Fake Watches -- Does it really matter?

[John Tanglewood]

Originally Posted by E90Alex

If they need to buy a replica version of the same watch to use as a "beater" it seems like they were not able to truly afford the watch in the first place. A 10k watch is not a 100k Patek.

Or since watches don't really decrease in value, maybe they are just trying to protect their investment but still want their "Rolex Explorer" on their wrist.

[Z K]

Just as there are forums to discuss cars and other such things, there are forums for replica watches.

People gather to talk about different replicas from different replica manufacturers, talk about the quality of the movements in the watches and how closely the watches resemble the real ones.

Some put genuine parts and movements on their replicas to improve the quality and make them indistinguishable from the real ones. These are enthusiasts who would spend hundreds of dollars to make their replicas look and run no different than the real deal. The cheap $100 fakes you find on street corners are frowned on and generally dismissed by these enthusiasts. Also, many people own the real deal and have a replica of the same watch as a beater for daily use. So there are replicas out there that are 95% of the original down to the same movements. Just because it isn't manufactured by Rolex or other brand name doesn't mean it's a cheap copy.

So yes, replicas can make for interesting conversations and there are people who follow replicas.

[E90Alex]

Originally Posted by John Tanglewood

Or since watches don't really decrease in value, maybe they are just trying to protect their investment but still want their "Rolex Explorer" on their wrist.

Plenty of other investments yield better returns. No reason to purchase a modern day Rolex in hopes of making any return on it; however, they do hold their value and will not depreciate as fast as other brands in that price range.

If you can truly afford to buy the rolex there is no reason to keep it in storage while wearing a replica.

I feel like watches in that price range are meant to be worn daily (Rolex Explorer or Daytona is great with formal and casual attire) or in your rotation based on the occasion. (i.e. IWC portuguese for work/formal attire, rolex explorer for casual, etc..)

[John Tanglewood]

Originally Posted by E90Alex

Plenty of other investments yield better returns. No reason to purchase a modern day Rolex in hopes of making any return on it; however, they do hold their value and will not depreciate as fast as other brands in that price range.

If you can truly afford to buy the rolex there is no reason to keep it in storage while wearing a replica.

I feel like watches in that price range are meant to be worn daily or in your rotation based on the occasion. (i.e. IWC portuguese for work/formal attire, rolex explorer for casual, etc..)

You know it's funny -- an expensive watch can easily be seen as an investment because depending on the brand, it won't depreciate by much. In some cases with old watches it can actually appreciate, but these are pieces of jewelry that can be passed from generation to generation, so some people do find value in keeping them pristine.

Some people don't drive their M3's in winter because they don't want to get them dirty/abused by road salt/etc.....they will take out their "beater" car or truck instead......and I'm simply explaining that the same thing can be said for owners of nice watches.

I absolutely agree that watches in that price range are meant to be worn daily or in rotation based on the occassion. I beat on my Brietlings and the one Rolex I own has definitely gotten chewed up over the years; and I like it that way...I love my "battle scars". But not every person likes to wear their genuine pieces daily.

I really feel like the notion of personal preference is either over your head, or your just refuse to give in. You are stating that "there is no reason to keep it in storage while wearing a replica". Go head over the replica forum and say that and you will probably be faced with a good amount of opposition.

Different strokes for different folks....I respect that. You seem to have an agenda which is cool, but not very thoughtful. If you keep shying away from the other side of the coin you'll never learn to be accepting of things that may not go with your opinion.

[E90Alex]

Originally Posted by John Tanglewood

You know it's funny -- an expensive watch can easily be seen as an investment because depending on the brand, it won't depreciate by much. In some cases with old watches it can actually appreciate, but these are pieces of jewelry that can be passed from generation to generation, so some people do find value in keeping them pristine.

Some people don't drive their M3's in winter because they don't want to get them dirty/abused by road salt/etc.....they will take out their "beater" car or truck instead......and I'm simply explaining that the same thing can be said for owners of nice watches.

I absolutely agree that watches in that price range are meant to be worn daily or in rotation based on the occassion. I beat on my Brietlings and the one Rolex I own has definitely gotten chewed up over the years; and I like it that way...I love my "battle scars". But not every person likes to wear their genuine pieces daily.

