# Is anyone embarrassed by wearing a Rolex Submariner homage?



## orian (Feb 10, 2010)

Is anyone embarrassed by wearing a Rolex Submariner homage?

I used to have one but hardly wore it, in case people looked at it closely and saw it wasn’t the real thing, and thaught I was a “wannabe” Rolex owner. That would be very embarrassing for me.

If the Submariner weren’t such a famous watch in the eyes of the public, I would wear a homage of it. But it has now become such an icon to people other than watch lovers, that wearing one with poise would be difficult for me for the reasons given.

I would have no problem, though, wearing a homage of a watch that the public probably don’t know about, such as a homage of a vintage Fifty Fathoms. 

Does anyone else feel this way?


----------



## Hamstur (Nov 6, 2017)

Add a poll to your thread. It will probably be a 50/50 split.


----------



## sticky (Apr 5, 2013)

No. I wear my Steinharts and Squales because I want to wear them and not because they look like a Sub. If I wanted a Sub that badly I’d nip out and buy/order one.


----------



## orian (Feb 10, 2010)

Hamstur said:


> Add a poll to your thread. It will probably be a 50/50 split.


Good idea.

But I don't know how to add a poll to an existing thread. There are no option settings for it.


----------



## orian (Feb 10, 2010)

sticky said:


> No. I wear my Steinharts and Squales because I want to wear them and not because they look like a Sub. If I wanted a Sub that badly I'd nip out and buy/order one.


But they look exactly like Subs anyway, so what is their intrinsic value? You might as well buy a real Sub.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Back to knockoffs again.


----------



## OnlyOneMore (Feb 28, 2018)

Buy what you can afford and wear what you enjoy. 

Anyone who actually cares enough about your watch to judge you is probably not someone you need to care about anyway.


----------



## askew (Oct 10, 2018)

I would only be embarrassed by wearing a sub homage if the homage were too faithful to the sub’s likeness. It would be too much of a clone for me.

If the homage was merely inspired by some aspects of the sub's likeness and had other aspects that were not like the sub, I would probably wear it.

I can’t think of any examples of the latter. Maybe some people here can.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

What is Rolex?


----------



## sticky (Apr 5, 2013)

orian said:


> But they look exactly like Subs anyway, so what is their intrinsic value? You might as well buy a real Sub.


I hear what you're saying but I just like them.


----------



## adg31 (Dec 28, 2010)

orian said:


> But they look exactly like Subs anyway, so what is their intrinsic value? You might as well buy a real Sub.


Or to flip the question around what is the intrinsic value of a Rolex if cheaper alternatives can perform the same function?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vioviv (May 8, 2017)

It’s about time WUS finally addresses this depressing and divisive topic.
I’m sure this thread will bring some kind of mutual understanding and compromise between to the opposing sides.
Let the intelligent, civil, non-repetitive discourse commence!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JohnnyKarate (Oct 8, 2016)

If someones staring at my watch or someone asks if it's a Rolex sub and i gotta say "no it's a _____", than that would bug me and get old real quick. Embarrassment isn't the right word though. This is assuming it's someone who knows about watches asking me and not some random person. 

If it's got the same font on the bezel insert as Rolex or a Mercedes hand, i cancel out the company as a whole. 

Too many other original watches to choose from.


----------



## barutanseijin (Sep 18, 2017)

Absolutely not.

I'm wearing a Steinhart OVM 39 right now. The hands go around on the dial just like on any other watch Rolexes included. I think it looks much better than anything Rolex currently sells, so why would i spend all that money for something that i don't want? That's ridiculous.


----------



## Tohono Rat (Apr 23, 2018)

Is anyone embarrassed to be wearing a Rolex Submariner?


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

I dont care for homages in general - but leaving that aside for a second, why the hell would i be embarrassed to wear whatever I wanted? I am not in high school anymore. Hell, at the age of 45, I wear pink chinos with pride. Not salmon. Pink.


----------



## barutanseijin (Sep 18, 2017)

Tohono Rat said:


> Is anyone embarrassed to be wearing a Rolex Submariner?


I would if i had one. But that's not going to happen unless i pick one up off the side of the road some day.


----------



## OnlyOneMore (Feb 28, 2018)

vkalia said:


> Hell, at the age of 45, I wear pink chinos with pride. Not salmon. Pink.


As long as they're not "coral"


----------



## sriracha (May 2, 2014)

Yes I’d be embarrassed unless it’s an homage to a vintage, not-made-anymore Rollie. Then most folks wouldn’t even know it was a Rollie 

But then again, I was embarrassed wearing a real Rollie as well. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fast08 (Sep 3, 2016)

I thought about this question quite a bit before I bought my first sub (14060m). The issue with Rolex sub homages (for me) is that the iconic sub look is still very much in production. Sure the current 114060 has bigger lugs and shiny ceramic bezel inserts but I think the overall look and feel hasn't changed so much. Hence there's a hint of rip off if the homage is very close to the genuine article. The milsub homage is a marginal case since Rolex no longer uses sword hands so may be it's fair game for any manufactures to produce in such style. Also real milsubs are priced in a range that most won't accept as reasonable expenditure on watches. There's also the factor that even if you obtain the real milsub, chances are you want to lock it away and not wear it .

An example where I find acceptable is homage for the Omega seamaster 300 165.024 ref. Justification is that the current seamaster looks nothing like it and most will not mistook it as an Omega. Also I think UK Military of Defence (correct me if I'm wrong) eventually copied the design in their watch specification and let CWC produce them (https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/cwc-the-watch-that-replaced-the-milsub)









Of course if Omega decide to reissue this reference the whole story changes.


----------



## Champagne InHand (Dec 15, 2015)

orian said:


> But they look exactly like Subs anyway, so what is their intrinsic value? You might as well buy a real Sub.


Why waste several thousand dollars that I could be using to go toward hobbies like traveling, photography, cigars, wines & spirits.

It seems foolish to buy a Rolex, when it comes to asset management. It's much like having a nice home that's small as we on,y have the two of us, with a guest room upstairs and a great room for everything besides the master suite. Our basement has a wine cellar, a full sized billiards table, another guest room, a rumpus room for when the grandchildren and nephews/nieces visit and storage. All this while some people that are just 2 choose palatial palace type McMansions and keep their assets tied up in that. For what? The same thing as buying a Rolex, so others can see you in the brand or home that is too big.

According to financial advisors these are about the silliest financial moves one can make as your money isn't earning much more in a watch or even in real estate these days.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Champagne InHand said:


> Why waste several thousand dollars that I could be using to go toward hobbies like traveling, photography, cigars, wines & spirits.
> 
> It seems foolish to buy a Rolex, when it comes to asset management. It's much like having a nice home that's small as we on,y have the two of us, with a guest room upstairs and a great room for everything besides the master suite. Our basement has a wine cellar, a full sized billiards table, another guest room, a rumpus room for when the grandchildren and nephews/nieces visit and storage. All this while some people that are just 2 choose palatial palace type McMansions and keep their assets tied up in that. For what? The same thing as buying a Rolex, so others can see you in the brand or home that is too big.
> 
> According to financial advisors these are about the silliest financial moves one can make as your money isn't earning much more in a watch or even in real estate these days.


Rental property are an excellent investment because mortgages provide leverage that are otherwise inaccessible to small time investors. As for watches, a Rolex is a small purchase in the grand scheme of things, and is no more silly a purchase than a fancy car in a large city with gridlock traffic.


----------



## HerrNano (Apr 29, 2015)

This discussion boils down to whether you want a a Sub homage to, I don't know exactly, get the attention a regular Rolex gets without paying for one, or whether you just like the look in the same way I like the look of a 70s muscle car along with the look of all the reissues/homages currently available from car manufacturers. I own a Tisell Vintage Submersible and I would never let someone assume it were a Rolex if I thought they were leaning that way (hasn't happened so far - probably never will). Rolex carries too much weird baggage for me to go there, but I do like the simple, traditional look of a Submariner, so a Tisell is fine and affordable for that itch. 

Let's not be cute about it. A Rolex is very expensive and often designed to be hard to get. It is about exclusivity instead of inclusivity. I don't like that game at all but plenty of people here seem to thrive on it. Wearing a watch that looks like a Submariner is not cheating that and I am not embarrassed to wear it. I would also happily tell an inquirer all about Tisell if they asked. That'll be the day - a stranger asks me about my watch.


----------



## Etennyson (May 25, 2012)

Always an interesting question. I've had Rolex (sub, datejust, etc) and homages both. In fact, as I write this I'm wearing a Ginault (blue) Ocean Rover. Not sure I care what anyone else thinks about what I wear. I love watches. Period. My pursuit is driven by the love of this hobby. Although, I do have my eye on a few new Rolex watches . As others said, wear what you enjoy. Nothing else matters.


----------



## wrestleantares (Sep 12, 2018)

I personally dont own any homages. But, college age kids are more important than watches, so a homage would be the way I would go if I truly desired a particular rolex model look. As is there are plenty of good options at my price point that are not trying to be something they are not. I would not be embarrassed wearing a homage. No one has ever noticed any of my wristwatches, I wear them for me.


----------



## JerOk (Feb 12, 2006)

JohnnyKarate said:


> If someones staring at my watch or someone asks if it's a Rolex sub and i gotta say "no it's a _____", than that would bug me and get old real quick. Embarrassment isn't the right word though. This is assuming it's someone who knows about watches asking me and not some random person.
> 
> If it's got the same font on the bezel insert as Rolex or a Mercedes hand, i cancel out the company as a whole.
> 
> Too many other original watches to choose from.


Well said. I had an homage once, and it was a value and well made. Fielding the "is that..." questions was not embarrassing, but tiring.

Then again, I had a Sub and ended up flipping it. Maybe for the same reason?


----------



## Socal Sam (Sep 16, 2018)

A lot of watches look like a Submariner from a distance. Not just the coat hangers but also some Seiko and Casio look the part.


----------



## Socal Sam (Sep 16, 2018)

Etennyson said:


> Always an interesting question. I've had Rolex (sub, datejust, etc) and homages both. In fact, as I write this I'm wearing a Ginault (blue) Ocean Rover. Not sure I care what anyone else thinks about what I wear. I love watches. Period. My pursuit is driven by the love of this hobby. Although, I do have my eye on a few new Rolex watches . As others said, wear what you enjoy. Nothing else matters.


When you are at the gym or in a sketchy part of town, the homage acts as a decoy. It does for me.


----------



## mguffin2k6 (Aug 9, 2014)

My Steinhart Ocean Forty-Four stands on its own, and I never had to explain why it looks like a Rolex. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## OnlyOneMore (Feb 28, 2018)

I don't consider many of the "homages" to be particularly close copies. Some are, some aren't. One of the most commonly hated is Steinhart, but to me they're very different watches. Different lugs, bezel, crown, crown guards, bracelet and overall proportions. I just don't find them that hard to tell apart.

Aesthetically I actually prefer the Steinhart


----------



## OnlyOneMore (Feb 28, 2018)

Socal Sam said:


> When you are at the gym or in a sketchy part of town, the homage acts as a decoy. It does for me.


You'll still get hit in the head with a brick and robbed.

I'm not sure what kind of decoy it is, as it's still drawing attention to you that you probably would rather not have


----------



## fast08 (Sep 3, 2016)

OnlyOneMore said:


> You'll still get hit in the head with a brick and robbed.
> 
> I'm not sure what kind of decoy it is, as it's still drawing attention to you that you probably would rather not have


LOL .. in sketchy part of town, don't wear anything that remotely resembles an expensive watch. Chances are you won't run into a WIS mugger who carefully studies your watch from afar and determine not to mug you since it's a steinhart.


----------



## ldo123 (May 15, 2015)

I don‘t own a Rolex Submariner homage, nor do I own a real Rolex Submariner, simply because I consider the design to be boring.

From all of the watches that I own, the closest one to a Rolex Submariner is the Tudor Pelagos, but then again, the Pelagos is so much less „blingy“ and worlds apart from the Sub, that you can‘t consider it as being a Sub homage.

The only wearable Rolex that I really like, is the Explorer II (216570).


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Socal Sam said:


> When you are at the gym or in a sketchy part of town, the homage acts as a decoy. It does for me.


So if you are in a dodgy neighborhood, wearing a watch that LOOKS like a $8000 watch is a good thing? Explain this to me, please, because I dont get this.

I also dont get the whole "look at these watches, they are TOTALLY different" - yeah, only if you compare the two right next to each other on a screen. I mean, wear what you want, obviously. And I get liking the Steinhart's lugs more.

But some of these mental calisthenics seem more an attempt to convince oneself (my personal favorite is the "there are only so many ways you can design a dive watch").


----------



## OnlyOneMore (Feb 28, 2018)

vkalia said:


> So if you are in a dodgy neighborhood, wearing a watch that LOOKS like a $8000 watch is a good thing? Explain this to me, please, because I dont get this.


If he wants a real decoy, he should make his friend wear the fancy looking watch and then walk a block behind him



vkalia said:


> I also dont get the whole "look at these watches, they are TOTALLY different" - yeah, only if you compare the two right next to each other on a screen.


If you were to actually handle a Steinhart or see one at a reasonable distance they are *obviously* not a submariner. It may pass with someone unfamiliar with watches, but it will not fool a WIS. I really think we give Joe Public too much credit. To many, any watch with a dive bezel is a Rolex.


----------



## pickle puss (Feb 13, 2006)

No.

AND... I don't give a rats @$$ what anyone thinks.

With any luck this will be the last Rolex homage thread of 2018.


----------



## ronkatct (Sep 27, 2018)

I like my cheap Winner sub homage and would give it more love if the [email protected]#&ed bracelet was less deadly to my poor skinny wrist. I don't want to accidently slice my wrist with the blade-lets. I can afford a sub but would prefer a Tudor 58 over a Sub.

I like cheap watches and rotate them with my mid price watches and my 1 expensive watch.

I would happily wear a homage but not a FAKE.


----------



## Dub Rubb (Jul 29, 2017)

I have been asked twice if these were Rolexes, and when I said no, I was told that my watches looked like Rolex wannabes. I was only embarrassed for the guy who said it. A Pepsi bezel doesn't automatically make it a rolex homage, especially when it is a dive bezel amd not a GMT.
For the most part though, nobody notices your watch anyway. Here are the watches that were in question.









Sent from my LG-M322 using Tapatalk


----------



## JLS36 (Feb 5, 2016)

I was going to comment on the silly logic here but it seems the point has already been made.


Socal Sam said:


> When you are at the gym or in a sketchy part of town, the homage acts as a decoy. It does for me.


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## RobMc (Dec 27, 2015)

I don’t own 1, but I wouldn’t be. To be honest, when I see a “Rolex” from across the room, I usually just assume it’s an invicta anyway. 

There’s no reason to be embarrassed by what kind of watch you wear. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slorollin (Dec 9, 2016)

An homage isn't trying to fool anyone. A replica is meant to decieve.
Taking every car that is an "homage" to BMW/Mercedes off the road would really cut down on traffic, though.


----------



## RotorRonin (Oct 3, 2014)

Honestly, I would be more self-conscious wearing a real Rolex.

Wear what you like, like what you wear.


----------



## bigclive2011 (Mar 17, 2013)

No.

I enjoy wearing Steinhart because they are a good watch in their own right.

I also have a Submariner and I most definetly have never been embarrassed wearing that!!

Buy a watch you like, and don’t get so hung up on what everyone else thinks of it!! It’s all in your mind.


----------



## anrex (Jul 30, 2017)

I'm soooooo embarrassed...


----------



## anrex (Jul 30, 2017)

Here is my Steinhart homage...


----------



## JohnnyKarate (Oct 8, 2016)

Like the Steinhart above, why do they have to use the exact same font on their bezel as the Rolex Sub ? There's 1000's of fonts to choose from. That's what i don't get. Well i get it but i don't understand why people give these companies a pass.


----------



## JLS36 (Feb 5, 2016)

/yawn, ask yourself if you apply the same ridiculous standards to all purchases across all spectrums.


JohnnyKarate said:


> Like the Steinhart above, why do they have to use the exact same font on their bezel as the Rolex Sub ? There's 1000's of fonts to choose from. That's what i don't get. Well i get it but i don't understand why people give these companies a pass.


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## hungdangnguyen23 (Mar 21, 2018)

Nope, not bothered bc the design of the Sub is so transcendent to the world of watches. It's like getting mad bc not everybody wears Levi's jeans, just bc Levi's invented blue jeans doesn't mean other clothing companies can't make their own variation, as long as it's not a straight up copy.

I just added an NTH Amphion to my collection of submariner style homages, Rolex doesn't make any watches currently that look like this one:









Here are some of my other homages, all with the submariner dna but each with their own unique design nuances and not simply carbon-copy replicas:


----------



## JohnnyKarate (Oct 8, 2016)

JLS36 said:


> /yawn, ask yourself if you apply the same ridiculous standards to all purchases across all spectrums.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


Watches are different. The design is what it's all about.


----------



## JohnnyKarate (Oct 8, 2016)

hungdangnguyen23 said:


> Nope, not bothered bc the design of the Sub is so transcendent to the world of watches. It's like getting mad bc not everybody wears Levi's jeans, just bc Levi's invented blue jeans doesn't mean other clothing companies can't make their own variation, as long as it's not a straight up copy.


Bad analogy. Yes Jean companies will have their own variation but if they put there logo on a rectangle red tab it's called copying.


----------



## hungdangnguyen23 (Mar 21, 2018)

JohnnyKarate said:


> Bad analogy. Yes Jean companies will have their own variation but if they put there logo on a rectangle red tab it's called copying.


Not sure if it's your intent but you're actually proving my point. The overall design language of Levi's blue jeans is more than just that red tab, just like the design language of a submariner is much more than just the Rolex crown.

You're talking about the branding aspect (red tab, rolex crown) vs the overall design of the product in question (blue jeans, submariner).


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

Nobody else cares what I wear


















































































‪







‬


----------



## MarkieB (Feb 25, 2017)

What numpty would buy a watch they are embarrassed to wear in the first place?


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

orian said:


> Is anyone embarrassed by wearing a Rolex Submariner homage?
> 
> I used to have one but hardly wore it, in case people looked at it closely and saw it wasn't the real thing, and thaught I was a "wannabe" Rolex owner. That would be very embarrassing for me.
> 
> ...


Nope. Come on in and join the fun at the Brotherhood of Submariner Homages:

https://www.watchuseek.com/f71/brotherhood-submariner-homages-k-bsht-part-29-a-4811077.html

We even have our own 6538 gilt homage:


----------



## Karlisnet (Feb 20, 2016)

Why anyone would buy a watch -at any price point- to feel embarrassed?. Or wait, is it about another “rolex hate thread” with the usual blah blah blah and common places...


----------



## since01 (Mar 30, 2018)

I buy a watch because I absolutely love the watch, I wear what I love why should I care about someone's judgment about my watch.


----------



## Parkgate (Jan 18, 2015)

I had a Picasso and a Monet (might of been Manet) hanging on my wall a few years back, from IKEA, I don't recall anyone ever asking 'ooohh is that real?' If it doesn't blatantly say Rolex across the dial, and everyone (who even cares) knows its not 'the real thing' why should ANYONE else care about someone else's watch, bar an idiot who tried to buy 'class' because they are more focused on the brand than what was initially a tool watch? A hammers a hammer at the end of the day, ditto a spanner, ditto a ball point pen, razor and thousands of other things, and they all look the bloody same, no?


----------



## lawtaxi (Feb 9, 2018)

Yep. Would not wear one!


----------



## Parkgate (Jan 18, 2015)

yankeexpress said:


> Nobody else cares what I wear
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I must mix in similar circles!


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

I would be more embarrassed if I wear a Rolex and people think it's a homage.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

As a holiday shopping special, Armida has 15% off until Dec. 18th. Ordered myself an Armida A2 this past Friday :-!

And I am with what OnlyOneMore said. As a matter of fact, I don't particularly care to associate with those who would judge me for wearing a homage, so it makes no difference at all.


----------



## fast08 (Sep 3, 2016)

Ultimately it's about YOUR feeling. If you feel ok about homages by all means enjoy them (I do for some homages). Starting a thread here asking this probably means you are already have some doubt about it and nobody here can convince you. In that case it probably saves you money in the long run to just get the actual sub.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## timefleas (Oct 10, 2008)

Another question with a false premise--to be "embarrassed" there is the implicit assumption that there are at least two people involved in some sort of encounter--one, you, the "wearer", and two, the "observer"--for whom you have concerns about how they may judge you based on what watch you are wearing--however, as indicated time and time again on this site, NO ONE REALLY CARES WHAT WATCH YOU ARE WEARING--and, as a result, it is pretty difficult to be "embarrassed" since there is in fact no one out there judging you, no "observer"--except yourself--which in that case would turn this into a question of whether you are _ashamed _to wear the watch, which would be yet another pretty ridiculous question, since, presumably, you bought it because you liked it--and in the end, that is really all that matters--wear it if you like it, and forget all the misleading hypotheticals that are so often offered up as food for thought here.


----------



## johnmichael (Oct 14, 2017)

Are you kidding me? And that is not the only one (sub homage that is-----not multiple Invictas!), but the one I thought might offend delicate sensitivities the most. Who cares, I like it! It is a 9937 w/Sellita SW-200 and look what it says at the bottom of the face-----"Swiss Made" so more than the caliber was made/assembled in Switzerland, meaning at least the final QC inspection of the watch was too. By the way, great watch for the $ but, unfortunately, the lume stinks.


----------



## rbanks40 (Jun 17, 2015)

I own a 114060 and have a couple sub homages that I wear somewhat regularly. The homages offer features (full lume bezel, "smurf" GMT) I can't get in a submariner so I enjoy wearing them in their own right.


----------



## Dynamite Kid19 (May 19, 2013)

orian said:


> But they look exactly like Subs anyway, so what is their intrinsic value? You might as well buy a real Sub.


That's like saying 2 black cars look exactly alike. Steinhart and Squale watches use cases that are larger, larger lug width bracelets, have larger crowns and in the case of Steinhart use straight pointed lugs, more reminiscent of a Speedy.

I know people always harp on the hands, but can we be real? The Rolex hour hand is literally the logo for an extremely well known car brand so let's not act like they should have a claim to creating that.

I saw wear what you want. People not in the know most likely think anything with a black dial/bezel is a Sub. And people in the know who give you crap have a complex about d**k flashing to compensate for something.

My only issue is fake watches, those are a no go.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## zengineer (Dec 23, 2015)

I see Omega Seamaster Pro in some of the examples as much as I see Submariner. At some point, the line between trying to look like a good dive watch and trying to look like a Rolex is crossed by more than a few examples. I don't know if embarrassed is the right word, but there are a few I just wouldn't buy or wear just out of principal.


----------



## iam7head (Dec 16, 2010)

Homage is not my thing but if that floats your boat then more power to you.

The closest thing to a sub homage for me, is a blackbay and tudor pelagos(self homage?), which I have no issue wearing them with pride.


----------



## wzm4114 (Sep 30, 2016)

Sorry Charlie, but if you are into the hobby so much as to post on a watch forum or know that your watch is a homage (really just a blatant rip-off of design) then you should either look for other options or just pony up for the real deal.. I get very tired of seeing people on these forums try to justify 'homages' when at the end of the day if they could get the genuine article they would, but either can't or don't want to for one reason or another. The real thing sells at a premium because that's what in part makes it special. Just accept that you can't afford it or don't want to spend top dollar for it and get something original instead.. there are way too many great designs from brands, both well known and micro that are affordable but still really cool. Insisting your Steinhart is as good or better 'value' or whatever is just a thin veil that dedicated collectors pity, in part because many have made the same mistake early on in their own journey.


----------



## cfracing (Feb 21, 2015)

I'm never embarrassed by any watch I wear, including my Steinhart OVM 39.

I hate to break it to you, but half of the regular people around think that any watch with with a stainless steel bracelet is a Rolex, and the other half think your Rolex is a fake. ;-)


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

Automatically assume every Rolex branded sub I see in the wild is illegitimate


----------



## usernameone2three (Sep 22, 2018)

iam7head said:


> Homage is not my thing but if that floats your boat then more power to you.
> 
> The closest thing to a sub homage for me, is a blackbay and tudor pelagos(self homage?), which I have no issue wearing them with pride.


"Look at my collection of expensive watches" 114060 Submariner not included


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

wzm4114 said:


> Sorry Charlie, but if you are into the hobby so much as to post on a watch forum or know that your watch is a homage (really just a blatant rip-off of design) then you should either look for other options or just pony up for the real deal.. I get very tired of seeing people on these forums try to justify 'homages' when at the end of the day if they could get the genuine article they would, but either can't or don't want to for one reason or another. The real thing sells at a premium because that's what in part makes it special. Just accept that you can't afford it or don't want to spend top dollar for it and get something original instead.. there are way too many great designs from brands, both well known and micro that are affordable but still really cool. Insisting your Steinhart is as good or better 'value' or whatever is just a thin veil that dedicated collectors pity, in part because many have made the same mistake early on in their own journey.


eh, not true for all . . . . bought and enjoy my Steinhart and Invicta (and a few other copy watches) after I sampled (still have them too) a coupla rolex models


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

And so this devolves again...


----------



## watchcrank_tx (Sep 1, 2012)

People ask me how I set the time for all the watches I own. Do I call a phone number to get the atomic time, do I have a radio-synced master clock, do I use the time from GPS, do I simply rely on what my phone says?

Why, no, of course not. I set the time based on the most predictable frequency references in the known universe: the occurance of f2 threads on "clone vs. original," "rolex vs. omega," "rolex vs. grand seiko," "is my grandfather's watch genuine," and "help me pick a watch for my husband." Doesn't everyone?


----------



## City74 (Apr 20, 2015)

This won’t end well


----------



## leastonh (May 29, 2012)

wzm4114 said:


> I get very tired of seeing people on these forums try to justify 'homages' when at the end of the day if they could get the genuine article they would, but either can't or don't want to for one reason or another.


Bit of a sweeping statement there.
I appreciate Rolex as a brand and the quality of their watches, but I don't want one and I wouldn't buy another brand just as a homage. I bought an Invicta 8926 because it was a cheap auto to use as a beater and easy to mod. That it looks just like a sub had nothing to do with it.


----------



## orian (Feb 10, 2010)

fast08 said:


> I thought about this question quite a bit before I bought my first sub (14060m). The issue with Rolex sub homages (for me) is that the iconic sub look is still very much in production. Sure the current 114060 has bigger lugs and shiny ceramic bezel inserts but I think the overall look and feel hasn't changed so much. Hence there's a hint of rip off if the homage is very close to the genuine article.


This is the nub of the matter, and one reason why I would be embarrassed to wear a homage of it. I'd be ok wearing a vintage homage of it but not one that was a homage of a current model.


----------



## orian (Feb 10, 2010)

Champagne InHand said:


> Why waste several thousand dollars that I could be using to go toward .... cigars, wines & spirits.


This sounds like a waste of money in itself. Only joking!


----------



## basso4735 (Aug 21, 2018)

Nope


----------



## briang583 (Mar 25, 2014)

Does it bother anyone who is wearing a Breguet Classique Complications Tourbillon Power Reserve that everyone else thinks its a 20 dollar chineese watch?


----------



## orian (Feb 10, 2010)

OnlyOneMore said:


> I don't consider many of the "homages" to be particularly close copies. Some are, some aren't. One of the most commonly hated is Steinhart, but to me they're very different watches. Different lugs, bezel, crown, crown guards, bracelet and overall proportions. I just don't find them that hard to tell apart.
> 
> Aesthetically I actually prefer the Steinhart
> 
> View attachment 13668883


True, but the dials are very similar, don't you think? And that's the main thing that many people will comment on if you wore a Steinhart. In other words, it's the dial that maketh a Rolex sub.


----------



## briang583 (Mar 25, 2014)

yankeexpress said:


> Automatically assume every Rolex branded sub I see in the wild is illegitimate


+1


----------



## Zaraq (May 7, 2018)

Why would I be embarrassed by wearing a watch I bought and obviously like?


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

vkalia said:


> I dont care for homages in general - but leaving that aside for a second, why the hell would i be embarrassed to wear whatever I wanted? I am not in high school anymore. Hell, at the age of 45, I wear pink chinos with pride. Not salmon. Pink.


Pics or it didn't happen!

_
"Pink chinos with pride" _I saw what you did there.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Champagne InHand said:


> Why waste several thousand dollars that I could be using to go toward hobbies like *watches,* traveling, photography, cigars, wines & spirits.


FIFY.



Champagne InHand said:


> It seems foolish to buy a Rolex, when it comes to asset management. It's much like having a nice home that's small as we on,y have the two of us, with *a guest room upstairs and a great room for everything besides the master suite. Our basement has a wine cellar, a full sized billiards table, another guest room, a rumpus room for when the grandchildren and nephews/nieces visit and storage. *All this while some people that are just 2 choose palatial palace type McMansions and keep their assets tied up in that. For what? The same thing as buying a Rolex, so others can see you in the brand or home that is too big.


That's _also_ too much for just 2 people... :-d



Champagne InHand said:


> According to financial advisors these are about the silliest financial moves one can make as your money isn't earning much more in a watch or even in real estate these days.


There's a forum member who will strongly disagree with this if the watch in question is a Rolex.


----------



## orian (Feb 10, 2010)

anrex said:


> I'm soooooo embarrassed...
> View attachment 13669381


That's a nice homage of a vintage sword hand Rolex sub, and I wouldn't be embarrassed wearing that either. In my book, homages of vintage watches are cool. But I would be of a homage of a current Rolex sub.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

JohnnyKarate said:


> Bad analogy. Yes Jean companies will have their own variation but if they put there logo on a rectangle red tab it's called copying.


And they will get their asses sued for trademark infringement. Levi's is very protective...


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

And to answer the OP, yes, I'd be embarrassed to wear a Sub homage.

_Or_ a Sub.

So not my cup of tea.


----------



## askew (Oct 10, 2018)

yankeexpress said:


> Nobody else cares what I wear
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They would if you wear all your watches at the same time


----------



## askew (Oct 10, 2018)

MarkieB said:


> What numpty would buy a watch they are embarrassed to wear in the first place?


Maybe collectors who don't normally wear all their watches. Some people just like to collect watches and wear just a few of them.

In such cases, you could get a guy who might have reservations about wearing a sub homage in his collection.


----------



## cfracing (Feb 21, 2015)

orian said:


> True, but the dials are very similar, don't you think? And that's the main thing that many people will comment on if you wore a Steinhart. In other words, it's the dial that maketh a Rolex sub.


Actually, I think it is the hour hand and not the dial that people fixate on.


----------



## askew (Oct 10, 2018)

yankeexpress said:


> Nope. Come on in and join the fun at the Brotherhood of Submariner Homages:
> 
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f71/brotherhood-submariner-homages-k-bsht-part-29-a-4811077.html
> 
> We even have our own 6538 gilt homage:


Is that tiny spot on the upper right hand of the logo, and just under the number 1 indice, on top of or under the crystal?


----------



## askew (Oct 10, 2018)

Karlisnet said:


> Why anyone would buy a watch -at any price point- to feel embarrassed?. Or wait, is it about another "rolex hate thread" with the usual blah blah blah and common places...


Lol... you're funny.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

watchcrank said:


> People ask me how I set the time for all the watches I own. Do I call a phone number to get the atomic time, do I have a radio-synced master clock, do I use the time from GPS, do I simply rely on what my phone says?
> 
> Why, no, of course not. I set the time based on the most predictable frequency references in the known universe: the occurance of f2 threads on "clone vs. original," "rolex vs. omega," "rolex vs. grand seiko," "is my grandfather's watch genuine," and "help me pick a watch for my husband." Doesn't everyone?


LOL

This thread is about as useful as debating whether or not one can wear linen after labor day :-d


----------



## rjprusak (May 7, 2012)

I used to own a Steinhart Ocean1 Vintage Military. It was "sub-like" but not immediately identifiable as a sub copy. It is a nice auto diver for $450. Steinhart makes a quality watch but their Sub and GMT homages too closely resemble a Rolex to suit my taste.


----------



## cfracing (Feb 21, 2015)

wzm4114 said:


> Sorry Charlie, but if you are into the hobby so much as to post on a watch forum or know that your watch is a homage (really just a blatant rip-off of design) then you should either look for other options or just pony up for the real deal.. I get very tired of seeing people on these forums try to justify 'homages'


I'm sorry, but I never felt the need to justify my purchase of the Milsub homage Steinhart OVM 39 just like I don't need to justify buying my Rolex Datejust or my JLC Reverso or my Omega Speedy, but thanks for trying to tell me how I should think and feel, and how I should spend my money.

Maybe you should buy a Fossil watch (apologies to Fossil owners ) and wear it among your WIS friends to experience how you think we should feel. The rest of us won't care.


----------



## askew (Oct 10, 2018)

The real question should be: “Why aren’t people embarrassed wearing gaudy homages of modern-day Rolex subs?

Like a few people said earlier—the homages of vintage subs are cooler.


----------



## orian (Feb 10, 2010)

askew said:


> The real question should be: "Why aren't people embarrassed wearing gaudy homages of modern-day Rolex subs?
> 
> Like a few people said earlier-the homages of vintage subs are cooler.


Yes, I suppose that could be a subtext of the question asked in this thread.

As I said before, homages don't bother me. The thing with homages of current Rolex Subs, though, is that the watch they are based on is too "blingy" for my personal preference. I think that's part of why I would be embarrassed wearing one. I also think you need to be living a life-style that would allow you to get away with wearing such a "statement" watch. I'm not rich like most of you here, so for me such a watch would look out of place.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't wear them. Like everyone here, I think people should wear what they like. I was just curious to know if anyone else shared my feelings on this matter. That's why I started this thread. I didn't intend it to be a thread about "homages v the genuine article" or "Rolex v (insert the name of any Rolex homage)".

Nor is it a veiled attack on the Rolex brand-as one person thought earlier. As I said before, I like homages of vintage Rolex submariners-and also homages of vintage Rolex Explorers. Mainly because they are understated, and not blingy like their modern counterparts.

Again, I'm just expressing my personal preferences.


----------



## mrhightower11 (Mar 30, 2017)

Never embarrassed but I do know what OP is trying to say. I’d never have an homage as my number 1. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

BigSeikoFan said:


> _"Pink chinos with pride" _I saw what you did there.


Lol, that was accidental (and i hope not subliminal - I am too old to change my lifestyle now ).


----------



## sleepyhead123 (Jun 2, 2014)

If I'm embarrassed about wearing something usually I just don't wear it.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

cfracing said:


> I'm sorry, but I never felt the need to justify my purchase of the Milsub homage Steinhart OVM 39 just like I don't need to justify buying my Rolex Datejust or my JLC Reverso or my Omega Speedy, but thanks for trying to tell me how I should think and feel, and how I should spend my money.


I have the God-given right to tell anyone (and everyone) what they should think and feel. I especially have the right to tell them how to spend their money.

I don't exercise these rights often, but when I do, I expect (nay, demand) that they be followed. Without hesitation or question.


----------



## Thunder1 (Feb 8, 2008)

sticky said:


> No. I wear my Steinharts and Squales because I want to wear them and not because they look like a Sub. If I wanted a Sub that badly I'd nip out and buy/order one.


I wear my Steinhart OVM 39mm because I like it's look, not what it was modeled after, which are pretty scarce these days...


----------



## TwentiethCenturyFox (Mar 8, 2014)

Well I have a Rolex Sub and no homage watches, so no.


----------



## tennesseean_87 (May 31, 2011)

iam7head said:


> Homage is not my thing but if that floats your boat then more power to you.
> 
> The closest thing to a sub homage for me, is a blackbay and tudor pelagos(self homage?), which I have no issue wearing them with pride.


Personally, I'd be much more embarrassed wearing such a tool watch with French cuffs or French cuffs without a jacket. 










Here's my homage with a button-down and jeans.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ShortOnTime (Dec 22, 2013)

I think this is a pretty entertaining thread in that 99% of the public doesn't know what an homage is in relation to watches and aren't informed enough to know the names of specific rolex models. In other words, unless you come across another watch nerd, almost no one is thinking to themself "Hmmm, I feel bad for that guy wearing the Steinhart, since he obviously can't afford the Rolex Submariner he must have really wanted."

And for me, I would be more embarrassed wearing a real Submariner or a fake Submariner. One of the reasons I went with the polar explorer is because it looks nothing like a Sub. With an homage, you can always play dumb or play the opposite---the smarter spend is on watch X vs a real Sub. Personally, I'd rather have that conversation than have people silently judge because either I have "too much money", am an obvious D-bag due to wearing a rolex, or am a complete loser by wearing a rolex-branded fake sub. 

I never understood the hate for homage watches. They typically aren't my thing, but I don't have anything against them either.


----------



## ACHUN717 (Jun 28, 2018)

I just bought and received the SQUALE 1545 20 ATMOS in Blue Ray over the weekend. I know it's a SUB Homage, but to me it's still it's OWN watch. Squale has it's own history and yes they have borrowed the design elements of the SUB, but to me it's still different because the dial is a SUNBURST dial and also has the DUAL logos on the dial as well. Just as many members have said, wear what you want, how you want, wear it proudly and you'll never feel embarrassed.


