Fake Watches -- Does it really matter?

[tony20009]

This is what I think is going on with most folks who get upset about fake watches.

All the best.

[RedlinePSI]

Originally Posted by tony20009

TY for warning us about the state of your being under the influence of a mind altering substance. I'll keep that in mind as I reply.



Oh, my. So what follows is a "barstool epiphany" of sorts....Okay, I'll keep that in mind.

I think the point is effectively identified in the OP. Have you read the first post of this thread?



The legal and moral/ethical dimensions are also addressed in the OP.



You are certainly free to feel that way, but we've already shown, (1) "wannabes" are not the only people who buy fakes and (2) the "wannabe" driver for buying fakes isn't inextricably linked with the other reasons for doing so. (See the reference links provided in the "Other" section of this post: http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=606)



I agree; it's not different.

Red:
Can you please describe the false image a person earning $300K/year and working in the PRC or U.S. might be attempting to project by wearing a fake Patek?

Without going into every possible vagary of life situations in which such persons may find themselves, it's safe to say that an individual earning $300K/year earns more than enough to buy an authentic Patek Philippe watch. So buying and wearing a fake Patek Philippe watch isn't going to aid them in projecting an image they are otherwise incapable of projecting.

[You were doing pretty well, aside from seeming not having read the first post of this thread, until you confounded the only real argument against fakes -- the legal one -- with the "wannabe" ideas. I think the cocktails are now kicking in.]



Since you gave fair warning at the outset of your post, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that when you wrote the text in red you were referring to trademark infringement.

Without a doubt the booze has kicked in. This is now the second time in this post in which you allude to there being a connection between the illegality of buying fake watches and the immorality of doing so -- ...What else is to to be when one conjoins a legal matter with the phrase "it's wrong," for "wrong" implies the moral dimension whereas "illegal" constrains the statement to the legal aspects? Neither time did you attempt to develop the point. I suspect that were you not drinking, you'd have posted not a knee-jerk reaction, but instead spent a few minutes actually thinking about the question

I happen to think that making and buying fake watches are illegal acts, but I don't think there's any immorality associated with doing so. There are plenty of illegal acts that lack an immoral dimension in their commission:

• Under age drinking
• Exceeding the speed limit
• Aiding legally enslaved people in escaping their bonds
• Overlooking a poor person's theft or chicanery in obtaining a minor item

Morally breaking the law can be seen differently according to ones moral standards. In order for a society to function, there are rules that we must follow. Many people have the idea that if something is against the law it is wrong. Something might be wrong and something might be against the law, but just because something is wrong doesn't make it against the law, and just because something is against the law doesn't make it wrong.

I'm going to stop there because the relationship between illegality and immorality is not a new one. There are a plenty of WWW resources that discuss it quite effectively and comprehensively. Here is one writer's thinking on the matter: http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/moralityandlaw.htm .

If you read it in a sober state, I think you'll find that the "it's wrong" tack and the "it's illegal" tack cannot be aligned well with regard to making/buying fake watches. Why not? Because unlike illegal acts like murder or grand theft, and so on, the corporations whose rights and privileges are infringed upon by the production and sale of fake watches don't, as would be so for murder or grand theft, uniformly and consistently even bother to press charges against the perpetrators.

Conclusion:
So getting back to your first question, the point is that all the griping about folks wearing/buying fake watches is baseless and nothing more that people complaining because they sought to buy "something" (other than just a watch) and they paid "whatever" to do so; however, there are people running around who seemingly -- to strangers at least -- get that very same "something" even though they paid far, far less. The point is that if anyone should complain about fake watches it should be folks who are members of three groups:

• Owners of the trademarks that have been usurped.
• Owners of fakes who were duped into buying fakes.
• Owners of fakes who knowingly bought fakes and who have found the performance of the fake watch does not meet their expectations.

Everyone else really doesn't have anything to complain about. Accordingly, it doesn't matter that someone other than they wear/own/buy a fake watch.


All the best.

Regarding the well-off individual who buys a fake Patek, your right (I didn't word that the best, damn vodka) he would not be using a watch to project a false image of wealth, because he is wealthy. By wearing a fake piece, this person specifically wants people to know they have bank, because that is seemingly the only reason he got the fake. It's certainly not for any pure love of the model or company. For whatever reason, this person did not think it was worth it to spend the money on a real product. In a market where all things are equal, this person obviously has no interest in the true values of an expensive watch. But boy it's a great way to show off so i'll get a fake.

My next error...the word "wrong" was, uh, wrong. Well I still think it is wrong in general, but illegal is certainly the more appropriate word. I'm not saying i'm some angel over here, but this stuff does tremendous damage to the legitimate companies. I just think counterfeit/fake products is a scummy business to get in to. Again i'm not loosing sleep over this part, but when we take the overall conclusions of a question like what this thread poses, it's a valid point to be grouped in with the other reasons why I think buying in to fake products is based on fundamentally negative reasoning's and characteristics, including personality traits.

I appreciate your detailed responses, you definitely have a passion for this stuff. Even if you happen to have a fake or 2. That's another complicated question: the people who have real's and fakes, assuming the real versions of the fakes are of similar value to the others. Not even going there.

[Blksnowflake]

Fakes watches are stupid and it has nothing to do with a need to feel status or superior. For some yes, they buy a Rolex just because it's a Rolex.
I've had nice watches since I was in my twenties and even interviewed for the Hayek Watchmaking school in Florida, but made a decision on another career because of my age. Having an appreciation for the quality, craftsmanship and beauty as well as the love and passion for horology cannot be satisfied by a fake counterfeit item. I feel it's deceptive and would feel like a fake and shallow person myself.

If I couldn't buy the real authentic item, I'd settle for something real of less value, Tag and Tissot make excellent watches and the used market has great Omegas and Breitlings for great discounts. The process of saving and or working hard and finding the right deal make the acquisition so much more pleasurable and enjoyable.

Would you drive around in a Fiero with and F40 kit or a 335i with a bunch of M3 badges on it. Would you slap fake vents on the side of your fenders and throw AMG C63s badges and a body kit on your 2009 C300. I guess if you could live with that then ok, I couldn't.

At the end of the day it's a luxury item that's not essential in daily living but for someone who has an appreciation and a love for something like the mechanical and analog character of swiss watches the process of a person working hard and saving and finally buying something you worked so hard for makes the enjoyment and purchase so rewarding. I know almost everything about the watches I own, I love Rolex for it's history and heritage as well as Omega and Panerai although I don't own all those models, it's just interesting to read about the development and challenge of making watches accurate, durable and waterproof/water-resistant.
The engineering is intriguing and very scientific and pretty incredible. I love to see vintage watches, they tell a story and have a history, "it belonged to my father or grandfather".... and here it is today still ticking, long after it's owner has passed on.

You can't recreate this with a fake. I don't judge or think harshly of anyone with a fake unless there sole purpose is to be promote something falsely. I've had friends who bought fakes and they were up front from the beginning....I just said, well if you like that one, you would really love the real thing because it's much better. Is it $10k better...maybe, maybe not....but is an M3 $30-40k better than a 335is, or a GT3 $70k better than a 911...for many and every single owner of the higher end product it is.

Of course I didn't even talk about precious metals, but a solid gold watch is just gorgeous and platinum feels amazing on the wrist....those too have a price justification, but it's an individual appreciation.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by RedlinePSI

Regarding the well-off individual who buys a fake Patek, your right (I didn't word that the best, damn vodka) he would not be using a watch to project a false image of wealth, because he is wealthy. By wearing a fake piece, this person specifically wants people to know they have bank, because that is seemingly the only reason he got the fake. It's certainly not for any pure love of the model or company. For whatever reason, this person did not think it was worth it to spend the money on a real product. In a market where all things are equal, this person obviously has no interest in the true values of an expensive watch. But boy it's a great way to show off so i'll get a fake.

