Big boy bully tactics, plain and simple!
Big boy bully tactics, plain and simple!
Search Broadarrow
And why don’t you expand on what you were saying if you believe my extreme analogy missed the point you were making?
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
To be honest I don't know how you landed at your conclusion, at no point have I said Rolex are entitled to the word Milsub. Although I also don't condemn Rolex for this. Anyway just a misunderstanding, below should clarify.
"Essentially you have Rolex looking like a bully over a term they've never officially used."
Self explanatory.
"But let's be totally honest, Kiger produced a watch that looks very like a Submariner, with a word most people in the watch sphere associate with Rolex printed on the dial, precisely to generate sales off the back of the Rolex image. Let's not pretend it was coincidental. There's an element of prodding-the-sleeping-giant here isn't there?"
The point here being it's not just a word, it's a package that closely mimics a Rolex and the word 'Milsub' is another part of that. Evidently Kiger associate the word with Rolex as well, else it wouldn't be printed on the front of their Sub homage. Therefore it doesn't surprise me that Rolex would look for a way to prod back and it looks like they've found it.
Thank you for the pointer. An interesting read, despite the outcome.
And I was turning your reasoning around. As Rolex has never used Milsub themselves, it doesn’t matter what the watch community uses. We also use Kermit, Coke and Pepsi, Batman. Should Rolex go after those?
As to my analogy:
Rolex has associated its Explorer with Everest from the beginning. We know the claim they reach the summit is an usurpation, in great part thanks to Matt’s research. But it can be argued that they created the explorer to celebrate the conquest of the peak, and the watch community associates the 2.
I was just pointing out that:
1) homages are legal, especially with old watch designs. It is true for Marcello C, and for countless smaller brands, including Kiger and including Smiths
2) what the community uses to designate a model or to associate it with a word is just that. It doesn’t confer any right to Rolex for that word.
3) as the use of ‘Everest’ is not coincidental (as Smiths were the watches at the summit) and Rolex can claim the Smiths is an homage to the Explorer, your reasoning could be applied to this watch and you could also say that Eddie has been prodding-the-sleeping-giant just as well. I happen to entirely disagree.
Last edited by Saint-Just; 20th February 2021 at 06:42.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I wonder when will Rolex go after the Jim Henson Company? It’s not easy bein’ green.
I bet they don’t go after Coca Cola though...
Last edited by Sinnlover; 20th February 2021 at 08:31.
Rolex will be Taking Marvel and DC to court next for using 'Batman' and 'Hulk'!
Jim Henson's company for the 'Kermit' too!
Those thieving scum! Poor little old Rolex, struggling to make a living and people are stealing nicknames that a bunch of watch nerds have applied to some of their watches...
I except Mercedes are quaking in their boots, ripping all those 3 pointed stars off their cars in case Rolex come gunning for them too...
What next? Prosecuting descendants of Henry Tudor for stealing their brand name? Navies of the world being forced to rebrand to 'Underwater boat' (At least the Germans are safe from this one!)?
M
Last edited by snowman; 20th February 2021 at 10:04.
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
So true Snowman. I like my Rolex but I really think that this is the point where the need to be made an example of.
Ironically, it's not even a Rolex homage. It's clearly a Heuer one:
Last edited by M4tt; 20th February 2021 at 12:05.
Damn that's a handsome watch.
I used to like Rolex. Owned a few in my time. But gone right off them.
Fun to watch how the fanboys resolve their the cognitive dissonance again. Some form of justification or special pleading to make it OK.
They are just a luxury brand now. Veblen jewellery for the ostentatiously wealthy. Shame, they used to make fine watches.
The Smurf fight could get messy........
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
I still am not convinced you're taking my comment entirely at face value to be honest, there's no hidden meaning. I didn't say Rolex were correct to do this, nor did I say they have a right to the word. But I don't condemn them for trying to protect their brand and I'm not overly surprised that as Kiger pushed further and further, they got pushed back.