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

ACHUN717 said:


> I just bought and received the SQUALE 1545 20 ATMOS in Blue Ray over the weekend. I know it's a SUB Homage, but to me it's still it's OWN watch. Squale has it's own history and yes they have borrowed the design elements of the SUB, but to me it's still different because the dial is a SUNBURST dial and also has the DUAL logos on the dial as well. Just as many members have said, wear what you want, how you want, wear it proudly and you'll never feel embarrassed.


Congrats!


----------



## RDK (Mar 11, 2011)

Parkgate said:


> If it doesn't blatantly say Rolex across the dial, and everyone (who even cares) knows its not 'the real thing' why should ANYONE else care about someone else's watch, bar an idiot who tried to buy 'class' because they are more focused on the brand than what was initially a tool watch?


There you go. You said it.
Rolex is the real thing.
The rest isn't..


----------



## ACHUN717 (Jun 28, 2018)

YAYYY! LOLL twinning


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)




----------



## Parkgate (Jan 18, 2015)

anrex said:


> Here is my Steinhart homage...
> View attachment 13669387


Nice Steiny homage, it just doesn't have the same pie crust bezel as the O1 models, and the lugs seem a little wide, but as long as you like it I can't see why anyone else would have a problem with your watch, its not like its anyone elses business to judge in the first place, is it?


----------



## rtdavid1613 (May 8, 2018)

I don't own any myself, but if you enjoy it then I don't really see the problem
and I don't think most people will try to look closely at the watch you're wearing anyway.


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)




----------



## sleepyhead123 (Jun 2, 2014)

BigSeikoFan said:


> So you gave your pink chinos to vkalia??


Is this referring to some joke I missed out on?

As an aside though, I have a pink shirt and have had pink pants. Nothing embarrassing about the color. And I think pink chinos is better than the thongs some people wear on the beach that just disappear in the folds.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

yankeexpress said:


> Congrats!


Love the watch but I want to slap the guy who designed some of the elements on that dial! o|


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Love the watch but I want to slap the guy who designed some of the elements on that dial! o|


That's probably why they make this one, for guys like you and me:


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

sleepyhead123 said:


> Is this referring to some joke I missed out on?


Yup, please see posts 85 and 101.



sleepyhead123 said:


> As an aside though, I have a pink shirt and have had pink pants. Nothing embarrassing about the color. And I think pink chinos is better than the *thongs some people wear on the beach that just disappear in the folds.*


Oy.


----------



## Len1738 (Sep 29, 2015)

Etennyson said:


> Always an interesting question. I've had Rolex (sub, datejust, etc) and homages both. In fact, as I write this I'm wearing a Ginault (blue) Ocean Rover. Not sure I care what anyone else thinks about what I wear. I love watches. Period. My pursuit is driven by the love of this hobby. Although, I do have my eye on a few new Rolex watches . As others said, wear what you enjoy. Nothing else matters.


I couldn't care less what anyone thinks about what I wear, who are they to you anyway? If you worry that much about what someone thinks especially about what watch you wear, you've got much larger problems to deal with.


----------



## sleepyhead123 (Jun 2, 2014)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Yup, please see posts 85 and 101.
> 
> *Oy*.


Well I'm not wrong am I?


----------



## Toothbras (Apr 19, 2010)

Before owning a Sub I had an invicta 8926 and then a Debaufre (very similar to a steinhart). Without wearing and loving these I wouldn’t have known how much I liked the style and wanted a sub. 

Homages are great because it lets you try out different styles without losing much money. If I saw a guy with a sub homage I’d think he was probably into watches and would strike up a convo, especially if I had my sub on that day


----------



## readyandgame (Feb 15, 2013)

Again whatever you enjoy wearing is nobody's business! Wear it with pride!


----------



## iam7head (Dec 16, 2010)

tennesseean_87 said:


> Personally, I'd be much more embarrassed wearing such a tool watch with French cuffs or French cuffs without a jacket.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am the head of R&D department in an engineering firm. My daily routine requires me to be in meeting, global video conference as well as being in the R&D lab and factory floor. A tool watch plus a suit(jacket not pictured) I would say, it's about right for what I do.

There's time I would operate a press/messer laser cutter/crane/5 axis CNC in my 3 peices suit with my cartier as well.

Going back to the saying, whatever floats your boat.


----------



## iam7head (Dec 16, 2010)

usernameone2three said:


> "Look at my collection of expensive watches" 114060 Submariner not included


Expensive or not is relatively to where do you spend your money.

A Submariner is about the same price of a very well used Toyota Camry, 250cc motorcycle or a decent carbon road bike.


----------



## tennesseean_87 (May 31, 2011)

iam7head said:


> I am the head of R&D department in an engineering firm. My daily routine requires me to be in meeting, global video conference as well as being in the R&D lab and factory floor. A tool watch plus a suit(jacket not pictured) I would say, it's about right for what I do.
> 
> There's time I would operate a press/messer laser cutter/crane/5 axis CNC in my 3 peices suit with my cartier as well.
> 
> Going back to the saying, whatever floats your boat.


Well, maybe that's an exception. I did do the winky. I know I'm more particular than most with the formality of my wristwatches.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## maylebox (Feb 11, 2017)

I'm good with my homage Invicta (and most of my embarrassing moments happened in my youth)


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

sleepyhead123 said:


> Well I'm not wrong am I?


Nope, not a single word.


----------



## backpackerx (Mar 5, 2012)

16 years ago bought an Invicta because I liked the styling. Resembled the coin edge Sub. Stopped wearing it when an analyst I hired had the real thing and they were so close mine felt like I was pretending even though I wasn’t and honestly didn’t care until we worked side by side daily.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

iam7head said:


> Expensive or not is relatively to where do you spend your money.
> 
> A Submariner is about the same price of a very well used Toyota Camry, 250cc motorcycle or a decent carbon road bike.


You can buy a decent carbon road bike for WAY less than a Submariner. A good carbon road bike is more like Tudor Black Bay territory. Or less.


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

I wouldn't mind a Tudor BlackBay58


----------



## bigvatch (Sep 25, 2007)

orian said:


> That's a nice homage of a vintage sword hand Rolex sub, and I wouldn't be embarrassed wearing that either. In my book, homages of vintage watches are cool. But I would be of a homage of a current Rolex sub.


Yes very very cool, but FYI, 99.9999999% of the general public have no clue of the difference between a Steinhart mil-sub homage and the other Steinhart sub homages. In reality it's no different than the other modern homage aside from hands/dial/bezel insert, from the same factory. In reality it's not even a true homage, in terms of "paying respect", not to mention the original is intended for use with a nylon strap and has fixed bars and has a different case size etc.

My point is, all these homages we mostly see on WUS are mostly for watch enthusiasts that simply enjoy a hobby...I would suggest not losing sleep over what some uninformed jerk thinks. If someone wants to pretend from a far that their homage is a real such and such have at it , none of my business to even care.......but I bet most people in the hobby love it when someone recognises their homage watch for what it actually is.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

orian said:


> Is anyone embarrassed by wearing a Rolex Submariner homage?
> 
> I used to have one but hardly wore it, in case people looked at it closely and saw it wasn't the real thing, and thaught I was a "wannabe" Rolex owner. That would be very embarrassing for me.
> 
> ...


Yes, I feel this way. In general, I prefer to wear an unrecognizable watch for the purpose of "a watch seen in public". But that's just me, an average guy that wants to look average. I dislike wearing my Tudor Sub (hand-me down from my Dad, not my own choosing). In my mind, it could be misinterpreted as wannabe Rolex Sub wearer, when I have no wish to wear a Rolex Sub.  Yes, I feel the same way, if Rolex Sub were unknown to public, I'd feel more at ease to wear Tudor Sub (just because I have one to wear, not because I like it).


----------



## Engels (Oct 11, 2018)

ShortOnTime said:


> I think this is a pretty entertaining thread in that 99% of the public doesn't know what an homage is in relation to watches and aren't informed enough to know the names of specific rolex models. In other words, unless you come across another watch nerd, almost no one is thinking to themself "Hmmm, I feel bad for that guy wearing the Steinhart, since he obviously can't afford the Rolex Submariner he must have really wanted."


Most people who have seen the James Bond films up till "Goldeneye" will be aware of what a Rolex sub looks like. As a kid, due to the Bond films, the only make of watch I was aware of was Rolex. Oh... and also Timex. I had a kid's one at the time - in the early 1970s.


----------



## Perseverence (Dec 12, 2016)

orian said:


> Is anyone embarrassed by wearing a Rolex Submariner homage?
> 
> I used to have one but hardly wore it, in case people looked at it closely and saw it wasn't the real thing, and thaught I was a "wannabe" Rolex owner. That would be very embarrassing for me.
> 
> ...


No. You place too much importance on material things for the sake of a picture.


----------



## Mrs Wiggles (Nov 7, 2018)

orian said:


> Is anyone embarrassed by wearing a Rolex Submariner homage?
> 
> I used to have one but hardly wore it, in case people looked at it closely and saw it wasn't the real thing, and thaught I was a "wannabe" Rolex owner. That would be very embarrassing for me.
> 
> ...


What a great thread. I don't own, and never would because I know I would spend half my life convincing people it was real. I would rather own a high quality homage that bears it's own name and costs one third of the price. Of course, that doesn't mean that the submariner isn't an excellent watch.


----------



## orian (Feb 10, 2010)

Perseverence said:


> No. You place too much importance on material things for the sake of a picture.


You might have a point. It is a bit silly of me to think that way. But I can't help it-at least not with homages of current Rolex Submariners. I was just curious to see if anyone else thought this way too. That's why I asked the question.

I guess it raises a larger question-"Is there a watch that you would be embarrassed wearing?" Maybe that is what I should have asked instead.


----------



## tennesseean_87 (May 31, 2011)

Is this a Rolex homage or does the crown position negate that? It was fun to buy a cheap 6309 redial from India, put a R4ff135 dial and acrylic crystal in and take a marker to the lume and Invicta hands.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## seedubs1 (Dec 22, 2017)

No, because I wouldn't buy one.

To each their own, but I don't do homages.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

orian said:


> You might have a point. It is a bit silly of me to think that way. But I can't help it-at least not with homages of current Rolex Submariners. I was just curious to see if anyone else thought this way too. That's why I asked the question.
> 
> I guess it raises a larger question-"Is there a watch that you would be embarrassed wearing?"* Maybe that is what I should have asked instead*.


Indeed. There are tons of watches I wouldn't wea, my copy watches are not among those . . .


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

vkalia said:


> I dont care for homages in general - but leaving that aside for a second, why the hell would i be embarrassed to wear whatever I wanted? I am not in high school anymore. Hell, at the age of 45, I wear pink chinos with pride. Not salmon. Pink.


I have a pretty conservative color palette for my wardrobe-I recently bought a pair of gray jeans and it was difficult for me to work that into my rotation. I like pink though, I wear pink more in shirts or ties than pants, though.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

Champagne InHand said:


> Why waste several thousand dollars that I could be using to go toward hobbies like traveling, photography, cigars, wines & spirits.
> 
> It seems foolish to buy a Rolex, when it comes to asset management. It's much like having a nice home that's small as we on,y have the two of us, with a guest room upstairs and a great room for everything besides the master suite. Our basement has a wine cellar, a full sized billiards table, another guest room, a rumpus room for when the grandchildren and nephews/nieces visit and storage. All this while some people that are just 2 choose palatial palace type McMansions and keep their assets tied up in that. For what? The same thing as buying a Rolex, so others can see you in the brand or home that is too big.
> 
> ...


If you think the only reason to wear a quality watch is to show it off to others, then I'm afraid you're doing it wrong. That would be like me saying the only reason for someone to drink Opus One is to show off that they can afford it, especially since Apothic Red does the same thing.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

Oh, and even though I’ve said this a million times, I’ll say it again so I’m clear. Yes, I would be embarrassed to wear any watch that pretends to be something it’s not. A dive style watch that can’t go into deep water. A watch that looks like a chronograph, but isn’t. An homage watch that is essentially a copy from a different company (as opposed to in-house homage watches/reissues that come out from time to time). But do I think ill of people who wear homages? No, not one bit. I have ridiculous quirks and rules and standards for myself, I don’t intend for other people to live by them. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with wanting a watch and getting one with a similar style; after all, not everyone can afford an $8,000 watch—I count myself very lucky that I have the means to own luxury goods.


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

I went through a Sub homage stage a while back, and sometimes I'm still tempted to buy one. But then I remember that wearing one makes me feel like I'm driving a Land Wind.


----------



## cortman (Sep 20, 2018)

I could not care less about people thinking my Steinhart Ocean One GMT is a Sub or a GMT Master or what have you. If someone asked me "Is that a Rolex" I would happily tell them "nope, it's a Steinhart. Takes design cues from Rolex but it's its own watch."
I know why I'm wearing it and that it's purely for personal aesthetic enjoyment, not to try to appear something I'm not. I don't care what other people think of that.
I like aspects of the Steinhart, such as the lugs and case design, much better than any Rolex anyway.


----------



## oldfatherthames (Aug 20, 2015)

cortman said:


> I could not care less about people thinking my Steinhart Ocean One GMT is a Sub or a GMT Master or what have you. If someone asked me "Is that a Rolex" I would happily tell them "nope, it's a Steinhart. Takes design cues from Rolex but it's its own watch."


And as we learned before that 99% of the general public doesn't have a clue about special Rolex models anyway, you will get away with that statement most of the times.

Cheers!
Bernd


----------



## Medusa (Feb 6, 2010)

For the sake of discussion, I think it could be more embarrassing to wear a real Rolex than a homage.

To the majority of people, a Rolex is an obscene waste of money. I think only 1 in 10 people would be impressed. The other 9 would not. 

While I do not own a Rolex, I have been extremely embarrassed and had a lot of uncomfortable explaining to do when I did reveal the price of my semi-expensive watch.


----------



## Sourabh (May 3, 2013)

sticky said:


> No. I wear my Steinharts and Squales because I want to wear them and not because they look like a Sub. If I wanted a Sub that badly I'd nip out and buy/order one.


I use to have a steinhart and wore it proudly without any shame.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## goyoneuff (Dec 9, 2007)

Me. That is why I changed the dial in my 16800 for the , THE, best dial ever !



Yeah... I get easily embarrassed...

:Wink:


----------



## desdamonas_rocketship (Jan 4, 2009)

I wear an homage of an homage of a Rolex Submariner and get compliments.


----------



## garynz (Jul 24, 2018)

orian said:


> Is anyone embarrassed by wearing a Rolex Submariner homage?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Does anyone else feel this way?


No, not at all.

The Sub was so innovative when it came out that it's natural that it was widely imitated by just about every other watch brand. Where do you draw the line? Pretty much any diver with a rotating bezel could be considered derivative of the Sub (and, yes, I know that some look more like the Rolex than others...)

The argument that you should just buy a 'real' Sub simply doesn't stand up - a 'real' one costs 5 - 10 times more than a high quality homage. Obviously that's going to make a big difference to many people.

Lastly, I really don't give a damn what other people think. I buy and wear the watches that I like. Some are expensive, some are cheap, some very original, and one (a Steinhart) looks rather like a Rolex Sub - which is exactly what I like about it!


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

Kudos to the BSH = Brotherhood of Submariner Homages.


----------



## Nippon Rookie (Mar 11, 2016)

I purchased my dive watch because I like what it offered in style, functionality, and price. I don't think anyone would mistake it for a Rolex.


----------



## Porterjrm (Aug 3, 2016)

Not at all. Make it your own and enjoy wearing it. Many of us love the stylings of Rolex but would rather spend that money elsewhere.


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

What I find most amusing about this thread is how the title of the thread appears on my screen:

Is anyone embarrassed by wearing a Rolex


----------



## justadad (Jun 5, 2014)

Homages! 

I'll tell you what's the worst is when I'm struttin' around town feeling good, feeling great, full of life, wearing my favorite outfit (white t-shirt and dark blue jeans) and a random denim expert comes up to me and says "Hey brutha, nice Levis!" and I'm forced to show him the label that clearly says Gap! 

Usually that's when R.D.Expert just points and laughs at me so that everyone on the street knows that I'm wearing homage jeans!

So embarrassing!

"It's pointless for a human to paint scenes of nature when they can go outside and stand in it." -Ron Swanson-


----------



## SeikoBaritone (Apr 12, 2017)

Had an Invicta sub homage...realized it looked exactly like a sub and promptly got an SKX007


----------



## justadad (Jun 5, 2014)

Nippon Rookie said:


> I purchased my dive watch because I like what it offered in style, functionality, and price. I don't think anyone would mistake it for a Rolex.
> 
> View attachment 13675247


Nice Submariner!

"It's pointless for a human to paint scenes of nature when they can go outside and stand in it." -Ron Swanson-


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

It gives me the 'willies' to even touch one.


----------



## jelliottz (Dec 10, 2012)

No. I don't worry that someone might think I'm wearing a Rolex and be disappointed the it's an homage. Just like I don't worry that someone might think I'm gay because I kiss one of my guy friends on the cheek. I don't worry that someone might think I'm a woman because I wear women's running shorts. 

Be confident in yourself. Don't sweat the small stuff. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## seadial (Jan 14, 2010)

No, because not being a show-off I wear a watch to tell the time and the pleasure of wearing and looking at it, not to impress other people. Plus most of the time the watch is hidden by my sleeve and in hot weather I will be wearing my Seiko dive watch anyway. Mixing with people who will judge you by the watch you wear seems pretty shallow to me, but no doubt there are many who keep the $20k plus watch industry busy. Or more if you wear one of these!


----------



## Incompass (Jan 9, 2012)

Nope! I go out of my way to compliment someone who has a nice watch I notice regardless of its brand name. I wear my watches for me not those around me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pmarte (Jul 4, 2016)

Nope, not embarrassed.


----------



## Porterjrm (Aug 3, 2016)

pmarte said:


> Nope, not embarrassed.
> View attachment 13675391


Good looking watches there bro!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hamstur (Nov 6, 2017)

Don't ever plan on wearing homages, but don't see anything wrong with them.

Now what should be embarrassing is:

- People who own Rolex who look down upon those who don't. Fickle.

- People who call Rolex owners fools. Hater.


----------



## momo15 (Mar 18, 2015)

pmarte said:


> Nope, not embarrassed.
> View attachment 13675391


What is the speedy style bracelet on the Seiko 5?


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

momo15 said:


> What is the speedy style bracelet on the Seiko 5?


OEM


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

cel4145 said:


> As a holiday shopping special, Armida has 15% off until Dec. 18th. Ordered myself an Armida A2 this past Friday :-!


It's here! I will wear it with pride tomorrow!


----------



## hanif.rayney (Aug 28, 2014)

cel4145 said:


> It's here! I will wear it with pride tomorrow!
> 
> View attachment 13675629


Beautiful!

I wish they still have the A9 for sale!
A2 is 42mm?

IG: @horobro


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

hanif.rayney said:


> Beautiful!
> 
> I wish they still have the A9 for sale!
> A2 is 42mm?
> ...


Yes. The A2 is 42mm.


----------



## Lowrota (Jul 23, 2018)

Embarrassed? No. Wasting wrist time? Yeah.


----------



## Palo (Jul 5, 2018)

Had to throw on my Steinhart pepsi after reading this thread!!

I’ll probably never be able to buy a Rolex and I’m perfectly fine with wearing a homage. I got my Steinhart because I like the look and wanted a GMT and not for the resemblance to a Rolex. 

But I am considering getting a Smiths Explorer homage bc that’s my favorite Rolex and I can’t afford the real one...yet!


----------



## hungdangnguyen23 (Mar 21, 2018)

hanif.rayney said:


> cel4145 said:
> 
> 
> > It's here! I will wear it with pride tomorrow!
> ...


I've emailed Chris and he told me they have no plans to make the A9 again in the future...

Gutted and heartbroken....I've been chasing an A9 for a while and missed one on the Sales forum about 3 or 4 weeks ago, doh!


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

A9 500 version 1.0 on the non-rivet bracelet from the A9-1200.


----------



## bjkennyp (Oct 11, 2018)

I've had 2 GMT over the past 40 years. Loved them for the reliability, the feel, the look. In addition as a shortwave radio fan and business flyer I especially liked and appreciated the multi time zone feature.
However this year amid the explosion in Rolex values, I no longer felt comfortable sporting 8k watch on my wrist in airports, distant cities or travelling by motorcycle.
Throw in a $500 "tune-up" every few years and I decided it was time to sell.
Now I have a Steinhart Ocean 1. Nice Swiss movement, good looks and feels similar to the Rolex on my wrist.
I also find it easier convincing my wife that I have a real need to collect some of the more interesting vintage watches currently available.
As for the the purists - been there, done that and thank you for pay in the big bucks for my old watches.


----------



## Karriope (Dec 31, 2017)

When I show a non-watch-type-someone a Submariner-dial-esque watch, I usually get told "It looks generic".

I'm quite okay with my Ocean Titanium though. But I'm not fond of watches that follow the modern Sub look too closely. But less solely because of the homaging/copying thing and more that I'm not inherently fond of the Sub dial to begin with.


----------



## columela (Jan 5, 2015)

The answer to the question is to some extent yes. I had a nice Steinhart Ocean one in green, which i loved for a while , but slowly it came to nag me the idea that it was just a Submariner copy without anything original to say and it was only the impossibility to buy a Rolex Hulk that made me enjoy the Steinhart. I ended up selling it after a few months, with no regrets.


----------



## BenjaminoBissetti (Jul 18, 2018)

I'm at the bottom-feeder end of the submariner homage rankings, never been a fan of Rolex. My brother gave me a dive watch when I was a kid, think it was a Casio or Timex, I loved the fact that it was luminescent (a big thing for a kid in the 70s). So when looking for a beater watch I thought i'd be nostalgic and get something similar (not realising it was a sub rip-off). The fact that it is trying to be a sub annoys me, but then it's hard to find a dive watch that isn't based on a Rolex design and looks like a dive watch, just my opinion.

I wear it often, it's taken a beating and still keeps good time, plus the lume isn't half bad. For a watch that cost less than it's strap I'm quite impressed.


----------



## justadad (Jun 5, 2014)

I'll ask a question in return. 

What's worse:

Someone asking if your watch is a... (let's say Rolex for homage simplicity sake)... and you saying "No, it's a (insert name of brand here)" proudly;

OR

Saying to someone wearing a Sub "Hey, nice sub! Is that a 16610?" and the wearer saying "Uh, no! It's a Rolex!" 

Obviously you can be proud of whatever you wear or you can be a dick and not even know the model, history, or legacy of the brand (in this case Rolex). 

By the way...... this exact scenario has happened to me. 

All the guy knew was it was a Rolex. THAT'S all he cared about. That is sad indeed. Far worse than wearing an homage that, dollars to donuts, no one will ever mention. Ever. 

"It's pointless for a human to paint scenes of nature when they can go outside and stand in it." -Ron Swanson-


----------



## Roningrad (Aug 2, 2018)

Interesting exchanges here. A Rolex sub or a BLNR is my grail watch. They’re awesome. However, the cost-benefit of having one is a question. I have to address that by myself. I can enjoy a whole lot of things, vacations, etc. at price of either Rolex. But does this outweigh my want to have one? 

Personally, I don’t care what others think about the watch I’m wearing. As long as I’m happy and comfortable with it and it’s not a fake/rep. 

Here’s my Squale 1521 classic. I bought it to ascertain if this will address my wish to have a sub. I’m loving it! Homage and all. At the same time I’m trying to save funds as well for either a Rolex sub or BNLR. At the end of the day, once I have the funds and the opportunity to purchase is there, I can and will decide.


----------



## skyefalcon6 (Apr 10, 2015)

Question: Is anyone embarrassed by wearing a Rolex Submariner homage?

Answer: Nope


----------



## tennesseean_87 (May 31, 2011)

Can we just keep this thread alive with sub homage pics for the next few years?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## scropeandgrey (Oct 3, 2018)

No - why would you be embarrassed by another person confusing the brand of a watch? If you only bought the homage thinking it would confuse people into thinking it was a Rolex (this is distinct from liking the general styling of the Rolex and wanting a homage to it - which is fine), then you should perhaps be embarrassed. Otherwise, definitely not.


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

tennesseean_87 said:


> Can we just keep this thread alive with sub homage pics for the next few years?


----------



## haxonwax (Nov 27, 2018)

Generally speaking it would't bother me because almost anything gets compared by folks to the Rolex Sub (even when it's not a true homage). However, some of my watch snob friends would get on me about buying a homage vs. waiting until you can simply afford the real thing. I don't have any at the moment, but I'm seriously considering the Steinhart Ocean One Vintage.


----------



## chefmhf (Jan 22, 2015)

Palo said:


> Had to throw on my Steinhart pepsi after reading this thread!!
> 
> I'll probably never be able to buy a Rolex and I'm perfectly fine with wearing a homage. I got my Steinhart because I like the look and wanted a GMT and not for the resemblance to a Rolex.
> 
> But I am considering getting a Smiths Explorer homage bc that's my favorite Rolex and I can't afford the real one...yet!


I have a Smiths Everest. It's a great watch, the slightly noisy Miyota 9015 movement notwithstanding. I didn't buy it because it looks like anything else, but rather because I have Smiths gauges in my Austin Healey and loved the connection.


----------



## mauler8999 (Sep 4, 2018)

Well depends on what is consider a homage.
Just off the top of my head.

Orient ray 2
Seiko skx 007
Casio mdv diver
Glycine combat sub
Seiko sea urchin 
Tissot seastar 1000
Seiko srp777 turtle
Orient mako 2
Seiko mini turtle

Man if I was embarrassed. I would stop wearing all these watches.

I only consider a watch homage if they copy the Rolex sub 90% to 99%. Something like a ALPHA Daytona. Had alpha put "Rolex" on the dial it will most likely fool most none watch people.


----------



## thrills (Aug 27, 2015)

I wouldn't mind picking up a reasonably faithful homage (ginault?) to try out the style / size/ look / feel before dropping big coin on the real thing (which I assume I will do eventually). I don't expect I would be embarrassed of /about it.


----------



## haxonwax (Nov 27, 2018)

Nice pics. I've considered buying both these watches over the last year or so. I don't see either of these watches as homages IMO.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

justadad said:


> I'll ask a question in return.
> 
> What's worse:
> 
> ...


No doubt that many people know little about them.

I totally get it when people that are watch enthusiasts want to add a Rolex to their collection because of its horological history.

But when I see someone wearing a Rolex submariner or datejust in public, it always reminds me that many people buy these as symbols of wealth, status, and/or of achieving success. And I know some people feel that is part of why a Rolex is iconic.

However, to me, a Rolex is _such_ a cliche in that regard. So much so that I would never wear one.


----------



## Engels (Oct 11, 2018)

cel4145 said:


> But when I see someone wearing a Rolex submariner or datejust in public, it always reminds me that many people buy these as symbols of wealth, status, and/or of achieving success. And I know some people feel that is part of why a Rolex is iconic.
> 
> However, to me, a Rolex is _such_ a cliche in that regard. So much so that I would never wear one.


I was thinking this too.

It's become a cliché and symbol of opulent wealth. Worn by rich men who collect expensive art but don't like art.

And as someone said earlier, the modern Rolexes are gaudy and bling-not like the 1960s and 50s ones. The modern Rolex sub is almost a parody of its former self.


----------



## Hands90 (Jun 8, 2015)

Homage threads should be banned. 

These come up every month and I'm so very tired of seeing them. 
To me there is literally 'no' justification for a sub homage. 

It's one of the most popular watches in the world and if you can't afford it then don't wear a copy.
If I could only afford a timex, I'd wear a timex. 

I worked really hard to buy a sub.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

Engels said:


> I was thinking this too.
> 
> It's become a cliché and symbol of opulent wealth. Worn by rich men who collect expensive art but don't like art.
> 
> And as someone said earlier, the modern Rolexes are gaudy and bling-not like the 1960s and 50s ones. The modern Rolex sub is almost a parody of its former self.


I agree. And then this is why most submariner homages are much more interesting to me in comparison to most Rolexes. A sub homage celebrates what is great about those older Rolexes: the classic dive designs. When a sub homage is...say...~ $1K, it acknowledges the design, yet resists the not so good pretentious baggage that accompanies the Rolex brand and its price that is actually why many (not all) people buy Rolexes.

So show me a $5K collection of 5-10 different sub homages that a WUS member has put together, and I'm likely to drool. Show me a photo of a newish Rolex sub, and I'm pretty meh about it.


----------



## VicLeChic (Jul 24, 2013)

I'm not ashamed of wearing my 44mm Kentex Marineman "Hulk" lookalike. I find its green MOP dial stunning and I get +1.5 s/d from its regulated NH35A from factory.

Comes with ceramic bezel, sapphire crystal and beautiful bracelet with a diver extension. Costs 840 USD plus tax. I wear it more than my Rolex Yacht-Master 116622. It's my favorite watch for the money, by far. I tried the Sub Hulk three years ago at the AD, didn't like it.

More often than not I find that my taste is not about money.


----------



## arogle1stus (May 23, 2013)

Not necessarily embarrassed. I just don't, as a rule, buy replicas out of respect for Rolex employees.
I want the REAL DEEL. Too many knockoffs in the world already!!!!

X Traindriver Art


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

I don't think that's an Sub homage, at least by the definition of this thread. The design is obviously derivative, but that's it. But anyways, nice looking watch! That green MOP looks great. You should post some real-life pics in the Dive Watch Forum with a little write up.



VicLeChic said:


> I'm not ashamed of wearing my 44mm Kentex Marineman "Hulk" lookalike. I find its green MOP dial stunning and I get +1.5 s/d from its regulated NH35A from factory.
> 
> Comes with ceramic bezel, sapphire crystal and beautiful bracelet with a diver extension. Costs 840 USD plus tax. I wear it more than my Rolex Yacht-Master 116622. It's my favorite watch for the money, by far. I tried the Sub Hulk three years ago at the AD, didn't like it.
> 
> More often than not I find that my taste is not about money.


----------



## Munchie (Dec 20, 2013)

Hands90 said:


> Homage threads should be banned.
> 
> These come up every month and I'm so very tired of seeing them.
> To me there is literally 'no' justification for a sub homage.
> ...


This post is actually quite funny!

Especially the last line.


----------



## cfracing (Feb 21, 2015)

I'm embarrassed for all of the insecure WISs out there that can't enjoy and appreciate their Rolex Subs for what they are and can only feel threatened because they think other people's perception of homage/copy/rip-offs/"fake" Sub watches should agree with their own hatred of them. 

A common thread I see running through almost all of the anti-homage comments is a reliance on what other people think. Now I'm not the most confident person in the world, but as I've grown and matured I have come to the realization that my actions should not mostly be driven by what other people will think, particularly relevant in deciding which watches to buy. Also, there is the dismissive perception that all people who wear homage watches do so because they can't afford the "real thing". I can afford to buy a brand new real Rolex Submariner and pay cash for it, assuming I could find one for sale ;-), but have chosen to buy Steinhart instead, and I am sure I am not the only one.

I purchased a homage to the MilSub because I like the sword hand but personally do not care for any of the other Sub homages and would never buy one. However, I am not going to judge, negatively or otherwise, anyone who does chose to buy one.


----------



## Vioviv (May 8, 2017)

Hands90 said:


> Homage threads should be banned.
> 
> These come up every month and I'm so very tired of seeing them.
> To me there is literally 'no' justification for a sub homage.
> ...


Points for honesty!
It boils the anti-homage sentiment down to the core issue: _ if you can't afford it, you don't deserve it and shouldn't have it. _
Now maybe this thread can be locked, because there's nothing else to add.
The next thread however should be whether or not buying gray market or preowned is fair to members who buy from authorized dealers. If you can't afford full MSRP, do you deserve it?


----------



## VicLeChic (Jul 24, 2013)

pinkybrain said:


> I don't think that's an Sub homage, at least by the definition of this thread. The design is obviously derivative, but that's it. But anyways, nice looking watch! That green MOP looks great. You should post some real-life pics in the Dive Watch Forum with a little write up.


I hought I had done a little review on WUS but clearly not, only on a couple other forums in other languages. I'll work something out .


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

cel4145 said:


> And then this is why most submariner homages are much more interesting to me in comparison to most Rolexes. A sub homage celebrates what is great about those older Rolexes: the classic dive designs. When a sub homage is...say...~ $1K, it acknowledges the design,* yet resists the not so good pretentious baggage that accomanies the brand and its price that is actually why many (not all) people buy them.*


You had me up until the bolded part. My opinion is that the appeal of the sub homage is that it celebrates the design of those older Rolexes while still allowing someone like me to buy one and use it like I would have used a Rolex in the 1960s. The price point isn't so high that a salaried dude like myself would balk at taking it it skin diving, or on a balk country hike. To use it like it's supposed to be / designed to be used.


----------



## mauler8999 (Sep 4, 2018)

Homage is great as long as it does not copy everything from the original watch.


----------



## excelerater (Jan 9, 2016)

no one cares..

You think all my champagne is from France ?


----------



## mauler8999 (Sep 4, 2018)

excelerater said:


> no one cares..
> 
> You think all my champagne is from France ?


Is it from ALDI?? Sorry can't resist.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

TheWalrus said:


> You had me up until the bolded part. My opinion is that the appeal of the sub homage is that it celebrates the design of those older Rolexes while still allowing someone like me to buy one and use it like I would have used a Rolex in the 1960s. The price point isn't so high that a salaried dude like myself would balk at taking it it skin diving, or on a balk country hike. To use it like it's supposed to be / designed to be used.


I think you and I probably do agree (I wasn't sure if the pronoun usage in my post you quoted was getting in the way, so I just edited it). The fact that they are priced better to be used to suit their design does, in fact, resist the Rolex luxury status branding (and pricing) of Rolex's recent and current sub offerings.


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

When a Mercedes owner sees someone driving a Geely Merrie 300, I don't think they feel threatened. My guess is they feel embarrassed for them.









That said, I'm not against homage watches. Furthermore, in one sense watches are the exact opposite of cars - cars are the material object, outside of your house, that people notice the most about you and watches are near the bottom. I'm convinced people pay more attention to the shoes you're wearing than the watch you're wearing. And people generally don't notice shoes.

I went through a Sub homage phase, and I'm convinced no one noticed any of those watches. But if I put one back on I'd be a little embarrassed for myself.

I'm also not against knockoffs. One of my favorite watches is a knockoff. However, it's a knockoff to a discontinued and - even when it was made - very obscure watch that even most WIS wouldn't recognize. If I'm out and about and you recognize this as a knockoff, boy do I want to have a conversation with you.











cfracing said:


> I'm embarrassed for all of the insecure WISs out there that can't enjoy and appreciate their Rolex Subs for what they are and can only feel threatened because they think other people's perception of homage/copy/rip-offs/"fake" Sub watches should agree with their own hatred of them.
> 
> A common thread I see running through almost all of the anti-homage comments is a reliance on what other people think. Now I'm not the most confident person in the world, but as I've grown and matured I have come to the realization that my actions should not mostly be driven by what other people will think, particularly relevant in deciding which watches to buy. Also, there is the dismissive perception that all people who wear homage watches do so because they can't afford the "real thing". I can afford to buy a brand new real Rolex Submariner and pay cash for it, assuming I could find one for sale ;-), but have chosen to buy Steinhart instead, and I am sure I am not the only one.
> 
> I purchased a homage to the MilSub because I like the sword hand but personally do not care for any of the other Sub homages and would never buy one. However, I am not going to judge, negatively or otherwise, anyone who does chose to buy one.


----------



## mauler8999 (Sep 4, 2018)

pinkybrain said:


> I am convinced people pay more attention to the shoes you're wearing than the watch you're wearing. And people generally don't notice shoes.


Yeah that's my experience as well. No one notice it or cares. Even if they do they are not going to come up to you and talk to you about it.

People notices your cloth and shoes far more.


----------



## justadad (Jun 5, 2014)

chefmhf said:


> I'm not trying to start anything here but feel that you're missing an obvious reality. You call a guy a dick because he doesn't know "the model, history and legacy" of the brand. What you're missing is that probably 90% of Rolex owners out there just like the watch. Unless you participate in fora like this you likely don't know anything about the watch's history. I don't think that makes a person a dick. Perhaps your reaction proves you a snob. Next time, perhaps you should take the opportunity to discuss those things with the man and see if you can spark an interest.


No, I don't feel you're starting anything but I also don't think your correct either. Maybe a buyer wouldn't learn anything about the brand history (I find that odd, but then again I'm a hopelessly curious learner). But for the guy to not even know the model name..... thats another matter. I was there. He was a dick. If you'd been there, you would have called him a dick. He was a dick. End of story. I wasn't calling the guy a dick because he didn't know the history of the brand. I called him a dick because he acted and said things that revealed his phallic personality! You only got a snapshot of my interaction with the guy. Perhaps that's the obvious reality you should consider.

As for me being a snob, I fear you couldn't be further off. My problem is I like them all! I like my $10 Casio and my expensive vintage pieces. I like to walk by the Timex counter at Wal-Mart to see what's out.