Wow! That's quite an assumption to make in the abstract about total strangers. I can't say that no ~$300K/year earning person does not have the motivation you cite -- largely just to show off -- but to me it seems like a strange desire to satisfy using a watch, fake or not. I think that not only because most folks don't seem to notice watches much in the first place (unless they are somewhat "into" watches), but also because aside from a few very well known makes, most folks aren't even aware of the existence of sub-60K/year-production-volume watch companies such as PP, ALS, JLC, etc. (I don't tend to notice other folks' watches, but I know that most horological enthusiasts do.)

If one wants to make a gratuitous public display of one's socioeconomic position and/or something of that nature, one at least needs to do so using objects that others will recognize. Otherwise, one's peacockery is ineffectual.

For example, I tend to fairly often wear Loro Piana garments: sweaters, scarves, slacks, shirts, sport jackets, and/or outerwear. I think few people recognize Loro Piana garments, even their arguably best known garment, the Horsey Coat, but all of them are expensive. Loro Piana's garments -- at least the ones I wear -- are just no good for showing off. After all, if someone walked by you wearing the coat shown below, assuming you actually noticed the jacket to begin with, would it be apparent that they might be wearing a $2K - $7K jacket (depending on whether it's synthetic or cashmere)? But for my buying Loro Piana garments, it wouldn't be apparent to me. Even when I attend events with very well off folks, although I'm aware that they are all probably wearing/carrying very nice "stuff," I wouldn't presume they are wearing stuff that expensive, yet they may very well be.



I think fake Patek or real Patek watches, along with a great many other makes and apes of high end watches, are much the same largely because so few folks would recognize them to begin with, much less actually see clearly the name on the dial. I think watchies might notice a PP or other fancy watch, but people who are "into" watches comprise a very small segment of the population. But I suspect that most folks upon seeing a PP or VC or something of that ilk will determine whether they think it looks nice and not and that's about it. I don't think they'll see it as a "show off" sort of thing.

Originally Posted by RedlinePSI

My next error...the word "wrong" was, uh, wrong. Well I still think it is wrong in general, but illegal is certainly the more appropriate word.

I'm not saying i'm some angel over here, but [fake goods do] tremendous damage to the legitimate [owners of trademarks]. I just think counterfeit/fake products is a scummy business to get in to. Again i'm not loosing sleep over this part, but when we take the overall conclusions of a question like what this thread poses, it's a valid point to be grouped in with the other reasons why I think buying in to fake products is based on fundamentally negative reasoning's and characteristics, including personality traits.

....

Red:
Fair enough.

Blue:
I tweaked your wording above. If my tweaking misses the mark, read no further.

The law is what it is as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court (http://www.sughrue.com/files/Publica...tradedress.htm). Given how the Court upheld the interpretation/definition of "trade dress" as stipulated in the Lanham Act, companies like Nike, Audemars Piguet, Rolex spend handsome sums (as absolute amounts, not as percentages of their profits or revenue) to defend their intellectual property rights. So to the extent that the sums spent be deemed as harmful, even tremendously so, you are correct.

Now here's the thing. As much as I am keen to be a voice defending the rights and privileges of both companies and individuals, I'm rarely if ever willing to be such a voice of support for people or entities that don't defend themselves against a given "wrong."

To understand what this means re: trade dress matters, specifically fake watches, take a look at the types of trade dress suits companies like Nike, Audemars Piguet and Rolex bring. They don't seem to often if at all bring suit against the companies and/or individuals who make fakes, products that blatantly and literally display the well recognized symbols associated with their owners -- the Nike "swoosh," the Rolex name and crown, the AP name, and so on. No. They bring suit against other large companies that make stuff that vaguely resembles a product or theme initially established by the likes of Nike, AP, et al.

[If you don't want to read what follows, all of which is just info that supports my conclusion, you may want to skip directly to the Conclusion section. There's a reasonable chance you can correctly infer what I've provided below from the statements in my conclusion.]

Some folks may not understand what I mean, so I'll share some examples.

• Nike sued Already, LLC over the following shoe. (http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/11/ar...-mean-no-suit/)
  
  
  
  Now you tell me, does that shoe (accused shoe) look like a Nike shoe so much that there appears to have been just cause for Nike to sue Already, LLC? Not one thing about the way that shoe looks screams "Nike" to me.
  
  As it turns out, Nike withdrew its claim, but the cost of defending (or preparing to defend) against Nike's claim had been incurred by Already, and Nike spent money to bring the suit. Make no mistake, we're not talking small sums; the case had to go to the Supreme Court before Nike withdrew. (http://www.duetsblog.com/2013/01/art...k-enforcement/) I don't care Already caused the case to make it that far. The case should never have been brought.
  
  Case related sidebar:
  Already, LLC asserted that Nike used its size/wealth to bully them. The Court didn't accept that argument. Legally, I get why the Court didn't accept the "bullying" argument when it allowed Nike to withdraw its claim, but morally/ethically, I think Nike most definitely bullied (tried to) Already. The Court seems to have recognized substantively the same thing. (http://blog.pattishall.com/2013/01/1...-at-what-cost/)
  
  Apple sued Samsung largely over the shape of the corners and the flatness of the screen on a Samsumg phone being similar to those elements on Apple's iPhone 3 and 3GS. Really? Apple won in part, but who won isn't point of why I mention it here. The point is that Apple brought suit over something that isn't at all an instance of a company literally using Apple's brand, yet there are literally hundreds of thousands of fake iPhones floating around, counterfeit iPhones that have the Apple logo on them, plain as day.
• Rolex: I couldn't find too many trade dress suits Rolex brought (I'm not an attorney; I may not be looking in the right places or the right way**), but I this one: http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/p.../rolex1030.pdf . In that case, Rolex sued two people who live here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/19...2dcc81!6m1!1e1) in Nevada.
  
  I also found Rolex v. Melrose, although I have yet to find the specific details of the infringement. (https://www.internetretailer.com/201...olex-trademark) What I know, however, is that Rolex basically put a $10 million dollar company out of business by winning an $8.5 million dollar judgement (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/krisha...104400336.html). Now the thing is that Rolex
  
  I'm not arguing that Rolex wasn't entitled to win, and it appears that unlike the Nike, Apple, and AP lawsuits I have mentioned in this thread, Rolex seems to actively go after at least some makers of counterfeit Rolexes. (I'm giving the benefit of the doubt on that because as I wrote, I don't know what the watch in question looks like. Given the nature of the Nike and Apple suits above, maybe I shouldn't be so generous???)
  
  I came across other instances where Rolex has seemingly sought to protect, against other small defendants, its trademarks. One such case being Rolex v. Canner (http://www.leagle.com/decision/19861...%20v.%20CANNER).
  
  I don't know about you, but it seems that Rolex, like Nike has little to no reservation using its "bully power." I'm not suggesting that Rolex haven't the legal right to pursue the claims noted above. They do for the law is what is. That said, Rolex also sued a deli, a friggin' deli in Brooklyn, NY, over trademark infringement. (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1330919)
  
  
  
  A deli? Really? Have you ever thought Rolex makes sandwiches? Would you think they might? Heck, even if the deli's name were spelled exactly as is Rolex, I still wouldn't think the Rolex watchmaking company had a damn thing to do with the corned beef sandwiches that deli sells. Would anyone? How did Rolex even discover that deli exists? Might one of their U.S. attorneys live or visit the neighborhood and have thus thought s/he saw opportunity knocking?

Conclusion:

Okay, so I've now shown that companies like Rolex and Nike will construe just about anything they want to as a harmful infringement on their intellectual property (IP) rights. My gripe with so many of the big watch companies is that they don't seem to sue the primary makers of the majority of the fakes in the marketplace: Chinese counterfeiters. They clearly can and have the right and grounds to do so, but insofar as the quantity of fakes seems to increase each year, it's very, very hard to imagine that they actually do. What these big watch companies do instead is sue where there's a lot of money to be made from the suit rather than sue entities so as to put a meaningful dent in the quantity of fakes that are available to consumers.