As for homages, I personally feel uncomfortable with a watch that directly copies another brand and is identical in all but the name on the dial. There are of course heavily inspired (but not identical) homages that I would be more comfortable with. Just a personal opinion.
As for the Smiths, I doubt Rolex would want to dredge up that particular issue on the Everest term I always found the choice to homage the Explorer for the Smiths Everest slightly contradictory, but maybe that's why I don't own a watch brand!
The point is Rolex is NOT trying to protect their brand at all. They hate the idea that they didn’t think of registering milsub and hope they’ll bully the little guy. Omega did just that to Eddie.
It is despicable and they should face a proper media backlash for it. But they probably won’t...
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I hope he wins as it looks on paper at least, that his case has everything in order. I must admit, I question whether or not I want to align myself with Rolex anymore, even though I enjoy their watches and own a nice AKD. Food for thought.
Last edited by stix; 21st February 2021 at 04:43.
Alternatively, it isn't entirely disinteresting to observe the same old anti-Rolex faces turn up time and time again.
Particularly when they have to let it be known that they've had a few, I mean god forbid not mentioning what part while calling those who still own them ostentatious!
"Oh I used to have a mountain of bullion but I grew up, you know? refined my tastes to platinum, gold is so ostentatious, but just to let you know that I did and I could but I choose not to because im SUCH an individual!"
As it has been mentioned, I think rolex would do better fighting against counterfait watches.
If you buy a Kiger milsub, you're not fooled, you know what you're buying, and if you're going for that, it means you don't want to own a rolex, or you can't justify the price.
The fakes are actually fooling people that want a rolex, or helping people to fool other peoples. The fakes are actually pretending to be the real thing, which is where I think there is a problem.
If anything, the Kiger could be an introduction in the world of watches for someone, and the beginning of the love for a real submariner on the long run.
I would also say that anything which has been issued in the militry design wise and concept wise should be owned by the militry or no one at all (as it actually is the case if I'm not mistaking)
The milsub is not a rolex design. It is a rolex design based on what the MOD wanted. We're talking about a contraction of two words here, nothing official, and based on the article posted by Eddie, it's not even related to rolex in the first place.
Kiger is playing on the rolex vibe? Yes they do, but so do many other brands making homages... If you buy a Kiger but you want a rolex, if you can afford it one day, you will get the rolex, you won't just be happy with the Kiger.
I don't see how Rolex can gain anything out of this...
Fair enough. I honestly don't know why Rolex get under my skin so much. Part of it the way they try and steal Everest from my beloved Smiths but really it's become pathological with me. I need to let it go and move on.
Regarding what I said
"I used to like Rolex. Owned a few in my time. But gone right off them."
That's just me staking my claim, my right (as it were) to comment. To be honest I could afford a real milsub if I wanted one. I'm forestalling the objection that I hate them because I can't afford one. I have owned Rolexes and love many vintage of the models. Their current line up leaves me less than cold and their attitude -- all the way from HQ to AD -- disgusts me. But, as I said, I can just ignore them. No-one forces me to deal with them or even pay them any mind, much less any money.
"Fun to watch how the fanboys resolve their the cognitive dissonance again. Some form of justification or special pleading to make it OK."
I stand by that. Bears repeating, too.
"They are just a luxury brand now. Veblen jewellery for the ostentatiously wealthy. Shame, they used to make fine watches."
Ditto. They are not great horology, not interesting in any way really. Some cool heritage but even then most of that is marketing BS (e.g. the Oyster case was first waterproof wristwatch? No. Not even nearly.)
How about a late New Year's Resolution or Lenten fast? "Scroll on by the Rolex threads, Ollie." It would do me good.
This forum places a lot of emphasis on having owned a brand when making a comment. When someone asks about Patek Philippe, current/previous owners' comments are listened to. Someone who says "I wouldn't buy one for the following reasons" is told that they don't own one so can't know what they are talking about.