Maybe I have a little less patience than I should for guys who want a status symbol on their wrist and care nothing about the heritage, and maybe I'll work on that some day. But more likely I'll just let that remain an endearing character flaw!

"It's pointless for a human to paint scenes of nature when they can go outside and stand in it." -Ron Swanson-


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

mauler8999 said:


> Yeah that's my experience as well. No one notice it or cares. Even if they do they are not going to come up to you and talk to you about it.
> 
> People notices your cloth and shoes far more.


This whole 'people notice your shoes first' thing has always puzzled me. I've heard it a lot, so I guess it's true, but in my experience the only people who notice (and say) anything about my shoes are fellow runners.


----------



## dashdaddy (Jun 5, 2016)

No you should not be embarrassed to wear a watch. You're not breaking any laws by wearing an homage that most people won't notice anyway. You'll have more people comment over a blue g-shock or an Apple watch before they'll say anything about your homage. All the same, homages are hotly contested here on the forums. Before I bought my Submariner I wore a Steinhart Ocean One. Initially, I loved the Steinhart, but once I learned more about Rolex and the Submariner, and realized how Steinhart has so many dive watch homages, I became turned off. I would never buy am homage again. Never. I am not bashing homages in any way, they're just not for me. From a financial perspective be careful with homages and other midtier watches. Since they're affordable it's easy to buy too many instead of holding out for what you truly want. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## watchcrank_tx (Sep 1, 2012)

Vioviv said:


> It boils the anti-homage sentiment down to the core issue: _ if you can't afford it, you don't deserve it and shouldn't have it. _
> Now maybe this thread can be locked, because there's nothing else to add.


Please do not tar all of us who dislike clones with the same brush. For my part it's mostly that I believe the world is a more interesting place when people working in artistic fields - such as styling - use their own creativity to come up with something new rather than take the lazy route and copy someone else's hard work.

(I do not feel this way about non-artistic fields, such as the engineering that goes on behind the dial, but neither do the patent systems - now more than five centuries old - which are designed to reward innovators with a short period of exclusivity but ultimately to allow all users to benefit in the long term. That's probably why I'm a lot softer on clones of primarily functional dials - mainly those of military watches designed for optimum legibility with minimal input of artistry - than I am of watches and cases designed to ape directly the work of other designers paid by other companies.)

To speak directly to your point of affordability and just deserts, I feel *completely opposite* to the poster whom you quoted. To my mind exclusivity is a *bad* thing, and "exclusive" is a turn-off word. Why would I want to exclude anyone from something that is good? At the same time however I'm unwilling to applaud Xerox design. If a good designer comes up with something great and prices it such that I'm excluded, so be it, I will buy something else from someone else.

(I will add that the misuse of the word "homage" on WUS and a few other sites also grates on my sense of proper use of language.)

A final point is that when it comes to clones from sketchier sources, e.g., the sub $100 TaoBao/Ali/Ebay markets, the clones are often only an extra white-market revenue stream for makers of black market counterfeit watches. This can be observed in many cases simply by the replication of obvious tells from the fakes in the execution of the name-changed-only clones. That is a market I very much don't wish to support, though I admit that I did a few times out of naiveté in my early days after returning to watches.


----------



## bigvatch (Sep 25, 2007)

Engels said:


> I was thinking this too.
> 
> It's become a cliché and symbol of opulent wealth. Worn by rich men who collect expensive art but don't like art.
> 
> And as someone said earlier, the modern Rolexes are gaudy and bling-not like the 1960s and 50s ones. The modern Rolex sub is almost a parody of its former self.


"Worn by rich men who collect expensive art but don't like art."

I never met anyone that collects expensive art. I wish I did because I love being exposed to art and love learning about art. I think collecting 'expensive' art is largely about 2 things though... enjoying it and investing.. Rolexes however, seem very common. I know more people (family and friends) that own Rolex than I do Omega and I know several that own Omega.


----------



## donvegas (Apr 16, 2018)

I don't own any homages but I highly doubt anyone in my social circle would even notice my watch... I wish they would sometimes but I just sit and admire my watches in silence


----------



## Vioviv (May 8, 2017)

watchcrank said:


> Please do not tar all of us who dislike clones with the same brush ...


I appreciate your intelligent response to my sarcastic post, and you're correct that not everyone should be tarred for one member's sentiment. There is a big difference between someone concerned only with exclusivity and someone expressing an aesthetic preference.


----------



## Astro_train (Nov 14, 2008)

I have owned a couple of homage watches and had bad experience with their durability.. I was not embarrassed to wear them when I did own them but the fact two of them came with issues in their movements, I decided never again. I am sure someone already mentioned this but homage watches cost as much as an entry level Seiko diver. So why do people really buy them? Is it to because they do like the look of a Rolex? I would think so... without having to pay the money for one. Oddly enough in my circle of friends, the vast majority do not own luxury watches but they do know of the different popular Swiss brands.. do I care if they notice.. nope. I have owned several different Swiss makes for the last 10 years and up to now I finally plan to buy my first Rolex. Its not so much because I could not afford one before but I feel now I will truly enjoy wearing and owning one.. Same way I enjoyed any of my other watches that I owned in the past. Yes they are expensive but its only money... you can't take it with you people.


----------



## watchcrank_tx (Sep 1, 2012)

Vioviv said:


> I appreciate your intelligent response to my sarcastic post, and you're correct that not everyone should be tarred for one member's sentiment. There is a big difference between someone concerned only with exclusivity and someone expressing an aesthetic preference.


Well said, and thank you. I'm reminded that you and I share an interest in one particularly brilliant homage - in both senses of the word. |>


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

jelliottz said:


> No. I don't worry that someone might think I'm wearing a Rolex and be disappointed the it's an homage. Just like I don't worry that someone might think I'm gay because I kiss one of my guy friends on the cheek. I don't worry that someone might think I'm a woman because I wear women's running shorts.
> 
> Be confident in yourself. Don't sweat the small stuff.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Which cheek? ;-)

(See, that's a joke. We're all having fun here.)


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

chefmhf said:


> I have a Smiths Everest. It's a great watch, the slightly noisy Miyota 9015 movement notwithstanding. I didn't buy it because it looks like anything else, but rather because I have Smiths gauges in my Austin Healey and loved the connection.


That Healey is absolutely gorgeous.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

TheWalrus said:


> This whole 'people notice your shoes first' thing has always puzzled me. I've heard it a lot, so I guess it's true, but in my experience the only people who notice (and say) anything about my shoes are fellow runners.


I've gotten more comments on my shoes (from both men and women; mostly women in the day to day life, but like you, it's men at the gym who talk sneakers) than probably any other things I own, with my Saddleback bags in second. I just got back from a two week trip in Napa and Maui and my bag (chestnut flight bag) got multiple comments, while not one person said a thing about my Submariner, except when I took it to the Rolex AD in Wailea to have it cleaned, but that doesn't count.


----------



## American Jedi (May 27, 2017)

To me it’s just one step above wearing a Replica/fake.
I would just feel dirty wearing it, and would much rather have something cheaper or originally.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

People sometimes wonder if others notice this or that. Rolex Submariner is designed to be recognizable? Before or after my interest in watches started, when I talk with someone, or look at people, admittedly afterwards often I can't recall what they wear, but some things/brands stand out by design and are hard to miss if I happen to glance at it. e.g.:































View attachment 13679295








e.g. In real life, I remember seeing a specific person with Apple watch, a specific person with LV bag, and a specific people with a Sub.

Before I came to watch forum, before my interest/obsession with watches, I remember seeing and recognizing Rolex watches on people that I've seen. Somehow, I knew Rolex, and I noticed and recognized them. Maybe just like I notice and recognize e.g. Nike, Adidas, Converse, Casio basic digital or G-Shock, Timex Ironman, etc. They have unique design or logo that is meant to be recognizable?


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

justadad said:


> Saying to someone wearing a Sub "Hey, nice sub! Is that a 16610?"


You had to ask if it was a 16610?
What kind of casual are you?


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

Haha - that Payless shoe swap is priceless! I'll see what my wife has to say about it.

I believe you could create a similar bait and switch - to a degree - with casual male watch buyers, but it would be much harder with WIS. For example, I've owned countless $400 - $800 Hong Kong micros, and the glaring defects I've noticed with my naked eye include: bezel markings not evenly spaced; 3-o'clock crown offset/not perpendicular from the case (this is common); one lug cut shorter; minute markers on dial not evenly spaced; hour and minute hand not lined up (ie when the minute hand is at the 12 the hour hand is off) et al. By contrast, I've owned a 5-digit Sub, a Tudor NF, Pelagos, Omega PO and Nomos Ahoi, and with all of them everything is perfect (to the naked eye - a loupe is another matter). But a lot of entry-level Swiss watches (<$1,000) look perfect to the naked eye too.

Of course, some watches punch above their weight while others punch below. Then there are the 'super fakes'. The fact that they can fool so many people is a little disturbing. Why should I pay $6K when a high-end fake does it for $400.

But with watches there's also the intricate details that only a watchmaker will see. Here, the multi-thousand dollar watches (usually) pull away from the affordables. Even if you can't tell a super fake from the genuine, under a watchmaker's loupe the movement and internals of the two are night and day.

Which gets me back to the Payless shoe article. Perhaps a tailor or industry expert could immediately spot the difference on close inspection? Perhaps not?



vkalia said:


> Wine, high-end audio (where people's ability to have batlike hearing always amazes me) and apparently even shoes:
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...nt-shoes-600-luxury-event-palessi/2146971002/
> 
> Even here on WUS:
> ...


----------



## tennesseean_87 (May 31, 2011)

Not embarrassed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris Stark (Sep 21, 2015)

15,000 views and 275 replies to Submariner Homage--wow! I wonder if the click-bait is the word Submariner or Homage.


----------



## soaking.fused (May 3, 2012)

Wear and enjoy what you like. I try not to sweat the small stuff and always give others the benefit of the doubt; so, should a watch make someone happy, that makes me happy. Personally.

Had to remove more than a few posts that were inappropriate or off-topic. Let’s please keep posts clean in nature and discuss the topic, or the thread will be shut down.


----------



## grizzlebar (Oct 20, 2018)

Nope. Just purchased a Swordfish and looking forward to wearing it


----------



## Engels (Oct 11, 2018)

Hands90 said:


> It's one of the most popular watches in the world and if you can't afford it then don't wear a copy.
> If I could only afford a timex, I'd wear a timex.
> 
> I worked really hard to buy a sub.


Hats off to you for working hard to get a sub-I mean that.

But subs are usually associated with very rich men who don't have to work hard for them-that the pity of it.


----------



## BillHW (Oct 6, 2018)

This thread is interesting, if only because it illustrates so many different "opinions" and "feelings" about work, value, money, and image. But ultimately, the old saying "you don't get a vote" holds true. I know a man with a Bentley... meh, I'll keep my Camry, thank you, but I hope he enjoys it. And yes, if I wanted to I could have one as well.

Good on you for working to have something you love. But remember, it's all just stuff and you are not your stuff.

Somewhat along these lines, did you see the criminal who sent his girlfriend a $35K diamond encrusted Rolex? From prison? There's a statement for you... ;-)


----------



## sirachides (Feb 8, 2013)

I would maybe pose the question in a different way: is more important wear a watch for ourself or for others?

For myself I won't wear any homage, my first mechanical watch long ago was a fake sub-marine which I gift 
away years later. Yes: shaaame! 

For others, I won't quite care. Rolex submarine are terrific but it's in the realm of common watches.


----------



## anrex (Jul 30, 2017)

The Gentlemen I was having breakfast with this morning was not embarrassed (...as he says per his quote "I do not give a [email protected]*, it keeps perfect time"...)


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Engels said:


> But subs are usually associated with very rich men who don't have to work hard for them-that the pity of it.


Not really. Rolex is not really all that expensive as watches go . Not even close. Secondly, few of us have any idea how hard someone worked to earn the money to buy a Rolex.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gary123 (Oct 12, 2009)

Intrinsic value would be just what it is now, a big stretch for most even with all the fakes out there.



adg31 said:


> Or to flip the question around what is the intrinsic value of a Rolex if cheaper alternatives can perform the same function?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchinski (May 13, 2016)

I own a genuine Explorer, a blue Seamaster SMP, a Speedmaster Moonwatch and a vintage Omega Seamaster and I own a bunch of very cheap watches like Winner, Reginald, Corgeut, Bagelport, Invicta etc. and I wear them all because I love them all for their look and often I enjoy more wearing the cheap watches than my expensive ones. 
I don't have a genuine Sub but the Invicta and Loreo because I don't love the Sub look too much that I would buy the real thing. But sometimes when I surf through those forums like this one I feel like I'd like to wear something like a Sub. Then I put on my Invicta or Loreo for a day or two and that's it. I live in Switzerland AND never ever spoke someone to me because of the watch I wear. I think 99% of the people outside the watch bubble doesn't even notice what watch I wear. And I would never have a problem to tell a WIS asking me if it was a Sub that it is not. I am self-confident enough for that. So wear what you like and don't spend time on thinking what other people think about you  The life's too short for worrying about those things.


----------



## Gary123 (Oct 12, 2009)

Tohono Rat said:


> Is anyone embarrassed to be wearing a Rolex Submariner?


Yeah, I would.

I can wear Vacheron, AP, and other watches costing 3 - 5 times as much as a Rolex, but I'm not comfortable wearing a Rolex. Too much social baggage.

And I would never wear a Rolex knockoff. If you like the look, then buy real thing. If you are oblivious that it's a copy, then enjoy wearing it. But once I know, its hard for me to enjoy wearing any watch that is a blatant copy. Loved my Zoretto Jota until I found out it is an exact copy of a Ollech and Wajs Caribbean. Now it bugs me, the looks I like do not really belong to my Zoretto.


----------



## DriveTooFast (Apr 13, 2018)

I occasionally wear my Invicta mod despite having some Rolexes, it's fine imo.

On the other hand, i hate the hypocrisy of people saying that they got the Steinhart even if they could afford the Sub cause they like it more. IT IS NOT BELIEVABLE.

Would you believe someone who says he got a Fiat Coupè instead of a Ferrari 360 even if he could afford it cause he likes it more? Or does it sound ridiculous to you?


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

^Maybe possible. For me, a cheaper watch is often preferred and on-wrist because I could smash the heck out of it and not wince. Scratching a more expensive watch for me hurts!


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

vkalia said:


> Not really. Rolex is not really all that expensive as watches go . Not even close....


So what? To the top 1% who own half the world's wealth, sure. Maybe this is a relevant statement.

To most of the other 99% of us, a Rolex is an EXPENSIVE watch, whether or not there are more expensive watches out there.

Meanwhile, today is another good day to proudly wear a sub homage! :-!


----------



## skuzapo (Jan 26, 2018)

I'd be embarrassed, but just because I think Submariners are hideous looking watches.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

DriveTooFast said:


> Would you believe someone who says he got a Fiat Coupè instead of a Ferrari 360 even if he could afford it cause he likes it more? Or does it sound ridiculous to you?


Fiat Coupe predates the 360Modena by about 5 years. 
That Ferrari 360 is a Fiat Coupe homage.


----------



## DriveTooFast (Apr 13, 2018)

drunken monkey said:


> Fiat Coupe predates the 360Modena by about 5 years.
> That Ferrari 360 is a Fiat Coupe homage.


I know, not questioning who came first. It was just the first example that came to my mind to let you get a better idea of what i'm saying.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

DriveTooFast said:


> I know, not questioning who came first. It was just the first example that came to my mind to let you get a better idea of what i'm saying.


Poor analogy is poor. 
There are Rolex Submariner owners who also own Steinhart Ocean 1 watches.


----------



## DriveTooFast (Apr 13, 2018)

drunken monkey said:


> Poor analogy is poor.
> There are Rolex Submariner owners who also own Steinhart Ocean 1 watches.


There's none so blind as those who will not see


----------



## STEELINOX (Mar 20, 2006)

Not emb'd in the least!



sriracha said:


> Yes I'd be embarrassed unless it's an homage to a vintage, not-made-anymore Rollie. Then most folks wouldn't even know it was a Rollie
> 
> But then again, I was embarrassed wearing a real Rollie as well. Lol
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk












Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

drunken monkey said:


> Poor analogy is poor.
> There are Rolex Submariner owners who also own Steinhart Ocean 1 watches.


There are also Casio sub homage wearers who could buy Rolex....and I mean the whole company:









I wonder why he didn't chose the "Ferrari" over the "Fiat?"

And he must be SO embarrassed to wear that watch. :-d


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

Umm...they look completely different. It's like holding a Submariner next to a Planet Ocean. Both are traditionally laid out dive watches, but that's about it. Maybe a better analogy would be something cheaper, say putting a Submariner next to a Seiko Sumo.



DriveTooFast said:


> I occasionally wear my Invicta mod despite having some Rolexes, it's fine imo.
> 
> On the other hand, i hate the hypocrisy of people saying that they got the Steinhart even if they could afford the Sub cause they like it more. IT IS NOT BELIEVABLE.
> 
> Would you believe someone who says he got a Fiat Coupè instead of a Ferrari 360 even if he could afford it cause he likes it more? Or does it sound ridiculous to you?


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

It was an example of two cars that look completely different and is therefore irrelevant, but we get what you're saying.

I actually posted what you were looking for at post #206.

Here are some more relevant examples from the car world - ie the Sub homages of the car world (different branding and slightly different dimensions, but they look broadly identical to the original and, of course, are made in China):























Maybe there's no word for "cheesey" in Chinese.



DriveTooFast said:


> I know, not questioning who came first. It was just the first example that came to my mind to let you get a better idea of what i'm saying.


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

To be fair, that watch straddles the homage gray area. It's not an out-and-out knockoff. Also, Bill Gates probably spends about as much time thinking about his watches as I spend thinking about my shoelaces. I'd bet it was a gift from his daughter or something like that.



cel4145 said:


> There are also Casio sub homage wearers who could buy Rolex....and I mean the whole company:
> 
> View attachment 13682471
> 
> ...


----------



## sleepyhead123 (Jun 2, 2014)

DriveTooFast said:


> I occasionally wear my Invicta mod despite having some Rolexes, it's fine imo.
> 
> On the other hand, i hate the hypocrisy of people saying that they got the Steinhart even if they could afford the Sub cause they like it more. IT IS NOT BELIEVABLE.
> 
> *Would you believe someone who says he got a Fiat Coupè instead of a Ferrari 360 even if he could afford it cause he likes it more? Or does it sound ridiculous to you?*


A Fiat to a Ferrari is a bit, but I can kind of understand. I can afford a Land Rover, but I like my Mazda because it is much more fun to drive and the interior quality is almost luxury. And since I spend 90% of the time on the road, despite the reduced offroad chops, I still enjoy the car more. My other car is an AMG, so a Land Rover Disco is well within range. I've become quite a Mazda devotee.

In terms of watches, I like the Blancpain Bathyscape but settled for a ProMare Go even though I can afford the Blancpain because I just have a hard time thinking I want to spend that much on a SS watch. It's not remotely as wide of a difference as a Fiat versus Ferrari, but I get the mindset.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

pinkybrain said:


> To be fair, that watch straddles the homage gray area. It's not an out-and-out knockoff. Also, Bill Gates probably spends about as much time thinking about his watches as I spend thinking about my shoelaces. I'd bet it was a gift from his daughter or something like that.


I'll guess it's because when your name, "BILL GATES," symbolizes wealth and status more than the brand "Rolex," you are completely unaffected by the influence of luxury brand marketing in watch choice.


----------



## cfracing (Feb 21, 2015)

DriveTooFast said:


> I occasionally wear my Invicta mod despite having some Rolexes, it's fine imo.
> 
> On the other hand, i hate the hypocrisy of people saying that they got the Steinhart even if they could afford the Sub cause they like it more. IT IS NOT BELIEVABLE.
> 
> Would you believe someone who says he got a Fiat Coupè instead of a Ferrari 360 even if he could afford it cause he likes it more? Or does it sound ridiculous to you?


Believe it. I am someone who doesn't like Ferraris. I would much rather spend that money on reliable German engineering like a Porsche. However, I would buy the Fiat Coupe (I actually owned one in the '70s) as a fun daily driver. Try driving a Ferrari every day in commuter traffic. Similarly, as I said before, I do not like dive watches and would not spend the money to buy a Sub. However, I did buy a Steinhart OVM 39 as a fun beater watch because I do like the MilSub look over the regular Sub.


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

DriveTooFast said:


> On the other hand, i hate the hypocrisy of people saying that they got the Steinhart even if they could afford the Sub cause they like it more. IT IS NOT BELIEVABLE.


I don't have a Steinhart, but I do have a Ginault Ocean Rover and a Kadloo Scubamarine, both with the "military" sword-shaped hour hand that I strongly prefer to the "mercedes" hour hand (or any hour hand with any kind of lump on it: snowflake, lollipop, etc).

If I won a Rolex Submariner in a lottery, I would immediately sell it and keep wearing the Ginault and the Kadloo. I like their looks better, mostly because of the hour hand, but I also don't like the fat lugs and crown guards on the modern Sub C.

So why would I wear a watch with details that I don't like when instead I could have $8K+ to spend on something else that I do like?

And why is this so hard to believe???


----------



## DriveTooFast (Apr 13, 2018)

cfracing said:


> Believe it. I am someone who doesn't like Ferraris. I would much rather spend that money on reliable German engineering like a Porsche. However, I would buy the Fiat Coupe (I actually owned one in the '70s) as a fun daily driver. Try driving a Ferrari every day in commuter traffic. Similarly, as I said before, I do not like dive watches and would not spend the money to buy a Sub. However, I did buy a Steinhart OVM 39 as a fun beater watch because I do like the MilSub look over the regular Sub.


Of course you can't always wear a Rolex and whatever you want, I agree with this. I also think that having a beater watch such as a Steinhart for everyday use is fine and even advisable. Me myself i mainly wear cheap beaters for daily wear so i'm totally with you.

I just find hard to believe that some prefer a Steinhart over a Rolex purely in terms of aesthetic, cause this is what i read up in this thread. This is what i find hard to believe, cause it's kind of a contradiction too other than an actual hard to believe fact.


----------



## Miller Time II (Jan 5, 2018)

I had to Google those watches. Form the looks of it, they’re far from cheap knockoffs (especially that Ginault).

I guess it’s also begging the question... obviously I see the Submariner influence, but the Mercedes hands are such a n iconic important part of the Sub that I question of the Ginault is truly an “homage”?


----------



## MadHarry56 (Nov 29, 2018)

DriveTooFast said:


> Of course you can't always wear a Rolex and whatever you want &#8230;&#8230;..


Why can't you always wear your Rolex? Life, and the wearing of your watch, is what you make of it. I would happily wear a vintage PEPSI 24/7.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

cel4145 said:


> So what? To the top 1% who own half the world's wealth, sure. Maybe this is a relevant statement.
> 
> To most of the other 99% of us, a Rolex is an EXPENSIVE watch, whether or not there are more expensive watches out there.
> 
> ...


The context of the post was that Rolex is for people who are so rich that they don't need to work for their money.

That isn't true. That's the "so what".

Your post above is going off on an irrelevant tangent.

Sent from my BBF100-6 using Tapatalk


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

DriveTooFast said:


> I just find hard to believe that some prefer a Steinhart over a Rolex purely in terms of aesthetic, cause this is what i read up in this thread. This is what i find hard to believe, cause it's kind of a contradiction too other than an actual hard to believe fact.


Much prefer a New milsub Steinhart for the Sword hands "aesthetic" at a sane price.


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

Miller Time II said:


> I had to Google those watches. Form the looks of it, they're far from cheap knockoffs (especially that Ginault).
> 
> I guess it's also begging the question... obviously I see the Submariner influence, but the Mercedes hands are such a n iconic important part of the Sub that I question of the Ginault is truly an "homage"?


Apparently you do not know about the 5517. Here is your education for today:

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/whats-selling-where-three-spectacular-military-watches#

And don't forget to research 5517 auction prices.


----------



## drunken-gmt-master (Mar 29, 2018)

DriveTooFast said:


> ...
> 
> I just find hard to believe that some prefer a Steinhart over a Rolex purely in terms of aesthetic, cause this is what i read up in this thread. This is what i find hard to believe, cause it's kind of a contradiction too other than an actual hard to believe fact.


Aesthetics are a matter of personal taste, & per Avo's comment just before yours & yankeeexpress's afterwards, there are many people who simply don't like the look of the current Submariner (& other models). Rolex is conservative, but they have made many stylistic changes over the years & not always for the better. For those who have more than enough money to afford a Rolex, but want the vintage look w/modern movements, there's Tempus Machina ( https://tempus-machina.com/pages/collection ); for the rest of us, there are homages.


----------



## cfracing (Feb 21, 2015)

DriveTooFast said:


> I just find hard to believe that some prefer a Steinhart over a Rolex purely in terms of aesthetic, cause this is what i read up in this thread. This is what i find hard to believe, cause it's kind of a contradiction too other than an actual hard to believe fact.


I guess you didn't read my post in its entirety.



cfracing said:


> However, I did buy a Steinhart OVM 39 as a fun beater watch *because I do like the MilSub look over the regular Sub*.


And obviously I am not alone. Aesthetic taste is not a hard fact.



Avo said:


> I don't have a Steinhart, but I do have a Ginault Ocean Rover and a Kadloo Scubamarine, *both with the "military" sword-shaped hour hand that I strongly prefer to the "mercedes" hour hand* (or any hour hand with any kind of lump on it: snowflake, lollipop, etc).


----------



## askew (Oct 10, 2018)

cel4145 said:


> There are also Casio sub homage wearers who could buy Rolex....and I mean the whole company:
> 
> View attachment 13682471
> 
> ...


At a quick glance I thought this was Woody Allen.

I wonder why his films aren't as funny as they used to be-Allen I mean, not Gates.


----------



## askew (Oct 10, 2018)

cel4145 said:


> View attachment 13682471
> 
> 
> And he must be SO embarrassed to wear that watch. :-d


Very rich and famous people can get away with wearing Rolex homages because it demonstrates irony. Poor people (like me) wearing Rolex homages can't make that claim because the irony lies in being very rich and famous yet not wearing the expected trapping of such.


----------



## askew (Oct 10, 2018)

cel4145 said:


> I'll guess it's because when your name, "BILL GATES," symbolizes wealth and status more than the brand "Rolex," you are completely unaffected by the influence of luxury brand marketing in watch choice.


Good point. The famous wealthiness of Gates is such that he doesn't need to prove it by wearing expensive stuff.


----------



## matador203977 (Nov 20, 2018)

anyone could be embarrassed by wearing a Rolex Submariner homage, definitely not a lover like me.


----------



## Manxpot (Aug 21, 2017)

I'd like to get a watch that is a homage to a Submariner homage


----------



## BillHW (Oct 6, 2018)

Manxpot said:


> I'd like to get a watch that a homage to a Submariner homage


Here you go. An Invictus homage. Probably won't get it in time for Christmas though.

https://www.amazon.com/Fanmis-Rotat...&qid=1543674242&sr=8-23&keywords=winner+watch

But the irony is awesome... "I'm not a rich man, but I play one on the internet" ;-)


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Canal Street, New York City.


Manxpot said:


> I'd like to get a watch that is a homage to a Submariner homage


----------



## Hamstur (Nov 6, 2017)

askew said:


> Good point. The famous wealthiness of Gates is such that he doesn't need to prove it by wearing expensive stuff.


I always find the mention of Bill Gates is completely out of place. Let's be honest watches are for poor people which is everybody on this forum, because doing well is still in the 6-figures.

The guy owns tons of art valued in 8-figures. I.e., the rich revel in truly one of a kind baubles. The poor revel in non-unique baubles.


----------



## Brucy (May 30, 2013)

Lol had to laugh... started reading the thread, thought about commenting the same same then flicked to the end and saw the 5517 pics and reminded myself why I love the submariner... sword hands maketh the man  and this is without question the sub I like.

Chances of getting one... zip

Would I wear a homage to the 5517? Maybe years ago when I started in this hobby but not now.

I don't think embarrassing is the word but I also think you should wear what you want and enjoy.

For a few years I've entertained homages to the explorer and every time I got one they started as usual, love the watch, plenty of wrist time but it's not the real thing. After finally trying one on I realised the ranger suited me better and so my previous incarnations went their merry way.

There is a place for homages, and I suppose it's largely down to your tastes and disposable vouchers. This does not lessen the love of the hobby.

I can count on both hands the number of comments I've had about a watch over the years. This excludes close friends who know I am interested in them and regularly ask.


----------



## James Haury (Apr 10, 2008)

I have a lot of watches so I hardly wear mine.But I'm not embarrassed


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

Hamstur said:


> I always find the mention of Bill Gates is completely out of place. Let's be honest watches are for poor people which is everybody on this forum, because doing well is still in the 6-figures.
> 
> The guy owns tons of art valued in 8-figures. I.e., the rich revel in truly one of a kind baubles. The poor revel in non-unique baubles.


That doesn't make sense to me. Why is mentioning Bill Gates out of place since the topic of this thread is being embarrassed about wearing submariner homages? Or are you implying/saying the super wealthy can't be embarrassed because they are wealthy???

Anyway, time for another homage! This Orient Ray I is being proudly worn today. I've yet to feel any sense of embarrassment.


----------



## Hamstur (Nov 6, 2017)

cel4145 said:


> That doesn't make sense to me. Why is mentioning Bill Gates out of place since the topic of this thread is being embarrassed about wearing submariner homages? Or are you implying/saying the super wealthy can't be embarrassed because they are wealthy???


It comes down to personal motivations and vanities. Regardless of wealth, one has to actually care about the bauble in question for the brought up person to be relevant. The guy doesn't care about watches, so wearing a $10 vs $1M piece is inconsequential to him.

But as I mention, he owns a ton of art pieces, some of each worth 8-figures (e.g., paintings worth $60M). A proper comparative would be to ask if he would be embarrassed to collect forgeries, repros and prints of the art he desires.

If bringing up the wealthy and celebrities, at least pick a watch enthusiast. A more realistic question is if guys like John Mayer, Mark Wahlberg, Robert Downey Jr, Eric Clapton, Sly Stallone or Brad Pitt wear homages and knock offs.

Similarly, people in car circles talk about Jay Leno, Ralph Lauren and Jerry Seinfeld. If someone drives a Scion and argues its merits because Tom Hanks drives one ... let's be honest that does not sound like being proud of one's choice and taste, but more like justification.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

Hamstur said:


> It comes down to personal motivations and vanities. Regardless of wealth, one has to actually care about the bauble in question for the brought up person to be relevant. The guy doesn't care about watches, so wearing a $10 vs $1M piece is inconsequential to him.
> 
> But as I mention, he owns a ton of art pieces, some of each worth 8-figures (e.g., paintings worth $60M). A proper comparative would be to ask if he would be embarrassed to collect forgeries, repros and prints of the art he desires.
> 
> If bringing up the wealthy and celebrities, at least pick a watch enthusiast. A more realistic question is if guys like John Mayer, Mark Wahlberg, Robert Downey Jr, Eric Clapton, Sly Stallone or Brad Pitt wear homages and knock offs.


No. The sub homages as described in this thread are absolutely not the same thing as art forgeries. And art prints don't seem particularly analogous to watch homages either.

Meanwhile, I think you are confused as well as to how "caring" applies to whether or not someone is embarrassed to wear a sub homage. One doesn't have to "care" about the watch to be embarrassed. Someone is embarrassed because _they care what other people think_ about their watch. Many of us here do not care what others think regarding our sub homages, so we are not embarrassed, regardless of how little or much attachment we have to the watch.


----------



## Hamstur (Nov 6, 2017)

cel4145 said:


> No. The sub homages as described in this thread are absolutely not the same thing as art forgeries. And art prints don't seem particularly analogous to watch homages either.
> 
> Meanwhile, I think you are confused as well as to how "caring" applies to whether or not someone is embarrassed to wear a sub homage. One doesn't have to "care" about the watch to be embarrassed. Someone is embarrassed because _they care what other people think_ about their watch. Many of us here do not care what others think regarding our sub homages, so we are not embarrassed, regardless of how little or much attachment we have to the watch.


I actually think the OP's intent is misunderstood and "embarassed" was very poor word choice. Watches are unnecessary luxury goods, and as many have commented, why would anyone be embarrassed about the bauble they bought?

I assume OP's intent is to understand the emotional response folk have re: Rolex vs homage, and why some folk embrace while others refuse to wear homages. We all know it's a beat down topic and the polar perspectives can be understood by reading:

- The BSH threads. A lot like the nature of the Rolex style but not the Rolex brand (price often is not a factor). Another company makes a variant they like more. Some just mod and make it their own, and the expression of individuality is pretty awesome.

- The "Is Tudor a Rolex Poser" thread. There are also those who consider themselves "purists" and are offended that homages even exist. Some truly appreciate heritage, which some are just arrogant and self-important.


----------



## Awesom-O 4000 (Sep 20, 2018)

The real question is, who's wearing a Bagelsport Bautilus? 🤣

Can you imagine someone asks, "hey what's that"

And you have to say it's a Bagelsport. Embarrassing indeed! At least name it something better.


----------



## tennesseean_87 (May 31, 2011)

The mention of being embarrassed to wear Rolex has me remembering my days on styleforum. There’s a concept called stealth-wealth where your wardrobe is fairly small, but made of impeccable quality pieces that are understated, not ostentatious. Everything custom tailored and fitting perfectly while not being noticeable to a non-enthusiast. 

Would the equivalent here be wearing a Rolex that was missed to a sterile dial? All the quality finishing is there, but the name removed. What say ye?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Parkgate (Jan 18, 2015)

Move on guys, its beyond boring Zzzzzzzzzz. Someones not wearing the real thing, yeh and so what, why do you care? You don't own HWF so your opinion is void. HWF don't even own design rights on their previous models, so its double devoid. The UK MOD had specs on Milsubs, they don't 'own' them, nor do Rolex or HWF, nor do you, get over it and move on with your life.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

Hamstur said:


> I actually think the OP's intent is misunderstood and "embarassed" was very poor word choice. Watches are unnecessary luxury goods, and as many have commented, why would anyone be embarrassed about the bauble they bought?
> 
> I assume OP's intent is to understand the emotional response folk have re: Rolex vs homage, and why some folk embrace while others refuse to wear homages....


I think you should reread the first post again. He very clearly explains that his reason for not wearing a sub homage is because he is sensitive to what other people might think of him wearing it. In fact, he even says, "_If the Submariner weren't such a famous watch in the eyes of the public, I would wear a homage of it._" It doesn't seem at all that his intent is to open up the whole homage or not debate.


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

Awesom-O 4000 said:


> The real question is, who's wearing a Bagelsport Bautilus? &#55358;&#56611;
> 
> Can you imagine someone asks, "hey what's that"
> 
> And you have to say it's a Bagelsport. Embarrassing indeed! * At least name it something better.*


I think they should have called it Katep Phillipe.


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

tennesseean_87 said:


> The mention of being embarrassed to wear Rolex has me remembering my days on styleforum. There's a concept called stealth-wealth where your wardrobe is fairly small, but made of impeccable quality pieces that are understated, not ostentatious. Everything custom tailored and fitting perfectly while not being noticeable to a non-enthusiast.
> 
> Would the equivalent here be wearing a Rolex that was missed to a sterile dial? All the quality finishing is there, but the name removed. What say ye?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I have never heard of style forum but it sounds like a bit of a wankstation. I would say no. What would be the point of a rolex with a sterile dial? You can already buy those from ali-barber and other reputable Chinese sites. For 5 bucks a pop and you know it's the highest quality because the movement can be regulated. Probably......


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

I think it's possible to be able to afford/buy Rolex Sub, or be unable to afford/buy Rolex Sub, want to buy/wear Rolex Sub, buy/wear homage/copy instead, and be proud of having the self-discipline to buy the homage/copy instead?

I love instant noodles, and could well afford and would love to eat Black Label Shin Ramyun, but buy regular version instead. I feel proud because I was raised frugal, and scrimping just feels right, something my parents would approve of. LOL

I wanted so many pricey watches for what felt like years, and I'm proud to hold on tight to my wallet and saved thousands on watches lusted after, and then with passage of time not lusted after anymore, without buying.

Splurging for a wanted watch is not the only way to feel proud, I'd say.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Hamstur said:


> I always find the mention of Bill Gates is completely out of place. Let's be honest watches are for poor people which is everybody on this forum, because doing well is still in the 6-figures.
> 
> The guy owns tons of art valued in 8-figures. I.e., the rich revel in truly one of a kind baubles. The poor revel in non-unique baubles.


Side note - referencing people with 6 figure incomes as "poor" is so out of touch with reality as to be stupefying.

Comparatively "un-wealthy" compared to Gates, OK, sure. But poor? Come on.


----------



## tennesseean_87 (May 31, 2011)

eblackmo said:


> I have never heard of style forum but it sounds like a bit of a wankstation. I would say no. What would be the point of a rolex with a sterile dial? You can already buy those from ali-barber and other reputable Chinese sites. For 5 bucks a pop and you know it's the highest quality because the movement can be regulated. Probably......


Maybe it is. Maybe much less so than some parts of this forum or thread. It's for people who obsess over nice ties and suits and shoes like people here do over dive watches.