I don't know about you, but if I wanted to protect my IP rights, if I truly felt that the mere existence of counterfeits is indeed harmful to me and my actual or potential customers, I would pursue getting rid of the bulk of the offending products, and stopping the dissemination of the lion's share of them into the marketplace would be the thing to do. I would do that by going after the people/entities that produce that lion's share of fakes. I would do that long before I bother suing Tommy Hilfiger (TH) or Swiss Watch International (SWI) for producing watches that don't use my company name on their dials, no matter how much their wares ostensibly resemble mine.


That those companies do sue SWI and TH first suggests to me that protecting their IP rights and stopping the "tremendous harm" of IP right infringement isn't at all what these companies are trying to do. It seems clear to me that all they are trying to do is find additional ways to make huge amounts of money. Given that's what it looks like to me, I'm quite simply not willing to defend their rights in this forum. So, from the legal POV, that's why I say fakes still don't matter.


All the best.


**Note:
That I couldn't readily find the details of some cases is part and parcel of one thing that's wrong with the legal system. It's just too damn hard for non-lawyers to access "stuff."


For reference sake, here are the TH and SWI watches over which AP sought trade dress judgements/recourse.





Thirty feet away, yes the TH looks like an RO. Six feet distant or closer, not at all. At least not to me. And what is the dead giveaway that it's not? The red, white and blue flag just below 12 o'clock. And it seems to me that anyone who knows of AP will know that flag isn't their symbol. And for nyone who doesn't know of AP, it won't matter anyway whether the watch does or doesn't look like an AP of some sort.



Here are some Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Replicas:





Here are some authentic Royal Oak Chronographs











Here are some Royal Oak Offshore models that are closer to the TH watch than is the ROC.

[Vanmarsenille]

Originally Posted by tony20009

Wow! That's quite an assumption to make in the abstract about total strangers. I can't say that no ~$300K/year earning person does not have the motivation you cite -- largely just to show off -- but to me it seems like a strange desire to satisfy using a watch, fake or not. I think that not only because most folks don't seem to notice watches much in the first place (unless they are somewhat "into" watches), but also because aside from a few very well known makes, most folks aren't even aware of the existence of sub-60K/year-production-volume watch companies such as PP, ALS, JLC, etc. (I don't tend to notice other folks' watches, but I know that most horological enthusiasts do.)

If one wants to make a gratuitous public display of one's socioeconomic position and/or something of that nature, one at least needs to do so using objects that others will recognize. Otherwise, one's peacockery is ineffectual.

For example, I tend to fairly often wear Loro Piana garments: sweaters, scarves, slacks, shirts, sport jackets, and/or outerwear. I think few people recognize Loro Piana garments, even their arguably best known garment, the Horsey Coat, but all of them are expensive. Loro Piana's garments -- at least the ones I wear -- are just no good for showing off. After all, if someone walked by you wearing the coat shown below, assuming you actually noticed the jacket to begin with, would it be apparent that they might be wearing a $2K - $7K jacket (depending on whether it's synthetic or cashmere)? But for my buying Loro Piana garments, it wouldn't be apparent to me. Even when I attend events with very well off folks, although I'm aware that they are all probably wearing/carrying very nice "stuff," I wouldn't presume they are wearing stuff that expensive, yet they may very well be.



I think fake Patek or real Patek watches, along with a great many other makes and apes of high end watches, are much the same largely because so few folks would recognize them to begin with, much less actually see clearly the name on the dial. I think watchies might notice a PP or other fancy watch, but people who are "into" watches comprise a very small segment of the population. But I suspect that most folks upon seeing a PP or VC or something of that ilk will determine whether they think it looks nice and not and that's about it. I don't think they'll see it as a "show off" sort of thing.



Red:
Fair enough.

Blue:
I tweaked your wording above. If my tweaking misses the mark, read no further.

The law is what it is as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court (http://www.sughrue.com/files/Publica...tradedress.htm). Given how the Court upheld the interpretation/definition of "trade dress" as stipulated in the Lanham Act, companies like Nike, Audemars Piguet, Rolex spend handsome sums (as absolute amounts, not as percentages of their profits or revenue) to defend their intellectual property rights. So to the extent that the sums spent be deemed as harmful, even tremendously so, you are correct.

Now here's the thing. As much as I am keen to be a voice defending the rights and privileges of both companies and individuals, I'm rarely if ever willing to be such a voice of support for people or entities that don't defend themselves against a given "wrong."

To understand what this means re: trade dress matters, specifically fake watches, take a look at the types of trade dress suits companies like Nike, Audemars Piguet and Rolex bring. They don't seem to often if at all bring suit against the companies and/or individuals who make fakes, products that blatantly and literally display the well recognized symbols associated with their owners -- the Nike "swoosh," the Rolex name and crown, the AP name, and so on. No. They bring suit against other large companies that make stuff that vaguely resembles a product or theme initially established by the likes of Nike, AP, et al.

[If you don't want to read what follows, all of which is just info that supports my conclusion, you may want to skip directly to the Conclusion section. There's a reasonable chance you can correctly infer what I've provided below from the statements in my conclusion.]

Some folks may not understand what I mean, so I'll share some examples.

• Nike sued Already, LLC over the following shoe. (http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/11/ar...-mean-no-suit/)
  
  
  
  Now you tell me, does that shoe (accused shoe) look like a Nike shoe so much that there appears to have been just cause for Nike to sue Already, LLC? Not one thing about the way that shoe looks screams "Nike" to me.
  
  As it turns out, Nike withdrew its claim, but the cost of defending (or preparing to defend) against Nike's claim had been incurred by Already, and Nike spent money to bring the suit. Make no mistake, we're not talking small sums; the case had to go to the Supreme Court before Nike withdrew. (http://www.duetsblog.com/2013/01/art...k-enforcement/) I don't care Already caused the case to make it that far. The case should never have been brought.
  
  Case related sidebar:
  Already, LLC asserted that Nike used its size/wealth to bully them. The Court didn't accept that argument. Legally, I get why the Court didn't accept the "bullying" argument when it allowed Nike to withdraw its claim, but morally/ethically, I think Nike most definitely bullied (tried to) Already. The Court seems to have recognized substantively the same thing. (http://blog.pattishall.com/2013/01/1...-at-what-cost/)
  
  Apple sued Samsung largely over the shape of the corners and the flatness of the screen on a Samsumg phone being similar to those elements on Apple's iPhone 3 and 3GS. Really? Apple won in part, but who won isn't point of why I mention it here. The point is that Apple brought suit over something that isn't at all an instance of a company literally using Apple's brand, yet there are literally hundreds of thousands of fake iPhones floating around, counterfeit iPhones that have the Apple logo on them, plain as day.
• Rolex: I couldn't find too many trade dress suits Rolex brought (I'm not an attorney; I may not be looking in the right places or the right way**), but I this one: http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/p.../rolex1030.pdf . In that case, Rolex sued two people who live here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/19...2dcc81!6m1!1e1) in Nevada.
  
  I also found Rolex v. Melrose, although I have yet to find the specific details of the infringement. (https://www.internetretailer.com/201...olex-trademark) What I know, however, is that Rolex basically put a $10 million dollar company out of business by winning an $8.5 million dollar judgement (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/krisha...104400336.html). Now the thing is that Rolex
  
  I'm not arguing that Rolex wasn't entitled to win, and it appears that unlike the Nike, Apple, and AP lawsuits I have mentioned in this thread, Rolex seems to actively go after at least some makers of counterfeit Rolexes. (I'm giving the benefit of the doubt on that because as I wrote, I don't know what the watch in question looks like. Given the nature of the Nike and Apple suits above, maybe I shouldn't be so generous???)
  