I really feel like the notion of personal preference is either over your head, or your just refuse to give in. You are stating that "there is no reason to keep it in storage while wearing a replica". Go head over the replica forum and say that and you will probably be faced with a good amount of opposition.

Different strokes for different folks....I respect that. You seem to have an agenda which is cool, but not very thoughtful. If you keep shying away from the other side of the coin you'll never learn to be accepting of things that may not go with your opinion.

You are right about certain watches that can appreciate (Pateks, vintage rolexes that had limited production, etc...) but that is definitely not the primary reason people purchase those watches, it is just an added benefit.

My point/my view with that is just if you own a real rolex there is no reason to purchase the replica version to wear because you are afraid. If you need a less expensive watch for certain occasions purchase a less expensive watch and leave the rolex for occasions when you feel comfortable wearing it.

If you do end up purchasing the replica Rolex to wear while the original stays at home, it is no better than not having the genuine piece to begin with and only wearing the replica.

[John Tanglewood]

Originally Posted by E90Alex

Also, would you personally have a replica version of your IWC 8 days just to wear it more often? I do not think so..

No, but that's because I don't wear it in situations where I feel like it could get damaged.

If I am doing adventure stuff like hiking or camping or climbing, I'll wear a Tissot which is almost meant to be banged around.

[E90Alex]

Originally Posted by John Tanglewood

No, but that's because I don't wear it in situations where I feel like it could get damaged.

If I am doing adventure stuff like hiking or camping or climbing, I'll wear a Tissot which is almost meant to be banged around.

Yeah I edited/ deleted that response after I saw your other post which answered my question

[grimlock]

At the risk of going off-topic, I'd like to look at the larger social aspects of hobbying.
To what extent is the conversation on function - the enjoyment of it? And to what extent is it about establishing a pecking order within a social group?
I'd say in any group, aspects of both exists.. as they should.
You discuss the topic at hand, and as all interaction between humans entails the subconscious undertones of social hierachy.. - the establishment of rank or relative worth, which determines access to 'resources', although I can't imagine what that means here except for direction of conversation.. but hierachy is entrenched in the human psyche even if it is inconsequential in the narrower context.

On fakes, the disgust from authentic supporters comes from the robbing of value from their hard-pursued acquisitions - entirely their right, and which serves as deliniation for social groups. However, there is also a game being played by the manufacturers -as is with all marketed products that serve a social value other than it's utilarian function - that of created or imagined value, or the concept of "social proof" - conspicuous items to display wealth, a proxy for mating desirability. (are all things about sex after all?)

The stretched-thin pursuer of authentics may have lost view of this "illusion", however to the multi-millionaire and billionaire, such a price level for such simple items does not contain an afterthought and is thus 'rational'. To everybody else, it's a misrepresentation and an attempt to flatter you own worth. Just as a faker (seriously or not) wants others to think he is more than he actualy is, the authentic-er also wants the same thing, just that he has invested more, and so predictably is greatly angered by those dabbling in "his game" but who, perhaps wisely, see the irrationality of it and only bets a nominal wager for fun.. rather than his life savings.

(No feelings were intended to be hurt..)

[NemesisX]

Originally Posted by grimlock

At the risk of going off-topic, I'd like to look at the larger social aspects of hobbying.
To what extent is the conversation on function - the enjoyment of it? And to what extent is it about establishing a pecking order within a social group?
I'd say in any group, aspects of both exists.. as they should.
You discuss the topic at hand, and as all interaction between humans entails the subconscious undertones of social hierachy.. - the establishment of rank or relative worth, which determines access to 'resources', although I can't imagine what that means here except for direction of conversation.. but hierachy is entrenched in the human psyche even if it is inconsequential in the narrower context.

On fakes, the disgust from authentic supporters comes from the robbing of value from their hard-pursued acquisitions - entirely their right, and which serves as deliniation for social groups. However, there is also a game being played by the manufacturers -as is with all marketed products that serve a social value other than it's utilarian function - that of created or imagined value, or the concept of "social proof" - conspicuous items to display wealth, a proxy for mating desirability. (are all things about sex after all?)