My point was that there are people here who appreciate the real thing for its finishing, quality, etc, and some who look to it as nothing but a status symbol for others to notice. Could you get the former without the latter? Is a real sub really the same quality as the watches you speak of?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

tennesseean_87 said:


> Maybe it is. Maybe much less so than some parts of this forum or thread. It's for people who obsess over nice ties and suits and shoes like people here do over dive watches.
> 
> My point was that there are people here who appreciate the real thing for its finishing, quality, etc, and some who look to it as nothing but a status symbol for others to notice. Could you get the former without the latter? Is a real sub really the same quality as the watches you speak of?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If that is my opinion. Than yes. However my point is you can already buy sterile dial submariner knock offs (I am paying homage to watchbreath) from ali-babar and the 40 thieves etc. already. Why complicate matters?

EDIT: You have to understand buddy. My opinion is correct and all that matters. I don't care what you or anyone else posts. That's how the internet works. Right? Also I have never owned a hand made, hand finished watch that cost more than five bucks but I am sure my 5 buck ali-brabar special. Is just as good if not better. Based on my own experience and not my ill informed opinion.

No really it's been one of those weeks.


----------



## usc1 (Jun 25, 2007)

Only when others recognize. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gocougs (Nov 24, 2016)

Not at all. I have a Ginault and I love it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Elfer996 (Oct 1, 2015)

Not only do I not care, but I made my own nano brand. It's far more exclusive than the pedestrian Rolex Submariner, as there are only 10 of these in the entire world. You can't put a price on that kind of exclusivity. 










NH35A


----------



## Engels (Oct 11, 2018)

cel4145 said:


> That doesn't make sense to me. Why is mentioning Bill Gates out of place since the topic of this thread is being embarrassed about wearing submariner homages? Or are you implying/saying the super wealthy can't be embarrassed because they are wealthy???
> 
> Anyway, time for another homage! This Orient Ray I is being proudly worn today. I've yet to feel any sense of embarrassment.
> 
> View attachment 13685165


The only thing that spoils the Ray for me is that date-change "crown"-it totally ruins the symmetry of that side of the case. That's why I never bought one-lovely watch otherwise.


----------



## Leon O (Aug 24, 2018)

I would be embarrassed to wear a replica or fake, but I can appreciate watches that put their own twist on a classic style. If the fit and finish are good quality, then I can enjoy the watch.


----------



## orian (Feb 10, 2010)

cel4145 said:


> I think you should reread the first post again. He very clearly explains that his reason for not wearing a sub homage is because he is sensitive to what other people might think of him wearing it. In fact, he even says, "_If the Submariner weren't such a famous watch in the eyes of the public, I would wear a homage of it._" It doesn't seem at all that his intent is to open up the whole homage or not debate.


This is correct.

I'm specifically talking about Rolex Submariner homages, not homages in general.

And even with the Submariner, I'm not averse to wearing homages of vintage ones, and would wear a Kingston if I could afford one, and if its case diameter was touch smaller.


----------



## Isaac Uwins (Mar 3, 2018)

I'd be embarrassed to wear a Submariner, after all it's just a Fifty Fathoms homage &#55357;&#56847;


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Isaac Uwins said:


> I'd be embarrassed to wear a Submariner, after all it's just a Fifty Fathoms homage ��


I keep hearing this - but I've never really understood it. They look, vaguely, similar. I guess. But I'd never say that the Sub was so close in design as to be a 'homage', or copy.

In any case, I'd be embarrassed to wear a Sub or a Fifty Fathoms, when the Doxa Sub clearly does the same job, so much better, for so much less.


----------



## slorollin (Dec 9, 2016)

It's funny, before I had a Rolex I would have been embarrassed and felt like a poser. Now it doesn't bother me at all, especially if the homage is of a model no longer in production.
Recently I bought an OVM39 and have been wearing it for weeks now. I have had just one comment. As I was being handed my Sausage McMuffin I was told that my watch was "just sick." He was wrong, it runs fine.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Isaac Uwins said:


> I'd be embarrassed to wear a Submariner, after all it's just a Fifty Fathoms homage


Never let the truth get in the way of a good story... The Submariner was based on the Rolex Turn-o-graph 6202, and the Turn-o-graph was released before the Fifty Fathoms.


----------



## Toonces (Jan 14, 2017)

Yeah, but the Fifty Fathoms is just a homage of a Timex.


----------



## Juclaq (Aug 15, 2018)

Nothing to be embarrassed. Wear watches that make you happy.


----------



## G1Ninja (Mar 19, 2013)

There is a good thread around here with pictures and descriptions about how much of a homage is acceptable to you. Personally I've never worn a direct 1:1 Submariner homage.


----------



## Camdamonium (Feb 7, 2017)

Homages are instant gratification. Any homages are a personal excuse to someone being able to get the real one (like a sub in this case). May take you a year to save up for the real one, but it gives you a drive to work harder. A $100 excuse of a homage doesn't do that. First watch I bought was a Breitling SOHC 46, and it took me 4 months of my entire income to save up for in junior year of high school. I have never owned a fake or knockoff, and next thing you know watches have driven me to work harder. Now have a 12-16 watch collection at any given time ranging from $2,000-$12,000 (pre-owned value not MSRP) per piece only two years later. 

And if anybody decides to respond negatively, remember this. If I can buy the real ones at 18, why can't most of you grown adults? Reach for the sky  

Side note, think of these watches as an investment. A Sub will always be worth thousands. A homage? Maybe a coupon to Sonic.

Disclaimer, this is my personal opinion and I feel strongly about it.


----------



## cfracing (Feb 21, 2015)

Camdamonium said:


> And if anybody decides to respond negatively, remember this. If I can buy the real ones at 18, why can't most of you grown adults? Reach for the sky
> 
> Side note, think of these watches as an investment. A Sub will always be worth thousands. A homage? Maybe a coupon to Sonic.


Maybe because we don't want to?  ;-)


----------



## Camdamonium (Feb 7, 2017)

cfracing said:


> Maybe because we don't want to?  ;-)


Personal preference but I find it more likely people want the real ones . It's like people who buy fake Louis Vuitton- at the end of the day they still want to legit Louis Vuitton, they just don't want to pay.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stick86 (Apr 11, 2009)

I would be embarrassed to wear a knock off Rolex but not an homage. There are sooo many of them now. The original Invicta pro-diver has become an icon all it's own.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

Camdamonium said:


> Homages are instant gratification. Any homages are a personal excuse to someone being able to get the real one (like a sub in this case). May take you a year to save up for the real one, but it gives you a drive to work harder. .


I am close to semi retiring. I don't want to work harder, especially not to buy a watch :-d

Regardless, I'm not interested in buying a watch that cost $8K to $10K. Not when I can buy a watch that I can enjoy just as much for less than what it cost to service a Rolex Submariner.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Isaac Uwins said:


> I'd be embarrassed to wear a Submariner, after all it's just a Fifty Fathoms homage &#55357;&#56847;


No it isn't. Do some research.

Sent from my BBF100-6 using Tapatalk


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Camdamonium said:


> Homages are instant gratification. Any homages are a personal excuse to someone being able to get the real one (like a sub in this case). May take you a year to save up for the real one, but it gives you a drive to work harder. A $100 excuse of a homage doesn't do that. First watch I bought was a Breitling SOHC 46, and it took me 4 months of my entire income to save up for in junior year of high school. I have never owned a fake or knockoff, and next thing you know watches have driven me to work harder. Now have a 12-16 watch collection at any given time ranging from $2,000-$12,000 (pre-owned value not MSRP) per piece only two years later.
> 
> And if anybody decides to respond negatively, remember this. If I can buy the real ones at 18, why can't most of you grown adults? Reach for the sky
> 
> ...


No way! Some 18 year old giving financial advice? Talking like this about money?

Listen, kid. Adults have real responsibilities - children, school loans, mortgages, car payments, insurance, health care costs, real hobbies that don't involve buying things. They don't go out and buy a Rolex unless they have 10 times it's value in savings, 10 times in investments, and 10 times invested in themselves. You don't just get to save up whole paychecks to buy a luxury bauble.

Frankly, if I was 18 again, and I had Rolex money, I'd be doing WAY more interesting things with it than buying a trinket.


----------



## Mr.Jones82 (Jul 15, 2018)

Camdamonium said:


> Homages are instant gratification. Any homages are a personal excuse to someone being able to get the real one (like a sub in this case). May take you a year to save up for the real one, but it gives you a drive to work harder. A $100 excuse of a homage doesn't do that. First watch I bought was a Breitling SOHC 46, and it took me 4 months of my entire income to save up for in junior year of high school. I have never owned a fake or knockoff, and next thing you know watches have driven me to work harder. Now have a 12-16 watch collection at any given time ranging from $2,000-$12,000 (pre-owned value not MSRP) per piece only two years later.
> 
> And if anybody decides to respond negatively, remember this. If I can buy the real ones at 18, why can't most of you grown adults? Reach for the sky ?
> 
> ...


Damn man, just think of all the Pokemon cards you could have bought with that money!


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Camdamonium said:


> Homages are instant gratification. Any homages are a personal excuse to someone being able to get the real one (like a sub in this case). May take you a year to save up for the real one, but it gives you a drive to work harder. A $100 excuse of a homage doesn't do that. First watch I bought was a Breitling SOHC 46, and it took me 4 months of my entire income to save up for in junior year of high school. I have never owned a fake or knockoff, and next thing you know watches have driven me to work harder. Now have a 12-16 watch collection at any given time ranging from $2,000-$12,000 (pre-owned value not MSRP) per piece only two years later.
> 
> And if anybody decides to respond negatively, remember this. If I can buy the real ones at 18, why can't most of you grown adults? Reach for the sky
> 
> ...


Out of curiosity, how do you earn that kind of money as an 18 year old? Do you stay at home, if so, do you pay rent to your parents? Are you paying your own way through college, or did you get a merit scholarship?


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

TheWalrus said:


> No way! Some 18 year old giving financial advice? Talking like this about money?
> 
> Listen, kid. Adults have real responsibilities - children, school loans, mortgages, car payments, insurance, health care costs, real hobbies that don't involve buying things. They don't go out and buy a Rolex unless they have 10 times it's value in savings, 10 times in investments, and 10 times invested in themselves. You don't just get to save up whole paychecks to buy a luxury bauble.
> 
> Frankly, if I was 18 again, and I had Rolex money, I'd be doing WAY more interesting things with it than buying a trinket.


Wore a Casio at his age so I could max out my IRA. Now I sure am glad I did.


----------



## askew (Oct 10, 2018)

mleok said:


> Out of curiosity, how do you earn that kind of money as an 18 year old? Do you stay at home, if so, do you pay rent to your parents? Are you paying your own way through college, or did you get a merit scholarship?


Good question. Sounds like he has rich parents who gave him an allowance. I don't think he could have earned it doing "kid errands" etc. No way can a kid save $100000 for a watch doing kid jobs.


----------



## cfracing (Feb 21, 2015)

mleok said:


> Out of curiosity, how do you earn that kind of money as an 18 year old? Do you stay at home, if so, do you pay rent to your parents? Are you paying your own way through college, or did you get a merit scholarship?





askew said:


> Good question. Sounds like he has rich parents who gave him an allowance. I don't think he could have earned it doing "kid errands" etc. No way can a kid save $100000 for a watch doing kid jobs.


He does live in Plano, TX, home to many spoiled, rich entitled kids. I really thought his post was a joke, hence my previous winking emoji. ;-)


----------



## Ticktocker (Oct 27, 2009)

Camdamonium said:


> Homages are instant gratification. Any homages are a personal excuse to someone being able to get the real one (like a sub in this case). May take you a year to save up for the real one, but it gives you a drive to work harder. A $100 excuse of a homage doesn't do that. First watch I bought was a Breitling SOHC 46, and it took me 4 months of my entire income to save up for in junior year of high school. I have never owned a fake or knockoff, and next thing you know watches have driven me to work harder. Now have a 12-16 watch collection at any given time ranging from $2,000-$12,000 (pre-owned value not MSRP) per piece only two years later.
> 
> And if anybody decides to respond negatively, remember this. If I can buy the real ones at 18, why can't most of you grown adults? Reach for the sky
> 
> ...


Hilarious...... "As a kid I spent all my money on a watch so why don't you as an adult?" Is that what you are asking? Easy answer..... Because real adults don't spend all their money on a watch. Overly fixated, confused kids might but not someone that has their priorities in tact. If you've never owned a "knockoff" how could you dispute the quality? There are plenty of so called "knockoffs" that are pretty good on their own. Of course if you like watches just because you like to let everyone know you only wear high end watches, (I guess your signature says it all) then that's some other kind of watch-love that I don't get.


----------



## askew (Oct 10, 2018)

Camdamonium said:


> First watch I bought was a Breitling SOHC 46, and it took me 4 months of *my entire income* to save up for in junior year of high school.


What sort of income are you talking about -- income from mowing a neighbor's lawn, doing odd jobs for your dad etc?


----------



## SpaceCadet65 (Oct 12, 2017)

I saw a YouTube review from Just One More Watch on this inexpensive Seiko. Then, I realized that it was drawing its design elements from the Fifty Fathoms. I wasn't sure that I could buy it and wear it. But I ordered one and liked it on the Seiko bracelet. Then I put it on a ColoReb distressed strap, fell in love and kept it. It's one that I'm not likely to get tired of. I think there's a fine line between between an homage and something that is derivative of another watch. Where one chooses to draw the line has to do with your sensibilities. In the long run, there's no way I wold ever commit the capital necessary to wear a Fifty Fathoms. So, does it matter? My little Seiko will do just fine. In the 6 months I've been wearing it, no one has ever said, "Oh for a second I thought that was an FF."

All of that being said - I rule out anything with a Mercedes hand. That's my arbitrary line in the sand.


----------



## soaking.fused (May 3, 2012)

Let’s dial it back and keep the discussion focused on the topic versus directed towards one other. Please.


----------



## watchsignal (Sep 12, 2018)

There is no need to be embarrassed why get the watch in the first place? If i have one i wouldn't be i buy watches because i love them and i don't care if you judge me by what i'm wearing.


----------



## ronkatct (Sep 27, 2018)

I have 2 el cheepo Sub homages on order and one on hand. My Winner Pepsi Black is pretty accurate, and I have Winner Pepsi White on order $12+ watch. I couldn't resist the price. I also have a Tevise on order and I will happily wear them. Nope, not the least embarrassed wearing el cheepo Rolex sub homages. I seldom use my real (non-sub) Rolex.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

SpaceCadet65 said:


> I saw a YouTube review from Just One More Watch on this inexpensive Seiko. Then, I realized that it was drawing its design elements from the Fifty Fathoms. I wasn't sure that I could buy it and wear it. But I ordered one and liked it on the Seiko bracelet. Then I put it on a ColoReb distressed strap, fell in love and kept it. It's one that I'm not likely to get tired of. I think there's a fine line between between an homage and something that is derivative of another watch. Where one chooses to draw the line has to do with your sensibilities. In the long run, there's no way I wold ever commit the capital necessary to wear a Fifty Fathoms. So, does it matter? My little Seiko will do just fine. In the 6 months I've been wearing it, no one has ever said, "Oh for a second I thought that was an FF."


I did have that Seiko 5 Sports, and someone did ask if it was a Fifty Fathoms when he saw it from afar.


----------



## hanif.rayney (Aug 28, 2014)

I wear this and someone asked me "Is that a Tissot?" .










IG: @horobro


----------



## corybantic (Aug 9, 2018)

vkalia said:


> I dont care for homages in general - but leaving that aside for a second, why the hell would i be embarrassed to wear whatever I wanted? I am not in high school anymore. Hell, at the age of 45, I wear pink chinos with pride. Not salmon. Pink.


It's only cool if they have pleats


----------



## joep2k (Feb 10, 2016)

hanif.rayney said:


> I wear this and someone asked me "Is that a Tissot?" .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This looks pretty nice, do they still manufacture these?


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

joep2k said:


> This looks pretty nice, do they still manufacture these?


Yes.

There is a long thread dedicated to Tisell divers where you can learn more
https://www.watchuseek.com/f71/all-things-tisell-sub-marine-dive-thread-2812338.html


----------



## sloopd06 (Jul 31, 2015)

I feel the same way. I try only to wear originals now.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Yes I do.

That's why I need to buy more homage watches to cure my fear.


----------



## American Jedi (May 27, 2017)

I love red meat; However, I am told that I can survive on vegetables alone. Wearing a fake or Homage Rolex would be like trying to live on veggie burgers . Sure you'll survive, but are you really fulfilled or living well? It's not natural or as satisfying as having the real thing.

Men are hunters by nature, and most of us would not stop hunting bucks simply because we snare a rabbit.


----------



## Ticktocker (Oct 27, 2009)

American Jedi said:


> I love red meat; However, I am told that I can survive on vegetables alone. Wearing a fake or Homage Rolex would be like trying to live on veggie burgers . Sure you'll survive, but are you really fulfilled or living well? It's not natural or as satisfying as having the real thing.
> 
> Men are hunters by nature, and most of us would not stop hunting bucks simply because we snare a rabbit.


I wouldn't snare a rabbit or hunt a buck. I'd just buy a veggie burger somewhere.
Some people are very fulfilled and living very well on veggie burgers (not me BTW!). It's the guy that hates veggie burgers because he doesn't understand why someone would eat something that doesn't fulfill HIM. The guy that thinks that anyone that eats a veggie burger must be some kind of weird nut putting undue sadness and strife upon their already miserable existence. The guy that looks at a Rolex homage and says, "how could they be satisfied with something I don't like?"

Kidding somewhat aside...... I think many are satisfied with homage watches because they don't understand the complexity of a Rolex. They see it as "just an expensive watch". Just like some Rolex fanatics don't understand the enjoyment of having inexpensive watches that look like expensive watches. I think that's fine. You don't have to be a horologist in order to enjoy watches.


----------



## iluvettes3 (Sep 5, 2018)

I would say it all has to do with intent, if you are trying to fool people with an "homage" that looks like a Rolex, you should be embarrassed, if you are wearing something that looks like a Rolex but is obviously not one, and thats what you can afford, rock it and enjoy it.


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

First, to qualify, I have no issue with people wearing Sub homages and, in my early WIS days, went through quite a few myself (I can't even remember how many).

But for the people that wear Sub homages because a genuine Submariner is $8,000, and a minty vintage Submariner costs even more: why don't you instead buy an original and affordable 40 mm diver? These days affordable micros are churning out many 40 mm divers with original designs. In fact, if these were available when I first got into the hobby (and original 40 mm micro divers were practically non-existent), I may have never even gone through my Sub homage phase.


----------



## lxnastynotch93 (Dec 13, 2015)

Camdamonium said:


> Homages are instant gratification. Any homages are a personal excuse to someone being able to get the real one (like a sub in this case). May take you a year to save up for the real one, but it gives you a drive to work harder. A $100 excuse of a homage doesn't do that. First watch I bought was a Breitling SOHC 46, and it took me 4 months of my entire income to save up for in junior year of high school. I have never owned a fake or knockoff, and next thing you know watches have driven me to work harder. Now have a 12-16 watch collection at any given time ranging from $2,000-$12,000 (pre-owned value not MSRP) per piece only two years later.
> 
> And if anybody decides to respond negatively, remember this. If I can buy the real ones at 18, why can't most of you grown adults? Reach for the sky
> 
> ...


Damn brotha, I'd love to have the opportunity to kiss the ground you walk on. You're amazing.

I personally don't like homages, but if someone else does then that's cool with me. There are some really well done homage watches out there.

The point is, if ANYONE looks down on you for the kind of watch you wear then they don't deserve your time or presence.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

iluvettes3 said:


> I would say it all has to do with intent, if you are trying to fool people with an "homage" that looks like a Rolex, you should be embarrassed, if you are wearing something that looks like a Rolex but is obviously not one, *and thats what you can afford,* rock it and enjoy it.


And what if I can afford one? I hope you are aren't implying that I should have to buy one even though I don't care enough about the difference between a Rolex and a much less expensive homage, and thus would not spend the money. And I don't care if someone else might mistake a homage I'm wearing for a Rolex. Or is it that I shouldn't want to be mistaken for a poor person who can't afford the real thing???


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

pinkybrain said:


> First, to qualify, I have no issue with people wearing Sub homages and, in my early WIS days, went through quite a few myself (I can't even remember how many).
> 
> But for the people that wear Sub homages because a genuine Submariner is $8,000, and a minty vintage Submariner costs even more: why don't you instead buy an original and affordable 40 mm diver? These days affordable micros are churning out many 40 mm divers with original designs. In fact, if these were available when I first got into the hobby (and original 40 mm micro divers were practically non-existent), I may have never even gone through my Sub homage phase.
> 
> ...


I like the selection of watches you offered, but the Seaforth seems more homage to the 62mas than "original design." Not that I'm complaining and objecting, though. It's a very nice watch. And the Helson Shardiver, that's not original. It's clearly a derivative of the submariner.


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

I disagree. None of the watches I posted is a knockoff (ie "homage"), though some _pay homage_ or are derivative of classic/vintage dive watch design.

I own the SLA017 and it's nothing like the Seaforth. No offense, but that's like my wife telling me that all my watches look the same and types of cars are blue truck, green sedan etc. The Seaforth doesn't even borrow the unique case shape of the 62MAS and all the markers are different (either slightly or entirely).

The Sharkdiver is a perfect example of a watch that borrows heavily from classic dive watch design but is still original. Sorry, but even the case doesn't share a single line with the Sub.

Unfortunately,* this ultimately rests on the 'I know it when I see it' test*. These just aren't knockoffs/homages. *They are original designs that follow the same basic formula, and therefore look similar to the uninitiated* - like my wife looking at a Ferrari Superfast next to a Corvette C7. If these watches are Sub homages, nearly every 40 mm diver would be a Sub homage and all cars would be red trucks, or blue sedans, or green coupes.



cel4145 said:


> I like the selection of watches you offered, but the Seaforth seems more homage to the 62mas than "original design." Not that I'm complaining and objecting, though. It's a very nice watch. And the Helson Shardiver, that's not original. It's clearly a derivative of the submariner.


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

It's hard to articulate aesthetic design, but somewhere between the Corvette C7 (compared to the Superfast) and the infamous Landwind a line is crossed. How do you know when the line is crossed? Again, it's hard to articulate. To my eyes, it's as plain as day that the Helson Sharkmaster doesn't cross the line. Like the C7 it just follows a common template and as a result may rightly be called unimaginative or even derivative. Steinhart Subs and the like are clearly more analogous to the Landwind. Slightly different proportions and size, but you know it's a Sub homage when you see it.
















Compare to the watches:


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Here's a question. Which is more embarrassing?

1. Someone who owns a Submariner 'homage' - but takes it to the beach/ dives / snorkels / free dives with it.

Or. 

2. Someone who owns the actual article, but never takes it anywhere near a body of water.


I think I'm inclined to say #2. At least guy #1 is using the watch - and that design - as intended. And if buying the homage enables him to actually use the watch like that, I think it's the correct course of action. Guy #2, I imagine, uses the watch to imply that he does all the stuff the watch is designed for, even though he really doesn't.


----------



## American Jedi (May 27, 2017)

Ticktocker said:


> I wouldn't snare a rabbit or hunt a buck. I'd just buy a veggie burger somewhere.
> Some people are very fulfilled and living very well on veggie burgers (not me BTW!). It's the guy that hates veggie burgers because he doesn't understand why someone would eat something that doesn't fulfill HIM. The guy that thinks that anyone that eats a veggie burger must be some kind of weird nut putting undue sadness and strife upon their already miserable existence. The guy that looks at a Rolex homage and says, "how could they be satisfied with something I don't like?"
> 
> Kidding somewhat aside...... I think many are satisfied with homage watches because they don't understand the complexity of a Rolex. They see it as "just an expensive watch". Just like some Rolex fanatics don't understand the enjoyment of having inexpensive watches that look like expensive watches. I think that's fine. You don't have to be a horologist in order to enjoy watches.


What I'm saying is if you're contemplating the question, you probably already know what you really want, and a fake or ''homage'' is similar to eating something you do not really like just to hold you over. This works for some, but personally it's not for me.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

pinkybrain said:


> I disagree. None of the watches I posted is a knockoff (ie "homage"), though some _pay homage_ or are derivative of classic/vintage dive watch design.
> 
> I own the SLA017 and it's nothing like the Seaforth. No offense, but that's like my wife telling me that all my watches look the same and types of cars are blue truck, green sedan etc. The Seaforth doesn't even borrow the unique case shape of the 62MAS and all the markers are different (either slightly or entirely).
> 
> ...


I guess, because I work in a design field, my standards for labeling something an "original design" are a bit higher than yours. I see derivative designs, not ones that I would attribute high enough originality to proclaim them "original."

Likewise, I also do not conflate the terms homage and knockoff. These words have different connotations. They are not equivalent.


----------



## Ticktocker (Oct 27, 2009)

American Jedi said:


> What I'm saying is if you're contemplating the question, you probably already know what you really want, and a fake or ''homage'' is similar to eating something you do not really like just to hold you over. This works for some, but personally it's not for me.


Yes. I know what you're saying. You're right. It works for some. Fake is totally different from homage. Fake Rolex is totally wrong no matter how much it works for anyone. Homage is just adapting a style Rolex invented and not pretending it's the original.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

We actually agree here. From a normative perspective, they should not be conflated. But hey, I'm just going along with the WUS flow...



cel4145 said:


> Likewise, I also do not conflate the terms homage and knockoff. These words have different connotations. They are not equivalent.


I believe this thread is about Sub homages, so - in WUS parlance - about Sub knockoffs. I'm really trying to distinguish between what's clearly an intentional knockoff v. what's merely being derivative and/or following the classic dive watch template to a T. It's this distinction that separates the Sharkdiver from the Steinhart.



cel4145 said:


> I guess, because I work in a design field, my standards for labeling something an "original design" are a bit higher than yours. I see derivative designs, not ones that I would attribute high enough originality to proclaim them "original."


----------



## Art_Riddle13 (Dec 23, 2017)

To non-wis/horologically savvy onlookers, most dive watches (with rotating bezels) look like Rolexes unfortunately. So wear what you want, if someone says you are wearing a “fake” but are wearing a Steinhart, Tisell, etc, let them say what they want. Those are well made watches at a great price point. 

One of my friends that likes watches (but doesn’t know much about them), said my Orient Mako I (with two crowns) looked like a Rolex. Case, maybe, everything else, nah. 

Wear what you want, man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## American Jedi (May 27, 2017)

Ticktocker said:


> Yes. I know what you're saying. You're right. It works for some. Fake is totally different from homage. Fake Rolex is totally wrong no matter how much it works for anyone. Homage is just adapting a style Rolex invented and not pretending it's the original.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Indeed. Personally I can't get behind either. I would liken a homage to driving one of those kit cars that is trying to look like a Ferrari, but is a Pontiac Fiero skin deep.








Cringe...


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

So what is the Sharkdiver a copy of? (Microbrands often copy from the vintage catalog without many people even realizing it, but I haven't seen anything that looks like the Sharkdiver by homage/knockoff standards).



cel4145 said:


> I guess, because I work in a design field, my standards for labeling something an "original design" are a bit higher than yours. I see derivative designs, not ones that I would attribute high enough originality to proclaim them "original."
> 
> Likewise, I also do not conflate the terms homage and knockoff. These words have different connotations. They are not equivalent.


----------



## Ticktocker (Oct 27, 2009)

American Jedi said:


> Indeed. Personally I can't get behind either. I would liken a homage to driving one of those kit cars that is trying to look like a Ferrari, but is a Pontiac Fiero skin deep.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cringe worthy indeed. I get what you mean. I just can't equate a homage watch like a Steinhart or other decent brands with a Pontiac Fiero dressed as a Ferrari.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

While I'm not necessarily opposed to Sub homages, that was part of my earlier point: why not just drive a Corolla instead? I'd rather drive a Corolla than that any day and twice on Sunday. Look at the "Landwind" - it's roughly the same price as a Honda CRV. If I were a newly minted Chinese professional I'd much rather have the CRV. (Or the non-Japanese equivalent if you're a nationalist harboring old resentments).



American Jedi said:


> Indeed. Personally I can't get behind either. I would liken a homage to driving one of those kit cars that is trying to look like a Ferrari, but is a Pontiac Fiero skin deep.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Ticktocker said:


> Cringe worthy indeed. I get what you mean. I just can't equate a homage watch like a Steinhart or other decent brands with a Pontiac Fiero dressed as a Ferrari.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'd say it's more like something from Factory Five.

https://www.factoryfive.com/

Or maybe from Caterham.


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

You have a point. But I can equate Steinhart et al with higher end Chinese knockoff cars like the Landwind.



Ticktocker said:


> Cringe worthy indeed. I get what you mean. I just can't equate a homage watch like a Steinhart or other decent brands with a Pontiac Fiero dressed as a Ferrari.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hamstur (Nov 6, 2017)

TheWalrus said:


> Here's a question. Which is more embarrassing?
> 
> 1. Someone who owns a Submariner 'homage' - but takes it to the beach/ dives / snorkels / free dives with it.
> 
> ...


I always used a wrist-worn dive computer when I used to scuba, so actually feel #1 would be more embarrassing because it sounds like the guy who is trying to hard to look the part. Mechanical dive watches are obsolete as diving tools. They are just fashionable jewelry now.


----------



## absoluteczech (Jun 7, 2012)

Any fool with a credit card can buy a Rolex today and wear it. 95% of them buy because they think "Rolex" and don't know squat about the watches history or watches in general. I know several friends that have Rolex's and simply picked it because, well "Rolex".... rolleyes. If I actually see someone wearing a Steinhart there is a damn good chance they are a watch geek and probably on this forum. I have no problems with homages, because the person with a homage probably knows more about watches and is interested in watches than the average Joe just buying a watch for it's name.

Not to mention who cares what strangers think? If your group of friends judge you about it, then their probably not your real friends to begin with.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Hamstur said:


> I used a wrist worn dive computer when I used to scuba, so actually feel #1 would be more embarrassing because it sounds like the guy who is trying to hard to look the part. Mechanical dive watches are obsolete as diving tools.


Obsolete - but not entirely without purpose. They can function as a useful backup timer. Plus, it's not also just about scuba diving - it's also about snorkeling, or skin diving, or simply swimming. Or generally being somewhat adventurous while wearing your watch.

In any case - I guess the point I was trying to make is that people seem to be completely caught up in things pretending to be what they aren't - an 'homage' is pretending to be the genuine article - and you should be embarrassed to be seen wearing one. Yet at least a part of the purpose of so many of these pieces - whether dive watches or field watches or fleigers or driving watches - is to convey (at some level) that the wearer does some pretty adventurous stuff. And how many owners _really_ take part in those activities? And isn't wearing a dive watch when you don't dive, or a fleiger when you don't fly, or a tachyometer when you don't race cars _kind of_ like pretending to be something you aren't?

All that to say, that I really _don't_ believe that anyone should be embarrassed about anything here. A guy wearing an homage to a Submariner shouldn't be embarrassed. And a person can legitimately wear a dive watch even if they've never set foot in a body of water in their life. Or a tachometer even if they can't drive / fly. You can wear those watches just because you like the design, or the history.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

pinkybrain said:


> We actually agree here. From a normative perspective, they should not be conflated. But hey, I'm just going along with the WUS flow...
> 
> I believe this thread is about Sub homages, so - in WUS parlance - about Sub knockoffs. I'm really trying to distinguish between what's clearly an intentional knockoff v. what's merely being derivative and/or following the classic dive watch template to a T. It's this distinction that separates the Sharkdiver from the Steinhart.


Nope. We disagree. You are not just going along with the WUS flow, for their are many, many members who do not equate the terms homage and knockoff. You are choosing instead to disparage the choice of homages with your term usage.


----------



## Hamstur (Nov 6, 2017)

TheWalrus said:


> Obsolete - but not entirely without purpose. They can function as a useful backup timer. Plus, it's not also just about scuba diving - it's also about snorkeling, or skin diving, or simply swimming. Or generally being somewhat adventurous while wearing your watch.
> 
> In any case - I guess the point I was trying to make is that people seem to be completely caught up in things pretending to be what they aren't - an 'homage' is pretending to be the genuine article - and you should be embarrassed to be seen wearing one. Yet at least a part of the purpose of so many of these pieces - whether dive watches or field watches or fleigers or driving watches - is to convey (at some level) that the wearer does some pretty adventurous stuff. And how many owners _really_ take part in those activities? And isn't wearing a dive watch when you don't dive, or a fleiger when you don't fly, or a tachyometer when you don't race cars _kind of_ like pretending to be something you aren't?
> 
> All that to say, that I really _don't_ believe that anyone should be embarrassed about anything here. A guy wearing an homage to a Submariner shouldn't be embarrassed. And a person can legitimately wear a dive watch even if they've never set foot in a body of water in their life. Or a tachometer even if they can't drive / fly. You can wear those watches just because you like the design, or the history.


I agree. Maybe the twist to my perspective is the nature of owning watch in itself is to own luxury goods, and watches as a technology is outdated vs wearables and smart devices. 99.99% of the time, whether someone wears a $10 Timex, $50 Fossil, $150 Seiko, $600 Steinhart or $8000 Rolex Sub, it's decorative in nature.

Have to admit there's a side of my that sees these threads and chuckles when Ronny Rolex and Stanley Steinhart get worked up against each other and just chuckles, because we're so far up Maslow's Hierarchy of needs where having food and shelter aren't even a distant worry, that folk can politely argue about decorative personal accessories. i.e., it's a great problem to have in common.


----------



## Hamstur (Nov 6, 2017)

absoluteczech said:


> Any fool with a credit card can buy a Rolex today and wear it. 95% of them buy because they think "Rolex" and don't know squat about the watches history or watches in general. I know several friends that have Rolex's and simply picked it because, well "Rolex".... rolleyes. If I actually see someone wearing a Steinhart there is a damn good chance they are a watch geek and probably on this forum. I have no problems with homages, because the person with a homage probably knows more about watches and is interested in watches than the average Joe just buying a watch for it's name.
> 
> Not to mention who cares what strangers think? If your group of friends judge you about it, then their probably not your real friends to begin with.


Just a random musing, but I find attributing value to "knowledge about watches" doesn't make much sense, as it's not that different from sports nuts. There's no skillset to memorize team/player stats, scores, etc. We all know the typical image of the obese, loud sports fan who doesn't have an athletic bone in his body to throw a ball or dash 100 yards. Likewise, knowing about watches isn't a skillset: it doesn't equate to any artistic capability to designing, engineering, building or fixing watches. i.e., most are just consumers and watch ownership boils down to "owning cool looking things."

But I'm probably the weird one on this forum because the less than handful of 'watch people' I've met in real life, mostly all at a watch store, just seemed like weirdos ... and I just wanted them to stop wrist-gazing me and trying to impress me with their watch trivia facts, all of which is common knowledge to anyone who lurks a forum like this for 1 month.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Hamstur said:


> I agree. Maybe the twist to my perspective is the nature of owning watch in itself is to own luxury goods, and watches as a technology is outdated vs wearables and smart devices. 99.99% of the time, whether someone wears a $10 Timex, $50 Fossil, $150 Seiko, $600 Steinhart or $8000 Rolex Sub, it's decorative in nature.
> 
> Have to admit there's a side of my that sees these threads and chuckles when Ronny Rolex and Stanley Steinhart get worked up against each other and just chuckles, because we're so far up Maslow's Hierarchy of needs where having food and shelter aren't even a distant worry, that folk can politely argue about decorative personal accessories. i.e., it's a great problem to have in common.


100% agreed. It is all pretty ridiculous... and a nice distraction all at the same time.


----------



## cfracing (Feb 21, 2015)

American Jedi said:


> Indeed. Personally I can't get behind either. I would liken a homage to driving one of those kit cars that is trying to look like a Ferrari, but is a Pontiac Fiero skin deep.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry, already gone through this on another homage watch thread. There is nothing Ferrari about that kit car except for the sticker on the fender.

This is an homage car. And I would not be embarrassed to be seen driving it. :-d


----------



## cfracing (Feb 21, 2015)

pinkybrain said:


> It's hard to articulate aesthetic design, but somewhere between the Corvette C7 (compared to the Superfast) and the infamous Landwind a line is crossed. How do you know when the line is crossed? Again, it's hard to articulate. To my eyes, it's as plain as day that the Helson Sharkmaster doesn't cross the line. Like the C7 it just follows a common template and as a result may rightly be called unimaginative or even derivative. Steinhart Subs and the like are clearly more analogous to the Landwind. Slightly different proportions and size, but you know it's a Sub homage when you see it.
> 
> Compare to the watches:
> View attachment 13716679
> ...


That's cheating. You are comparing the wrong Steinhart, and with the wrong Rolex. ;-) The Helsons should be compared to a Rolex 5513/5517 Military Sub which I unfortunately don't have an uncopyrighted photo of.


----------



## thewheel82 (Jul 6, 2011)

I personally would not wear one however I have almost purchased one several times. At the end of the day I decided I personally did not want a watch that was trying to look like another watch.