  I came across other instances where Rolex has seemingly sought to protect, against other small defendants, its trademarks. One such case being Rolex v. Canner (http://www.leagle.com/decision/19861...%20v.%20CANNER).
  
  I don't know about you, but it seems that Rolex, like Nike has little to no reservation using its "bully power." I'm not suggesting that Rolex haven't the legal right to pursue the claims noted above. They do for the law is what is. That said, Rolex also sued a deli, a friggin' deli in Brooklyn, NY, over trademark infringement. (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1330919)
  
  
  
  A deli? Really? Have you ever thought Rolex makes sandwiches? Would you think they might? Heck, even if the deli's name were spelled exactly as is Rolex, I still wouldn't think the Rolex watchmaking company had a damn thing to do with the corned beef sandwiches that deli sells. Would anyone? How did Rolex even discover that deli exists? Might one of their U.S. attorneys live or visit the neighborhood and have thus thought s/he saw opportunity knocking?

Conclusion:

Okay, so I've now shown that companies like Rolex and Nike will construe just about anything they want to as a harmful infringement on their intellectual property (IP) rights. My gripe with so many of the big watch companies is that they don't seem to sue the primary makers of the majority of the fakes in the marketplace: Chinese counterfeiters. They clearly can and have the right and grounds to do so, but insofar as the quantity of fakes seems to increase each year, it's very, very hard to imagine that they actually do. What these big watch companies do instead is sue where there's a lot of money to be made from the suit rather than sue entities so as to put a meaningful dent in the quantity of fakes that are available to consumers.


I don't know about you, but if I wanted to protect my IP rights, if I truly felt that the mere existence of counterfeits is indeed harmful to me and my actual or potential customers, I would pursue getting rid of the bulk of the offending products, and stopping the dissemination of the lion's share of them into the marketplace would be the thing to do. I would do that by going after the people/entities that produce that lion's share of fakes. I would do that long before I bother suing Tommy Hilfiger (TH) or Swiss Watch International (SWI) for producing watches that don't use my company name on their dials, no matter how much their wares ostensibly resemble mine.


That those companies do sue SWI and TH first suggests to me that protecting their IP rights and stopping the "tremendous harm" of IP right infringement isn't at all what these companies are trying to do. It seems clear to me that all they are trying to do is find additional ways to make huge amounts of money. Given that's what it looks like to me, I'm quite simply not willing to defend their rights in this forum. So, from the legal POV, that's why I say fakes still don't matter.


All the best.


**Note:
That I couldn't readily find the details of some cases is part and parcel of one thing that's wrong with the legal system. It's just too damn hard for non-lawyers to access "stuff."


For reference sake, here are the TH and SWI watches over which AP sought trade dress judgements/recourse.





Thirty feet away, yes the TH looks like an RO. Six feet distant or closer, not at all. At least not to me. And what is the dead giveaway that it's not? The red, white and blue flag just below 12 o'clock. And it seems to me that anyone who knows of AP will know that flag isn't their symbol. And for nyone who doesn't know of AP, it won't matter anyway whether the watch does or doesn't look like an AP of some sort.



Here are some Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Replicas:





Here are some authentic Royal Oak Chronographs











Here are some Royal Oak Offshore models that are closer to the TH watch than is the ROC.

Yawn.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by Vanmarsenille

Yawn.

Telling me that is somehow self aggrandizing for you? I don't know why I need to know that my post bored you. If you didn't read it, or if you began to read it and got bored, okay, I can understand how that can happen. Stop reading.

All the best.

[Blksnowflake]

Originally Posted by tony20009

Wow! .....(Lord of The Rings novel)

Not for nothing but do you really expect someone to read all that, goodness gracious bro. Thought I was long winded, great effort though explaining whatever all that said. I take these forums way to lightly to devout so much brain power to posts that long.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by Blksnowflake

Not for nothing but do you really expect someone to read all that, goodness gracious bro. Thought I was long winded, great effort though explaining whatever all that said. I take these forums way to lightly to devout so much brain power to posts that long.

I expect that people who want to will read it and I expect that folks who don't want to will politely move on to another post. That's about the beginning and end of my expectations. I don't think my posts are "required reading" or something of that sort.

All the best.

[RedlinePSI]

Originally Posted by tony20009

I think fake Patek or real Patek watches, along with a great many other makes and apes of high end watches, are much the same largely because so few folks would recognize them to begin with, much less actually see clearly the name on the dial. I think watchies might notice a PP or other fancy watch, but people who are "into" watches comprise a very small segment of the population. But I suspect that most folks upon seeing a PP or VC or something of that ilk will determine whether they think it looks nice and not and that's about it. I don't think they'll see it as a "show off" sort of thing.

In general, yes a watch is not the largest flag one could raise to the general public, but I actually think a nice watch stands out a bit more more than most of us tend to think. Yes it might be because I am in to watches that I notice them, but i've seen plenty of other people take notice and lock in on one before. Also you have to consider in the hypothetical we used, what type of people do you think that person is spending time with? Probably rooms of people with money, with likely nice watches on their arms, among other expensive accessories and clothing. Let's face it, in work or social situations where you rest your arms on a table, that timepiece is a pretty noticeable item. Unless it's a very famous design like the standard Rolex dial, you might not know the particular make from afar, but it's not hard to see a nice alligator strap and a thick polished case as some signs that this is probably not from Target. So I maintain my point, I think there is certainly a justifiable reason why a wealthy person would use a watch to project status.


Regarding some of the litigation here, with respect to the Nike example. The actual majority basis for that was the other company trying to claim that Nike trademark should be revoked. The actual trademark was concerning things like the overall design shape, and were exactly things are placed in respect to other features. And that company actually had two (not sure if it was current or former) Nike designers creating that shoe. Nike decided not to pursue the case after it determined that it was not cost efficient to do so, previously determining that the threat from this infringement was minimal. Is the behind closed doors truth different from that? Possibly. Maybe there was some form of "punishment" in the form of this case on their minds. But the bottom line is that they had every right to do so, as the supposed copied product met enough criteria to bring the case. I guess my point from here is that a company like Nike or Rolex has every right to defend its patents and trademarks. Even if they decide to only hit the other company in the pocket with a suit they don't intend on seeing through to the end. They should be aware of these possibilities before making knock off goods. If it was my company having it's designs ripped off, I certainly would not be "above" taking measures like this. Business is war. Knocking off a trademarked item is just opening yourself up for a huge blow.

The deli example is pretty funny, but honestly as crazy as it sounds, I understand it. Rolex is a name that they have built up to mean something. I would not want it being thrown around for use on every street corner by people trying to profit from the name you built. In that case, the guy admitted he named it after the watch company. If you paid to protect the name, then enforce it if you wish!

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by RedlinePSI

In general, yes a watch is not the largest flag one could raise to the general public, but I actually think a nice watch stands out a bit more more than most of us tend to think. Yes it might be because I am in to watches that I notice them, but i've seen plenty of other people take notice and lock in on one before. Also you have to consider in the hypothetical we used, what type of people do you think that person is spending time with? Probably rooms of people with money, with likely nice watches on their arms, among other expensive accessories and clothing. Let's face it, in work or social situations where you rest your arms on a table, that timepiece is a pretty noticeable item. Unless it's a very famous design like the standard Rolex dial, you might not know the particular make from afar, but it's not hard to see a nice alligator strap and a thick polished case as some signs that this is probably not from Target. So I maintain my point, I think there is certainly a justifiable reason why a wealthy person would use a watch to project status.


Regarding some of the litigation here, with respect to the Nike example. The actual majority basis for that was the other company trying to claim that Nike trademark should be revoked. The actual trademark was concerning things like the overall design shape, and were exactly things are placed in respect to other features. And that company actually had two (not sure if it was current or former) Nike designers creating that shoe.