The stretched-thin pursuer of authentics may have lost view of this "illusion", however to the multi-millionaire and billionaire, such a price level for such simple items does not contain an afterthought and is thus 'rational'. To everybody else, it's a misrepresentation and an attempt to flatter you own worth. Just as a faker (seriously or not) wants others to think he is more than he actualy is, the authentic-er also wants the same thing, just that he has invested more, and so predictably is greatly angered by those dabbling in "his game" but who, perhaps wisely, see the irrationality of it and only bets a nominal wager for fun.. rather than his life savings.

(No feelings were intended to be hurt..)

What's the threshold between a watch offering a "misrepresentation" of an individual and a watch offering a proper representation of that individual, and who or what decides that threshold?

To wit, I can conceive of a situation with a single individual making the median U.S. personal income ($26,989) financing and eventually owning a $10k Rolex submariner. I don't want to make this about your personal feelings on what constitutes financial imprudence. Such an individual may have a generally low discretionary income and/or low (and possibly negative) net worth, but nonetheless I can imagine a scenario where he's physically able to make payments for and eventually own a $10k watch.

The question is, are people implicitly obliged to have a certain social status or income or net worth when sporting a watch that costs $x. We can go even further - does the manner in which they come to obtain the funds necessary to pay for an $x watch matter? Person A is a self-made multi-millionaire CEO. Person B is a trust fund baby. Person C is a fast food worker who won the lottery. Person D is the hypothetical individual mentioned above - a hard working and otherwise frugal individual who perhaps spread himself thin buying a $10k watch while making $26k/year. What is 'x' and what is that threshold?

[DocMick]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Not all fake watches are cheap copies...you can buy some pretty accurate replicas with a quality movement that will keep perfect time and be indistinguishable from the real thing to almost everyone without taking the back off.

When you buy a replica car it almost never performs like the original, although you could buy at one time a whole brand new aluminium AC Cobra built using all the original bucks and patterns as long as you had a genuine Vin number and paper work.

Fakes and Expensive Cars... two separate discussions

[DocMick]

Originally Posted by NemesisX

What does wearing a fake $20k watch (or a real one for that matter) "make you look like?"

Note: I don't actually condone wearing fake watches. I'm not a watch guy so I don't really care. I'm just having fun playing devil's advocate.

it makes you look like the guy who stuffs a cucumber in his front pocket... lots of attention, much hehehe & hahaha, but when it comes down to it... the real substance is missing, and quite an embarrasing let down and a long winded explanation to follow



if a luxury watch's is simply to tell time, they are all obsolete due to the low cost of quartz and the ubiquitous presence of cellphones that tell time via GPS satellite, so no need to bother with costly movements and ceramic cases etc

if a purpose of fine wine/scotch/etc is to get you drunk, it's obsolete as alcohol is cheap and readily available to make you mellow, so no need to bother with the expensive stuff

if the purpose of a woman is to reproduce and make babies, well then there are plenty of fish in the sea.... why bother with looks, hair, education, attitude background, compatibility, etc, it's all superfluous

well thats stupid of course, because we want nice things in life, we want to enjoy life

while the purpose is to tell time, the real MEANING of expensive watch isn't chronometry... it's functional jewelry, it's a status symbol, and rarely even an investment... but really it's a statement that you enjoy the finer things in life. that's why a fake watch represents an attempt to bypass the hard work and discipline involved in accessing that strata where one has the means to enjoy said fine things.... when in reality they are only fooling themselves


some qualifications
1. to those that claim the own the real thing and only wear replicas to protect their investment, i say BS... if that's really the case, sell that "investment" and buy some diamonds or some ETF's
2. to those who, on a BMW forum, decide to get preachy about the ills of vanity well....
3. if saying something is fake is "mean" then maybe you have a problem with truth... theyre not replicas until instead of Rolex they have Replica written on the dial

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by grimlock

At the risk of going off-topic, I'd like to look at the larger social aspects of hobbying.
To what extent is the conversation on function - the enjoyment of it? And to what extent is it about establishing a pecking order within a social group?
I'd say in any group, aspects of both exists.. as they should.
You discuss the topic at hand, and as all interaction between humans entails the subconscious undertones of social hierachy.. - the establishment of rank or relative worth, which determines access to 'resources', although I can't imagine what that means here except for direction of conversation.. but hierachy is entrenched in the human psyche even if it is inconsequential in the narrower context.