I pass zero judgement on those that do wear them as it is all about user enjoyment. Steinhart and Squale do make a very nice looking product at a great price point.


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

cfracing said:


> That's cheating. You are comparing the wrong Steinhart, and with the wrong Rolex. ;-) The Helsons should be compared to a Rolex 5513/5517 Military Sub which I unfortunately don't have an uncopyrighted photo of.


WTF kind of bizarro WUS world did I wake up in?

The Shark Diver:























5517 Submariner:























I don't have time to make a what you smoking meme, but this comes to mind.









You can't actually be serious. Did I just miss your sarcasm? haha...I guess?


----------



## sleepy966 (Jul 29, 2018)

Sure it's obsolete. But my watch keeps time close enough to a smart device for me and it can't track my movements for big brother when I leave my phone at home.


Hamstur said:


> I agree. Maybe the twist to my perspective is the nature of owning watch in itself is to own luxury goods, and watches as a technology is outdated vs wearables and smart devices. 99.99% of the time, whether someone wears a $10 Timex, $50 Fossil, $150 Seiko, $600 Steinhart or $8000 Rolex Sub, it's decorative in nature.
> 
> Have to admit there's a side of my that sees these threads and chuckles when Ronny Rolex and Stanley Steinhart get worked up against each other and just chuckles, because we're so far up Maslow's Hierarchy of needs where having food and shelter aren't even a distant worry, that folk can politely argue about decorative personal accessories. i.e., it's a great problem to have in common.


Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

I see Sub homages the way I see skinny jeans (at least if I had gone through my own skinny-jeans phase 5 years ago). I obviously don't pass judgment on people that wear skinny jeans and I could care less what kind of jeans anyone wears. That said, I would personally feel kind of silly wearing skinny jeans. It's not a perfect analogy because, again, people don't notice your watch. But you get my drift. *To each their own*. It's just a watch and they're just canvas pants.

I will also admit that certain Sub homages could indicate a WIS (eg MKII but not Invicta), and I may be more likely to start up a conversation with someone wearing one over, say, a real SubC.


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

Another point: where you live and work can affect how you view Sub homages. For example, I noticed Eddie Platts/Timefactors is releasing a limited run of 36 mm vintage Explorer homages. I was very tempted to buy one. But then I remembered that the guy in the next cubicle row - literally 15 feet away from me - has a real 36 mm Explorer (and some other WIS favorites). Maybe if I worked somewhere rural and red (which I would actually prefer) instead of downtown San Francisco I would feel differently and have less issues wearing that Explorer homage (or knockoff or whatever - I don't want to get into an argument about semantics).


----------



## thatotherguy1 (May 5, 2017)

Why should I be embarrassed for wearing a Sub homage? I wear my watches for me, not for an image. I don't give an aeronautical fornication what other people think about what I wear, therefore there's no reason to be embarrassed over it


----------



## EsbenOpen (Dec 20, 2014)

justadad said:


> I'll ask a question in return.
> 
> What's worse:
> 
> ...


Yeah what a ****. How dare he not know every detail about every product he buys. Good for you, calling him a **** and just really putting him in his place 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

justadad said:


> I'll ask a question in return.
> 
> What's worse:
> 
> ...


What's worse is being the kind of person who would consider a person a **** for not knowing the model name of a watch. It's just a watch, so what if a person knows less about an expensive trinket that they own than you do? All they need to know is that they like the look of it and they can afford it.


----------



## tennesseean_87 (May 31, 2011)

TheWalrus said:


> Obsolete - but not entirely without purpose. They can function as a useful backup timer. Plus, it's not also just about scuba diving - it's also about snorkeling, or skin diving, or simply swimming. Or generally being somewhat adventurous while wearing your watch.
> 
> In any case - I guess the point I was trying to make is that people seem to be completely caught up in things pretending to be what they aren't - an 'homage' is pretending to be the genuine article - and you should be embarrassed to be seen wearing one. Yet at least a part of the purpose of so many of these pieces - whether dive watches or field watches or fleigers or driving watches - is to convey (at some level) that the wearer does some pretty adventurous stuff. And how many owners _really_ take part in those activities? And isn't wearing a dive watch when you don't dive, or a fleiger when you don't fly, or a tachyometer when you don't race cars _kind of_ like pretending to be something you aren't?
> 
> All that to say, that I really _don't_ believe that anyone should be embarrassed about anything here. A guy wearing an homage to a Submariner shouldn't be embarrassed. And a person can legitimately wear a dive watch even if they've never set foot in a body of water in their life. Or a tachometer even if they can't drive / fly. You can wear those watches just because you like the design, or the history.


I actually use the bezels on divers to time stuff frequently. I started doing this with my Timex Expedition.

Here's a Sub Homage I am super proud of:










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## soaking.fused (May 3, 2012)

As a reminder, please refrain from using inappropriate language or this thread may be closed.


----------



## cfracing (Feb 21, 2015)

pinkybrain said:


> WTF kind of bizarro WUS world did I wake up in?
> 
> I don't have time to make a what you smoking meme, but this comes to mind.
> 
> You can't actually be serious. Did I just miss your sarcasm? haha...I guess?


Yes I guess you did miss it, but I wouldn't call it sarcasm. :-d


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

cfracing said:


> Yes I guess you missed my sarcasm.  You see what you want to see so you can rationalize to yourself that your watch is not an homage when most everyone else sees it as such. Or should I call the Helson a "knockoff" except I am not a part of the anti-homage WUS that you say uses the two terms interchangeably. :-d


Got to be honest - not sure I see it as a homage either. Clearly some Submariner influences in there.... but I can't place it close enough to any one particular model to call it an homage...


----------



## cfracing (Feb 21, 2015)

TheWalrus said:


> Got to be honest - not sure I see it as a homage either. Clearly some Submariner influences in there.... but I can't place it close enough to any one particular model to call it an homage...


You were too quick. I was going to edit my post to tone it down a little, or maybe even delete it, but I still think the Helsons look as much like an homage as all the other watches posted on this thread as examples of homages, at least the ones without the Mercedes hand. But I am sure there are others who would agree with you and pinkybrain.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

cfracing said:


> You were too quick. I was going to edit my post to tone it down a little, or maybe even delete it, but I still think the Hensons look as much like an homage as all the other watches posted on this thread as examples of homages, at least the ones without the Mercedes hand. But I am sure there are others who would agree with you and pinkybrain.


Haha - I hate when that happens to me. But I take you're point, there are definitely derivative elements to its design. At the same time, I also think that's just a necessary result of a very simple dive watch design. 60 minute bezel, clean face, clearly distinguished hour and minute hands... lots of lume and large indices.


----------



## Mr.Jones82 (Jul 15, 2018)

TheWalrus said:


> cfracing said:
> 
> 
> > You were too quick. I was going to edit my post to tone it down a little, or maybe even delete it, but I still think the Hensons look as much like an homage as all the other watches posted on this thread as examples of homages, at least the ones without the Mercedes hand. But I am sure there are others who would agree with you and pinkybrain.
> ...


True. There are only so many dive watch templates to build on. I was at Seiko AD a while back and I was wearing my Seastar and the guy said, "Rolex. Rolex same." I laughed and said no, but he did not speak English, so it was pretty much left at that. Later when I thought about it, there are some common design elements I guess, but I think it becomes unavoidable after a while.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Mr.Jones82 said:


> True. There are only so many dive watch templates to build on. I was at Seiko AD a while back and I was wearing my Seastar and the guy said, "Rolex. Rolex same." I laughed and said no, but he did not speak English, so it was pretty much left at that. Later when I thought about it, there are some common design elements I guess, but I think it becomes unavoidable after a while.


I tend to distinguish between functional and aesthetic convergence. I wouldn't consider a watch to be a copy just because it has an external timing bezel and luminous hands, but when one sees aesthetic convergence whose only purpose appears to be to mimic the visual feel of another watch, then it because hard to dismiss it being due to the constraints of functional design. As an example, look at the word salad on the dial of the Ginault, surely there is no reason for it except to make it look like a 4 line Submariner dial.


----------



## cfracing (Feb 21, 2015)

I used to think that the primary feature that distinguished a Sub homage dive watch was the Mercedes hour hand. However, after seeing all of the MilSub homages with the sword hour hand and buying one myself, I've decided certain features of the dial have become identified with the Sub, too - specifically the round hour markers and the triangular "12" marker. The Helson dial has those features plus a sword hand, although swapped with the minute hand, which is why I think it looks like a MilSub homage. But maybe that's just me. :shrug:


----------



## Mr.Jones82 (Jul 15, 2018)

Agreed, I was speaking more towards those who have a tendency to call anything and everything a homage. 
The Genault text serves only one purpose and that purpose cannot be found in the text itself.


----------



## cfracing (Feb 21, 2015)

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Agreed, I was speaking more towards those who have a tendency to call anything and everything a homage.
> The Genault text serves only one purpose and that purpose cannot be found in the text itself.


I agree about the Ginault dial text. It is like they were trying to paraphrase what was on the Submariner dial without using any of the same words - "Submersible Maritime Precision Chronometer" for "Superlative Chronometer Officially Certified". Regardless, I think the Ginault is a nice wastch.


----------



## 7Pines (Jun 28, 2007)

I have found that 99.99999% of the public have no clue what sort of watch you're wearing, and they don't care.
Wear whatever floats your boat. There are countless Rolex look-alikes out there, and many of them are outstanding watches in their own unique ways. Or maybe not so unique...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JLS36 (Feb 5, 2016)

Kids can and do work in high school.


askew said:


> What sort of income are you talking about -- income from mowing a neighbor's lawn, doing odd jobs for your dad etc?


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## JLS36 (Feb 5, 2016)

Seaforth surely like many watches draws design from what's come before but it's not an homage of any kind, that's just silly.


cel4145 said:


> I like the selection of watches you offered, but the Seaforth seems more homage to the 62mas than "original design." Not that I'm complaining and objecting, though. It's a very nice watch. And the Helson Shardiver, that's not original. It's clearly a derivative of the submariner.


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## cfracing (Feb 21, 2015)

JLS36 said:


> Kids can and do work in high school.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


Yes, but the OP stated he saved up 4 months' salary to buy a Breitling SOHC 46, which means he had to be making over $1,000 - $1,300 a month. It's been several decades since I was in high school, but I find it hard to believe there are part-time jobs for high school students that pay that much, unless you have "connections".


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

This is getting a little off topic, but being a Gen-Xer we were perhaps the last generation where everyone - from the working class kids to the wealthy kids - worked in high school starting at age 16 (I also had a paper route starting in middle school). 40 hours per week all summer and some of us worked a bit during the school year too. Like everyone else I knew, I worked 40 hours a week all summer and weekends or after school during the school year when I had no activities. By senior year in high school that's several thousand dollars or more. Most blew it on cars, but I drove my mom's old clunker and had about $3-4K in my own money when I graduated (not including a sizable amount from a wealthy aunt who felt sorry for us).

So that's at least $5-6K in today's dollar, and I was a working-class kid in a working-class neighborhood (+ the money from my wealthy aunt. My wife worked more and spent less in high school, and at graduation probably had 10K in today's dollars. If only I had enough sense to buy a Submariner...or better yet Microsoft stock.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

pinkybrain said:


> This is getting a little off topic, but being a Gen-Xer we were perhaps the last generation where everyone - from the working class kids to the wealthy kids - worked in high school starting at age 16 (I also had a paper route starting in middle school). 40 hours per week all summer and some of us worked a bit during the school year too. Like everyone else I knew, I worked 40 hours a week all summer and weekends or after school during the school year when I had no activities. By senior year in high school that's several thousand dollars or more. Most blew it on cars, but I drove my mom's old clunker and had about $3-4K in my own money when I graduated (not including a sizable amount from a wealthy aunt who felt sorry for us).
> 
> So that's at least $5-6K in today's dollar, and I was a working-class kid in a working-class neighborhood (+ the money from my wealthy aunt. My wife worked more and spent less in high school, and at graduation probably had 10K in today's dollars. If only I had enough sense to buy a Submariner...or better yet Microsoft stock.


Yeah, but, in making all that money - did you talk .... to adults with real responsibilities? I mean, if someone wants to blow their money on a Rolex at 16, that's fine. I think what most people reacted to, here, was the fact that he was claiming that everyone should be able to buy a Rolex if he, a kid, could do it by saving and spending 100% of his income.


----------



## Mr.Jones82 (Jul 15, 2018)

pinkybrain said:


> This is getting a little off topic, but being a Gen-Xer we were perhaps the last generation where everyone - from the working class kids to the wealthy kids - worked in high school starting at age 16 (I also had a paper route starting in middle school). 40 hours per week all summer and some of us worked a bit during the school year too. Like everyone else I knew, I worked 40 hours a week all summer and weekends or after school during the school year when I had no activities. By senior year in high school that's several thousand dollars or more. Most blew it on cars, but I drove my mom's old clunker and had about $3-4K in my own money when I graduated (not including a sizable amount from a wealthy aunt who felt sorry for us).
> 
> So that's at least $5-6K in today's dollar, and I was a working-class kid in a working-class neighborhood (+ the money from my wealthy aunt. My wife worked more and spent less in high school, and at graduation probably had 10K in today's dollars. If only I had enough sense to buy a Submariner...or better yet Microsoft stock.


Just curious, but why do you think you were the last generation to work in high school? Pretty much every high schooler works these days, no different from when you were a kid. Go to McDonalds, the supermarket, or [insert low skilled job] and you are going to see pimply faced awkward teens bumbling and mucking things up. They are a significant market because unlike their parents, their income is generally completely disposable (save kids, save!!!). 
Anyway, just curious. Maybe I am missing something. Just an honest question.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Just curious, but why do you think you were the last generation to work in high school? Pretty much every high schooler works these days, no different from when you were a kid. Go to McDonalds, the supermarket, or [insert low skilled job] and you are going to see pimply faced awkward teens bumbling and mucking things up. They are a significant market because unlike their parents, their income is generally completely disposable (save kids, save!!!).
> Anyway, just curious. *Maybe I am missing something. * Just an honest question.


The problem is that you are basing your opinion on limited anecdotal evidence, while (apparently) have no experience with what it was like in Gen X's day. There has been various statistical data that contradicts your personal experience:

"Today's teens are less likely to be employed than ever before. Almost 60% of teens in 1979 had a job, compared to 34% in 2015."
https://www.businessinsider.com/generation-z-teen-jobs-2018-5


----------



## Mr.Jones82 (Jul 15, 2018)

cel4145 said:


> Mr.Jones82 said:
> 
> 
> > Just curious, but why do you think you were the last generation to work in high school? Pretty much every high schooler works these days, no different from when you were a kid. Go to McDonalds, the supermarket, or [insert low skilled job] and you are going to see pimply faced awkward teens bumbling and mucking things up. They are a significant market because unlike their parents, their income is generally completely disposable (save kids, save!!!).
> ...


Indeed I was, that was why I asked. Interesting. Well, I hope they are doing something useful with their time like posting on internet forums and taking wrist shots like us. Kids these days.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Indeed I was, that was why I asked. Interesting. Well, I hope they are doing something useful with their time like posting on internet forums and taking wrist shots like us. Kids these days.


The theory is that they are definitely on their phones/computers a lot. And they are not dating, having sex, nor getting drivers licenses like Gen X did, and are generally less happy: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazin...the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/


----------



## TemerityB (Mar 20, 2018)

I am not afraid to wear anything, and never cast aspersions on anyone's else's watch - unless I see a downright fake or replica. Then I'm disgusted - everyone should know better.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

7Pines said:


> I have found that 99.99999% of the public have no clue what sort of watch you're wearing, and they don't care.


And you've personally interacted with the 10 million members of the public necessary for you to actually arrive at the percentage that you cite?


----------



## Stirling Moss (Nov 16, 2015)




----------



## SpankyMcGee (Oct 15, 2018)

Not this one.


----------



## GShocksCoolness (Nov 11, 2018)

orian said:


> Is anyone embarrassed by wearing a Rolex Submariner homage?
> 
> I used to have one but hardly wore it, in case people looked at it closely and saw it wasn't the real thing, and thaught I was a "wannabe" Rolex owner. That would be very embarrassing for me.
> 
> ...


Yes and no. Most people get the idea wearing a homage. Most people can't afford a Rolex either. Unless a watch snob can afford any watch, but is cool. They get the idea too.

RELAX!


----------



## ronkatct (Sep 27, 2018)

I just changed my $22 Winner Pepsi Black from suicide bracelet to $6 strap. I will use it later today without fear of death by sliced wrist.

And I have a $12 Winner Pepsi White sub on the way :-d


----------



## 7Pines (Jun 28, 2007)

mleok said:


> And you've personally interacted with the 10 million members of the public necessary for you to actually arrive at the percentage that you cite?


Why yes, I have! And it was exhausting, let me tell you!
No, of course not. But what I say is true enough. Wear what makes you happy, because a vast, vast majority of the public couldn't give two shiites what is strapped to your wrist.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 7Pines (Jun 28, 2007)

ronkatct said:


> I just changed my $22 Winner Pepsi Black from suicide bracelet to $6 strap. I will use it later today without fear of death by sliced wrist.
> 
> And I have a $12 Winner Pepsi White sub on the way :-d
> 
> ...


Fun piece! I like it!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

7Pines said:


> Why yes, I have! And it was exhausting, let me tell you!
> No, of course not. But what I say is true enough. Wear what makes you happy, because a vast, vast majority of the public couldn't give two shiites what is strapped to your wrist.


Again, how do you know? There were plenty of times I've observed people staring at my watch, and not saying anything. And I can only assume there were times they've noticed and I didn't realize it.


----------



## francorx (Feb 19, 2016)

I wear what I like period. I have a Rolex submariner and I have a homage sub (Squale) and I am just as happy wearing either one. I also have many more that are on both ends of the price spectrum and enjoy each for different reasons.


----------



## 7Pines (Jun 28, 2007)

mleok said:


> Again, how do you know? There were plenty of times I've observed people staring at my watch, and not saying anything. And I can only assume there were times they've noticed and I didn't realize it.


Well... Just think about it for a minute. 
Folks who are really into watches, I mean really into watches, like all of us who are members of watch forums and so forth, make up a tiny fraction of the population in its entirety.
If I wore a Patek Calatrava on my wrist every day for the rest of my life, I might...MIGHT... encounter only a few folks who would even recognize the brand, let alone the model.
Sure, people might say, "Hey, nice watch," but they don't know anything about watches, per se.
A shiny Bulova...a shiny PP..."Hey, nice watch." Same-same.
It's really nothing to argue about.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

7Pines said:


> Well... Just think about it for a minute.
> Folks who are really into watches, I mean really into watches, like all of us who are members of watch forums and so forth, make up a tiny fraction of the population in its entirety.
> If I wore a Patek Calatrava on my wrist every day for the rest of my life, I might...MIGHT... encounter only a few folks who would even recognize the brand, let alone the model.
> Sure, people might say, "Hey, nice watch," but they don't know anything about watches, per se.
> ...


Again, I think it's difficult to make such broad generalizations. It really depends on your social circle, and more generally where you live. I would be very surprised if all but a small handful of the general population in Houston is incapable of recognizing a Texas Timex, for example.


----------



## fenderjapan (Nov 1, 2013)

I've got to imagine something like 30% of men's watches look like a Sub from 5 feet away.


----------



## bigvatch (Sep 25, 2007)

cfracing said:


> I used to think that the primary feature that distinguished a Sub homage dive watch was the Mercedes hour hand. However, after seeing all of the MilSub homages with the sword hour hand and buying one myself, I've decided certain features of the dial have become identified with the Sub, too - specifically the round hour markers and the triangular "12" marker. The Helson dial has those features plus a sword hand, although swapped with the minute hand, which is why I think it looks like a MilSub homage. But maybe that's just me. :shrug:


To me the attractive things about submariner are the case and bracelet...which seem to be unique to Rolex. They are what make the sub comfortable and sporty. AFAIK the mercedes hands and the triangular markers are not unique to Rolex and the hands style predate Rolex AFAIK. Milsub homages are well-liked IMO not so much because it is homage of a "rare and very expensive $1.5k+ watch", but they just look so darn cool, vintage, modern, stylish, most choosing to to wear with a bracelet which is not a milsub thing LOL and against the real idea of homage. nato strap FTW .


----------



## Drewdoog (Jul 11, 2009)

Yes. I have tried, but its not the same. I avoid all sub homages now. I even tried going with an Omega bezel, but it was still too similar.


----------



## oldfatherthames (Aug 20, 2015)

mleok said:


> Again, I think it's difficult to make such broad generalizations. It really depends on your social circle, and more generally where you live.


Two great points!

First, the famous commonplace that "99% of folks don't care about watches or recognise a special model" is so pointless. Those insecure about wearing a homage don't care about those folks or anonymous people they meet on the street somehwere, they care about the whatever x% of people who can identify the watch or the maker in general or at least think so.

Honestly, all these homage discussions are so totally WIS. I think it's pretty obvious that to any real-world Rolex guy out there a Steinhart looks exactly like what it is: A watch that looks like a Rolex. Simple as that. _"Look, it has straight lugs and dimensions are slightly different and it says Steinhart on the dial - it's a homage watch!"_ LOL! I mean, come on!

And second, I totally agree that it depends on your social circle and where you live. From friends and customers of mine I could give you a line up of dozens of great guys who wear Rolex. Good and decent men. They are doing not too bad and most of them can simply afford the good stuff.

And why did they chose Rolex? Simply because all these guys I'm talking about know Rolex since when they grew up and because it's just a synonym for quality to them and because it's an icon they like (it could be Speedmaster or Nautilus just the same) and wished for. But they don't brag about it just as they don't point you to their Eames Lounge Chair or tell you that you are sitting on a Tufty Time sofa. They just enjoy the things they like and have earned from their work.

I'm sure most of them won't disdain anyone wearing a homage as long as they recognise a good man in that person, because that is what matters to them. But I sure get the idea, that homage-people would feel uncomfortable with them in the first place.

Cheers!
Bernd


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

This thread might be a "good" start for a Knockoff Forum.


----------



## tennesseean_87 (May 31, 2011)

I only wear Turn-o-graph homages...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

tennesseean_87 said:


> I only wear Turn-o-graph homages...


Touché.


----------



## bigvatch (Sep 25, 2007)

oldfatherthames said:


> Two great points!
> 
> First, the famous commonplace that "99% of folks don't care about watches or recognise a special model" is so pointless. Those insecure about wearing a homage don't care about those folks or anonymous people they meet on the street somehwere, they care about the whatever x% of people who can identify the watch or the maker in general or at least think so.
> 
> ...


----------------------------
"I think it's pretty obvious that to any real-world Rolex guy out there a Steinhart looks exactly like what it is: A watch that looks like a Rolex. Simple as that."

"But I sure get the idea, that homage-people would feel uncomfortable with them in the first place"
------------------------------

Don't forget the countless Rolex owners that happily buy/own/wear Rolex homages, from Steinhart to MKII etc. WIS behavior is not all the same, often unpredictable. WIS have different ways of approaching things.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

bigvatch said:


> Don't forget the countless Rolex owners that happily buy/own/wear Rolex homages, from Steinhart to MKII etc. WIS behavior is not all the same, often unpredictable. WIS have different ways of approaching things.


I suspect that any person who owns both a Rolex and one of the homages you mentioned is a WIS, and they're a extremely small fraction of the total number of Rolex owners.


----------



## brandonrush (Apr 18, 2015)

I personally am not a fan, but it's due to a "imposter syndrome" type of mentality. Some of the Squale's and other homage's I see are beautiful, but I can't get over my feeling that, in the end, it's a $500 watch copying a $10,000 watch. I won't personally judge anyone for wearing one, and have complimented the one Squale I've seen on a wrist in person, but I can't get over my own thoughts about it.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Indeed I was, that was why I asked. Interesting. Well, I hope they are doing something useful with their time like posting on internet forums and taking wrist shots like us. Kids these days.


They're probably looking for jobs. Lots of these low skill jobs my generation and the one before it used to get don't really exist anymore. Fast food restaurants are moving to using fewer and fewer active employees and there are even a few fully automated fast food restaurants out there.


----------



## Ticktocker (Oct 27, 2009)

mleok said:


> Again, how do you know? There were plenty of times I've observed people staring at my watch, and not saying anything. And I can only assume there were times they've noticed and I didn't realize it.


Usually if they like it, they let you know. If they don't they just stare and say nothing.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## EsbenOpen (Dec 20, 2014)

Ticktocker said:


> Usually if they like it, they let you know. If they don't they just stare and say nothing.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


"Usually" based on what data? I know I've looked at watches that I liked on wrists of people I didn't know or didn't want to talk watches with.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BillHW (Oct 6, 2018)

We take ourselves too seriously. In public, only embarrassed to wear a green Invicta homage... but the grandsons will like the Grinch watch so it's worth it.


----------



## brash47 (Jul 14, 2018)

That's an interesting way to look at it and I respect that opinion.

I make an extremely good living and my financial brain says I'm not going to buy one at least for years. But then again, I purchase things that would make some cringe also (I have this thing for bass guitars).

But, after knowing what I do about retail and the production of materials and goods.....I have a tendency to think this as well....

The Rolex is a $500 watch being sold for $10000. If anyone here remotely thinks that watch cost a quarter of its price to make....you have been vastly taken for a ride. And....I have some beachfront property in New Mexico I'd like to sell to you....

In the end, it is the name you are buying. As with all things of value. The name is the selling point. With the exception of a few items on this planet, that is the way of things.

I liked the statement I saw above about it's the man wearing the watch....not the watch on the man. (Not exact quote, but general idea).

A d*****bag with a Rolex is still a d*****bag. A good man wearing a Steinhart is a good man....

Peace!

Brash


brandonrush said:


> I personally am not a fan, but it's due to a "imposter syndrome" type of mentality. Some of the Squale's and other homage's I see are beautiful, but I can't get over my feeling that, in the end, it's a $500 watch copying a $10,000 watch. I won't personally judge anyone for wearing one, and have complimented the one Squale I've seen on a wrist in person, but I can't get over my own thoughts about it.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## PilotRuss (Dec 15, 2017)

brash47 said:


> That's an interesting way to look at it and I respect that opinion.
> 
> I make an extremely good living and my financial brain says I'm not going to buy one at least for years. But then again, I purchase things that would make some cringe also (I have this thing for bass guitars).
> 
> ...


Agree 100%.

I'm kinda over Rolex. Years ago a GMT Master or Submariner was kind of a grail to me. Now it just feels, like you said, a $500-$1000 watch for ~$10,000. I understand that Rolex only does a few things but they do them really well and I can appreciate and respect that. But if I'm going to drop $10k I think I'd spend my money on something that I don't see everywhere. I'd rather get a Tudor at this point as I think they're doing better things than the traditional Rolex stuff. All my opinion of course and to each their own.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

brash47 said:


> The Rolex is a $500 watch being sold for $10000.


I've heard this claim made numerous times, and I'm curious to see which $500 watch you think is comparable in build quality to a Rolex.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

brash47 said:


> A d*****bag with a Rolex is still a d*****bag. A good man wearing a Steinhart is a good man....


True enough, but a Rolex doesn't make its wearer a d*****bag, nor does a Steinhart make its wearer a good man.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

brash47 said:


> ...
> The Rolex is a $500 watch being sold for $10000. If anyone here remotely thinks that watch cost a quarter of its price to make....you have been vastly taken for a ride. And....I have some beachfront property in New Mexico I'd like to sell to you....
> 
> In the end, it is the name you are buying. As with all things of value. The name is the selling point. With the exception of a few items on this planet, that is the way of things.
> ....





PilotRuss said:


> Agree 100%.
> 
> I'm kinda over Rolex. Years ago a GMT Master or Submariner was kind of a grail to me. Now it just feels, like you said, a $500-$1000 watch for ~$10,000. I understand that Rolex only does a few things but they do them really well and I can appreciate and respect that. ...


These are opinions that masquerade as facts. And not very good opinions.
Sorry to say, but looking at watch costs purely from incremental unit production costs is nonsensical (ignores R&D, investment in materials, engineering, and more).
Similarly, it's frankly nonsensical. To claim that Rolex level of manufacture - from design, to tolerances and durability, to fit - is a $500 level watch does not pass basic smell test. I mean they smelt their own steel at foundries, and make virtually everything inside the watch. 
Why no say that Voutilainen is a $2K watch or MB&F is a $1100 watch? It's just complete nonsense to justify buying a copy.

Is marketing a factor - obviously. Is brand recognition part of pricing - hell yeah. But if it was really as you say - why not make Rolex quality watches for $500 and sell them for $1K - 100% profit sounds like a nobrainer, right?
It's funny that apparently all the people with financial means (assuming some of those means tied to intelligence and success) are such suckers that they buy into Rolex lies, right?

One last thing...
IF A d*****bag with a Rolex is still a d*****bag. A good man wearing a Steinhart is a good man....
THEN a d****bag with a Steinhart is still a d*****bag. A good man wearing a Rolex is a good man....
RIGHT?


----------



## tennesseean_87 (May 31, 2011)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

A "$500 watch being sold for $10,000", 40 years ago you would be right on the 'fiat'.


brash47 said:


> That's an interesting way to look at it and I respect that opinion.
> 
> I make an extremely good living and my financial brain says I'm not going to buy one at least for years. But then again, I purchase things that would make some cringe also (I have this thing for bass guitars).
> 
> ...


----------



## oldfatherthames (Aug 20, 2015)

mleok said:


> I suspect that any person who owns both a Rolex and one of the homages you mentioned is a WIS, and they're a extremely small fraction of the total number of Rolex owners.


Most of those (quite many) real-world Rolex owners I mentioned in #397, that are friends or customers of mine are typically not active on watch boards. They probably stumble across some while they are doing research before they decide on a concrete model, but they don't get active and if, I can guarantee, they wouldn't engage in discussions with the homage-people spreading the same old stereotypes about Rolex and owners of Rolex. I usually don't do so also, but there were some sane voices here, so I joined.

Btw, if WIS includes a board membership, then they are no WIS. But I found most of them very well informed about their watch no matter if technical related or if it's about the model's or brand history. I would say, most of them have a higher degree of knowledge about their watch than the homage-crowd bashing Rolex.



EnderW said:


> It's just complete nonsense to justify buying a copy.


Yep! Naturally it's easier to appreciate a Rolex if you can afford one. ;-)

Cheers!
Bernd


----------



## PilotRuss (Dec 15, 2017)

EnderW said:


> One last thing...
> IF A d*****bag with a Rolex is still a d*****bag. A good man wearing a Steinhart is a good man....
> THEN a d****bag with a Steinhart is still a d*****bag. A good man wearing a Rolex is a good man....
> RIGHT?


You're absolutely correct, it's who is wearing the watch, not the watch that makes the DB a DB. Plenty of douches wearing all different types of watches. The big giant fashion watches with fake dials probably taking the cake of douches to watch ratios. Some of my closest friends and the best people
I know own and love their Rolex, Tag, Omega, Hamilton, Casio, Seiko....

Don't get me wrong, I like Rolex watches. It's a timeless design. It just seems to me, again just my opinion not trying to say it's fact, is you're paying for a name. There's no reason a stainless steel Submariner should be upwards of $10,000 with no precious metals or stones. I understand that the tolerances and the quality control at Rolex far exceeds the $500-$2000 brands but to say that because of this they are worth $10,000 doesn't pass the smell test either. But I guess watches are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them and if someone is willing to pay this then that's what they're worth. Again all just my opinion and it's fine to disagree and who knows, maybe when I have $10,000 laying around with nothing else to use it on maybe I'll buy one and love it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dealer-1 (Jul 14, 2011)

Honestly, I could not wear one as I would not feel it’s correct to wear. It’s a personal preference and if you know watches you can spot one right away.


----------



## brash47 (Jul 14, 2018)

At least 2 people got the point. Yes its the person wearing the watch. Looking at the big picture....and I love watches.....its a watch. It didn't save a life, it didn't teach anyone right from wrong, it's a material good. I love material goods...as do most people. But for those who own the actual product, kudos to you. Some work hard for that product and it's the culmination of that hard work. Some inherit. Some know the value of a product tested and with monetary resources put into that research and want to have that product. All good stuff.

Then there are those who purchase for whatever reason you had and sneer at those who either cannot afford it or have chosen to get a much cheaper homage instead of putting the money into it. The sneering is what makes you......a d*****bag.

Look at what you wrote and decide if you are that person.....because bro.....its a watch.....not the actual holy grail.

Brash










Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

EnderW said:


> These are opinions that masquerade as facts. And not very good opinions.
> Sorry to say, but looking at watch costs purely from incremental unit production costs is nonsensical (ignores R&D, investment in materials, engineering, and more).
> Similarly, it's frankly nonsensical. To claim that Rolex level of manufacture - from design, to tolerances and durability, to fit - is a $500 level watch does not pass basic smell test. I mean they smelt their own steel at foundries, and make virtually everything inside the watch.
> Why no say that Voutilainen is a $2K watch or MB&F is a $1100 watch? It's just complete nonsense to justify buying a copy.
> ...


I have no idea how much the markup is on a Rolex. And most likely, neither does anyone else here.

Nor do we know how much is spent on R&D on the submariner. Nor do we know if the "they smelt their own steel at foundries" raises the cost or lowers the cost over outsourcing that steel. However, we can look at the inflationary increases in submariner prices over the last 60 years and guess that there is a good bit of extra markup compared to some other brands.

As for the point that if the Rolex was $500, why not sell it for $1000? You could ask Bose that question. People paid a lot of money for Bose 901s (and still do), and the cheap paper drivers they use in them probably cost $1 or $2 each to make. Audiophiles have known for decades that the huge Bose markup was being spent on marketing. I would not be surprised if Rolex's marketing budget far exceeds it's R&D budget.


----------



## brash47 (Jul 14, 2018)

This is getting fun.....

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

brash47 said:


> &#8230;.
> 
> The Rolex is a $500 watch being sold for $10000. If anyone here remotely thinks that watch cost a quarter of its price to make....you have been vastly taken for a ride. And....I have some beachfront property in New Mexico I'd like to sell to you....
> 
> ...





PilotRuss said:


> Agree 100%.
> 
> &#8230; Now it just feels, like you said, a $500-$1000 watch for ~$10,000&#8230;
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


*EnderW *is correct: it's patently absurd - and even ignorant - to claim that a Rolex is a "$500 watch." I've been here for many years, long lost track of the $500 watches I've owned (so-called 'Swiss', Hong Kong micros, you name it), and I've seen with my own eyes that no one can sell a watch comparable to an entry-level Rolex (or even in-house Tudor or Omega) for $500. At least not to the eye of a WIS enthusiast.

As an analogy, to many of our significant others there's no appreciable difference between a Camaro ZL1 and a Ferrari Superfast. In fact, take off the badges and they couldn't even tell which car is which. But to a car enthusiast they're worlds apart, both inside and out. Does a Ferrari Superfast cost $335,000 to manufacture? Of course not. Could you make something comparable - to the trained eyes of an enthusiast - for $50,000? Of course not.

Inside and out, there's a difference between any $500 watch and, say, an $8,000 SubC. Inside there's the movement, the tolerances, the materials and the features. On the outside, a well-trained naked eye can spot the differences. I may be cursed by perfect vision and an aptitude for art, but some of the common things I see on $500 watches are: crowns that aren't perpendicular to the case (ie the crown tube was actually drilled at an imperfect 'off' angle - this is common on Hong Kong micro brands) uneven finishing that includes everything from the lugs being cut at uneven lengths to sharp and inconsistent edges, hands that don't align, all kinds of dial imperfections and on and on and on. I haven't owned a modern, 6-digit Rolex, but even my Tudor North Flag and (now sold) Pelagos and Planet Ocean are worlds apart.



PilotRuss said:


> Don't get me wrong, I like Rolex watches. It's a timeless design. It just seems to me, again just my opinion not trying to say it's fact, is you're paying for a name. There's no reason a stainless steel Submariner should be upwards of $10,000 with no precious metals or stones. I understand that the tolerances and the quality control at Rolex far exceeds the $500-$2000 brands but to say that because of this they are worth $10,000 doesn't pass the smell test either.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You may very well be right (I think you are), but neither of us knows to what extent. When you learn about true high-end brands (the Trinity et al), the level of hand finishing and attention to small details - both aesthetic and technical - is mind boggling. Can you make something comparable to a LAS Perpetual Calendar for $500? Of course not, that's laughable. But does it really need to cost $90,000? Now there - there you have a real, legitimate question.

So how much does it cost to make something comparable to a Rolex Sub to the level of the loupe, or even microscope, both inside and out? $500? No, that's patently absurd. Less than what Rolex charges? Probably, but I don't know (I assume yes considering Rolex's massive marketing budget, dealer markups, etc).

Enthusiasts always pay more for minor details that are inconsequential to the uninitiated. And even among enthusiasts, sometimes the price is too high. A well-seasoned car enthusiast can look at a Ferrari Superfast and say: "It's not worth the premium Ferrari is charging." But they also have too much knowledge of the industry and manufacturing to say: "that's a $50,000 car with a Ferrari badge."