Nike decided not to pursue the case after it determined that it was not cost efficient to do so, previously determining that the threat from this infringement was minimal. Is the behind closed doors truth different from that? Possibly. Maybe there was some form of "punishment" in the form of this case on their minds. But the bottom line is that they had every right to do so, as the supposed copied product met enough criteria to bring the case.

I guess my point from here is that a company like Nike or Rolex has every right to defend its patents and trademarks. Even if they decide to only hit the other company in the pocket with a suit they don't intend on seeing through to the end. They should be aware of these possibilities before making knock off goods. If it was my company having it's designs ripped off, I certainly would not be "above" taking measures like this. Business is war. Knocking off a trademarked item is just opening yourself up for a huge blow.

The deli example is pretty funny, but honestly as crazy as it sounds, I understand it. Rolex is a name that they have built up to mean something. I would not want it being thrown around for use on every street corner by people trying to profit from the name you built. In that case, the guy admitted he named it after the watch company. If you paid to protect the name, then enforce it if you wish!

Let me start by saying that even though you and I differ on the two central points, I think your points/observations are both plausible and/or equitable, even though I don't concur with the conclusions you've drawn.

Red:
Yes, circumstances and situational differences can have an impact. I can only speak to my own sense of "how things go" based on the "world" in which I live. The vast majority of folks in my life are very, very well off people. To that end, none of them will be impressed by a watch, even though plenty of them may see one and think, or on rare occasion say, it's nice. They'll think that regardless of what they think it cost, mainly because they don't care what it costs; they can afford to buy it if they want on just like it. (availability would be their only issue)

Of course, I have "not-very-very-well-off" friends too, but as I've been to visit them or traveled with them, those friends have been to my homes, traveled with me, are friends with my other close friends and been to their homes too, and whatnot, I seriously doubt the watches they see me and our other friends wearing are going to register as "show off" items.

As for how strangers perceive me or my other watchie friends, I can't say. Perhaps some of them think we're showing off? I don't know, but I would hope they don't. I can say that in the main I don't think at all about strangers, but if I see a person -- known to me or not -- behaving in a "showy" way, sure, I'll think they are showing off. A "showy" way might be something like gesturing so as to make their watch apparent to people around them.

Overall, however, I prefer to maintain a state of indifference with regard to most people and their personal effects and I prefer to think that folks regard me with the same indifference. Given my preference, it takes a lot for me to attest to what other folks' motivations are when they do whatever they are doing.

Lastly, it find it curious that there are multiple reasons why consumers buy fakes, yet by and large the one on which most folks here have focused is the "wannabe" reason.

• Why is it that that one motivation is so "important" to the folks in this discussion?
• Why is another individual's quest for "whatever" so disturbing to other individuals' seemingly having something one doesn't and that perhaps one could not have, particularly if the seemingly "privileged" person has little to know bearing on one's own life?
• Is it really that difficult to just ignore folks who seem to have the means to buy stuff one may not be able to buy? I know for my own part, as I go about my day, I have very little trouble ignoring "whole people" (beyond going so far as to hold a door, let someone pass in front of me, or something of that nature), to say nothing of the stuff they wear or use.

Perhaps I'm the odd man out here, but it seems to me that were I to gripe about someone else's use of a fake "whatever" is more telling about me than it is about them. Whereas that person is not around to "defend" themselves, I've clearly implied that I'm envious of their seemingly greater ability to obtain fancy personal effects. I mean really, we're taking about personal effects, aren't we? What does a personal effect need to do but look nice (to its owner at least) and perform whatever task its owner expects it to perform?

Blue:
Interestingly enough, from what I've observed, it seems that thick watches are more likely what one will find at Target than at, say the PP or other high end watch boutique. That's not to say that there are no thick watches in those fancy shops, but in the main, short of selected divers, thick watches (that is, ones that sit tall on one's wrist) tend to cost less, not more. That's even more the case with dress and "dress flexible" watches. The exception is highly complicated watches like PP's Sky Moon Tourbillon. "Shiny" comes in all price ranges.

FWIW, realize that terms like "thick" aren't precisely defined. I use the following guidelines, but the design of a wach's caseback can cause some "thicker" watches to look/wear thinner or thicker.

• Thin & ultra thin --> 7mm thick or less
• Average --> 7mm - 12mm
• Thick --> Greater than 12mm

Green:
There's no two ways about it. They do. If the folks griping about and decrying the existence/use of fake watches are watch company employees, then fine, I suppose they do have a direct stake in the matter and the legal angle would/should matter to them.

Were I a watch company exec, I'd defend my rights when I see the need to do so and not when it's not cost effective to do so. I'd be no different than are the actual watch company execs.

I am a senior executive and my consulting firm has plenty of IP to protect, and that IP is very literally intellectual. What that means is when employees leave the firm, any IP they are personally aware of is going to go with them. We have signed non-disclosure and non-compete agreements with selected employees, but to my knowledge we've never taken a former employee to task over their using methods, approaches, designs, etc. that they used or were party to on our engagements.

That's all beside the point, because the question of this thread and the substance we're discussing isn't with regard to IP owner's position, but rather re: what matters as we consider ourselves and other individuals. Within that context, there simply is no legal constraint. The discussion at hand isn't about a company's rights and discretion re: defending it's IP. Moreover, companies don't need you or I to defend their IP or their right to do so themselves.

Given the context of this thread's OP/title question, while I give all due credence to the legal rights of IP owners, I see no context for the legal position as go my or others' views about another individual's wearing/buying a fake watch. I see the legal angle as being no more relevant that would be the legal angle for arguing that one should despise and decry another driver on the highway who exceeds the speed limit, provided their doing so doesn't result in one's being in an accident or suffering non-accident damage to oneself, one's passengers or one's car.

Purple:
Knock offs are a totally different matter. They are certainly relevant to the Nike and AP cases I cited. I don't think they are for the Rolex one. I introduced the AP case because the item for which IP recourse was sought by AP was a knockoff not a counterfeit.

And that's the thing...if the counterfeits were so troubling -- economically and intangibly as with brand reputation -- one'd think companies like Rolex and AP would go after the counterfeiters. Since they don't, it stands to reason that the watch company managers feel, as you stated the Nike's managers felt -- that it's not economically worth doing so. Assuming the company managers don't think it's economically worth suing counterfeiters, how credible are claims about how financially detrimental to the industry be fake watches?

Moreover, if the company execs don't care enough about the financial impact of the fakes to take action to stop it, why should you or I? Even in the Rolex examples I presented, one sees that Rolex went after not the Chinese counterfeiters who are purported to be the primary source/cause of fake Rolexes being in the marketplace, but rather, Rolex went after what amount to "mom and pop" businesses that sell, not make, fake watches. I'm not so naive that I believe that a maker of fakes, upon losing one seller, cannot find another one to replace it.

Pink:
They do have that right. I'm suggesting even that they don't. Although the store owner may have felt that mimicking in a way Rolex's name might help his business, it's still very hard to see what actual harm his sandwich shop could or did do to Rolex's fortunes or reputation. I think that way because I find it preposterous to associate a deli with a name that sounds like "Rolex" with Rolex, SA.

I suspect too that Rolex feels it's protecting its name, a name that is entirely a "made up" name, from becoming part of the vernacular in some way. I'm sure Rolex managers are well aware that for a time Xerox became so synonymous with "copy/copying" that people would say things like "I'll make a xerox or of it," or "xerox that for me, please," even when the copying machine being used was not a Xerox machine. I can't see how a small deli in Brooklyn could effect a similar outcome for Rolex. But who knows...perhaps that deli will grown to become the next Wendy's or Burger King (in scale) at which point consumers might think they can stop in at the next one on the highway and grab a Rolex watch and a sandwich right after they pee?

Lastly, though the law does allow one to use one's size and wealth to "bully" competitors with trade dress infringement claims, I think doing so, or appearing to do so, especially "bullying" little outfits like that deli or the couple in Nevada, is ethically wrong. What can I do given my ethical dissatisfaction? With Rolex, I can very easily never buy Rolex/Tudor products. Even though I like Rolex and Tudor watches, my life is not going to be worse off if I buy no more of them. I don't know whether I could do that re: Nike, but perhaps Nike doesn't own so much of the shoe/clothing market that I could.