On fakes, the disgust from authentic supporters comes from the robbing of value from their hard-pursued acquisitions - entirely their right, and which serves as deliniation for social groups. However, there is also a game being played by the manufacturers -as is with all marketed products that serve a social value other than it's utilarian function - that of created or imagined value, or the concept of "social proof" - conspicuous items to display wealth, a proxy for mating desirability. (are all things about sex after all?)

The stretched-thin pursuer of authentics may have lost view of this "illusion", however to the multi-millionaire and billionaire, such a price level for such simple items does not contain an afterthought and is thus 'rational'. To everybody else, it's a misrepresentation and an attempt to flatter you own worth. Just as a faker (seriously or not) wants others to think he is more than he actualy is, the authentic-er also wants the same thing, just that he has invested more, and so predictably is greatly angered by those dabbling in "his game" but who, perhaps wisely, see the irrationality of it and only bets a nominal wager for fun.. rather than his life savings.

(No feelings were intended to be hurt..)

The social positioning angle is interesting and there's merit to it as that's surely on the mind of some folks who buy fakes. The thing about the folks who buy fakes when considered alongside the folks who buy their authentic "betters" is this:

• Folks who buy a fake and lack the resources to buy the authentic version also lack the resources to buy many of the other things that folks with money resources buy. That is, it's just show and being merely that, the charade won't last long or get them very far. That is, of course, if they perpetuate or allow others to think the items are authentic. If, however, these consumers openly admit the non-authentic nature of the watch, they've neither lost nor gained. So with these folks, it merely comes down to a matter of whether they have integrity. If they do, wearing a falsely branded item isn't going to alter their standing. If they don't, again, wearing the fake won't alter their standing and it may impair it once they are found out.
• Folks who buy fakes and yet have the money to buy the real thing lose nothing. They are able to walk the walk and thus lose no position as a result. That's because their place on the "social hierarchy" isn't jeopardized regardless of what trappings of wealth they display.
  
  The integrity aspect, however, remains. So too do the pros and cons of displaying (or not) that character attribute.

Consider now the folks on the other side of the coin: the folks who bought authentic goods. The short of it with them is this: those that care, don't matter; and those that matter, don't care. The reason that's so is because social positioning really doesn't depend on a watch because the truth of it is that there're so very few watches that can be reliably used to infer wealth. Moreover, no matter how many other folks buy a pricey watch, their having it (or a fake that you or I believe to be the genuine article) doesn't do a thing to

A better bellwether might be the extent of one's charitable giving for how much you can give away without compromising one's own lifestyle speaks volumes more than how much can spend on oneself, particularly when that spending might be said to be a reflection of one's own lifestyle.

As far as positing an idea about why folks (and not the folks who are entitled to legal recourse in the matter) get irked about the fact that others buy/wear fake luxury goods is intellectual, and the social effect follows.

Consider, if you will, why one might spend huge sums ($8K+) on a watch. The reasons fall into four general areas, as far as I can tell.

1. Collecting: Clearly, a collector of any serious stripe (no matter the degree of seriousness) cannot buy a fake to add to his collection unless s/he's trying to create some sort of case for/story around the differences between the two. S/he can buy a fake, but they could not (barring the exception noted) consider it a watch "in the collection," regardless of whatever reason they may buy/wear it.
2. Sartorial/Fashion: Certainly, if there isn't an acceptable fake available, the sartorial buyer has little choice but to buy the authentic watch and pay the price for it. Outside of that, however, the reasons for having the watch for this consumer -- telling time and creating a "look" -- can be achieved effectively with either type of watch.
3. "Posing:" This consumer can buy a genuine watch or a fake. Again, the central issue here is integrity of the user's character.
4. Penury: This consumer certainly cannot buy the pricey watch However, as cheap as fakes are, there are still less expensive watches one can buy, and if our beggar friend must wear a watch -- a specious "need" for such a person seeing as a watch of one's own is not the sole way one can discern the time of day...a beggar need only ask for it and s/he will likely fare more successfully than when asking for money -- they would logically choose the least expensive option.

I suspect that most pricey watch wearers fall into the first two groups. A person need not be exclusively in one or the other of those two groups; straddling and floating between them is quite possible, indeed likely, but still, one is going to be primarily driven by one or the other of those two reasons. If, when asked what one's collecting objectives and themes are, one has none, it's clear that one is more a sartorial collector than a curatorial one. That then becomes the dominant reason for the purchase that gives the group to which one belongs.

