So, what happens when Hodinkee wants to hype some watch, but there is no example at hand? Well, it looks like they write of a watch that they want to hype, using as an example one that isn't the one they want to hype.
I've read it, and I've arrived at the only conclusion. Mr. Pennington's article is...
For whatever reason, he went by the same logic that the Big Three used to mock Bentley...
...only unlike TG's "Bentley" gag in Albania, Mr. Pennington's article doesn't seem to be a joke.
OK, let's break down this...hmmm...how to call it politely...hmmm...bovine fecal matter, step by step.Now, here's the thing. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that these watches were made by Glycine, let alone that they're the Airman.A Pair of Sterile-Dial Glycine Airman Watches...
Fact: The Airman featured a 24h dial and movement, and a 24h bezel controlled by a separate crown.
These two, meanwhile, feature an ordinary 12h movement, an ordinary 60-minute diver bezel... That said, they're not the Airman.Again, it isn't an Airman, and in all likelihood not a Glycine at all.That's where watches like this Glycine Airman come into play.And the BS continues. Wrong on both counts! The case of this watch has NOTHING to do with the Airman. It's quite clearly a diver case, while the Airman only featured a superficial WR. The whole Airman bezel assembly is also not there!...although no Glycine branding is present, the case and design language is borrowed from the Airman.
What is it, then? Not sure, but the case, dial and hands resemble those of...
...the Rotary Aquaplunge.
Pic filched from the Internets for reference.
Let's be honest, this style was pretty generic. You will find it on plenty of 1960s "skin diver" watches. The Aquaplunge is just an example.And for yet another time the author implies, that the watch was made by Glycine. I'm sorry, Mr. Pennington, but so far you have presented no evidence that that's the case.This model was likely produced under contract for Kroesen's alongside the standard Airman...Digging through Emre's Glycintennial in the Wayback Machine, we can easily observe that all it takes is a 6-digit serial to try making it a Glycine. Technically, serial numbers make no sense, until you have a resource to match them with...and until you know that you're matching it to the right resource. You can match a 1940s Zenith serial with the Tissot chart, and the result will point to somewhere in the 1950s. Both brands had a 7-digit serial.The Kroesen's watches have serial numbers that match up to Glycine's.
That said, the serials from Kroesen's watches might yield some result when matched with a Glycine chart, but there is no evidence that this result makes any sense. What if these watches date to the early 1960s or early 1970s? That style of watch matches these periods just as well as it does 1966-67.
Also, an Airman would have an Airman reference number... Here's the chart from Glycintennial, obtained from an archive copy of the site:
As you can see, there won't be an Airman reference for this one... And that's because there are no Airman specs that match it, and that includes the movement, which in this case is either an ETA 2452 or 2472. Not one of Glycine's choice, these being by Felsa and AS (later on, also Valjoux in the SST chrono).
All in all, I see a lot of far-fetched claims, no evidence, and a lot of claptrap in between said unsubstantiated claims.
The way I see it, another Hodinkee claim bites the dust.