All the best.

[RedlinePSI]

Originally Posted by tony20009

Let me start by saying that even though you and I differ on the two central points, I think your points/observations are both plausible and/or equitable, even though I don't concur with the conclusions you've drawn.

Red:
Yes, circumstances and situational differences can have an impact. I can only speak to my own sense of "how things go" based on the "world" in which I live. The vast majority of folks in my life are very, very well off people. To that end, none of them will be impressed by a watch, even though plenty of them may see one and think, or on rare occasion say, it's nice. They'll think that regardless of what they think it cost, mainly because they don't care what it costs; they can afford to buy it if they want on just like it. (availability would be their only issue)

Of course, I have "not-very-very-well-off" friends too, but as I've been to visit them or traveled with them, those friends have been to my homes, traveled with me, are friends with my other close friends and been to their homes too, and whatnot, I seriously doubt the watches they see me and our other friends wearing are going to register as "show off" items.

As for how strangers perceive me or my other watchie friends, I can't say. Perhaps some of them think we're showing off? I don't know, but I would hope they don't. I can say that in the main I don't think at all about strangers, but if I see a person -- known to me or not -- behaving in a "showy" way, sure, I'll think they are showing off. A "showy" way might be something like gesturing so as to make their watch apparent to people around them.

Overall, however, I prefer to maintain a state of indifference with regard to most people and their personal effects and I prefer to think that folks regard me with the same indifference. Given my preference, it takes a lot for me to attest to what other folks' motivations are when they do whatever they are doing.

Lastly, it find it curious that there are multiple reasons why consumers buy fakes, yet by and large the one on which most folks here have focused is the "wannabe" reason.

• Why is it that that one motivation is so "important" to the folks in this discussion?
• Why is another individual's quest for "whatever" so disturbing to other individuals' seemingly having something one doesn't and that perhaps one could not have, particularly if the seemingly "privileged" person has little to know bearing on one's own life?
• Is it really that difficult to just ignore folks who seem to have the means to buy stuff one may not be able to buy? I know for my own part, as I go about my day, I have very little trouble ignoring "whole people" (beyond going so far as to hold a door, let someone pass in front of me, or something of that nature), to say nothing of the stuff they wear or use.

Perhaps I'm the odd man out here, but it seems to me that were I to gripe about someone else's use of a fake "whatever" is more telling about me than it is about them. Whereas that person is not around to "defend" themselves, I've clearly implied that I'm envious of their seemingly greater ability to obtain fancy personal effects. I mean really, we're taking about personal effects, aren't we? What does a personal effect need to do but look nice (to its owner at least) and perform whatever task its owner expects it to perform?

Blue:
Interestingly enough, from what I've observed, it seems that thick watches are more likely what one will find at Target than at, say the PP or other high end watch boutique. That's not to say that there are no thick watches in those fancy shops, but in the main, short of selected divers, thick watches (that is, ones that sit tall on one's wrist) tend to cost less, not more. That's even more the case with dress and "dress flexible" watches. The exception is highly complicated watches like PP's Sky Moon Tourbillon. "Shiny" comes in all price ranges.

FWIW, realize that terms like "thick" aren't precisely defined. I use the following guidelines, but the design of a wach's caseback can cause some "thicker" watches to look/wear thinner or thicker.

• Thin & ultra thin --> 7mm thick or less
• Average --> 7mm - 12mm
• Thick --> Greater than 12mm

Green:
There's no two ways about it. They do. If the folks griping about and decrying the existence/use of fake watches are watch company employees, then fine, I suppose they do have a direct stake in the matter and the legal angle would/should matter to them.

Were I a watch company exec, I'd defend my rights when I see the need to do so and not when it's not cost effective to do so. I'd be no different than are the actual watch company execs.

I am a senior executive and my consulting firm has plenty of IP to protect, and that IP is very literally intellectual. What that means is when employees leave the firm, any IP they are personally aware of is going to go with them. We have signed non-disclosure and non-compete agreements with selected employees, but to my knowledge we've never taken a former employee to task over their using methods, approaches, designs, etc. that they used or were party to on our engagements.

That's all beside the point, because the question of this thread and the substance we're discussing isn't with regard to IP owner's position, but rather re: what matters as we consider ourselves and other individuals. Within that context, there simply is no legal constraint. The discussion at hand isn't about a company's rights and discretion re: defending it's IP. Moreover, companies don't need you or I to defend their IP or their right to do so themselves.

Given the context of this thread's OP/title question, while I give all due credence to the legal rights of IP owners, I see no context for the legal position as go my or others' views about another individual's wearing/buying a fake watch. I see the legal angle as being no more relevant that would be the legal angle for arguing that one should despise and decry another driver on the highway who exceeds the speed limit, provided their doing so doesn't result in one's being in an accident or suffering non-accident damage to oneself, one's passengers or one's car.

Purple:
Knock offs are a totally different matter. They are certainly relevant to the Nike and AP cases I cited. I don't think they are for the Rolex one. I introduced the AP case because the item for which IP recourse was sought by AP was a knockoff not a counterfeit.

And that's the thing...if the counterfeits were so troubling -- economically and intangibly as with brand reputation -- one'd think companies like Rolex and AP would go after the counterfeiters. Since they don't, it stands to reason that the watch company managers feel, as you stated the Nike's managers felt -- that it's not economically worth doing so. Assuming the company managers don't think it's economically worth suing counterfeiters, how credible are claims about how financially detrimental to the industry be fake watches?

Moreover, if the company execs don't care enough about the financial impact of the fakes to take action to stop it, why should you or I? Even in the Rolex examples I presented, one sees that Rolex went after not the Chinese counterfeiters who are purported to be the primary source/cause of fake Rolexes being in the marketplace, but rather, Rolex went after what amount to "mom and pop" businesses that sell, not make, fake watches. I'm not so naive that I believe that a maker of fakes, upon losing one seller, cannot find another one to replace it.

Pink:
They do have that right. I'm suggesting even that they don't. Although the store owner may have felt that mimicking in a way Rolex's name might help his business, it's still very hard to see what actual harm his sandwich shop could or did do to Rolex's fortunes or reputation. I think that way because I find it preposterous to associate a deli with a name that sounds like "Rolex" with Rolex, SA.

I suspect too that Rolex feels it's protecting its name, a name that is entirely a "made up" name, from becoming part of the vernacular in some way. I'm sure Rolex managers are well aware that for a time Xerox became so synonymous with "copy/copying" that people would say things like "I'll make a xerox or of it," or "xerox that for me, please," even when the copying machine being used was not a Xerox machine. I can't see how a small deli in Brooklyn could effect a similar outcome for Rolex. But who knows...perhaps that deli will grown to become the next Wendy's or Burger King (in scale) at which point consumers might think they can stop in at the next one on the highway and grab a Rolex watch and a sandwich right after they pee?

Lastly, though the law does allow one to use one's size and wealth to "bully" competitors with trade dress infringement claims, I think doing so, or appearing to do so, especially "bullying" little outfits like that deli or the couple in Nevada, is ethically wrong. What can I do given my ethical dissatisfaction? With Rolex, I can very easily never buy Rolex/Tudor products. Even though I like Rolex and Tudor watches, my life is not going to be worse off if I buy no more of them. I don't know whether I could do that re: Nike, but perhaps Nike doesn't own so much of the shoe/clothing market that I could.

All the best.

To the red section: I basically agree with everything, however I think maybe my point of view is slightly lost there. I do not see watches as show off items. This is starting to sound slightly like I'm speaking to my beliefs. I was speaking from the viewpoint of a guy in that position, who might choose to buy the fake watch as a symbol of his wealth. I don't agree obviously, but I believe a person in a position like that, who buys a fake watch because he doesn't see the true value of a piece like that, could potentially be viewing the situation as I have described. I'm not saying it's iron clad, just one possibility I can imagine. It's kind of hard to justify a move like that.