So now, getting back to the cause of the ire...why is logos the driver behind the ire? The answer is quite simple. As stated earlier in this thread, aside from complicated watches, telling time isn't enhanced by the price of the watch. If one is spending to obtain a look, one looks rather foolish having spent a lot of money to obtain a look that would be no different had one instead bought the fake. People despise fake watches (perhaps also the people who buy/wear them) because the overwhelming majority of consumers choose a watch because it looks good, and upon finding out they could look just as good sartorially and have spent thousands less to do do, they feel foolish, at least if they are honest with themselves about why they bought the watch they do. No matter all the ranting about craftsmanship this and artistry that and pedigree/history the other, for damn near everyone, a watch is a fashion accessory first and a thing to be collected for some specific reason second, if at all.

In his book The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success, Kevin Dutton captured the spirit of my reason for why it's their intelligence that's been assaulted by the fakes. "The problem with a lot of people is that what they think is a virtue is actually a vice in disguise. It's much easier to convince yourself that you're reasonable and civilised, than soft and weak, isn't it?" (No, "soft and weak" aren't the terms I'd use to describe this aspect of human nature, but I'm sure it won't take much imagination on one's part to choose apt terms and yet have the theme remain intact and accurate, so I left Mr. Dutton's statement as he created it.)

All the best.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by NemesisX

What's the threshold between a watch offering a "misrepresentation" of an individual and a watch offering a proper representation of that individual, and who or what decides that threshold?

To wit, I can conceive of a situation with a single individual making the median U.S. personal income ($26,989) financing and eventually owning a $10k Rolex submariner. I don't want to make this about your personal feelings on what constitutes financial imprudence. Such an individual may have a generally low discretionary income and/or low (and possibly negative) net worth, but nonetheless I can imagine a scenario where he's physically able to make payments for and eventually own a $10k watch.

The question is, are people implicitly obliged to have a certain social status or income or net worth when sporting a watch that costs $x. We can go even further - does the manner in which they come to obtain the funds necessary to pay for an $x watch matter? Person A is a self-made multi-millionaire CEO. Person B is a trust fund baby. Person C is a fast food worker who won the lottery. Person D is the hypothetical individual mentioned above - a hard working and otherwise frugal individual who perhaps spread himself thin buying a $10k watch while making $26k/year. What is 'x' and what is that threshold?

I don't know, but my point was that as Tony pointed out below, those who care probably have their reasons to, and the person who should be buying the expensive watch probably wouldn't care about fakes - he might even be flattered.
The manufacturers know this, these are aspirational items.. for every real one purchased ten fake ones are - and maybe 0.001 of them will buy the real one some day.. but the primary effect of permitting fakes is to increase desirability even more.. so that this might even outweight the portion of potential buyers that are put off by the easy immitability.

It depends what target audience they are going after.. say a lower-middle priced watch might suffer more from fakes as middle-class buyers do not want something that can be had for much cheaper and to whom it is a legitimate signalling item, like a BMW.

Originally Posted by tony20009

In his book The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success, Kevin Dutton captured the spirit of my reason for why it's their intelligence that's been assaulted by the fakes. "The problem with a lot of people is that what they think is a virtue is actually a vice in disguise. It's much easier to convince yourself that you're reasonable and civilised, than soft and weak, isn't it?" (No, "soft and weak" aren't the terms I'd use to describe this aspect of human nature, but I'm sure it won't take much imagination on one's part to choose apt terms and yet have the theme remain intact and accurate, so I left Mr. Dutton's statement as he created it.)

Lol I read that book recently.. but I'm not sure I understand the specific reference here.. like "don't pretend you're a nice guy, when you're actually a pu**y?"

[Robin_NL]

Each to their own but:

Originally Posted by P1et

People with fake watches are spending a lot more time explaining why they are OK owning a fake watch vs. people with real watches explaining why they prefer owning the real deal.

This.

I rather wear a G Shock/Swatch/cheaper Seiko 5 (those 3 I also have) than any fake or even a 'tribute to' watch. Except for Laco Fliegeruhren because historically correct.

There are so many nice/beautiful fashionable brands outthere for $ 100-$500.
Diesel, Fossil, G Shock, Seiko, Citizen or even Swiss Brands like Tissot, Certina.