So what would it take to make a watch truly comparable to a Rolex SubC and break even? (No authorized dealer network, no marketing budget, no profits - just break even). I don't know. A lot more than $500 but probably also quite a bit less than what they're charging. I actually wanted to create a new thread on this very topic. Not a troll thread. I'm genuinely interested to know what it costs to manufacture a watch to that level. Again, this would include capital expenditures, R&D etc but exclude marketing and the cost of a dealer network and brick-and-mortar stores.


----------



## drunken-gmt-master (Mar 29, 2018)

mleok said:


> I've heard this claim made numerous times, and I'm curious to see which $500 watch you think is comparable in build quality to a Rolex.


Maybe not a $500; more like $2500.

Even allowing for upgrades in technology, fit & finish, & materials, Rolex prices have greatly exceeded inflation. For example, the US list price of a stainless 1675 GMT-Master in 1971 was $275, roughly $1702 in today's dollars based on the CPI. In contrast, the list price of a new 126710 BLRO, assuming you can get 1 at list price, is CHF 8800, roughly $8849 today. You can choose your own inflation calculator & place your own value on modern features like the IAHH, SELs, etc., but personally I don't see an added $7K+ in value to the modern GMT-Master (& yes, I've handled both watches). A real world reference point: in 1968, my uncle was a young Army second lieutenant in Vietnam & he could afford to get a Pepsi GMT-Master from the PX; it was expensive, but doable on his salary & not that unusual for guys who weren't blowing all their money on booze & girls.

So the Rolex of old still exists, but only as Tudor.


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

pinkybrain said:


> *EnderW *is correct: ........
> 
> So what would it take to make a watch truly comparable to a Rolex SubC and break even? (No authorized dealer network, no marketing budget, no profits - just break even). I don't know. A lot more than $500 but probably also quite a bit less than what they're charging. I actually wanted to create a new thread on this very topic. Not a troll thread. I'm genuinely interested to know what it costs to manufacture a watch to that level. Again, this would include capital expenditures, R&D etc but exclude marketing and the cost of a dealer network and brick-and-mortar stores.


R&D? What R&D? There ain't no R&D, just market research.


----------



## oldfatherthames (Aug 20, 2015)

brash47 said:


> Then there are those who purchase for whatever reason you had and sneer at those who either cannot afford it or have chosen to get a much cheaper homage instead of putting the money into it. The sneering is what makes you......a d*****bag.


Is _'those'_ and _'you'_ aimed at folks here? I haven't seen 'sneering' comments, so I would assume you are just making a universal statement here. To which I would agree, btw.

Cheers!
Bernd


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

yankeexpress said:


> R&D? What R&D? There ain't no R&D, just market research.


Yes, I'm sure Rolex's new 32XX series movement was just harvested from trees in their backyard. Looks like an ETA movement to me! (Shakes head - and here I am, defending Rolex...)


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

I own and love a Tudor NF and previously had a Pelagos too, but: (1) their in-house offerings retail for over $2,500 (and are considered an industry bargain); and (2) if you look at the technical and aesthetic details - MEMS, finishing et al - the in-house Tudors still fall short of Rolex.



stolen-gmt-master said:


> Maybe not a $500; more like $2500.
> 
> Even allowing for upgrades in technology, fit & finish, & materials, Rolex prices have greatly exceeded inflation. For example, the US list price of a stainless 1675 GMT-Master in 1971 was $275, roughly $1702 in today's dollars based on the CPI. In contrast, the list price of a new 126710 BLRO, assuming you can get 1 at list price, is CHF 8800, roughly $8849 today. You can choose your own inflation calculator & place your own value on modern features like the IAHH, SELs, etc., but personally I don't see an added $7+ in value to the modern GMT-Master (& yes, I've handled both watches). A real world reference point: in 1968, my uncle was a young Army second lieutenant in Vietnam & he could afford to get a Pepsi GMT-Master from the PX; it was expensive, but doable on his salary & not that unusual for guys who weren't blowing all their money on booze & girls.
> 
> So the Rolex of old still exists, but only as Tudor.


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

Here's an interesting but dated article that provides numbers on Rolex's operating margins and dealer markup, albeit from industry analysts. If you could figure out the marketing budget you could get a pretty good approximation of what it costs to make a Rolex.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/...&gwh=993B838CC391ECC80E3A467AFE8F49FD&gwt=pay


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

I don't know if AP RO and Hublot Classic Fusion are $800 and $300 watches being sold at $20K and $6K due to marketing....














But I do know that I'd be embarrassed to wear "homages" to these watches, as there is no question that they basically try to copy the design and pretend something they are not. That much is obvious as designs are very distinctive and recognizable by those who know luxury watches. So how is Rolex Sub any different?














I would not judge a person by the watch they are wearing. But I would judge the watch itself... in this instance - copied design, lack of originality, profiting off someone elses labor (design and marketing).


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

yankeexpress said:


> R&D? What R&D? There ain't no R&D, just market research.


Well, amongst other things, Rolex has custom built temperature controlled CNC machines that allow it to have exacting tolerances in their manufacturing process. In contrast, I've tried on numerous Omega SMP-Cs, and the endlink fit varies dramatically from example to example.

If there truly is nothing but marketing behind Rolex's success, it should be an easy matter to find a watch with the kind of precision of manufacturing that Rolex offers, but at a substantially lower price. To date, I have not found one example that lives up to this simple standard. The most compelling case that a Rolex is overpriced is made by Tudor.


----------



## brash47 (Jul 14, 2018)

Well interesting conversation so far today. I erred when I said 500 for 10k...should have probably said 1k for 10k. I would say that's about right. R&D on the current batch has been paid for 100 times over. So its just profit at this point.

I personally prefer Zodiac's design for a diver. So I guess I'm wearing a Zodiac homage to a Zodiac....

Although, history tells me the Zodiac and Blancpain may have been the first true divers..circa 1953. What year did the Sub come along?

 it's about to get messier.

Brash

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Parkgate (Jan 18, 2015)

Most of you guys (you know who you are) have seriously lost the plot! Its a watch forum, its not my son is on life support, help save the snow leopards or whatever, its a bloody watch brand, I don't read Patek, Omega or Seiko owners whining at the level of Rolex owners, get over yourselves, its not even your company, you can't buy shares, you're deluded idiots defending what exactly? Something you don't own, like design rights, that are dubious in the first place? Accept your Sub is a nice watch (and the real thing, no-one says its not) but at the same time accept its an expensive watch, and, not everyone has the same disposable money, but what is essentially a bit of jewellery. And to be totally honest I'd be more embarrassed wearing a Rolex Sub or Sub-u-like on a Bond NATO (wets self laughing). That REALLY is .......(insert expletive). Merry Christmas!


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

brash47 said:


> Well interesting conversation so far today. I erred when I said 500 for 10k...should have probably said 1k for 10k. I would say that's about right. R&D on the current batch has been paid for 100 times over. So its just profit at this point.


So, the same basic challenge remains, which $1000 watch has the same kind of build quality as a modern Rolex?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

stolen-gmt-master said:


> Maybe not a $500; more like $2500.
> 
> Even allowing for upgrades in technology, fit & finish, & materials, Rolex prices have greatly exceeded inflation. For example, the US list price of a stainless 1675 GMT-Master in 1971 was $275, roughly $1702 in today's dollars based on the CPI. In contrast, the list price of a new 126710 BLRO, assuming you can get 1 at list price, is CHF 8800, roughly $8849 today. You can choose your own inflation calculator & place your own value on modern features like the IAHH, SELs, etc., but personally I don't see an added $7+ in value to the modern GMT-Master (& yes, I've handled both watches). A real world reference point: in 1968, my uncle was a young Army second lieutenant in Vietnam & he could afford to get a Pepsi GMT-Master from the PX; it was expensive, but doable on his salary & not that unusual for guys who weren't blowing all their money on booze & girls.
> 
> So the Rolex of old still exists, but only as Tudor.


A modern Rolex is a very different watch from a vintage Rolex, but I think it is indeed fair to say that it has become a more upmarket item, and that Tudor is currently being positioned in the market segment that Rolex competed in during the 1970s.

The CPI now takes into account substitution, so it no longer accurately tracks the increase in price of a fixed set of items. I would also look at other indexes, like the increase in median home prices and median income, instead of relying solely on the CPI.


----------



## Parkgate (Jan 18, 2015)

mleok said:


> So, the same basic challenge remains, which $1000 watch has the same kind of build quality as a modern Rolex?


Who cares? Get over it and move on with your life. You like your watch and its quality, good for you.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

brash47 said:


> Well interesting conversation so far today. I erred when I said 500 for 10k...should have probably said 1k for 10k. I would say that's about right. R&D on the current batch has been paid for 100 times over. So its just profit at this point.
> 
> I personally prefer Zodiac's design for a diver. So I guess I'm wearing a Zodiac homage to a Zodiac....
> 
> ...


The Rolex Turn-o-graph 6202 was released in the same year as the Zodiac Sea Wolf and Blancpain Fifty Fathoms.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Parkgate said:


> Who cares? Get over it and move on with your life. You like your watch and its quality, good for you.


Well, I'm honestly curious. If you could get a Rolex quality watch for $500 or $1000, wouldn't you want to know? I certainly would.


----------



## gward10 (Sep 30, 2013)

This is a great question and will certainly differ for each. Personally, not a fan of fakes and/or copies. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drunken-gmt-master (Mar 29, 2018)

pinkybrain said:


> I own and love a Tudor NF and previously had a Pelagos too, but: (1) their in-house offerings retail for over $2,500 (and are considered an industry bargain); and (2) if you look at the technical and aesthetic details - MEMS, finishing et al - the in-house Tudors still fall short of Rolex.


Sure, I'm well aware that many Tudors retail above $2.5K (was looking at the BB58 until I decided to go in entirely different direction) & the analogy isn't perfect. It's just my opinion that they seem to be the closest thing, literally/corporation-wise & figuratively, to what Rolex was back in the '60s-'80s. Seems to me that modern Tudors & some of the higher end microbrands are closer to vintage Rolex than modern Rolex.

I wasn't trying to diss Rolex (or the guys that blew their money on booze & girls in 'Nam), in fact I like them as a brand & manufacturer, really I was agreeing w/what you wrote before me (but while I was still typing) in post #421: not everybody appreciates or places the same value/significance on the improvements that Rolex has made over the years. I have no real quarrel w/Rolex charging what they charge or w/fans who pay the market rate, but they've pretty much lost me as a customer for their new products, which are generally too big, heavy, & blingy. I don't think it would be difficult for Rolex to profitably reproduce a 1675 GMT-Master, w/upgraded materials, more modern fit & finish, but no IAHH & w/the old-style bracelet, for $3K-ish for example, but that's not their market anymore. They've left that to Tudor & homages.


----------



## UberDave (Jan 13, 2015)

stolen-gmt-master said:


> I don't think it would be difficult for Rolex to profitably reproduce a 1675 GMT-Master, w/upgraded materials, more modern fit & finish, but no IAHH & w/the old-style bracelet, for $3K-ish for example, but that's not their market anymore. They've left that to Tudor & homages.


Tudor just did (almost) that exact thing. And it retails for $3900.


----------



## drunken-gmt-master (Mar 29, 2018)

mleok said:


> A modern Rolex is a very different watch from a vintage Rolex, but I think it is indeed fair to say that it has become a more upmarket item, and that Tudor is currently being positioned in the market segment that Rolex competed in during the 1970s.
> 
> The CPI now takes into account substitution, so it no longer accurately tracks the increase in price of a fixed set of items. I would also look at other indexes, like the increase in median home prices and median income, instead of relying solely on the CPI.


Agreed, the problem w/tracking inflation in something like watches is that there has been functional technological substitution for the product. IMHO, most watches, including Rolex, used to be more tools than toys/jewelry, but after quartz & cellphones the balance shifted to the other end. So while wristwatches are still made, they're not bought for the same purpose or even by the same demographic that bought them back in the '60-70s. Maybe the best analog in the US would be something like a Mercedes Benz or Volvo sedan?


----------



## drunken-gmt-master (Mar 29, 2018)

UberDave said:


> Tudor just did (almost) that exact thing. And it retails for $3900.


Exactly, & I would say that the extra $900 covers the improvements in the modern movement.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

mleok said:


> So, the same basic challenge remains, which $1000 watch has the same kind of build quality as a modern Rolex?


I'm fairly certain Brash has never handled a modern Sub or any watch above a certain price point. If he had, he'd know the difference between a $1k watch and one costing $7.5k. This is not to say that a SubC is or isn't worth the current $7,500 asking price, but to say that it is no different in quality from a $1k watch suggests a total lack of experience.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Parkgate said:


> Most of you guys (you know who you are) have seriously lost the plot! Its a watch forum, its not my son is on life support, help save the snow leopards or whatever, its a bloody watch brand, I don't read Patek, Omega or Seiko owners whining at the level of Rolex owners, get over yourselves, its not even your company, you can't buy shares, you're deluded idiots defending what exactly? Something you don't own, like design rights, that are dubious in the first place? Accept your Sub is a nice watch (and the real thing, no-one says its not) but at the same time accept its an expensive watch, and, not everyone has the same disposable money, but what is essentially a bit of jewellery. And to be totally honest I'd be more embarrassed wearing a Rolex Sub or Sub-u-like on a Bond NATO (wets self laughing). That REALLY is .......(insert expletive). Merry Christmas!


Hey I'm no Rolex owner... but when every one of these Homage threads turns into Rolex bashing, it's not surprising people will counter fake arguments or attacks on the brand.
I'm pretty sure if folks go to F381 and start saying that Bagelsport Nautilus is 95% of Patek at .1% of price and that Nautilus is a $500 steel watch masquerading as a $50,000 watch, it probably will not be received too well either.

But in spirit of Christmas, I'd be happy to buy you a nice cold Heimekem or chat watches over some Johns Daphne whiskey


----------



## UberDave (Jan 13, 2015)

stolen-gmt-master said:


> Exactly, & I would say that the extra $900 covers the improvements in the modern movement.


I'm not even sure if we're arguing or agreeing. I'm just going to back away slowly...


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Rolex is over-rated watch which is all marketing and no substance. And besides, they are clearly a copy of Blancpain FF (I read so on the interwebs).
Steel is approx $20 by weight, and gold indices and hands on modern sub are approx $50 based on gold weight. Add in $50 for sapphire, and you have a $120 watch masquerading as a $10K watch. Some invictas weigh more and offer better value. One can really feel it with the heft of modern Invicta on the wrist.

Grand Seiko does some of best watches at slightly lower price than Rolex. And one never hears GS owners defend the brand or have issues with homages.
One should proudly wear a GS homage - that will be a homage for true WIS "people in the know". Something like Grand Reef. No snobbery and paying respect to a true watchmaker. It's combining Swiss Tech, Japanese Design and Chinese manufacture - best of all worlds


----------



## drunken-gmt-master (Mar 29, 2018)

UberDave said:


> I'm not even sure if we're arguing or agreeing. I'm just going to back away slowly...


I thought we were agreeing. Sacrilege in an homage v. Rolex thread, I know.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Winning!


----------



## Hamstur (Nov 6, 2017)

mleok said:


> Parkgate said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares? Get over it and move on with your life. You like your watch and its quality, good for you.
> ...


Absolutely, but the Rolex crown and logo themselves are a bargain for an extra $6500-7000.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

PilotRuss said:


> You're absolutely correct, it's who is wearing the watch, not the watch that makes the DB a DB. Plenty of douches wearing all different types of watches. The big giant fashion watches with fake dials probably taking the cake of douches to watch ratios. Some of my closest friends and the best people
> I know own and love their Rolex, Tag, Omega, Hamilton, Casio, Seiko....
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I like Rolex watches. It's a timeless design. It just seems to me, again just my opinion not trying to say it's fact, is you're paying for a name. There's no reason a stainless steel Submariner should be upwards of $10,000 with no precious metals or stones. I understand that the tolerances and the quality control at Rolex far exceeds the $500-$2000 brands but to say that because of this they are worth $10,000 doesn't pass the smell test either. But I guess watches are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them and if someone is willing to pay this then that's what they're worth. Again all just my opinion and it's fine to disagree and who knows, maybe when I have $10,000 laying around with nothing else to use it on maybe I'll buy one and love it.
> ...


Well, for one, a Submariner _doesn't_ cost $10,000. A Submariner costs $7,500 and a Submariner Date costs $8,550. Don't know much about this smell test, but if there isn't a glut of better designed and made watches for significantly less, then I think we have to start saying the cost is justified. Even if we don't want to pay it.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

stolen-gmt-master said:


> Maybe not a $500; more like $2500.
> 
> Even allowing for upgrades in technology, fit & finish, & materials, Rolex prices have greatly exceeded inflation. For example, the US list price of a stainless 1675 GMT-Master in 1971 was $275, roughly $1702 in today's dollars based on the CPI. In contrast, the list price of a new 126710 BLRO, assuming you can get 1 at list price, is CHF 8800, roughly $8849 today. You can choose your own inflation calculator & place your own value on modern features like the IAHH, SELs, etc., but personally I don't see an added $7+ in value to the modern GMT-Master (& yes, I've handled both watches). A real world reference point: in 1968, my uncle was a young Army second lieutenant in Vietnam & he could afford to get a Pepsi GMT-Master from the PX; it was expensive, but doable on his salary & not that unusual for guys who weren't blowing all their money on booze & girls.
> 
> So the Rolex of old still exists, but only as Tudor.


Whether the CPI is an accurate depiction of inflation is a whole other discussion, however.


----------



## bigvatch (Sep 25, 2007)

EnderW said:


> Rolex is over-rated watch which is all marketing and no substance. And besides, they are clearly a copy of Blancpain FF (I read so on the interwebs).
> Steel is approx $20 by weight, and gold indices and hands on modern sub are approx $50 based on gold weight. Add in $50 for sapphire, and you have a $120 watch masquerading as a $10K watch. Some invictas weigh more and offer better value. One can really feel it with the heft of modern Invicta on the wrist.
> 
> Grand Seiko does some of best watches at slightly lower price than Rolex. And one never hears GS owners defend the brand or have issues with homages.
> ...


 "REEF TIGER" Such a stylish font.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

EnderW said:


> I don't know if AP RO and Hublot Classic Fusion are $800 and $300 watches being sold at $20K and $6K due to marketing....
> View attachment 13732905
> View attachment 13732907
> 
> ...


"Didun Design"? Like "didn't design"? That's pretty funny, actually.


----------



## Hamstur (Nov 6, 2017)

EnderW said:


> Grand Seiko does some of best watches at slightly lower price than Rolex. And one never hears GS owners defend the brand or have issues with homages.


Why would anyone ever need an homage of a GS, when you can buy watches that look identical, made by the same brand, carrying the same brand name, for only $100, at any mall department store?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Raza said:


> Well, for one, a Submariner _doesn't_ cost $10,000. A Submariner costs $7,500 and a Submariner Date costs $8,550. Don't know much about this smell test, but if there isn't a glut of better designed and made watches for significantly less, then I think we have to start saying the cost is justified. Even if we don't want to pay it.


That's really what it boils down to for me. If there was a watch that was as well made and designed, and appealed to me aesthetically as much as a Submariner for a lower price, by all means I would get it instead. I simply have not encountered a watch with as tight manufacturing tolerances as a Rolex at a lower price, even from other major brands like (Grand) Seiko and Omega, which makes me think that this is a far more difficult thing to achieve than many people on the forum give Rolex credit for.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Hamstur said:


> Why would anyone ever need an homage of a GS, when you can buy watches that look identical, made by the same brand, carrying the same brand name, for only $100, at any mall department store?


That's true, if you're just looking for the "look" without any regard for quality of execution, then the same design elements are repeated at many different price points within the Seiko lineup. There are some exceptions, like the Snowflake, but most of the rest of the Grand Seikos are pretty generic looking.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

mleok said:


> That's really what it boils down to for me. If there was a watch that was as well made and designed, and appealed to me aesthetically as much as a Submariner for a lower price, by all means I would get it instead. I simply have not encountered a watch with as tight manufacturing tolerances as a Rolex at a lower price, even from other major brands like (Grand) Seiko and Omega, which makes me think that this is a far more difficult thing to achieve than many people on the forum give Rolex credit for.


I'm not an engineer. But how do you assess the manufacturing tolerances? It seems that would require looking at multiple units from the same production run determine that. But perhaps I am not thinking of it correctly.


----------



## Hamstur (Nov 6, 2017)

mleok said:


> That's true, if you're just looking for the "look" without any regard for quality of execution, then the same design elements are repeated at many different price points within the Seiko lineup. There are some exceptions, like the Snowflake, but most of the rest of the Grand Seikos are pretty generic looking.


This is just something I observe.

The Seiko do look identical, but absolutely aren't the same quality. To the tune that folk easily defend a Seiko Brightz is worth 6x a department store Seiko, and that a GS is worth 6x a Brightz or 36x the department store Seiko. I mean, the bottom of the hands are Zaratsu polished - the BOTTOM.

But same folk can't fathom the Sub is worth 10x the Steinhart, to the point where there is outward and active brand hatred. But go back to GS who makes a 6K dive watch. Or people keep bringing up Blancpain, which retails for 1.5x the Sub. Why aren't those outrageous and overpriced?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

cel4145 said:


> I'm not an engineer. But how do you assess the manufacturing tolerances? It seems that would require looking at multiple units from the same production run determine that. But perhaps I am not thinking of it correctly.


An easy way to determine tolerances is to focus on when two components have to mesh with each other. Look at the gaps between panels on a car, the fit of an end link and case, or bracelet links. In order for two components to articulate smoothly without excess slop requires very tight manufacturing tolerances.

Another example of very tight manufacturing tolerances arises in the construction of the JLC Reverso case, as it needs to slide smoothly, but snap into place securely without rattling. I recall reading that this required CNC machines that were much more precise than the industry standard at the time.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

mleok said:


> An easy way to determine tolerances is to focus on when two components have to mesh with each other. Look at the gaps between panels on a car, the fit of an end link and case, or bracelet links. In order for two components to articulate smoothly without excess slop requires very tight manufacturing tolerances.
> 
> Another example of very tight manufacturing tolerances arises in the construction of the JLC Reverso case, as it needs to slide smoothly, but snap into place securely without rattling. I recall reading that this required CNC machines that were much more precise than the industry standard at the time.


I guess I'm not discerning enough to tell the difference. For when I have looked at a grand Seiko, I couldn't see that it's manufacturing tolerance was any less than a Rolex.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

cel4145 said:


> I guess I'm not discerning enough to tell the difference. For when I have looked at a grand Seiko, I couldn't see that it's manufacturing tolerance was any less than a Rolex.


Grand Seikos are well finished, but their fit is inferior to a Rolex. The simple reason is that most manufacturers do not use temperature controlled CNC machines, and the thermal fluctuations prevent the highest tolerances from being achieved.

Haute horlogerie brands are able to achieve incredible fit by meticulous manual finishing, or by hand picking components that fit together properly. It is said that when Apple first introduced sapphire lenses on the iPhone, they invested in an imaging system that would automatically choose the best fitting lens to minimize the gap, as their manufacturing tolerances were not tight enough to consistently achieve a small gap without cherry picking and pairing components.


----------



## Jeff_T (Jan 24, 2014)

Don't know that embarrassed is the right word but I've definitely felt self conscious a couple of times wearing my Invicta sub homage. To the point where at one stage I stopped wearing it when I knew I was going to be around a lot of people with actual submariners and other expensive watches.

I've found I'm coming full circle, though. I bought it before I really knew much about homage watches, I just liked the look, read that it was a good watch for the money, and vaguely knew that it looked like a Rolex. At that time I'd happily wear it anywhere and didn't care that it was an homage.

As I got more familiar with different watches and started learning more about the history and the different reasons people buy a Rolex I started feeling more self conscious. It bothered me knowing that some people would look down on a person who wears an homage. I distinctly remember slipping the Invicta off and putting it in my pocket when I realised at a work event that about every third person had a luxury watch on.

These days I care less, but it is in the back of my mind sometimes. Outside of work I don't care, but I don't wear it at work when I'm meeting new customers who might care about that sort of thing.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

brash47 said:


> Well interesting conversation so far today. I erred when I said 500 for 10k...should have probably said 1k for 10k.


So pretty much standard materials cost to retail price ratio (8-10x), then, which holds true for a very wide variety of industries and products - and not really some kind of meaningful insight into Rolex.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Parkgate said:


> Most of you guys (you know who you are) have seriously lost the plot! Its a watch forum, its not my son is on life support, help save the snow leopards or whatever, its a bloody watch brand, I don't read Patek, Omega or Seiko owners whining at the level of Rolex owners, get over yourselves, its not even your company, you can't buy shares, you're deluded idiots defending what exactly? Something you don't own, like design rights, that are dubious in the first place? Accept your Sub is a nice watch (and the real thing, no-one says its not) but at the same time accept its an expensive watch, and, not everyone has the same disposable money, but what is essentially a bit of jewellery. And to be totally honest I'd be more embarrassed wearing a Rolex Sub or Sub-u-like on a Bond NATO (wets self laughing). That REALLY is .......(insert expletive). Merry Christmas!


----------



## excelerater (Jan 9, 2016)

only if it says TISSEL on it


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

mleok said:


> That's really what it boils down to for me. If there was a watch that was as well made and designed, and appealed to me aesthetically as much as a Submariner for a lower price, by all means I would get it instead. I simply have not encountered a watch with as tight manufacturing tolerances as a Rolex at a lower price, even from other major brands like (Grand) Seiko and Omega, which makes me think that this is a far more difficult thing to achieve than many people on the forum give Rolex credit for.


Agreed.

I own one Rolex and I've owned three Tudors (still own two). Like I said many times before, my Submariner is about 10-20% better than my Black Bay in every conceivable way. Yes, my Submariner also cost 2.7 times what my Black Bay did (discount on the Black Bay, none on the Submariner), but 10-20% better on an excellent watch, which the Black Bay is, costs a lot more than 20% extra to get there. You and I both know the law of diminishing returns, well enough, but for anyone else--the better you want the watch to be, the better materials, the better movement, the better tolerance, it takes proportionally more resources to get there. To get a product that is worth $10, maybe it costs $2 to make. To get one that is worth $20, maybe that costs $5 instead of $4 like you'd expect.

There are a lot of reasons to be critical of Rolex, sure. You can criticize their trickling supply that leads to some despicable AD practices, you can not like the designs, you can dislike the crazy gray and used market pricing (which, of course, isn't really on them, although their trickling supply has something to do with it). It's fine if you plain don't like a watch and it's fine if you don't think it's worth the money. But to say that every Rolex across the board is a $500 or $1,000 watch masquerading as a $10,000 watch thanks to clever marketing is ridiculous.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

Hamstur said:


> This is just something I observe.
> 
> The Seiko do look identical, but absolutely aren't the same quality. To the tune that folk easily defend a Seiko Brightz is worth 6x a department store Seiko, and that a GS is worth 6x a Brightz or 36x the department store Seiko. I mean, the bottom of the hands are Zaratsu polished - the BOTTOM.
> 
> But same folk can't fathom the Sub is worth 10x the Steinhart, to the point where there is outward and active brand hatred. But go back to GS who makes a 6K dive watch. Or people keep bringing up Blancpain, which retails for 1.5x the Sub. Why aren't those outrageous and overpriced?


I think I know the answer to this one! Because Grand Seiko and Blancpain are less popular and less known by the general public!

Look, I've been here a long time, so I'm pretty sure I went through a phase where I thought Rolex was an expensive watch for people who wanted a status symbol and not for real enthusiasts. But, I was wrong then and now I know better.


----------



## brash47 (Jul 14, 2018)

Seaswirl said:


> I'm fairly certain Brash has never handled a modern Sub or any watch above a certain price point. If he had, he'd know the difference between a $1k watch and one costing $7.5k. This is not to say that a SubC is or isn't worth the current $7,500 asking price, but to say that it is no different in quality from a $1k watch suggests a total lack of experience.


I actually do own a Rolex. I got mine the old fashioned way.....when my GFather passed, he left it to me. It's one of the reasons I love watches. It's a 70's series Datejust (16030 series?)

I think it's a very fine watch. After having looked at and purchased watches through the years.....more so this last year than in years prior, I still just can't bring myself to spend the extra money to buy a new or even closer to date used one at this point.

If you carefully read, you'll see that I said that earlier, at this point. Maybe in the future I'll have no problem with purchasing one....maybe even to leave to my children.

The main point I'm still making is this, and quite a few people have now proven the salt they are built from with their comments...

Wearing a Rolex does not make you better. Clearly some here think it does.....good for you and enjoy your personal victory in life. Again, 90 percent of the population have no clue what's on your wrist....

A $1000 watch that compares....let's look at your argument first. If a $1000 watch to make is sold on the market, it will cost anywhere from $2k to $3.5k due to retail pricing....everyone has a markup...I'm sure my $1k Zodiac didn't cost anywhere near $1k to make....probably more like $200-300.

I personally would stand a modern Tudor or Omega right up against a Rolex. And you can find them in that price range.

Those 2 brands have considerable markup, but not close to what Rolex does.

Again, Rolex is a great product. They have a rich heritage, but back to my original argument, sneering down on someone who either doesn't want to pay that price, or they can not afford it is the point.

The more you continue to show your obvious disdain for people is the essence of how this argument starts. Again....kids....its a watch.

Edit: crap the poster I quoted is right. I have not handled a modern Sub!!! I went into a Rolex watch store in Hawaii a couple of years ago. I was wearing board shorts and a tank...I would say typical for the area. I saw a watch that had a ton of diamonds on it. I asked how many carats in diamonds was on the watch...the woman behind the counter sneered at me (I like that word) and said with a very thick accent...."You are not here to look at diamond, look at watch. It does not matter how many diamond."

I went into a shop in downtown Santa Cruz that sells Rolex....I was treated the same way when I asked about a very expensive looking watch with diamonds on it....I was just curious about the pricing. Both times kind of turned me off to asking to see a watch.....so yea you are correct, I haven't handled a modern Sub.

On the other hand, never had a problem looking at ANY other brand. I've handled them and enjoyed the experience of holding something that costs an entire paycheck to purchase. Wow Blancpan is expensive!!



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

brash47 said:


> I actually do own a Rolex. I got mine the old fashioned way.....when my GFather passed, he left it to me. It's one of the reasons I love watches. It's a 70's series Datejust (16030 series?)
> 
> .....so yea you are correct, I haven't handled a modern Sub.


A Rolex Datejust from the 70s is a very different watch from a current generation Submariner. It's worth having a look at one, just to get a sense of how much the manufacturing process has improved.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

mleok said:


> Grand Seikos are well finished, but their fit is inferior to a Rolex. The simple reason is that most manufacturers do not use temperature controlled CNC machines, and the thermal fluctuations prevent the highest tolerances from being achieved.
> 
> Haute horlogerie brands are able to achieve incredible fit by meticulous manual finishing, or by hand picking components that fit together properly. It is said that when Apple first introduced sapphire lenses on the iPhone, they invested in an imaging system that would automatically choose the best fitting lens to minimize the gap, as their manufacturing tolerances were not tight enough to consistently achieve a small gap without cherry picking and pairing components.


It doesn't sound like you are claiming that their difference in fit is discernible. Is it? If not, then its like buying an overbuilt product where the better engineering holds no practical value. Sort of like buying a ladder that has a 400 lb weight rating for personal use if you only weight 200 lbs. A 300 lb rated ladder would function the same. Or when audiophiles proclaim that $1000 DAC B is superior to $100 DAC A because DAC B has a lower distortion rating, even though DAC A's distortion is outside the range of human hearing. There are bragging rights on DAC Bs superior rating, but it serves no useful purpose to have the lower distortion.

Thus the added cost due to being overengineered in terms of tolerance would make the watch more expensive, but it would add no value for the consumer.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

cel4145 said:


> It doesn't sound like you are claiming that their difference in fit is discernible. Is it? If not, then its like buying an overbuilt product where the better engineering holds no practical value. Sort of like buying a ladder that has a 400 lb weight rating for personal use if you only weight 200 lbs. A 300 lb rated ladder would function the same. Or when audiophiles proclaim that $1000 DAC B is superior to $100 DAC A because DAC B has a lower distortion rating, even though DAC A's distortion is outside the range of human hearing. There are bragging rights on DAC Bs superior rating, but it serves no useful purpose to have the lower distortion.
> 
> Thus the added cost due to being overengineered in terms of tolerance would make the watch more expensive, but it would add no value for the consumer.


It is very much noticeable, and there is no better way to understand the difference in fit than to hold a modern Rolex in your hands. Everything just fits together so precisely, and you're reminded on a daily basis that this is a watch that was built with an exacting attention to the details that matter the most when a watch is worn on a regular basis. In that regard, it is the exact opposite of what you're saying about useless overengineering that adds no value to the owner. If anything, it is Omega that is guilty of what you're criticizing, with their manual HEVs and extreme water resistance.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

mleok said:


> It is very much noticeable, and there is no better way to understand the difference in fit than to hold a modern Rolex in your hands. Everything just fits together so precisely, and you're reminded on a daily basis that this is a watch that was built with an exacting attention to the details that matter the most when a watch is worn on a regular basis. In that regard, it is the exact opposite of what you're saying about useless overengineering that adds no value to the owner. If anything, it is Omega that is guilty of what you're criticizing, with their manual HEVs and extreme water resistance.


Like I said, I haven't noticed much of a difference in fit between a Rolex and a Grand Seiko, but that could just be me.

No doubt that some dive watches are overengineered. Especially when I see a 500m water resistance rating, I wonder who needs that? Anything over 200m seems likely to be overkill for 99.9% of the people buying dive watches.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

cel4145 said:


> Like I said, I haven't noticed much of a difference in fit between a Rolex and a Grand Seiko, but that could just be me.
> 
> No doubt that some dive watches are overengineered. Especially when I see a 500m water resistance rating, I wonder who needs that? Anything over 200m seems likely to be overkill for 99.9% of the people buying dive watches.


I will point out that when I say modern Rolex, I mean starting with the Rolex GMT IIC and the Rolex six digit Submariners, the previous generation Rolexes are far less impressive in terms of fit.


----------



## drunken-gmt-master (Mar 29, 2018)

mleok said:


> It is very much noticeable, and there is no better way to understand the difference in fit than to hold a modern Rolex in your hands. Everything just fits together so precisely, and you're reminded on a daily basis that this is a watch that was built with an exacting attention to the details that matter the most when a watch is worn on a regular basis. In that regard, it is the exact opposite of what you're saying about useless overengineering that adds no value to the owner. If anything, it is Omega that is guilty of what you're criticizing, with their manual HEVs and extreme water resistance.


Not all of those details are those that matter most for all users. I can easily see the difference between modern & vintage Rolex bracelets, for example, including the fit of end links, but I don't place a high value on many of the modern improvements, particularly the aesthetic improvements. Glidelock? Yes. Increased weight? No, that's a bug to me, like lack of anti-reflective coating on the crystal, not a feature. Personally, I would rather see overengineering in something related to function, like water or shock resistance, than jewelry stuff like the fitting of endlinks & whatnot.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

cel4145 said:


> Like I said, I haven't noticed much of a difference in fit between a Rolex and a Grand Seiko, but that could just be me.


Really? In almost every video review of a Grand Seiko, the bracelet fitment has been visibly poor to the naked eye. I even commented on it in the recent thread about Hodinkee's 3 on 3. You can see the light coming through from the other side. You'd never see that on a Tudor, let alone a Rolex.


----------



## tennesseean_87 (May 31, 2011)

Still proud.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drunken-gmt-master (Mar 29, 2018)

Raza said:


> Really? In almost every video review of a Grand Seiko, the bracelet fitment has been visibly poor to the naked eye. I even commented on it in the recent thread about Hodinkee's 3 on 3. You can see the light coming through from the other side. You'd never see that on a Tudor, let alone a Rolex.


Agreed. Similarly, the fit on the bracelet endlinks on Citizen's high end Chronomasters also fall short of modern Rolex (have no real experience w/Tudor bracelets). However, per my previous post, not everybody thinks that the better bracelet + bracelet/watch interface is worth the extra $$.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

Raza said:


> Really? In almost every video review of a Grand Seiko, the bracelet fitment has been visibly poor to the naked eye. I even commented on it in the recent thread about Hodinkee's 3 on 3. You can see the light coming through from the other side. You'd never see that on a Tudor, let alone a Rolex.


I was talking about the watch head, not the bracelet.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

stolen-gmt-master said:


> Agreed. Similarly, the fit on the bracelet endlinks on Citizen's high end Chronomasters also fall short of modern Rolex (have no real experience w/Tudor bracelets). However, per my previous post, not everybody thinks that the better bracelet + bracelet/watch interface is worth the extra $$.


It's perfectly fine to say that these improvements aren't worth the additional expense to you, it's an entirely different matter to deny that these differences exist.


----------



## drunken-gmt-master (Mar 29, 2018)

mleok said:


> It's perfectly fine to say that these improvements aren't worth the additional expense to you, it's an entirely different matter to deny that these differences exist.


True dat. To get back to the point of the original thread, I'm not embarrassed to wear a sub homage, because Rolex hasn't made the sub I want for decades & I've got better things to spend my money on than a vintage sub or Tempus Machina mod.


