Reply With QuoteYou do talk some rubbish Mick. Maybe you should PM our host and let him know personally!Originally Posted by Mick P
To me - fake / replica are the same things - if it's a replica it will replicate not only the design but the logo as well. Otherwise it's not a 'replica'. This also makes it a fake.
If the logo is not 'replicated' but the design to some extent is then it's an homage, although not strictly within the definition of the word, it's what the watch world has chosen to call this - I have no issue with this type of watch and own a few myself.
Fakes - to my shame in my younger days when I trotted the globe I bought a few - all broke within months so I learned my lesson as a young man and moved on to more reputable things. I still have a couple of these broken fakes for sentimental reasons but they are also a reminder that they are not quality objects and are not worth the money.
My main concern with fakes is 'passing off' and as I try to buy most of my watches 2nd hand I keep abreast of the 'fake forums' mainly to protect myself. The accuracy being displayed these days is frightening and means that I would only buy certain brands such as Rolex, Breitling, Tag, etc. from a reputable brick and mortar dealer and never privately as they are the most commonly faked.
You do talk some rubbish Mick. Maybe you should PM our host and let him know personally!
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
You are again a pompous idiot, doubling with an ungrateful one considering your membership of this forum.
First, only watch aficionados can (sometimes) recognise a watch from a distance. The rest of the world doesn't care.
Second, watch designs are not subject to any ownership or copyright, therefore only the brand name makes it genuine or illegal
Third, I am sure you wear your watches in such a way that people are aware that they are Rolex, because it is important to you that they know. Likewise, people who buy fakes usually show them to their mates, like in Sinnlover's example above, because it allows them to show off.
Homages, on the other hand, are inspired by another design, but stand on their own two feet with their brand name (and sometimes no name at all). No deception intended and if you're close enough to identify the watch, you're probably close enough to realise the brand name is not the one you may have thought it would be.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Hear hear Peter!
F.T.F.A.
Sorry I disagree
Look at the watches our host makes
He makes homages to watches long out of production using the same brand names as the originals
Eddies homages are different enough from the originals that you can see it is not the original, they also use more modern materials to improve on the original.
But they are not trying to be anything other than what they are.
There is nothing wrong with this. I wear a few of eddies homages to reduce wear on my original watches of the same type, in situations where the original might get damaged. - lots of my watches are getting old and parts are getting hard to come by or are as rare as hens teeth in some cases.
At no point are any of the homages I own, worn to deceive anyone. Most people could not give a toss about an obscure watch that nobody apart from geeks have heard of.
I suppose if you were to wear a more common widely known brands or one of their homages, some people might think that. I guess it’s one of the downsides of following the herd.
Last edited by Sinnlover; 13th December 2021 at 10:48.
Some interesting views here.
What about Rolex and Tudor - different brands, some similar style watches!
Mickey being Mickey.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Isn't Tudor owned by Rolex?
Best call Rolex and tell them about the games Tudor plays in their own backyard?
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Owned by the same parent company, but still two different brands.
Sent from my moto g(8) power lite using Tapatalk
Last edited by Estoril-5; 13th December 2021 at 11:24. Reason: error corrected
You'll have to enlighten me I'm afraid Ralf, I don't have any special interest in either brand so am unaware of any shenanigans.
Last edited by Ruggertech; 13th December 2021 at 11:21.
Granted. But not quite the same as an unrelated company making similar watches. For what it's worth, I personlally prefer the Tudor models to Rolex. Maybe because there are less homages of them, and definitely because they fly under the radar (at least compared to Rolex).
Imaging the cheek! they even used original Rolex cases to make their watches at the beginning.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Just saying that it was a ridiculous post to bring Tudor/Rolex in the discussion for exactly the reason you stated.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
As grown up WIS types, surely everyone knows what the problem watches are.
Counterfeit watches that are designed to deceive, that may be unknowingly bought in good faith on the secondary market, then confiscated and destroyed when sent in for service.
The only Timefactors watch I have owned was a first generation Smiths PRS29A. This was a faithful copy by the current trademark holder. It was a great watch, and didn’t claim to be anything other than what it was.
There is very little continuity in the watch brands of 50 years ago. I would quite like a modern Doxa, but it is no different than my Smiths example, a faithful modern version by the current trademark holder.
Counterfeit, Franken, undeclared aftermarket parts are where the problems are.
Dave
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was using my post to highlight how some posters views fall apart when bringing Tudor/Rolex into the equation.
Should have quoted in my reply.
Ah, I'm slower than usual this morning, my bad.
Trouble with this debate is we all determine the words Replica, Copy and in some instances Homage differently, I think we all agree on what a fake is and how we feel about them.
I agree with Raffe in that the fake watch world has pinned itself to the word replica as its more acceptable than the dirty word fake, to me something that is a very close to the original is a replication or copy of design, they are not selling themselves as the original but have got as close as they can without breaking copyright/trademarks.
Homage to me is a step away from the likes of Seestern, San Martin, Parnis which are bang on copies of the original bar the branding, a homage has inspiration from another design but also has original designs like different case, size, colour etc.
Its a grey area as like I said we all determine the words differently..
I still think this summarises it perfectly:
Now we all know that language changes over time, but I would say we need to hold the line and not hand over the marketing-win to the fakes-community. A fake is a fake, and a replica can be many things.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
What’s the point in arguing over definitions? We all know what someone means when they reference a replica watch.
Fake watches are rubbish and that’s the end of it. There are plenty of great watches available at £50 so in my book there’s no excuse.