I am certainly not on that level, but I've seen glimpses of it, and the social situations can be pretty strange. Well I guess what i'm picturing is well above a 300K salary, but this is getting too complicated now. Maybe alter my example to someone raking in millions a year. To be honest it's pretty hard for me to imagine a person worth 10's of millions and up having a hard time handing over 10, 20, 30 grand for a genuine watch, if that person at the very least felt the need to seek out a fake so they had something on their wrist. So that's why this whole thing probably sounds like a stretch at this point, but it's all I got. haha

Regarding how I would react to a person with a fake...I really do not care to the point it will bother me. Maybe a small part of me will question their reasoning, dare I say assume I know why they got it. Sorry but if you rock a fake and someone happens to notice it then you open yourself to assumptions, even if they are wrong. But that's really it. If I happen to know something is fake, and I see that person lying about it, then I will shake my head and probably look down on them. haha

Blue: I'll defer to your knowledge on that. That is certainly not an exact science I was going for. I simply went by a few examples I know of. My JLC is 11.7 and just going by sight I considered it pretty thick compared to most cheaper watches I've seen around. Very likely an incorrect assumption.

Green: Totally agree. There is no need to continue discussion about the legal or even moral aspects of this. I was sort of thinking that when I alluded to it, but I believe as I said earlier, I decided to just throw it up here as another bullet point in the grand scheme of questioning whether buying fakes matters or not. I understand that was not an intended part of the question.

Purple: I guess I have a hard time believing that companies really don't go after counterfeiters when they catch them. I'll look in to that some day, not now. haha Curious about one thing here though. I don't think I've seen anybody reference a Ralex fake, or Patec Philipo watch. They are all made to look exactly like the real one. So do you not consider it a counterfeit because the seller simply admits its not real, and they don't try to charge the same price?

Pink: Understood; I was about to just make one quick point but you took care of it already with your Wendy's/Burger King note. haha

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by RedlinePSI

[post content deleted because it needn't be reposted for what I'm going to write]

I understand your comments related to my early Red section comments.

Though we don't agree on some elements -- and I don't think we need to agree -- there's no question in my mind that plenty of your points are plausible and not at all improbable, even if I don't think they are expressly probable. To that end, I think this fake watch discussion between us has run its course.

I don't see any points from either of us that can be further developed without some pretty involved specific research of the sort that would be apropos to a scholarly paper. I don't have that much free time, and I presume that even if you do, you don't want to use it on this topic. I'm fine with that because I don't think either of us sees the other's position as unreasonable. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I have enjoyed the discussion with you on this topic. Perhaps we'll come across other threads here and have similarly pleasant, thoughtful and polite banter.

All the best.

[ny325]

I prefer to buy something I could afford. I don't believe buying something fake, if I can't afford the authentic model.

[adc100]

Well along those lines, When wife and I got engaged 50 years ago I gave her a .75 ct. ring. It was not a "perfect" but the proportions were "ideal". So for our 25th we got a new setting and added a very similar diamond. 5 years ago -new setting-another diamond. We put 2 cz stones in her second ring. She calls it her "traveling ring"

When someone compliments her on the ring she will tell them the story and that the stones are fake. It is a beautiful ring and the stones are high quality fakes.

[D22M2]

Fake watches are for fake people .

Plus they’re illegal

[Fritzer]

Generally replica watches are worn by people who seek the status of a watch rather than having an appreciation for horology, thus vain weirdos. Poor replicas are just sad. But there are some very, very high quality replicas out there that you can appreciate the effort of at the least. A factory recently produced a clone of the Rolex 4130 Chronograph movement and started produced functioning Daytona replicas. That is very interesting considering the price point is still around $600 USD for a decent, Chinese chronograph that is hand-built.

There are obvious differences between a genuine and replica watch, however. Some people who own many Rolexs purchase replicas for fun, or super high quality replicas so that they don't risk wearing their real watch somewhere they'd lose it or have it stolen. Someone who doesn't necessarily use their watch and just wears it for attention or vanity wouldn't care if their Submariner is as durable, shock-resistant, or reliable without needing a service for 10+ years. The build quality, materials, and engineering that goes into a $7,500 Genuine Submariner compared to a $500 super replica is huge. While it may pass in the looks department when observing the bezel, case, weight, crystal, dial, printing, etc., the movement is where it really counts. Replica watches have a myriad of issues though, as they are almost always Chinese clones of ETA movements styled link genuine movements. They are not built by formally trained watchmakers though, so they have a high defect rate and generally poor quality control. Additionally, the actual durability of the Genuine watch is higher than the replica - even though they present themselves near identical. Richard Hammond's Rolex Submariner 16610 survive the crash and following car fire that absolutely destroyed the Rimac he was driving - working.


Consensus:
-Crappy Rolex Replica: Pitiful, not worth anyone's time - for someone who has no idea what they're doing and is desperate for attention
-Super Rolex Replica: Acceptable visually, not reliable - for someone who only cares about the "look", generally NOT a fan of horology
-Genuine: No substitute for the quality of the real thing

It's really a shame these watches have gone from high-quality tools to luxury items over the last couple of decades. Brings an entirely undesirable type of people into the community.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by Fritzer

Generally replica watches are worn by people who seek the status of a watch rather than having an appreciation for horology, thus vain weirdos. Poor replicas are just sad. But there are some very, very high quality replicas out there that you can appreciate the effort of at the least. A factory recently produced a clone of the Rolex 4130 Chronograph movement and started produced functioning Daytona replicas. That is very interesting considering the price point is still around $600 USD for a decent, Chinese chronograph that is hand-built.

There are obvious differences between a genuine and replica watch, however. Some people who own many Rolexs purchase replicas for fun, or super high quality replicas so that they don't risk wearing their real watch somewhere they'd lose it or have it stolen. Someone who doesn't necessarily use their watch and just wears it for attention or vanity wouldn't care if their Submariner is as durable, shock-resistant, or reliable without needing a service for 10+ years. The build quality, materials, and engineering that goes into a $7,500 Genuine Submariner compared to a $500 super replica is huge. While it may pass in the looks department when observing the bezel, case, weight, crystal, dial, printing, etc., the movement is where it really counts. Replica watches have a myriad of issues though, as they are almost always Chinese clones of ETA movements styled link genuine movements. They are not built by formally trained watchmakers though, so they have a high defect rate and generally poor quality control. Additionally, the actual durability of the Genuine watch is higher than the replica - even though they present themselves near identical. Richard Hammond's Rolex Submariner 16610 survive the crash and following car fire that absolutely destroyed the Rimac he was driving - working.


Consensus:
-Crappy Rolex Replica: Pitiful, not worth anyone's time - for someone who has no idea what they're doing and is desperate for attention
-Super Rolex Replica: Acceptable visually, not reliable - for someone who only cares about the "look", generally NOT a fan of horology
-Genuine: No substitute for the quality of the real thing

It's really a shame these watches have gone from high-quality tools to luxury items over the last couple of decades. Brings an entirely undesirable type of people into the community.

You should really visit some of the replica watch forums. You'll find many of them are big fans of horology and own many genuine watches along with replicas. These aren't the guys who are going to stalls in street markets looking for cheap Rolex.

The quality of high end replica watches is very good. They are using 904L steel, ceramic bezels and sapphire glass just as the real ones do. They are built in factories with assembly lines just as genuine watches are. These are not hole in the wall operations. Yes, some use copied ETA movements and quality control is questionable.. but you are also buying a copy at a fraction of the price. If said ETA movement fails... just buy a new movement and swap it in. And there are replicas with copies of the genuine movements or just swap in a genuine movement and build a hybrid. Since the replicas are exact, they are interchangeable with genuine parts.

