. And failing.

I’m digging it 🤣😂

Unpopular opinion:

Anything with Invicta on it is a hard pass. Everytime.

Who the hell is in their marketing dept? Adding a brand to bring it down???

Here's the thinking from Invicta's marketing department: "Hey if the Swatch Group can do a brand mashup why can't we?"

Omega x Swatch = Moonswatch collection = hype/craze/demand = profits

So natch... here comes:

Glycine x Invicta = Five Elements collections = weren't we going to create a hip homage of a Glycine model = oh right that wouldn't sell = yet another Invicta "homage" of a Rolex Daytona = confusion/WTaF/disgust = small but easy profits (sell to ignorant mall shoppers who can be told Glycine is a iconic brand and know zero about watches and too lazy to use Google search)

Not sure I agree with your statement. Remember Invicta bought Glycine not the other way around. Which means Invicta is more successful than Glycine.

Do you know Invicta is much older than Glycine? And much more successful.

I did not. But the age of the companies had nothing to do with my having fun with it. Also, there can be no doubt that "Glycine x Invicta" is a blatant copycat move based on what the Swatch Group was able to do with Omega x Swatch.

Invicta having acquired Glycine (and not the other way around) is certainly a proof that Invicta was the more successful of the two. However, that doesn't nullify an argument that "Glycine x Invicta" cheapens the Glycine brand while attempting to lift up Invicta. The target buyer of Glycine may not see an explicit tie-in to the parent (Invicta) as a good thing. To that buyer, the association may devalue the Glycine brand thereby "cheapening" it. If you recall, that was also the debate with the Moonswatch collaboration as well: that Omega as a brand was cheapened by a tie-in to Swatch.

Yet "cheap" certainly does not equal less successful. The wildly successful Moonswatch is proof of that. And rather than devaluing brand value for Omega, I'm certain most Omega buyers think the tie-in is hip. For Swatch Group itself, the collaboration has increased brand awareness to a different market of buyers (i.e. buyers of cheaper Swatch-branded watches) than Omega itself caters to, which now may aspire to buy an actual Omega at some point. It proved to be a win-win.

Will the Glycine x Invicta "collaboration" be a win-win? Time will tell but that certainly is what Invicta is betting on. What I find hilarious is that this collection isn't an homage to a popular or historic Glycine model. Rather it's yet another homage of a Rolex Daytona. 😂

Agreed. the parent company name only cheapens the Brand for Glycine

Yeah and everyone said that about the Moon Swatch and they sold them by the MILLIONS around the world.

But this operates under the assumption that Omega is superior to Swatch and Glycine is superior to Invicta which is entirely subjective.

https://www.watchcrunch.com/ChronoGuy/posts/glycine-vs-invicta-is-there-even-a-contest-36427

makes some decent arguments though...

I think you need to look through the entire invicta catalog. They design amazing watches, yes they make homage watches but make sure they have the invicta brand so is not confused with Rolex.

In fact the Pro Divers have become Iconic for the Invicta brand. Not only is invicta more successful than Glycine, they are also more successful than many watch companies including entey level luxury watch companies.

You should re-read my full reply from beginning to end.

This thread isn’t about Invicta’s entire catalog, it’s about their mashup with Glycine. Had they taken the opportunity to do something with Gylcine along the lines of the Moonswatch, my opinion might be different but this is not that at all.

I’m familiar with their Pro Divers and the fan base they have garnered but Invicta isn’t my cup of tea. If they are yours I respect that. Moving on.

I agree, but you thrashing a brand. A brand that many people love. You wouldn’t say that about Casio? They also have make homage watches.

I know your point. Do you know mine?

I don't begrudge those who love Invicta their preference. I am loathe to accept the saying, "there's no accounting for taste." There is accounting for taste. One who is uneducated or uninformed may like something that isn't as well wrought as something else. This isn't meant to take away one's enjoyment of less than "good" things.