I don't get it spending the same 'low' price on a fake watch. Lots of explaining to do then...

[bragging]My current small personal collection: G Shock, Swatch(several, and Diaphane One) Seiko '5' automatic, Oris Chronoris re-edition , Zenith Sporto vintage, Seadweller 116600[/bragging]

I'm in the watch trade, my old man is a watchmaker fwiw.

Edit: In Tony's post above I'm number 1: collector. My holy grail is a Double Red SD from 1970(birth year) I love that stuff, history/technology, I'm happy to spend money on that. I'm a big JLC, AP , PP and Rolex fan. Had about 6 IWC through the years, I always prefer manufacture movements.

Cheers
Robin

[SenorFunkyPants]

It doesn't matter how you spin it, the majority of buyers of mainstream expensive watches (eg Rolex) buy then for the same reason that buyers of fake Rolexs do...nothing to do with the watch or its history or intricacies...but simply to project an image of themselves - status, wealth and a host of other shallow reasons. The only difference between the two is money....and in no reality does having money make you the better person.

[Robin_NL]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

It doesn't matter how you spin it, the majority of buyers of mainstream expensive watches (eg Rolex) buy then for the same reason that buyers of fake Rolexs do...nothing to do with the watch or its history or intricacies...but simply to project an image of themselves - status, wealth and a host of other shallow reasons. The only difference between the two is money....and in no reality does having money make you the better person.

Exactly, and in no reality having a fakewatch and pretending it's the real deal is making you the better person either

Cheers
Robin

[grimlock]

It's like, "You may call me superficial, but my tits are REAL"

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by Robin_NL

Exactly, and in no reality having a fakewatch and pretending it's the real deal is making you the better person either

Cheers
Robin

Indeed although at least he hasn't wasted a small fortune on chasing the illusion that a piece of wrist jewellery is going to change the person that he is.

[P1]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Indeed although at least he hasn't wasted a small fortune on chasing the illusion that a piece of wrist jewellery is going to change the person that he is.

When you have the money to buy a nice watch, the last thing you're worried about is what others will think of you, now that you have a nice watch. Chances are, you are probably confident in your person because you've achieved a few things. In other words: other things probably changed you, such as a college degree, a nice job or something material such as a nice suit or some proper shoes. In other words: you already are who you are. A nice watch is a luxury item. You purchase one because you celebrate having achieved something in order to afford it. You'd be surprised how few people know about nice watches, and I'm speaking of the general public here. I get quite a few "nice watch mate" comments when I'm at the airport. When they ask what kind it is and I tell them Breitling, 90% of them have not heard of Breitling before.

When you don't have the money to buy a nice watch and need to resort to buying a replica or fake, you want to give people the impression you've achieved something you really haven't.

[Robin_NL]

Originally Posted by P1et

When you have the money to buy a nice watch, the last thing you're worried about is what others will think of you, now that you have a nice watch. Chances are, you are probably confident in your person because you've achieved a few things. In other words: other things probably changed you, such as a college degree, a nice job or something material such as a nice suit or some proper shoes. In other words: you already are who you are. A nice watch is a luxury item. You purchase one because you celebrate having achieved something in order to afford it. You'd be surprised how few people know about nice watches, and I'm speaking of the general public here. I get quite a few "nice watch mate" comments when I'm at the airport. When they ask what kind it is and I tell them Breitling, 90% of them have not heard of Breitling before.

When you don't have the money to buy a nice watch and need to resort to buying a replica or fake, you want to give people the impression you've achieved something you really haven't.

Exactly. Let's say I have >100s of acquiaintances and just a few friends.
Not even those few friends 'know' I have a new/other watch(I'm wearing 99/100 sleaves most of the time of the day also summertime...) and they know I sometimes wear a Seiko and sometimes something else(more expensive, they do not care)

When going out(poloshirts whatever), in general nobody notices it at all.
Only on (watch)forums...

Cheers
Robin

[John Tanglewood]

Originally Posted by Robin_NL

When going out(poloshirts whatever), in general nobody notices it at all.
Only on (watch)forums...

It's true, nobody notices watches other than watch people.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by John Tanglewood

It's true, nobody notices watches other than watch people.

and nobody notices the salami down your pants except for chicks looking for some or gay dudes