Homage watches are hit and miss for me, I don’t mind the ones that take design cues from iconic watches but out and out copies fall into the rubbish camp in my book.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FWIW, this is how I would see it. Fake/replica is trying to convince someone they have something they haven't. A homage is open that's its not the original, it is either paying design respects to it, or providing a modern equivalent slant on the original. It's open an honest about what it is.
A replica is the same as a copy is the same as a fake.
A homage is none of the aforementioned but gives a nod, however strong, to something but without pretending to be the original.
Some sellers are quite honest about their fake wares
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
Exactly, but the scary thing is that there are deep DNA fakes using tomography to replicate movements, dials and cases. These so called "Super clone" movements (usually 3135s and 4130s) are becoming more available though still about USD1500 but coming down in price. These fakes are using 904L SS with a construction that is more and more accurate in proportion. Interesting that even Omega created a clone of the 105.003 used by Gene Cernan to create an exact replica of the new 321 "Ed White" case, crown, movement and pushers.
The thin end of the edge is working its way under the door and these crooks are ubiquitous over the internet.
Within my lifetime any high end watch will be able to be printed with unerring accuracy. It will be impossible to tell a genuine watch from a fake with the naked eye.
Which would you prefer, a dream watch for tens of thousands, or your dream watch for next to nothing?.
If you'd pay months of salary for no extra utility, let me sell you some NFTs.
Would your dream watch still be your dream watch if everyone had one?
That's a myth, at least in the UK where there's no law against ownership of a fake.
Except when Omega do it they have "reprised the famous Calibre 321"
The variation in quality is quite staggering, as evidenced by a visit to the Silk St Market in Beijing. So many different levels on offer, from Fake to Real-real-real-real-real fake.
A nation that even fakes eggs and Ikea!
There is a degree of rationality to the desire to own one. In the same way that I might like a Monet on the wall, the best I could do is a decent framed print.
The watch industry doesn’t have an equivalent which could produce under license. An interesting idea even if they probably wouldn’t bite.
So how does RSJ respond when a fake gets sent into them then?
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
No idea, but I would suppose they would only get a fake sent to them for repair/service by a 'victim' who was wholly unaware it wasn't genuine.
Buying a fake isn't illegal.
I was hoping that the comment of 'then confiscated and destroyed when sent in for service' being a ' 'myth' could be substantiated by the OP.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Clearly this seller doesn’t want to be confused with “non genuine” fakes :)Some sellers are quite honest about their fake wares
I imagine they'd simply return it and explain politely "you've been had mate". If they were to retain it then that's theft and destroying it is criminal damage.
So you don't know that Rolex wouldn't destroy a fake then.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
How do you know? Evidence in previous posts seems clear cut.
I think they would return your fake like the quote says, after all its not their property and they cannot act as judge and jury, destruction of customers watches would also generate a lot of hassle they dont need, its far easier to give it back with some bad news..
I've seen pictures before from TRF where someone sent in a fake watch (or real watch with fake dial) and Rolex sanded off the name of any fake part with Rolex or crown.
Apparently they are allowed to do this as it's their trademark being infringed and that's the only but they touch. Not sure if the rules are the same in the UK/EU but you'd hope so.
There's only one way to find out. Who wants to be the Guinea pig? :)
I don't know, I'm not the one making claims.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Under EU law, counterfeit items can be seized by customs authorities and then distroyed.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Okay, then this wasn't a claim?
Given that the response was 'I think they would return your fake' I took that as not being supportive of the claim that it was a myth that they didn't.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
I am really intrigued. Somehow this debate always ends up being about Rolex.
While I have an eclectic mix of watches there hasn’t ever been any Rolex. My primary interest is Omega and they are certainly also faked, yet there is seldom the heated response from Omega/Breitling/Tudor/etc owners.
Is it because Rolex ownership is all about prestige, thus the greater potential damage by association? I’m genuinely curious.
I always find it odd that a modded Seiko provokes little discussion compared to say a modded Rolex.
There must be millions of fake Seiko branded dials and straps out there.
Try but not necessarily driven by Rolex owners.
The OP did post a picture of a fake Rolex.
I am not trying to be controversial, but I am interested in others views. I am also not a Rolex hater - I am at the stage where I would like a vintage 5513, but I can't see that happening anytime soon.
To be fair, there seems to be a similar, heated response to fakes from Panerai owners. At least that used to be the case when I was more active on 'Paneristi'.
My own theory is that both these brands (Rolex & Panerai) are very much associated with conspicuous consumption, displaying ostentatious wealth to gain status and reputation in society. Clearly this only works when the watches are widely recognised by the masses. Rolex must take the top spot and (at least in the U.K.) to a lesser extent, Panerai. Consequently fakes, particularly convincing fakes, are seen as threatening to those who wish to display their position in society via their watch choice. I am not suggesting that ALL owners of Rolex or Panerai have them for this reason only - I still have a couple of Panerai and I doubt that anyone that I ever meet has a clue what that 'big lump' of a watch is. However, most people will recognise and be impressed by a Rolex. Additionally, a Rolex is well within reach of anyone who is comfortably well off and has decided to prioritise a watch purchase, so it can be difficult to judge who actually has the real deal.
Owners of Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin, Audemars Piguet, Blancpain, Ulysse Nardin, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Glashutte Original etc. etc. impress fewer people, simply because fewer people recognise them in the first instance. Consequently they can be much more chilled about fakes of their chosen brand.
Posting Permissions