Rolex Submariners are vastly overpriced for what you get. Any watch enthusiast knows you're paying for a mass production $1000 watch for $7500 just because Rolex can command that price on the market.

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

dhgate is where I get my fake jerseys and sometimes jordans. I rarely wear either, so they may as well be fake. Id rather spend my 200 dollar on some solid running shoes that are comfortable. to each their own. Dhgate is the source for all fakes, where your dude at sporting events sells team memorabilia for 10 bills....

also relevant\

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Z K

You should really visit some of the replica watch forums. You'll find many of them are big fans of horology and own many genuine watches along with replicas. These aren't the guys who are going to stalls in street markets looking for cheap Rolex.

The quality of high end replica watches is very good. They are using 904L steel, ceramic bezels and sapphire glass just as the real ones do. They are built in factories with assembly lines just as genuine watches are. These are not hole in the wall operations. Yes, some use copied ETA movements and quality control is questionable.. but you are also buying a copy at a fraction of the price. If said ETA movement fails... just buy a new movement and swap it in. And there are replicas with copies of the genuine movements or just swap in a genuine movement and build a hybrid. Since the replicas are exact, they are interchangeable with genuine parts.

Rolex Submariners are vastly overpriced for what you get. Any watch enthusiast knows you're paying for a mass production $1000 watch for $7500 just because Rolex can command that price on the market.

outside of precious metals; i would say virtually all watches are vastly overpriced and sold on the name... that by default is what defines a luxury good; as far as movement; guess what a $400 apple watch is going to be far more accurate... watches are bought and sold based on name; no matter what anyone spins; i have a sub, but i sure as hell dont own it for its fine mechanism...

[Fritzer]

Originally Posted by Z K

You should really visit some of the replica watch forums. You'll find many of them are big fans of horology and own many genuine watches along with replicas. These aren't the guys who are going to stalls in street markets looking for cheap Rolex.

The quality of high end replica watches is very good. They are using 904L steel, ceramic bezels and sapphire glass just as the real ones do. They are built in factories with assembly lines just as genuine watches are. These are not hole in the wall operations. Yes, some use copied ETA movements and quality control is questionable.. but you are also buying a copy at a fraction of the price. If said ETA movement fails... just buy a new movement and swap it in. And there are replicas with copies of the genuine movements or just swap in a genuine movement and build a hybrid. Since the replicas are exact, they are interchangeable with genuine parts.

Rolex Submariners are vastly overpriced for what you get. Any watch enthusiast knows you're paying for a mass production $1000 watch for $7500 just because Rolex can command that price on the market.

Oh I do relatively frequently. Many of the factories, Noob, JF, ZF are not as you think though. They certainly fall into the more hole in the wall side of things compared to other "factories". The actual factories in China are the ones busting out the DHGate, street market Rolexs. Relatively to the other replica markets, the high-end Rolex replicas you and I see on the websites we visit are in a very small market, most people in the market for a Replica would never spend $400++ for a replica watch.

With the replacement of genuine parts, it is hit or miss. On some you can, some you can't. It depends on who manufactured the replica. Many have made successful FrankenWatches but there are many discrepancies. The replicas are not quite exact in terms of dimensions, even the highest priced ones. The 904L steel they allegedly use is very iffy, it is different then 316L but I would say the manufacturing standards they use in replica factories are not advanced enough to produce actual 904L. Close in feel and finish, but not durability. The ceramic is quite close, but again not similar in the unseen variables. However for what you get when buying, say, a brand new Noob Submariner - you are getting great value in a watch regardless.

I would also disagree with the fact you stated where a Rolex is up-marked from $1,000 to $7,500. I know for a fact that Rolex has a huge ego with their brand and understand the brand value, but I wouldn't say that a watch made with the same tolerances and engineering as a Submariner without the brand would be $1,000 - that is a little ridiculous.

Originally Posted by ASAP

outside of precious metals; i would say virtually all watches are vastly overpriced and sold on the name... that by default is what defines a luxury good; as far as movement; guess what a $400 apple watch is going to be far more accurate... watches are bought and sold based on name; no matter what anyone spins; i have a sub, but i sure as hell dont own it for its fine mechanism...

While I do agree in part with the luxury brand price gouging, I also disagree with some other points you made. For example; I know someone who bought a "Chanel" watch recently, it has a freaking $400 ETA movement and they spent $8k on it. That is true luxury tax, and frankly just plain stupid. No one who buys into luxury goods like that gives a shit about horology.

As to the Apple watch/Quartz watch argument of accuracy, that cannot be disputed. However, the advantages of having a self-powered, extremely reliable, accurate and quality timepiece cannot be disputed as well. I don't understand owning a steel Submariner, as you said, for just the brand or "luxury". There are not many mechanical watches that can compete with the tolerances it is built to withstand. There are many fantastic Quartz watches too, but they have their drawbacks in terms of function. Apple watches are just plain silly and I think they are a very stupid thing to wear, but that falls in line with my bias against Apple products in general.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Fritzer

Oh I do relatively frequently. Many of the factories, Noob, JF, ZF are not as you think though. They certainly fall into the more hole in the wall side of things compared to other "factories". The actual factories in China are the ones busting out the DHGate, street market Rolexs. Relatively to the other replica markets, the high-end Rolex replicas you and I see on the websites we visit are in a very small market, most people in the market for a Replica would never spend $400++ for a replica watch.

With the replacement of genuine parts, it is hit or miss. On some you can, some you can't. It depends on who manufactured the replica. Many have made successful FrankenWatches but there are many discrepancies. The replicas are not quite exact in terms of dimensions, even the highest priced ones. The 904L steel they allegedly use is very iffy, it is different then 316L but I would say the manufacturing standards they use in replica factories are not advanced enough to produce actual 904L. Close in feel and finish, but not durability. The ceramic is quite close, but again not similar in the unseen variables. However for what you get when buying, say, a brand new Noob Submariner - you are getting great value in a watch regardless.

I would also disagree with the fact you stated where a Rolex is up-marked from $1,000 to $7,500. I know for a fact that Rolex has a huge ego with their brand and understand the brand value, but I wouldn't say that a watch made with the same tolerances and engineering as a Submariner without the brand would be $1,000 - that is a little ridiculous.



While I do agree in part with the luxury brand price gouging, I also disagree with some other points you made. For example; I know someone who bought a "Chanel" watch recently, it has a freaking $400 ETA movement and they spent $8k on it. That is true luxury tax, and frankly just plain stupid. No one who buys into luxury goods like that gives a shit about horology.

As to the Apple watch/Quartz watch argument of accuracy, that cannot be disputed. However, the advantages of having a self-powered, extremely reliable, accurate and quality timepiece cannot be disputed as well. I don't understand owning a steel Submariner, as you said, for just the brand or "luxury". There are not many mechanical watches that can compete with the tolerances it is built to withstand. There are many fantastic Quartz watches too, but they have their drawbacks in terms of function. Apple watches are just plain silly and I think they are a very stupid thing to wear, but that falls in line with my bias against Apple products in general.

While I will say that I greatly appreciate the sub's quality,tolerances and movements... I just don't see how many people would buy that particular watch for anything outside of prestige. Yes it is a quality watch, I have one right on my wrist (that I paid $8550 for), but is it any better than my quartz Tag Aquaracer in any of those respects? I don't particularly think so... i love the way it looks, the attention it commands, the value that it keeps over the time and the very idea that it is very little changed for 50 years and has a great history. I just don't see how many people that can afford an 8/9k watch can honestly say they are that into watches as opposed to just having disposable income to buy one...

[TheWatchGuy]

people buy the luxury watches to show off. real/fake doesnt matter, same reasoning

/thread

unless you are getting a very high end, hand made, multiple complications movement, they arent being bought for their horological significance.

that being said, i have many luxury watches cuz da hoes