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

Kind of like buying a Porsche or Ferrari that's less reliable, has less storage, gets worse gas mileage, carries less passengers and has to obey the same speed limit as a Honda sedan. Seeing the value in the former is what separates enthusiasts from normal, sane, balanced people.

We have a diverse range of enthusiasts here. There's an affordable forum and some people even like...quartz (SMH). I get not liking Rolex. I get not liking their designs (I'm not a huge fan of the maxi case). I get sticking with affordables (some make me happier than anything), or liking quartz or hating quartz or whatever (actually, I don't get quartz). All that said, you can still be an 'affordables' collector that dislikes Rolex but you can't ignore what they offer to enthusiasts and why, from an enthusiasts perspective, their product is superior to anything under $3-4,000 that I've personally come across.

It's like the latest ugly super car that uncomfortably seats two and gets 11 mpg. Not for me, but as a semi-car enthusiast I totally get it, I understand why it costs $450,000 and I recognize that it's not equivalent to a Corvette C7 with premium badging.



cel4145 said:


> It doesn't sound like you are claiming that their difference in fit is discernible. Is it? If not, then its like buying an overbuilt product where the better engineering holds no practical value. Sort of like buying a ladder that has a 400 lb weight rating for personal use if you only weight 200 lbs. A 300 lb rated ladder would function the same. Or when audiophiles proclaim that $1000 DAC B is superior to $100 DAC A because DAC B has a lower distortion rating, even though DAC A's distortion is outside the range of human hearing. There are bragging rights on DAC Bs superior rating, but it serves no useful purpose to have the lower distortion.
> 
> Thus the added cost due to being overengineered in terms of tolerance would make the watch more expensive, but it would add no value for the consumer.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

stolen-gmt-master said:


> True dat. To get back to the point of the original thread, I'm not embarrassed to wear a sub homage, because Rolex hasn't made the sub I want for decades & I've got better things to spend my money on than a vintage sub or Tempus Machina mod.


Yeah, I'm eyeing the Tudor Black Bay GMT, since it's intended to be a travel watch, and I don't really see myself wearing the new Rolex GMT IIC Pepsi with Jubilee bracelet for travel.


----------



## drunken-gmt-master (Mar 29, 2018)

mleok said:


> Yeah, I'm eyeing the Tudor Black Bay GMT, since it's intended to be a travel watch, and I don't really see myself wearing the new Rolex GMT IIC Pepsi with Jubilee bracelet for travel.


I recently went w/a polar 16570 Explorer II as my fancy macho travel watch (have the Nomos Tangomat GMT for dressier occasions). The Tudor is too big for me & I didn't have many white-dialed watches. Also, I can live w/just tracking 2 time zones.


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

Going off the numbers from the industry analyst for operating margin and dealer markup, and accounting for a generous advertising budget, I get about $2,700 to make a Submariner that retails for $7,500. Granted, there's at least one wild guess in this equation, but you get the idea.

So - theoretically guessing - if Rolex decided to eliminate its marketing budget and do direct Internet sales they could sell the Submariner for about $3,000 to $3,500. Of course, it's important to remember that economies of scale are built into the price of the watch, and that scale was achieved through marketing. But we're working in theory here.



pinkybrain said:


> Here's an interesting but dated article that provides numbers on Rolex's operating margins and dealer markup, albeit from industry analysts. If you could figure out the marketing budget you could get a pretty good approximation of what it costs to make a Rolex.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/...&gwh=993B838CC391ECC80E3A467AFE8F49FD&gwt=pay


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

I think you've made a great case for Tudor. Unfortunately, my experience with 6-digit Rolex is limited to jewelry stores, but my impression is that the higher end, in-house Tudors offer about 90% of the Rolex fit and finish for approximately half the price. The difference between a $500 micro and a North Flag or Pelagos slaps you in the face, while the difference between a North Flag or Pelagos and an OP or Sub is definitely apparent but much less obvious. At the same time, the price of the in-house Tudor sits roughly between the $500 micro and the Rolex. The Rolex is better, but you're definitely seeing the laws of diminishing returns with watches in that price range.

Note there's also the movements to consider. The Rolex is better finished and has more expensive materials. The new 32XX has further upgrades over the Tudor like MEMS et al.

Just generally and not in response to your post, haute horology is primarily about hand finishing and assembly, limited numbers, craftsmanship and complications. Production wise, Rolex is just a much better version of your typical $1,500 sport watch.



Raza said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I own one Rolex and I've owned three Tudors (still own two). Like I said many times before, my Submariner is about 10-20% better than my Black Bay in every conceivable way. Yes, my Submariner also cost 2.7 times what my Black Bay did (discount on the Black Bay, none on the Submariner), but 10-20% better on an excellent watch, which the Black Bay is, costs a lot more than 20% extra to get there. You and I both know the law of diminishing returns, well enough, but for anyone else--the better you want the watch to be, the better materials, the better movement, the better tolerance, it takes proportionally more resources to get there. To get a product that is worth $10, maybe it costs $2 to make. To get one that is worth $20, maybe that costs $5 instead of $4 like you'd expect.
> 
> There are a lot of reasons to be critical of Rolex, sure. You can criticize their trickling supply that leads to some despicable AD practices, you can not like the designs, you can dislike the crazy gray and used market pricing (which, of course, isn't really on them, although their trickling supply has something to do with it). It's fine if you plain don't like a watch and it's fine if you don't think it's worth the money. But to say that every Rolex across the board is a $500 or $1,000 watch masquerading as a $10,000 watch thanks to clever marketing is ridiculous.


----------



## hungdangnguyen23 (Mar 21, 2018)

This week, I am came *this* close to buying a P-series 14060 at a pretty competitive price $5.1K for an excellent condition, box papers anchor hangtag serviced last year at RSC, the complete package. Pulled out of the deal at the last second after I had a chance to talk myself off the ledge - I just couldn't pay that kind of money right now as I'm getting so much enjoyment from my other submariner style watches that offer more modern features at a fraction of the price (for example, no SELs on the 14060 bracelet *REALLY* bothers me).

I just got my NTH I got on eBay back from Janis, they replaced the entire case under a warranty claim so I essentially have a new watch for a used-watch price! Would I pay over 10X more for a no-date sub when I can enjoy the NTH on my wrist and use that $5K+ for another non-derivative design in my collection? I already have a bunch of Sub-like watches, having the real deal original would be cool but not at the current market price. I think I'll save up for a 214270 instead.


----------



## PilotRuss (Dec 15, 2017)

I own a Steinhart Titanium 500 GMT and really like it. But in my opinion it’s different enough to not be a compete copy of the Rolex design. From a distance I could easily see how it could be mistaken for a black/blue GMT Master II though. That’s about as close to homage/respectable copy as I’m willing to go.

The Invicta, Ginault, Davosa, and some certain Steinharts, which in my opinion are pretty obvious copy’s, are harder to justify. I wouldn’t want to wear one that doesn’t at least have some of their own creative design elements. But to each their own. If putting the watch on makes you happy then that’s all that matters.

Edited to change name to Davosa...


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

I don't pretend to know your personal preferences, but the Black Bay 58 - made by the same continuously owned company that made the original Submariners - can be had brand new for significantly less than $5.1K. (It even has SELs

But yes, current prices on 5-digit Subs are ridiculous and the vintage market is still...redonkulous? At least, unlike me, you didn't flip a 5513 or nearly NOS 14060 when the prices were still reasonable. Not as regrettable as not buying a house in San Francisco 6 years ago, but that's only because I know how many watches buying a house in San Francisco 6 years ago could get me. "I wear the Patek on Wednesdays".



hungdangnguyen23 said:


> This week, I am came *this* close to buying a P-series 14060 at a pretty competitive price $5.1K for an excellent condition, box papers anchor hangtag serviced last year at RSC, the complete package. Pulled out of the deal at the last second after I had a chance to talk myself off the ledge - I just couldn't pay that kind of money right now as I'm getting so much enjoyment from my other submariner style watches that offer more modern features at a fraction of the price (for example, no SELs on the 14060 bracelet *REALLY* bothers me).
> 
> I just got my NTH I got on eBay back from Janis, they replaced the entire case under a warranty claim so I essentially have a new watch for a used-watch price! Would I pay over 10X more for a no-date sub when I can enjoy the NTH on my wrist and use that $5K+ for another non-derivative design in my collection? I already have a bunch of Sub-like watches, having the real deal original would be cool but not at the current market price. I think I'll save up for a 214270 instead.
> 
> ...


----------



## drunken-gmt-master (Mar 29, 2018)

Which of the Damaskos do you think are Rolex copies?

https://www.damasko-watches.com/en/models/diver-watches/



PilotRuss said:


> The Invicta, Ginault, Damasko, and some certain Steinharts, which in my opinion are pretty obvious copy's, are harder to justify. I wouldn't want to wear one that doesn't at least have some of their own creative design elements. . . .


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

stolen-gmt-master said:


> Which of the Damaskos do you think are Rolex copies?


Indeed, Damasko is not what comes to mind when one talks of Rolex copies.


----------



## PilotRuss (Dec 15, 2017)

stolen-gmt-master said:


> Which of the Damaskos do you think are Rolex copies?


I apologize I miss typed. I meant to say Davosa. I don't know why I typed Damasko.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PilotRuss (Dec 15, 2017)

mleok said:


> Indeed, Damasko is not what comes to mind when one talks of Rolex copies.


Much apologies. It was a brain fart. Meant to type Davosa.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EsbenOpen (Dec 20, 2014)

Parkgate said:


> Who cares? Get over it and move on with your life. You like your watch and its quality, good for you.


That's a fancy way of admitting you lost the argument and have no facts to stand on.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

PilotRuss said:


> I own a Steinhart Titanium 500 GMT and really like it. But in my opinion it's different enough to not be a compete copy of the Rolex design. From a distance I could easily see how it could be mistaken for a black/blue GMT Master II though. That's about as close to homage/respectable copy as I'm willing to go.
> 
> The Invicta, Ginault, Damasko, and some certain Steinharts, which in my opinion are pretty obvious copy's, are harder to justify. I wouldn't want to wear one that doesn't at least have some of their own creative design elements. *But to each their own. **If putting the watch on makes you happy then that's all that matters.*


Yup . . . I love mine


----------



## oso2276 (Apr 19, 2017)

PilotRuss said:


> I own a Steinhart Titanium 500 GMT and really like it. But in my opinion it's different enough to not be a compete copy of the Rolex design. From a distance I could easily see how it could be mistaken for a black/blue GMT Master II though. That's about as close to homage/respectable copy as I'm willing to go.
> 
> The Invicta, Ginault, Damasko, and some certain Steinharts, which in my opinion are pretty obvious copy's, are harder to justify. I wouldn't want to wear one that doesn't at least have some of their own creative design elements. But to each their own. If putting the watch on makes you happy then that's all that matters.


I just cannot see how the Damasko GMT offering (Damasko DK200), resembles the GMT Master II







DK200







116710LN
I do not think it is closer to the vintage one either 







116710LN & 1675
Finally, Damasko divers do not look like a Submariner 







DSUB1 
Enviado desde mi Moto G (5) Plus mediante Tapatalk


----------



## oso2276 (Apr 19, 2017)

PilotRuss said:


> I apologize I miss typed. I meant to say Davosa. I don't know why I typed Damasko.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Enviado desde mi Moto Z2 Play mediante Tapatalk


----------



## The Loco (May 1, 2018)

I would be embarrassed to wear a fake watch, not a homage that clearly shows a different brand and somewhat different designs.

Homage watches weren't designed to trick someone to think you have something that you don't, but to give you an inexpensive option to enjoy a nicely designed watch.

I have what would be considered a homage of the Navimeter, the Carrera Chrono 16/2010 and the GMT Master II and like wearing them because all those watches are exquisite designs and also of good quality.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

I guess if the homage is officially certified, one can be proud of it. Nothing to be embarrassed about with quality watch that is a perlative ceronometer.


----------



## Toothbras (Apr 19, 2010)

EnderW said:


> I guess if the homage is officially certified, one can be proud of it. Nothing to be embarrassed about with quality watch that is a perlative ceronometer.
> View attachment 13735331


I want to say something mean about this watch but being a perlative cerometer is so outstanding I can't find the words. I'm guessing perlative is just a small step below superlative? Makes sense.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Toothbras said:


> I want to say something mean about this watch but being a perlative cerometer is so outstanding I can't find the words. I'm guessing perlative is just a small step below superlative? Makes sense.


Hey, it saves you like $7500 off price off superlative. Huge savings for just 2 letters "su"


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

People just want a good looking tool watch without paying into bank accounts of Swiss Fat Cats.
Besides... watches are for decorative purposes only, so what's to be embarrassed about...








* screenshot direct from homage maker website who are selling Sub homages... "watches are water-resistant only...wording on all watch dial is for decoration purposes only". Not making it up.


----------



## bigvatch (Sep 25, 2007)

PilotRuss said:


> I apologize I miss typed. I meant to say Davosa. I don't know why I typed Damasko.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


When I read Damasko, I seriously thought you meant Davosa.


----------



## imbamember (Feb 13, 2018)

Wear what makes you happy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Yakshemash subhomage







Wear what makes you happy


----------



## bigvatch (Sep 25, 2007)

EnderW said:


> People just want a good looking tool watch without paying into bank accounts of Swiss Fat Cats.
> Besides... watches are for decorative purposes only, so what's to be embarrassed about...
> 
> View attachment 13735367
> ...


Will you be here all weekend?


----------



## brash47 (Jul 14, 2018)

Toothbras said:


> I want to say something mean about this watch but being a perlative cerometer is so outstanding I can't find the words. I'm guessing perlative is just a small step below superlative? Makes sense.





EnderW said:


> I guess if the homage is officially certified, one can be proud of it. Nothing to be embarrassed about with quality watch that is a perlative ceronometer.
> View attachment 13735331


Ok I think I just peed a little from laughing. Attitude officially lightened up. Genius post bro, genius...

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

bigvatch said:


> Will you be here all weekend?


Alas, I have dental surgery this weekend. Was so proud of my bagelsport homage that tried to eat it with cream-cheese for brunch -cracked a molar.
Luckily I found a cheap dentist. He has HDDS - homage doctorate of dentistry degree. (basically 2 week bootcamp at fraction of the price of dental school)


----------



## cde137 (Jul 28, 2018)

I wouldn’t feel embarrassed, but I would feel awkward should the moment arise that someone mistook my Invicta for a Sub, so as a result I rarely wear it. I’ve taken it off the bracelet, which I think makes it more under the radar. 

I love both the Sub and Speedmaster designs but I prefer not to wear homages to them, partially because they’re SO iconic and recognizable, and also partially because I think that the watch world has many other great designs that deserve recognition, and homages to them. I have absolutely no problem with homages, I wear my San Martin 62MAS homage with pride, and I’m strongly considering their Oris divers 65 and Damasko homages too. It would likely be an entirely different encounter should someone ask me if those watches were the real deal, as it would signify that they know more about watches than just the average joe who is able to recognize a Sub or Speedmaster.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

stolen-gmt-master said:


> Agreed. Similarly, the fit on the bracelet endlinks on Citizen's high end Chronomasters also fall short of modern Rolex (have no real experience w/Tudor bracelets). However, per my previous post, not everybody thinks that the better bracelet + bracelet/watch interface is worth the extra $$.


Yeah, whether you personally do or do not value something doesn't change the fact that it overall adds value to the watch and absolutely adds to the cost of it.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

pinkybrain said:


> I think you've made a great case for Tudor. Unfortunately, my experience with 6-digit Rolex is limited to jewelry stores, but my impression is that the higher end, in-house Tudors offer about 90% of the Rolex fit and finish for approximately half the price. The difference between a $500 micro and a North Flag or Pelagos slaps you in the face, while the difference between a North Flag or Pelagos and an OP or Sub is definitely apparent but much less obvious. At the same time, the price of the in-house Tudor sits roughly between the $500 micro and the Rolex. The Rolex is better, but you're definitely seeing the laws of diminishing returns with watches in that price range.
> 
> Note there's also the movements to consider. The Rolex is better finished and has more expensive materials. The new 32XX has further upgrades over the Tudor like MEMS et al.
> 
> Just generally and not in response to your post, haute horology is primarily about hand finishing and assembly, limited numbers, craftsmanship and complications. Production wise, Rolex is just a much better version of your typical $1,500 sport watch.


There's rarely a day I won't make a case for Tudor. I've had three, they're great and represent a great value.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

EnderW said:


> I guess if the homage is officially certified, one can be proud of it. Nothing to be embarrassed about with quality watch that is a perlative ceronometer.
> View attachment 13735331


That really just says "perlative"? That's a real thing that's been put on the dial, not just a mass hallucination?

That's not as fun as "Didun Design", that's for sure.

EDIT: I just saw that it also says Ceronometer. That's priceless! Like when a little kid says "pascetti".


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

EnderW said:


> I guess if the homage is officially certified, one can be proud of it. Nothing to be embarrassed about with quality watch that is a perlative ceronometer.
> View attachment 13735331


----------



## The Loco (May 1, 2018)

Well, it definitely depends who do you buy the homage watch. A well known Swiss or Japanese brand won't be putting ridiculous things on dials.


----------



## Chris Stark (Sep 21, 2015)

30,000 views...amazing.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Chris Stark said:


> 30,000 views...amazing.


500 comments, 31000 views
Mayhaps the argument that nobody notices your watch is not all that true. 
Maybe just maybe people notice homages but don't say anything


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Chris Stark said:


> 30,000 views...amazing.


Yep, the human condition . . .


----------



## tennesseean_87 (May 31, 2011)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TedPhatana (Nov 1, 2011)

Thank you all for your comments. Interesting read with multiple viewpoints to the question. I take no sides but I do appreciate a nice looking timepiece, expensive or not, but I tend to salivate over the expensive ones more.


----------



## brash47 (Jul 14, 2018)

30k views....alot, but keep in mind its alot of the posters coming back to see whats written, each time is a hit....

30k..4 billion....30k.....4 billion......

.0000075 percent.

Just sayin.

Brash

"I gotta stop egging people on."

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Parkgate (Jan 18, 2015)

yankeexpress said:


>


Persistent Liberty Walker ...'I usually walk freely' in normal English, English (and probably US English, Canadian, Australian, NZ, South African, Jamaican, Kenyan, HK, Singapore and everywhere else). The French would love it, they're always rioting for one reason or another, they need that watch to remind them what their latest protest/riot is all about.


----------



## cfracing (Feb 21, 2015)

EnderW said:


> 500 comments, 31000 views
> Mayhaps the argument that nobody notices your watch is not all that true.
> Maybe just maybe people notice homages but don't say anything


Or maybe it is because this is a _*watch*_ forum and the majority viewing it are very interested in watches but not representative of the general populous that doesn't care about mechanical watches, much less something called an "homage". ;-)


----------



## Millennium (Oct 5, 2018)

You'd probably get quite split opinons on this. I'm undecided..


----------



## tennesseean_87 (May 31, 2011)

Sub homage at the river beach.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BillHW (Oct 6, 2018)

cfracing said:


> Or maybe it is because this is a _*watch*_ forum and the majority viewing it are very interested in watches but not representative of the general populous that doesn't care about mechanical watches, much less something called an "homage". ;-)


I had the opportunity to attend a dinner last month which included 6 couples, all in their early-mid 60's, all with 7 figure net worths. Word started quietly going around the table that "so&so is wearing a Rolex"... where upon the jokes and Rolex hating continued for a couple minutes until they found a different subject.

Afterwards I asked "so&so" what watch he WAS wearing... turned out to be a recent green dial Seiko Alpinist. Nice watch, but not a Rolex and not even a homage.

Most folks don't know beans about watches, but Rolex can certainly be a lightning rod for comments from just about anyone.


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

BillHW said:


> Word started quietly going around the table that "so&so is wearing a Rolex"...
> Afterwards I asked "so&so" what watch he WAS wearing... turned out to be a recent green dial Seiko Alpinist.


This. Pretty much any analog-dial watch ever made can and will be mistaken for a Rolex by somebody somewhere at some time.

Therefore, if you're going to be embarrassed by wearing a watch that resembles a Rolex, you had better not wear anything other than (maybe) an Apple watch or a G-Shock or a Suunto. Or maybe you'd better just carry around a sun dial. Nomos has a nice one: https://nomos-glashuette.com/en/sundials/sundial-stainless-steel

As for me, I'm going to wear whatever I want, whenever I want. All of my watches have some design features in common with some Rolexes (such as hands, a round dial with numbers and/or markers, etc), some more than others. I like them all and wear them all, with zero embarrassment at all times.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

BillHW said:


> I had the opportunity to attend a dinner last month which included 6 couples, all in their early-mid 60's, all with 7 figure net worths. Word started quietly going around the table that "so&so is wearing a Rolex"... where upon the jokes and Rolex hating continued for a couple minutes until they found a different subject.
> 
> Afterwards I asked "so&so" what watch he WAS wearing... turned out to be a recent green dial Seiko Alpinist. Nice watch, but not a Rolex and not even a homage.
> 
> Most folks don't know beans about watches, but Rolex can certainly be a lightning rod for comments from just about anyone.


I wonder how much of this story is a consequence of where it occurred.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Avo said:


> This. Pretty much any analog-dial watch ever made can and will be mistaken for a Rolex by somebody somewhere at some time.
> 
> Therefore, if you're going to be embarrassed by wearing a watch that resembles a Rolex, you had better not wear anything other than (maybe) an Apple watch or a G-Shock or a Suunto. Or maybe you'd better just carry around a sun dial. Nomos has a nice one: https://nomos-glashuette.com/en/sundials/sundial-stainless-steel
> 
> As for me, I'm going to wear whatever I want, whenever I want. All of my watches have some design features in common with some Rolexes (such as hands, a round dial with numbers and/or markers, etc), some more than others. I like them all and wear them all, with zero embarrassment at all times.


I'm pretty certain the people in Santa Barbara are perfectly capable of accurately recognizing a Rolex.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Depends on where on State Street.


mleok said:


> I'm pretty certain the people in Santa Barbara are perfectly capable of accurately recognizing a Rolex.


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

mleok said:


> I'm pretty certain the people in Santa Barbara are perfectly capable of accurately recognizing a Rolex.


Good, then no one here will ever mis-identify any of my watches!

But actually people here pretty much span the same range as people you will find anywhere in the US &#8230; And our only Rolex dealer went out of business a few months ago &#8230; nearest dealer now is in Thousand Oaks, an hour away ...


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Avo said:


> Good, then no one here will ever mis-identify any of my watches!
> 
> But actually people here pretty much span the same range as people you will find anywhere in the US &#8230; And our only Rolex dealer went out of business a few months ago &#8230; nearest dealer now is in Thousand Oaks, an hour away ...


Well, if I need to put on my reading glasses to figure out you're not wearing a Rolex, because everything but the logo is a near copy, then that's surely an understandable mistake.


----------



## BillHW (Oct 6, 2018)

mleok said:


> I wonder how much of this story is a consequence of where it occurred.


As in...? I'm pretty sure the "where it occurred" had about zero to do with it, since the conversation would have happened anyplace we met. But we were in Sun Valley Idaho.
I'd tell you about the jokes that went around when one of them talked about the Bentley he was waiting to be delivered, but this isn't a car forum. ;-)


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

BillHW said:


> As in...? I'm pretty sure the "where it occurred" had about zero to do with it, since the conversation would have happened anyplace we met. But we were in Sun Valley Idaho.
> I'd tell you about the jokes that went around when one of them talked about the Bentley he was waiting to be delivered, but this isn't a car forum. ;-)


I think it's hardly news that the general level of watch knowledge varies from city to city.


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

mleok said:


> Well, if I need to put on my reading glasses to figure out you're not wearing a Rolex, because everything but the logo is a near copy, then that's surely an understandable mistake.


Not the case with any of my watches. Anyone who mistakes any of them for a Rolex knows so little about Rolex that I couldn't possibly care what they think.


----------



## ronkatct (Sep 27, 2018)

My Tevise Officially Certified "Perlative Ceronometer" arrived today. It is big at 43mm, but has decent solid bracelet; it runs fast at 30 to 45spd according to my time grapher. Am I embarrassed to wear it? Heck no. It beats my Winner subs, with terrible bracelets, and in the case of the white Pepsi Winner, defective Crystal. I like my Tevise:-d, all for $22.00.

I will wear my Tevise tomorrow. I like real cheap Rolex Submariner homages|>.


----------



## LaneP (Nov 17, 2018)

ronkatct said:


> My Tevise Officially Certified "Perlative Ceronometer" arrived today. It is big at 43mm, but has decent solid bracelet; it runs fast at 30 to 45spd according to my time grapher. Am I embarrassed to wear it? Heck no. It beats my Winner subs, with terrible bracelets, and in the case of the white Pepsi Winner, defective Crystal. I like my Tevise:-d, all for $22.00.
> 
> I will wear my Tevise tomorrow. I like real cheap Rolex Submariner homages|>.
> 
> View attachment 13740651


The vendor description of these watches on Amazon are a hoot. Everyone raves about the quality-to-cost value of them.


----------



## ronkatct (Sep 27, 2018)

LaneP said:


> The vendor description of these watches on Amazon are a hoot. Everyone raves about the quality-to-cost value of them.


Amazon's price with prime is $40.00 for the automatic Tevise. Alix's price is $22 with 4 weeks shipping for the automatic. Compared to Winner, the Tevise is decent in quality, albeit a bit fast out of the box. In my experience, it is the best cheap automatic sub homage if ordered direct from alix. If ordered from Amazon, Invicta on sale might be a better deal.


----------



## UberDave (Jan 13, 2015)

BillHW said:


> I had the opportunity to attend a dinner last month which included 6 couples, all in their early-mid 60's, all with 7 figure net worths. Word started quietly going around the table that "so&so is wearing a Rolex"... where upon the jokes and Rolex hating continued for a couple minutes until they found a different subject.
> 
> Afterwards I asked "so&so" what watch he WAS wearing... turned out to be a recent green dial Seiko Alpinist. Nice watch, but not a Rolex and not even a homage.
> 
> Most folks don't know beans about watches, but Rolex can certainly be a lightning rod for comments from just about anyone.


This sounds like the world's sh*tiest dinner party. Hushed murmurs from gossipy "rich" people about Alan's Rolex morph into open mocking and Alan is the type of fellow who doesn't have the nuts to say "It's a Seiko."

Or this is merely a poorly concocted anecdote.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

UberDave said:


> This sounds like the world's sh*tiest dinner party. Hushed murmurs from gossipy "rich" people about Alan's Rolex morph into open mocking and Alan is the type of fellow who doesn't have the nuts to say "It's a Seiko."
> 
> Or this is merely a poorly concocted anecdote.


Isn't a seven figure net worth the bare minimum one needs to retire these days?


----------



## UberDave (Jan 13, 2015)

mleok said:


> Isn't a seven figure net worth the bare minimum one needs to retire these days?


I'm sure there are many people out there who are able to retire on less. Still, a million bucks ain't what it used to be. Paging @Watchbreath.


----------



## BillHW (Oct 6, 2018)

True story Dave. It's a tough crowd. Glad you and mleok are catching some of the nuances.


----------



## ronkatct (Sep 27, 2018)

Nah, one can retire with a nest egg if USD 888,888. Just buy Tevise Submariner homages and watches under $30. Who needs a superlative chronometer when a perlative Ceronometer can keep time just as sub-like, at least, from a distance. Just don't hang out too often with 7 and 8 figure net worth crowds. Otherwise pull a Bill Gates.


----------



## BillHW (Oct 6, 2018)




----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

BillHW said:


> True story Dave. It's a tough crowd. Glad you and mleok are catching some of the nuances.


I think you need to find better people to hang out with, the only thing the story illustrates is that you're hanging out with a bunch of petty, ignorant jerks.

P.S. How do you know their net worth, did they brag to you?


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

ronkatct said:


> Who needs a superlative chronometer when a perlative Ceronometer can keep time just as sub-like, at least, from a distance. Just don't hang out too often with 7 and 8 figure net worth crowds.


Yeah, some of them might realize how much they overpaid for their watches and be embarrassed by it. That would be impolite.

And if you want a chronometer that's more superlative (as a chronometer) than a Rolex Sub (or any mechanical), just go get a $20 quartz watch from the drugstore.


----------



## BillHW (Oct 6, 2018)

Can't pick family. I don't hang out with them but you can't "call in sick" to a wake... and that's probably too much info also.



mleok said:


> I think you need to find better people to hang out with, the only thing the story illustrates is that you're hanging out with a bunch of petty, ignorant jerks.
> 
> P.S. How do you know their net worth, did they brag to you?


family gossip?


----------



## UberDave (Jan 13, 2015)

BillHW said:


> Can't pick family. I don't hang out with them but you can't "call in sick" to a wake... and that's probably too much info also.


Wait, this all actually happened not at a dinner party but at a wake? First, sorry for your loss. Second, wow these people seem even worse now.


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

Yes, people who judge you based on the watch you wear should definitely be avoided ...


----------



## Squirrelly (Nov 9, 2011)

I think the only way I'd wear a Sub homage watch is if it was a color combination of face, hands, markers & bezel that Rolex didn't produce.


----------



## dealer-1 (Jul 14, 2011)

Proud to wear mine , awesome watch that I worked hard to purchase !!!


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

dealer-1 said:


> Proud to wear mine , awesome watch that I worked hard to purchase !!!


Which sub homage did you get?


----------



## Hands90 (Jun 8, 2015)

Removed


----------



## Hands90 (Jun 8, 2015)

Enough said?


----------



## Mr.Jones82 (Jul 15, 2018)

Hands90 said:


> Enough said?


Hell yeah, that's why I always throw my Steinhart in with the whites


----------



## Hands90 (Jun 8, 2015)

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Hell yeah, that's why I always throw my Steinhart in with the whites


Fantastic! Lol


----------



## barutanseijin (Sep 18, 2017)

Wearing a modern Rolex amounts to saying "i bought the hype." That's embarrassing. 

Wearing something that looks like a Rolex might make you look like a sucker if people can't tell it from the real thing.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

barutanseijin said:


> Wearing a modern Rolex amounts to saying "i bought the hype." That's embarrassing.
> 
> Wearing something that looks like a Rolex might make you look like a sucker if people can't tell it from the real thing.


That doesn't quite make sense to me. :-s If "people can't tell the homage from the real thing," then they won't know its a homage and not a Rolex unless you tell them. And if you explain to them its a homage, they'll know that you are not a "sucker" who thought they bought a Rolex.


----------



## Hands90 (Jun 8, 2015)

barutanseijin said:


> Wearing a modern Rolex amounts to saying "i bought the hype." That's embarrassing.
> 
> Wearing something that looks like a Rolex might make you look like a sucker if people can't tell it from the real thing.


Looks like you have some learning to do.


----------



## barutanseijin (Sep 18, 2017)

cel4145 said:


> barutanseijin said:
> 
> 
> > Wearing a modern Rolex amounts to saying "i bought the hype." That's embarrassing.
> ...


That's why i said "might". You come out ahead in the classic "hey is that a Rolex" scenario so often put forward as a potentially embarrassing situation.

However, there's also a chance they just snicker or talk about what a chump you are behind your back.


----------



## barutanseijin (Sep 18, 2017)

Hands90 said:


> barutanseijin said:
> 
> 
> > Wearing a modern Rolex amounts to saying "i bought the hype." That's embarrassing.
> ...


Never stop learning, never stop ignoring the hype.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

barutanseijin said:


> That's why i said "might". You come out ahead in the classic "hey is that a Rolex" scenario so often put forward as a potentially embarrassing situation.
> 
> However, there's also a chance they just snicker or talk about what a chump you are behind your back.


Way too much time spent worrying about what others may think/do. If one's choice of a watch inspires so much mental anguish, then it isnt the watch that is the issue.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

barutanseijin said:


> Wearing a modern Rolex amounts to saying "i bought the hype." That's embarrassing.
> 
> Wearing something that looks like a Rolex might make you look like a sucker if people can't tell it from the real thing.


Whenever one approaches the extremes of refinement in the manufacturing process, one is subject to the law of diminishing returns. What one considered to be the sweet spot on the price-performance curve is very subjective.

I've always found it ironic that the very people who say that one shouldn't judge a person for wearing a blatant copy are also perfectly happy to judge people for wearing a Rolex. This strikes me as the height of hypocrisy. It is incredibly superficial to judge a person solely on the basis of the watch that they wear.


----------



## danprg (Jan 25, 2013)

One thing that gets left out of WIS forums is that 95%+ of Rolex customers do not care about homages. 

The alternative to buying Rolex is not Davosa, or Steinhart, or even Sinn. It’s Cartier, or Omega, because you are buying a watch to mark your marriage, or that big promotion, or your sons graduation, and you have a budget of 5-10k.

So really, I don’t care who wears what homage as long as it does not support horrible factory conditions and is not a blatant ripoff (eg an exact copy with a different logo).


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

mleok said:


> I've always found it ironic that the very people who say that one shouldn't judge a person for wearing a blatant copy are also perfectly happy to judge people for wearing a Rolex.


This is a rather severe overgeneralization. Most of us who happily wear Rolex homages (like you with your Steinhart OVM) are also perfectly happy to let others buy and wear what they want.

Where the line is between "homage" and "blatant copy" is highly subjective. Many contributors on this thread would put your OVM in the "blatant copy" category.


----------



## danprg (Jan 25, 2013)

Avo said:


> Where the line is between "homage" and "blatant copy" is highly subjective. Many contributors on this thread would put your OVM in the "blatant copy" category.


Actually, it's not - homage is something that is meant to "honor" a well known piece, or a piece that is no longer in production. It's meant to take inspiration from an existing piece and make it's "feel" available to the masses.

Seiko SKX is an homage. So is Tudor BB. Steinhart Ocean One Chrono is a rip-off. Alfa is a rip-off. Par is is a blatant fake.


----------



## tennesseean_87 (May 31, 2011)

This thread hasn't changed my mind.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

danprg said:


> Actually, it's not - homage is something that is meant to "honor" a well known piece, or a piece that is no longer in production. It's meant to take inspiration from an existing piece and make it's "feel" available to the masses.
> 
> Seiko SKX is an homage. So is Tudor BB. Steinhart Ocean One Chrono is a rip-off. Alfa is a rip-off. Par is is a blatant fake.


Hello, what is the SKX a homage to? Had one for years, never thought it homaged any thing, so was wondering....


----------



## danprg (Jan 25, 2013)

Carl.1 said:


> Hello, what is the SKX a homage to? Had one for years, never thought it homaged any thing, so was wondering....


By now I think that the 007 itself  but if you have a look at SKX031/033 it's still a sub homage with different hands.


----------



## westlake (Oct 10, 2011)

Funny, after 57 pages (and many threads before this one) this subject has still not been decided, agreed upon, established, resolved, etc. 
At least this one didn't break-down to point where moderator shut things off.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Avo said:


> This is a rather severe overgeneralization. Most of us who happily wear Rolex homages (like you with your Steinhart OVM) are also perfectly happy to let others buy and wear what they want.
> 
> Where the line is between "homage" and "blatant copy" is highly subjective. Many contributors on this thread would put your OVM in the "blatant copy" category.


I have no issue calling the OVM a "blatant copy", I find the use of the term "homage" to refer to such watches to be disingenuous.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

barutanseijin said:


> That's why i said "might". You come out ahead in the classic "hey is that a Rolex" scenario so often put forward as a potentially embarrassing situation.
> 
> However, there's also a chance they just snicker or talk about what a chump you are behind your back.


You still aren't making sense. If those people can't tell it from the real thing, as you previously said, they wouldn't "snicker" or talk behind my back because they would think it was Rolex.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

I find it very interesting how different the tone of the following discussion of exact design copies with different brand names is when the watch being copied is a forum favorite like the Seiko MM300 as opposed to the Rolex Submariner,

https://www.watchuseek.com/f74/merkur-mm-comes-up-9015movt-seiko-sbdx001-homage-4242450.html


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

cel4145 said:


> You still aren't making sense. If those people can't tell it from the real thing, as you previously said, they wouldn't "snicker" or talk behind my back because they would think it was Rolex.


I think he was trying to say that some people (including him) think that Rolex owners are suckers.


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

danprg said:


> By now I think that the 007 itself  but if you have a look at SKX031/033 it's still a sub homage with different hands.


Nope. But if you think so then go with it.


----------



## Hamstur (Nov 6, 2017)

mleok said:


> I've always found it ironic that the very people who say that one shouldn't judge a person for wearing a blatant copy are also perfectly happy to judge people for wearing a Rolex. This strikes me as the height of hypocrisy.


People think there is a fine line between being judgmental vs jealous, but it's a fairly thick and obviously line, where sympathy, empathy, apathy and admiration exist. I've see all 6 of those behaviors on this thread.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

mleok said:


> I've always found it ironic that the very people who say that one shouldn't judge a person for wearing a blatant copy are also perfectly happy to judge people for wearing a Rolex. This strikes me as the height of hypocrisy. It is incredibly superficial to judge a person solely on the basis of the watch that they wear.