One can dislike "good" things as well. The "no accounting for taste" is often used to describe art and one's fondness for a particular piece. Well, I would argue that I can "not like" something but acknowledge its significance in the world of art, because my evaluation can have 2 facets; preference (subjective) and significance (relevance within a construct). I hate Roy Lichtenstein's art, for example, but I understand its meaning and significance in the world of art, so I understand it's "good" despite me not liking it.

But this is a watch forum.... so....

If someone loves an Invicta watch, they should wear it. And enjoy it. And buy 10 of them if they want. It has merit in its microcosm of fashionable accessories that can be had for a reasonable price (This lovely piece can be had for about 75% off, if you'd like) but to suggest their current offerings are horologically relevant and significant is a stretch.

I think it's fair to say that a collaboration between Invicta and Glycine is "odd", in the way if McDonald's was offering a Wagyu beef burger it would be odd. Wagyu beef is a top shelf ingredient worth a premium and, if meat is your thing, can be considered a delicacy and lustworthy. Even if you're a vegetarian, the morality of the act of eating Wagyu beef may turn your stomach while you may also appreciating its culinary relevance. (it's not for me, but I understand why it's a culinary delight)

I'm going in circles, but....

There's nothing wrong with liking a McDonald's burger. There is accounting for taste though. By all metrics, it's a mediocre burger, but even top chefs will indulge, and will also tell you it's a terrible food item. It still has its place.

The Invicta watch is a Big Mac. It's a crap burger. It's super popular, and people like it, but that doesn't make it "good." Invicta collaborating with Glycine is like McDonald's collaborating with Gordon Ramsay BurGR. Glycine doesn't make the Invicta any more credible. Invicta only hurts Glycine as a brand in the market place. Gordon Ramsay putting his name on a burger at McDonald's cheapens the Ramsay brand, and doesn't make the McRamsay a better burger.

I think Swatch cheapened the Omega brand with the Moonswatch. The snapping off pushers, shit band, and overpriced colour bleeding watch is still crap despite having Omega written on it. At one point I may have considered a Speedmaster a grail watch, something to aspire to owning, but I'll be honest, it's less appealing to me after the collaboration with Swatch. You want to wear one, go right ahead. Wear a MoonSwatch on one wrist and an InvictaxGlycine on the other, for all I care. I'll judge your taste from afar, but I'll never tell you you're wrong for wearing what you like.

(and I eat the odd Big Mac, but I won't tell you it's a good burger)

selling millions of MoonSwatches does not mean they are good. Nickleback sold millions of albums. McDonalds sold billions of burgers. Ford sold millions of Pintos. Keeping Up With The Kardashians had millions of viewers. Millions of people visit the Jersey Shore every year.

It’s ok you are entitled to your opinion. Sure not all watches made by Invicata are fabulous. But people do love them. This one here I don’t like. But it sells.

Beauty is on the eye of the beholder.

Another point, if Invicta manages to pursuade a smart watch collector over to analog, mechanical collector. It’s a win for the traditional watch.

I never said it made them good. I’m saying it elevated both brands. I see people with vast watch collections with names like Rolex, Omega, AP and the like and, tucked away in their box, a Moon Swatch. And now, people who would’ve otherwise never worn watches, or worse, wore Apple Watches (don’t freak out, I own an Apple Watch, too lol) can now look at a brand the probably had in funky colors when they were kids and think “Oh, well that’s cool, I kinda want one of those.” and maybe that person eventually goes and buys their first proper Speedy. So it’s not that they’re “good” watches. But it did a bit for both companies. I really want one and I have yet to find one in any boutique around me or that I have been to, but when I do, I’m pulling the trigger on one.

Very perceptive.

Instead of Glycine and Invicta's names being on this watch, what if they were two other names?

I kind of like it. It has a resemblance to the palm fronds Rolex without costing $$$$$.

I thought the world already ended a few months ago when Aragon introduced a watch smaller than 42mm, so I consider myself lucky to still be able to have an opinion about anything.