You are being too generous. Judging anyone by their watch (expensive or cheap) is a sign of abject stupidity: humans are complex creatures and reducing them to a single summary sentence based on something as trivial as a watch is a sign of an undeveloped brain that is unable to handle even the slightest bit of complexity

It's simple: I may or may not like the watch you are wearing, but if it makes you happy, all is good.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

mleok said:


> I find it very interesting how different the tone of the following discussion of exact design copies with different brand names is when the watch being copied is a forum favorite like the Seiko MM300 as opposed to the Rolex Submariner,
> 
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f74/merkur-mm-comes-up-9015movt-seiko-sbdx001-homage-4242450.html


And of course, there was the unbridled outrage when the shoe was on the other foot, where an established brand (Seagull) homaged (shamelessly copied) a microbrand (Aevig), which admittedly was a pretty nasty move,

https://www.watchuseek.com/f71/wtf-sea-gull-straight-up-thieves-aevig-content-2196561.html


----------



## barutanseijin (Sep 18, 2017)

Don't assume that people look at a Rolex positively. I'm saying people may not, and wearing a homage indistinguishable from a Rolex could elicit criticism targeted at Rolex watches.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

barutanseijin said:


> Don't assume that people look at a Rolex positively. I'm saying people may not, and wearing a homage indistinguishable from a Rolex could elicit criticism targeted at Rolex watches.


And as vkalia mentioned above, if people judge you solely on the basis of the watch you wear, even if it happens to be a Rolex, then they are idiots whose opinions are irrelevant.


----------



## Mr.Jones82 (Jul 15, 2018)

mleok said:


> barutanseijin said:
> 
> 
> > Don't assume that people look at a Rolex positively. I'm saying people may not, and wearing a homage indistinguishable from a Rolex could elicit criticism targeted at Rolex watches.
> ...


To quote the venerable Judge Dredd: "Judge not, that ye watch be not judged."


----------



## frankie (Jun 6, 2006)

Yes when I was wearing my Deepsea as it just screamed “look at me I have a big expensive Rolex” since sold it and bought another NDc which I love.


"Doh!!!", should of read the full title before posting !!!


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

vkalia said:


> You are being too generous. Judging anyone by their watch (expensive or cheap) is a sign of abject stupidity: humans are complex creatures and reducing them to a single summary sentence based on something as trivial as a watch is a sign of an undeveloped brain that is unable to handle even the slightest bit of complexity
> 
> It's simple: I may or may not like the watch you are wearing, but if it makes you happy, all is good.


I wish people would judge me by my watch.

"Why look, here. This man is wearing a Doxa - he must be the Jacques Cousteau and/or Dirk Pitt of our time! What a stunning specimen!"

Instead, they insist on judging me on the whole - and that's not a good look.


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

mleok said:


> And of course, there was the unbridled outrage when the shoe was on the other foot, where an established brand (Seagull) homaged (shamelessly copied) a microbrand (Aevig), which admittedly was a pretty nasty move,
> 
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f71/wtf-sea-gull-straight-up-thieves-aevig-content-2196561.html


The circumstances were very different. Aevig had discussions with Sea-Gull about producing the watch in question for Aevig, which ultimately did not work out. (Aevig, like many microbrands, is literally a one-man operation that designs watches and then contracts out the actual production.) Then Sea-Gull produced a blatant copy of the Aevig design, which was not yet in production by Aevig. This is theft of intellectual property, by any reasonable definition. You can't "homage" something that has never been produced at all!

I have no legal expertise and do not know to what extent Rolex could attempt legal redress for "blatant copies". It would certainly seem that Rolex would have the financial resources to pursue such redress if it is indeed available.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Avo said:


> The circumstances were very different. Aevig had discussions with Sea-Gull about producing the watch in question for Aevig, which ultimately did not work out. (Aevig, like many microbrands, is literally a one-man operation that designs watches and then contracts out the actual production.) Then Sea-Gull produced a blatant copy of the Aevig design, which was not yet in production by Aevig. This is theft of intellectual property, by any reasonable definition. You can't "homage" something that has never been produced at all!
> 
> I have no legal expertise and do not know to what extent Rolex could attempt legal redress for "blatant copies". It would certainly seem that Rolex would have the financial resources to pursue such redress if it is indeed available.


As I understand it, the design arose from a forum project that started in 2013. Given that the Seagull ended up being a rather poor copy of the Balaur, it is arguably less of a 1:1 copy than many so called "homages". It is certainly theft of intellectual property, but the same can be said of many so called "homages".

For example, the case of the Ginault was "designed" by essentially 3D scanning the case for the five digit Submariner.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Avo said:


> The circumstances were very different. Aevig had discussions with Sea-Gull about producing the watch in question for Aevig, which ultimately did not work out. (Aevig, like many microbrands, is literally a one-man operation that designs watches and then contracts out the actual production.) Then Sea-Gull produced a blatant copy of the Aevig design, which was not yet in production by Aevig. This is theft of intellectual property, by any reasonable definition. You can't "homage" something that has never been produced at all!


The only difference was one of timing - and that's a very strange dividing line for separating ethical from unethical. Would copying the design AFTER the watch was released have been any less of IP theft or morally justifiable?

Also, was the design copyrighted? Lack of copyright is often used as an excuse to justify a copy of Rolex's designs, so consistency demands that the same standard be applied here.

Dont get me wrong: Aevig was wronged, no doubt about that, and I feel terrible for them. But the failure to extend the same support to other brands whose designs are also being ripped off is logically inconsistent, self-serving & off the charts on the irony scale. Aevig gets outrage and sympathy because it is a forum favorite, one-man shop, etc. The big companies dont, because they are faceless and impersonal. So now we are in the Robin Hood territory of ethics (it is ok to steal from some people, but not from others).


----------



## bigvatch (Sep 25, 2007)

vkalia said:


> The only difference was one of timing - and that's a very strange dividing line for separating ethical from unethical. Would copying the design AFTER the watch was released have been any less of IP theft or morally justifiable?
> 
> Also, was the design copyrighted? Lack of copyright is often used as an excuse to justify a copy of Rolex's designs, so consistency demands that the same standard be applied here.
> 
> Dont get me wrong: Aevig was wronged, no doubt about that, and I feel terrible for them. But the failure to extend the same support to other brands whose designs are also being ripped off is logically inconsistent, self-serving & off the charts on the irony scale. Aevig gets outrage and sympathy because it is a forum favorite, one-man shop, etc. The big companies dont, because they are faceless and impersonal. So now we are in the Robin Hood territory of ethics (it is ok to steal from some people, but not from others).


But you don't feel terrible for Rolex do you?


----------



## mrmorfo (May 5, 2016)

Here's a photo of my two homages, which I'm never embarrassed of wearing.

These pair illustrate what I find most funny about homage-hating. Most homage-hate goes toward mid and low priced watches, but anything over $2,000 gets a free pass from the homage police. No hate for the Tag Heuer pepsi GMT or this lovely homage of a Rolex Explorer I, for example. Meanwhile, Steinhart, Ginault, Davosa et al, are immoral pirates that rip off other brands' designs and eat babies for breakfast.

So, you spend $2,5k on a homage watch and it's ok, but spend $500 and you should be embarrassed? To me it's absolute nonsense and just makes all that hate sound like a snobbish/elitist rant.

At the end of the day, someone wearing a 1675 homage, a Milsub homage, a Nautilus homage, or anything like that, is usually a watch connoisseur like we all here are. We share a beautiful hobby and should not look other fellow hobbyists over the shoulder just because they can't afford the most expensive timepieces but want to enjoy a small portion of having them in their collection. Wear what you want and wear it for yourself, not for anyone else.









Enviado desde mi ONEPLUS A6013 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Mr.Jones82 (Jul 15, 2018)

mrmorfo said:


> Here's a photo of my two homages, which I'm never embarrassed of wearing.
> 
> These pair illustrate what I find most funny about homage-hating. Most homage-hate goes toward mid and low priced watches, but anything over $2,000 gets a free pass from the homage police. No hate for the Tag Heuer pepsi GMT or this lovely homage of a Rolex Explorer I, for example. Meanwhile, Steinhart, Ginault, Davosa et al, are immoral pirates that rip off other brands' designs and eat babies for breakfast.
> 
> ...


Nice watches! I really want one of those GADA Black Bays.
One thing though...I am not sure price tags always provide shelter from the hate. I have read plenty of Tudor bashing and even harsher Ginault bashing, and I think part of the vitriol is due to the price tag itself. "I'm not going to pay X amount of dollars for an homage!" Squale would be another that gets countless complaints about offering an homage at "absurd" prices. It seems some people are okay with homages, until they are no longer what they consider "affordable".


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

bigvatch said:


> But you don't feel terrible for Rolex do you?


You are correct, I certainly have far more sympathy for Aevig than I do for Rolex.

Doesn't change the inconsistency, though.

And to be clear, I don't care if people ARE inconsistent about this stuff. This is a hobby, after all, and I certainly am inconsistent in several areas as well.

But I do think it is good to be self-aware of these things. That's all.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

barutanseijin said:


> Wearing a modern Rolex amounts to saying "i bought the hype." That's embarrassing.


What hype is unearned by modern Rolexes?


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

Who cares about the price, if you can afford it and want it buy it.

If you can not afford it then we are lucky in the watch world there are going to be plenty at all price levels.

I do not understand the problem with what Rolex are selling at, i love them but would not pay the price so i happily choose another watch that i also love. Simples.

Hype or not good for them.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

mleok said:


> As I understand it, the design arose from a forum project that started in 2013. Given that the Seagull ended up being a rather poor copy of the Balaur, it is arguably less of a 1:1 copy than many so called "homages". It is certainly theft of intellectual property, but the same can be said of many so called "homages".
> 
> For example, the case of the Ginault was "designed" by essentially 3D scanning the case for the five digit Submariner.


The Ginault design, though, is not intellectual property theft. IANAL, but it seems clear that the Rolex submariner 5-digit design is in the public domain. By definition, one cannot steal from the public domain. Public domain designs are a public commons that everyone is allowed to use.


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

vkalia said:


> The only difference was one of timing - and that's a very strange dividing line for separating ethical from unethical.


Not at all. Consider copyright law. Copyrights expire after a certain amount of time, and then the work in question enters the public domain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

cel4145 said:


> The Ginault design, though, is not intellectual property theft. IANAL, but it seems clear that the Rolex submariner 5-digit design is in the public domain. By definition, one cannot steal from the public domain. Public domain designs are a public commons that everyone is allowed to use.


What kind of IP protection do you think aesthetic designs have in general? The 16610 was introduced in 1989, so it has been in existence for 29 years, are you sure the relevant intellectual property rights have expired? If not the case shape, how about the Glidelock clasp, which is protected under patent?


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

Patents only last 20 years, well at least in the uk, so game on after that.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Avo said:


> Not at all. Consider copyright law. Copyrights expire after a certain amount of time, and then the work in question enters the public domain.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law


If we are going the legal route, then given that Aevig's design was not copyrighted and that Seagull didnt introduce an exact copy, you can argue that there was no IP theft here either (atleast not one that would be easy to prove). And given that Aevig didnt take legal action, that part is moot anyway.

But that aside, there are plenty of homages coming out of watches that are currently in production and many people seem to be fine with that. So by that logic, if Seagull had copied Aevig's design a week after Aevig released the watch, that would have been ok?

At this point, we are starting to split hairs.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Carl.1 said:


> Patents only last 20 years, well at least in the uk, so game on after that.


The Glidelock is not 20 years old.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

mleok said:


> What kind of IP protection do you think aesthetic designs have in general? The 16610 was introduced in 1989, so it has been in existence for 29 years, are you sure the relevant intellectual property rights have expired? If not the case shape, how about the Glidelock clasp, which is protected under patent?


In the US, the aesthetics of a watch design are covered by design patents for a period of 14 years from when it was granted, assuming a patent was applied for and approved in the first place. Not sure exactly how long it is in the EU, but I don't think it is substantially longer because both the US and EU are party to the WIPO treaty which sought to establish uniform intellectual property rights.

So yeah. A design 28 years old is not going to be covered by a patent, and this has been covered before in WUS discussions by those more knowledgeable than I. As for the glidelock, I don't know. Did Rolex apply for and receive a patent? (note that with my comment I was referring to the watch head, not the bracelet).

Why, what IP did you think it was covered by? Be thankful it's not covered by copyright, for most of us wouldn't be having any fun collecting watches. Look at the music industry where using only a few recognizable notes from a song would be considered IP infringement. In watch design, the indices, the hands, the dials, and the bezels that we see variations of across may different watches that are not even remotely considered homages to each other would likely not be possible without licensing from the original copyright owner.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

cel4145 said:


> In the US, the aesthetics of a watch design are covered by design patents for a period of 14 years from when it was granted, assuming a patent was applied for and approved in the first place. Not sure exactly how long it is in the EU, but I don't think it is substantially longer because both the US and EU are party to the WIPO treaty which sought to establish uniform intellectual property rights.
> 
> So yeah. A design 28 years old is not going to be covered by a patent, and this has been covered before in WUS discussions by those more knowledgeable than I. As for the glidelock, I don't know. Did Rolex apply for and receive a patent? (note that with my comment I was referring to the watch head, not the bracelet).
> 
> Why, what IP did you think it was covered by? Be thankful it's not covered by copyright, for most of us wouldn't be having any fun collecting watches. Look at the music industry where using only a few recognizable notes from a song would be considered IP infringement. In watch design, the indices, the hands, the dials, and the bezels that we see variations of across may different watches that are not even remotely considered homages to each other would likely not be possible without licensing from the original copyright owner.


Besides functional and design patents, there are as you say copyright and trade dress issues. But, if you contend that the only relevant protection are design patents, these are not automatic, unlike copyright, so Aevig needed to apply for one and be awarded it in order for them to be protected.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

mleok said:


> Besides functional and design patents, there are as you say copyright and trade dress issues. But, if you contend that the only relevant protection are design patents, these are not automatic, unlike copyright, so Aevig needed to apply for one and be awarded it in order for them to be protected.


Actually, I am not saying there are copyright issues. My understanding is that copyright does not apply to overall watch design. What I said was that no one on WUS would want copyright to apply to the overall design of a watch. In fact, there would probably be no WUS if copyright applied to watch designs for the number of different watches available to buy could be orders of magnitude less.

As for Aevig, sure. If they want, seems that they could apply for a design patent.


----------



## rfortson (Feb 18, 2012)




----------



## docvail (Oct 24, 2012)

mleok said:


> And of course, there was the unbridled outrage when the shoe was on the other foot, where an established brand (Seagull) homaged (shamelessly copied) a microbrand (Aevig), which admittedly was a pretty nasty move,
> 
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f71/wtf-sea-gull-straight-up-thieves-aevig-content-2196561.html


The difference in the Segull/Aevig case was that the Seagull wasn't an homage at all. Aevig contracted with Seagull USA to make a set of prototypes of that Balaur design, with the intent of having them produce the watch for Aevig, should they deliver quality protos.

The protos were terrible, so they didn't get the contract. Then they turned around, took the design, and produced it themselves, under the Seagull USA brand, and sold it before Aevig had even produced it for their own business.

That's not "homaging", that's just straight up design theft, and so the outrage was understandable, not in any way hypocritical. They effectively stole Aevig's design work, when Aevig was their customer/client.

Tapatalk now available over the counter in prescription strength. Claims of increased male virility not assessed by the FDA.


----------



## docvail (Oct 24, 2012)

cel4145 said:


> Actually, I am not saying there are copyright issues. My understanding is that copyright does not apply to overall watch design. What I said was that no one on WUS would want copyright to apply to the overall design of a watch. In fact, there would probably be no WUS if copyright applied to watch designs for the number of different watches available to buy could be orders of magnitude less.
> 
> As for Aevig, sure. If they want, seems that they could apply for a design patent.


As Aevig resides in the EU, the IP laws may be different there.

Here in the USA, patent protection would be almost exclusively for how a watch works (the functional design *FOR* a watch) not how it looks (the aesthetic design *OF* a watch). To patent some aesthetic aspect, the law has a high hurdle for uniqueness of ornamentation.

I've never heard of any brand being able to get a US patent for an aesthetic design, and only heard of one company which was given just a positive early indication.

IP law doesn't seem well suited to be a guide for judging homages, and certainly not the Aevig-Seagull scenario. It seems to me that most homages are only subject to judgment by individuals, and business ethics, if not business law, ought to have prevented Seagull from stealing Aevig's creative product.

Tapatalk now available over the counter in prescription strength. Claims of increased male virility not assessed by the FDA.


----------



## docvail (Oct 24, 2012)

orian said:


> Is anyone embarrassed by wearing a Rolex Submariner homage?
> 
> I used to have one but hardly wore it, in case people looked at it closely and saw it wasn't the real thing, and thaught I was a "wannabe" Rolex owner. That would be very embarrassing for me.
> 
> ...


If I was wearing something which was a very close design replica (not a replica as in a "fake", only meaning a 1:1 or ~1:1 design match) of something fairly recently produced, and "luxury", I might be somewhat self-conscious about it, to whatever extent I cared about the opinions of those around me who might notice it.

For the most part, I'm unlikely to care what others think, but I can imagine some situations where I might have, years ago, when I was new in my career, and gave a crap what people thought.

If I was wearing something which was a more subtle homage (not really a 1:1 design match), or something which might be a design match for something long out of production and hard to find/hard to acquire, or if the opinions of people around me don't matter to me (and usually, they don't), then, no, I wouldn't feel at all self-conscious about it.

FWIW, I live in a fairly well-to-do area, with lots of money managers, plastic surgeons, and the like. Everyone in our zip code has more money than we do. When we're talking to other locals, and it comes up that I make watches, the reaction to seeing the homages we make has always been 100% positive, in fact emphatically so.

It turns out one of the other dads on my son's baseball team was a watch-geek. He wore a Timex Weekender one night, and a Panerai Luminor the next time I saw him. We had a good chat about watches. He was totally chill, not at all stuck up about any of it.

I figure the sub-set of guys who'd judge me based on my watch, and who I might actually encounter while wearing a watch likely to lower their estimate of me, is already very small. The number of people within that group whose opinions would matter to me, at all, is zero.

If you're in a situation where you'd be judged by your watch, say, you work in a field where most people are highly-compensated, and there's some sort of unspoken dress code which involves wearing an expensive watch, and not looking the part might affect your career, okay, I understand the anxiety. But if that's the case, just leave your homage at home, and wear something else.

Otherwise, it seems like a lot of the anxiety is all in people's heads. It's mental garbage. You'll be happy when you put it down and leave it behind you.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

cel4145 said:


> The Ginault design, though, is not intellectual property theft. IANAL, but it seems clear that the Rolex submariner 5-digit design is in the public domain. By definition, one cannot steal from the public domain. Public domain designs are a public commons that everyone is allowed to use.


If I recall correctly, a design patent runs around 15 years. So it seems it should have run, I agree. So, legally, you're right. But at the very least, you can agree that it's intellectually dishonest, right?


----------



## docvail (Oct 24, 2012)

Raza said:


> If I recall correctly, a design patent runs around 15 years. So it seems it should have run, I agree. So, legally, you're right. But at the very least, you can agree that it's intellectually dishonest, right?


I think it's intellectually dishonest to refuse to admit that all design advancement comes from noting what works well, and adopting it. If we don't allow for some imitation, then there's no moving forward, and we're just stuck in place.

No one can make anything that in any way resembles anything anyone else happened to do first? How is that going to work?









It would be dishonest if someone were to take a design from another, and try to pass it off as their own, and as completely original, by denying the original source of inspiration.

But if someone notices something that works well, either from a functional or aesthetic perspective, and begins to emulate it, no, that's not intellectually dishonest, it's intellectually intelligent. What's the alternative, doing something that does NOT work as well, because at least then, it would be "original"?

A lot of success has come to a lot of people by modeling what they've seen others do well.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

docvail said:


> If I was wearing something which was a very close design replica (not a replica as in a "fake", only meaning a 1:1 or ~1:1 design match) of something fairly recently produced, and "luxury", I might be somewhat self-conscious about it, to whatever extent I cared about the opinions of those around me who might notice it.
> 
> For the most part, I'm unlikely to care what others think, but I can imagine some situations where I might have, years ago, when I was new in my career, and gave a crap what people thought.
> 
> ...


Not disagreeing with anything here... however, the premise of this thread and overall disdain for "homages" is very different.
The question is whether anyone is embarrassed of wearing a "homage" (aka knockoff).
It's not whether anyone is embarrassed of wearing an inexpensive watch.

With so many original design affordable watches (seiko, orient, hamilton, casio, timex, many microbrands and more), it's simply intellectually lazy to continue making a copy of a popular\expensive watch. Issue is not in price, but rather in originality.

There is also a question of whom we as consumers want to reward. Brands that make an original watch or those that essentially capitalize on someone elses work.
Between Chr Ward and Steinhart - I know where I'd rather put my money (same price watches)
Between Ginault and Oak & Oscar - I know where I'd rather put my money (same price watches)
Between Seiko 5 and Parnis - I know where I'd rather put my money (same price watches)

Issue is not the price. Issue is that "homages" are intellectually lazy, capitalizing on someone elses design, creativity and marketing spend.
(and in case of Ginault and glidelock clasp - violating an active patent)


----------



## oldfatherthames (Aug 20, 2015)

@EnderW:

+1 on every single word you said!

The thought behind paying homage to something is the appreciation of something great or beautiful and I like this idea. And I don't have a problem with homage watches per se, but some brands just build the main part of their catalogue with such homages and so the ideal is totally betrayed. And they got their publicity and success effectively only because of this. Steinhart for example is essentially a synonym for watches that are intended to look like a Rolex (and many other famous designs as well on top). That's not paying homage to something.

Cheers!
Bernd


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

First they "homaged" AP RO. Blancpain FF and PP Nautilus. But I did not care because those watches are so expensive that most people can't afford them




















Next they "homaged" Rolex and Omega. But I did not care because Rolex is all about "marketing hype" and besides those Swiss Fat Cats have plenty of $




















Next they "homaged" Grand Seiko, Montblanc and UN. But I did not care because it's not illegal




















Next they "homaged" Nomos and Junghans. But I did not care because... well Bauhaus belongs to the people.




















Next they "homaged" regular Seiko and G-shock. But I did not care because... well I guess I just don't care













































And when every new design was "homaged"... whether 7-Friday or Daniel Wellington, whether Aevig or any other microbrand... and originality and innovation became meaningless terms, the whole hobby turned to sh*t but there was nobody left to care.


----------



## docvail (Oct 24, 2012)

EnderW said:


> Not disagreeing with anything here... however, the premise of this thread and overall disdain for "homages" is very different.
> The question is whether anyone is embarrassed of wearing a "homage" (aka knockoff).
> *It's not whether anyone is embarrassed of wearing an inexpensive watch.*
> 
> ...


Uhm...I never said anything about wearing an inexpensive watch. I think it's generally assumed that homages are going to cost less than the watches they are paying homage to. Otherwise, why wouldn't someone just buy the original, rather than the homage?

I think it's fair to think that if someone recognized my watch as an homage to an expensive watch, they'd assume my watch was less expensive. Ipso-facto, if I worked somewhere I'd be expected to wear an expensive watch, an homage may not conform to the expected dress code.

I don't entirely disagree that *SOME* homages are lazy, on their face, and for me, I don't find them particularly interesting. As a designer, I don't have any interest in making a 1:1 design replica of anything currently available (not that I have much interest in making a 1:1 design replica of anything no longer available, either).

But not all homages are of watches which are readily available, at any price. If someone really wants a mid- to late-50's ref 6538, they're not easy to come by, no matter how much money someone has, and so an homage is really the ONLY viable choice for that person.

If you agree with me on that, well, then how unreasonable is it to make allowances for people who like the looks of the DSSD, but not its size, or like the Pelagos, but not titanium, or any other aspect of a design in which an homage *DIFFERS* from the original?

As for capitalizing on someone's else's design work and marketing spend...

1. As soon as you put any design out into the world, it's there for everyone to see, and if it's good, people will emulate it. That's just how the world works.

All learning is based on prior learning. We don't require people to invent new languages just to write a book, or invent new forms of math just to solve a math problem. Not only do we not require authors to invent new languages, we don't expect them to invent new metaphors, or new plot arcs. Study the structural arc of literature once, you pretty much understand all literature.

The movie "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou" was based on Homer's Odyssey, and all the critics said it was genius. No one said the Coen brothers ripped off Homer.

Most, if not all forms of art and literature are in some way derivative of something else which came before. If something works well, it'll be used by others. It's as true for watch design as it is for everything else.

2. It's interesting that you added "marketing spend" to a discussion of homages. I'd argue that a lot of the success of some designs is more a function of brand prestige, itself often the result of marketing spend, than of actually good design work. I've seen plenty of really bad designs which are nonetheless successful thanks to being made by solid brands supported by massive marketing efforts.

It's always seemed disingenuous for a company to use marketing and branding to create such demand for their brand and design language that they get imitated, then turn around and complain when they get imitated.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. As a designer, when I use a design cue I picked up from someone else, I'm paying them a compliment. I'm saying, "I love what you did there, so much I'm going to do something similar."

If someone doesn't like a design because it reminds them too much of something else, that's fine, but it's all internal. It's going on inside their head. I'm not saying they're "wrong". I'm saying that it's quite understandable if SOME designs make some people uncomfortable with how derivative they are. It's a matter of degrees, it's all subjective, and it's individualized on a personal level.

When someone says all homages are bad, or intellectually lazy/dishonest, that to me is just nonsense, and in fact saying such things is the true intellectual laziness/dishonesty, because it's logically unsound, and ignores reality.

No matter what it is you do for a living, someone else had to do it first, and someone had to show you how to do it, probably telling you that they were showing you "the right way". No one here invented their occupation, and invented the methodology, and all the foundational knowledge which went into it, from scratch, where there was no prior knowledge to start with.

If you're not the first guy to ever do whatever it is you do, are you being intellectually dishonest or lazy for doing what others have done before you? What if you found a way to improve upon it? You shouldn't be allowed to leverage someone else's work, because that's not being "original"?

Please. That's lunacy.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

docvail said:


> I think it's intellectually dishonest to refuse to admit that all design advancement comes from noting what works well, and adopting it. If we don't allow for some imitation, then there's no moving forward, and we're just stuck in place.
> 
> No one can make anything that in any way resembles anything anyone else happened to do first? How is that going to work?
> 
> ...


So... what Seagull did would have been okay, indeed intellectually intelligent, if they hadn't copied the design from being considered as an Aevig OEM, and they had simply "researched" the forum where the design was originally conceived? So, for example, the Seagull Aqua Terra homage was pure genius?

If we're going to suggest supporting Aevig because they were the originators of the design, what is wrong with suggesting that one buys the Rolex if one can afford it?


----------



## cfracing (Feb 21, 2015)

EnderW said:


> First they "homaged" AP RO. Blancpain FF and PP Nautilus. But I did not care because those watches are so expensive that most people can't afford them
> 
> Next they "homaged" Rolex and Omega. But I did not care because Rolex is all about "marketing hype" and besides those Swiss Fat Cats have plenty of $
> 
> ...


Seriously? Comparing the importance of watch collecting and the encroachment of "homage" watches to the rise of fascism in Germany? :-d

The issue I have with these "homage" threads is that they really don't have anything to do with the watches themselves, but everything to do with the people who wear them. If no one bought and wore these "homage" watches there would be no issue because the companies making them could not stay in business. But thousands, if not millions do. So a few WIS's who have appointed themselves the keepers of true watch collecting feel the need to tell all of us unwashed "homage" buyers how we should think, how we should feel, and what really motivates our watch purchases.

My question to all of you is "How does my purchase of a Steinhart OVM 39 impact you personally?". Why do you feel the need to question my reasons for buying the Steinhart when you ask nothing about my motivation for buying my Rolex or my JLC or my Omega? Why do you care? Are Rolex, Patek, AP, et al going to stop technical innovation and introducing new watch designs for you to buy because there are so many buyers of "homage" watches, some who are also their customers and some who will never be?


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

Raza said:


> If I recall correctly, a design patent runs around 15 years. So it seems it should have run, I agree. So, legally, you're right. But at the very least, you can agree that it's intellectually dishonest, right?


No. It's only intellectually dishonest if someone pretends that it's their original work. Most of capitalism thrives off mirroring or adapting the successful (and even mediocre) ideas of others.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

docvail said:


> ...
> 
> If you're not the first guy to ever do whatever it is you do, are you being intellectually dishonest or lazy for doing what others have done before you? What if you found a way to improve upon it? You shouldn't be allowed to leverage someone else's work, because that's not being "original"?
> 
> Please. That's lunacy.


Doc, you are a smart guy. But lets be intellectually honest. 
Building watches with round cases, screwdown crowns, lumed hands and indices... may be borrowing on ideas that others came up with.
Copying watch essentially one-to-one, (including positioning of text lines to emulate original) is not leveraging previous ideas. It's simply copying for purposes of financial gain.

Me doing research on previously published papers while doing my own dissertation is one thing. Me copying an existing paper and changing the title and authors name, is a whole other thing (usually considered plagiarism).

Similarly, when cars are built w 4 wheels, rubber tires, steering wheel, etc - nobody in their right mind will call this copying of 1883 Benz or Ford Model T.
Yet, "homages" of known cars by LandWind or Geely - nobody would call them anything buy copies\replicas\knockoffs... regardless of the logo on the hood.


----------



## docvail (Oct 24, 2012)

mleok said:


> So... what Seagull did would have been okay, indeed intellectually intelligent, if they hadn't copied the design from being considered as an Aevig OEM, and they had simply "researched" the forum where the design was originally conceived? So, for example, the Seagull Aqua Terra homage was pure genius?
> 
> If we're going to suggest supporting Aevig because they were the originators of the design, what is wrong with suggesting that one buys the Rolex if one can afford it?


Man, you guys love playing that hypocrisy card, don't you? I hope you have it laminated.

1. A lot of the outrage over that Aevig-Seagull incident was about their breach of faith with Aevig, who was their client *in addition to, or as an aside to* the outrage over them stealing the design from a smaller company, even if they hadn't been hired by that company to produce it under the Aevig brand, not their own. Some of the people playing the hypocrisy card in that thread never got that, or never wanted to acknowledge it, but such seems to be the norm with people who just have to argue a view which opposes the crowd's view.

2. Before you suggest Sea-Gull could have seen the design on the forum, by researching the project threads, the fact is that doesn't seem to be how they found it. Hypotheticals about how your wife may have come to meet her demise ("she could have choked on a bite of apple") won't exonerate you if you're on trial for strangling your wife to death. No apple put the bruises on the outside of her throat, you animal.

3. Had this hypothetical scenario played out as you'd like to suggest, for the sake of making your argument (assuming Sea-gull found the design by lurking in the project threads, rather than being handed the design by Aevig), yes, I suspect that most reasonable people would likely have felt a strong sense of empathy for Aevig, because it's a small company being copied by a much larger company, but hopefully also because they copied the design before Aevig even made it.

4. To alter the above hypothetical, such that they copied it post-hoc, yes, I suspect most people would still feel empathy for Aevig, but I also suspect the empathy and outrage would be less, had they copied Aevig after Aevig had produced their own design, because most reasonable people would see that once you put the design into the world, the world can copy it, and as such, I think bringing the Aevig-Seagull story up in every debate about homages is intellectually lazy and dishonest, since we seem to love throwing those terms around (I figure someone ought to use them correctly, and I'll be your Huckleberry).

5. I never suggested someone shouldn't buy a Rolex if they can afford it, nor have I ever chastised anyone else, not even you, for saying exactly that. Quite the contrary, I'm on record saying that even though Rolexes are absurdly over-priced, something like $6k for a steel Sub is within the grasp of most people in this hobby, albeit it may require a bit of saving up to acquire, and as such, I don't see the point in making an homage to a NEW, CURRENTLY AVAILABLE Sub.

6. For crying out loud, if you're going to suggest someone buy a Rolex if they can afford it, can you at least have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge the >$100,000 auction price of some out-of-production Rolexes? Instead of lumping all homages together, how about admitting that homages are the only way most of us will ever own anything that looks like an MOD-issue 5513/5517 from the early '70's?

7. If you don't like them, don't buy one. No one will think less of you for making that decision for yourself. But chastising other adults for spending the money they earned to buy something entirely for their own personal enjoyment, when it doesn't hurt anyone else (not even Rolex), simply because you think it looks too much like something else, just makes you sound like a sanctimonious d1ck.


----------



## Rhorya (Mar 19, 2017)

There’s nothing new under the sun. Everything is an homage or a reinterpretation of something else. So what? Make what you like. Wear what you like. Life is short so make it worthwhile for yourself. Cheers!


----------



## docvail (Oct 24, 2012)

EnderW said:


> Doc, you are a smart guy. But lets be intellectually honest.
> Building watches with round cases, screwdown crowns, lumed hands and indices... may be borrowing on ideas that others came up with.
> Copying watch essentially one-to-one, (including positioning of text lines to emulate original) is not leveraging previous ideas. It's simply copying for purposes of financial gain.
> 
> ...


Mate, hopefully you know I respect you and your views, even when we disagree. I've yet to read any "make me want to punch you" sorts of comments from you.

Follow what I'm saying here, because, believe it or not, I think we're closer to agreement than you realize.

You just set up the precise line of logic I've been using since, well, forever. There are DEGREES of imitation, some of which YOU find acceptable, and some you find unacceptable. Congratulations, you're exactly like everyone else, and me.

Yes, there are designs which I feel are just too close to the original for comfort. I don't hate them, the companies that make them (well, sometimes I do, but I try not to let my hate be entirely driven by their imitation), or the people that buy them.

I'm not lecturing people on the evils of Tissell, Steinhart or Ginault. It's not my place to judge those homages on a good-bad scale, or the people who buy them. There are some things which I have to admit are bigger than me and my ability to judge.

Do I think every homage is 100% cool? Hell no. I think some are 100% not cool, some are 100% cool, and a whole lot of them fall somewhere in between, on a sliding scale which takes into account a lot of other factors besides or in addition to physical resemblance. But whatever I think about them, I'm at least able to recognize that it's just *MY* own personal scale, not something I feel compelled to inflict on others.

I'm not upset that people don't like what I like. I am put off by people who have to impress their views onto others, though, and do so through judgmental peer pressure, especially when it leads to absurd expenditures. Spending the money to buy a "real" Rolex because some nitwits on the internet goaded you into it is just a disaster on every level.

If Joe WIS wants to buy a Tissell, let him. I may even recommend he take a look at one, if he's only got $200, wants a close homage to the Hulk Sub, and doesn't mind the lower quality, or the disdain he may get from some strangers on the internet.

I'll never understand the intensity of the homage hate. It just seems like a lot of wasted energy to me.

The OP asked if we feel embarrassed to wear an homage. I answered his question as directly as I could, with complete honesty. Generally, no, I'd never be embarrassed, but I can imagine scenarios where I might have in the past, as well as scenarios where others might. But outside those narrow examples, I think it's silly to worry about it.

Here's a flow chart to sum it all up:


----------



## docvail (Oct 24, 2012)

https://www.watchuseek.com/f71/next-great-homage-debate-3641658.html

I voted "Some are cool. Some make me vomit", by the way, along with the other 80% of people who have other, more important $hlt to worry about than whether or not their watch looks like some other watch, yet still understand that there are varying degrees of imitation, and too much can sometimes be a bad thing.

My best summary - "Call me a hypocrite, but personally, the more unobtainable a watch is, whether it's because of price or vintage, the more sense an homage makes. The more easily we can find and acquire a watch, the less sense it makes for the watch to be recreated, no?"


----------



## rcsami (Aug 15, 2018)

I personally have not, but I don't see why someone would be embarrassed of wearing one, especially when there are so many great homages out there!!


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

docvail said:


> Man, you guys love playing that hypocrisy card, don't you? I hope you have it laminated.
> 
> 1. A lot of the outrage over that Aevig-Seagull incident was about their breach of faith with Aevig, who was their client *in addition to, or as an aside to* the outrage over them stealing the design from a smaller company, even if they hadn't been hired by that company to produce it under the Aevig brand, not their own. Some of the people playing the hypocrisy card in that thread never got that, or never wanted to acknowledge it, but such seems to be the norm with people who just have to argue a view which opposes the crowd's view.
> 
> ...


I have never judged a person for wearing a close copy, I simply take issue with referring to such watches as "homages." I understand that vintage out of production Rolexes are beyond the means of most people, which is why I have a Steinhart OVM. But, I would happily refer to such a watch as a copy, because that's what they truly are, and I find the term "homage" to refer to balant copies to be disingenuous.

I will add that what you say in #1 and #2 is perfectly consistent with the first paragraph of my post that you quoted.


----------



## docvail (Oct 24, 2012)

mleok said:


> I have never judged a person for wearing a close copy, *I simply take issue with referring to such watches as "homages."* I understand that vintage out of production Rolexes are beyond the means of most people, which is why I have a Steinhart OVM. But, I would happily refer to such a watch as a copy, because that's what they truly are, and *I find the term "homage" to refer to balant copies to be disingenuous.*
> 
> I will add that what you say in #1 and #2 is perfectly consistent with the first paragraph of my post that you quoted.


So...you want everyone to stop using a word you don't want them to use, and instead use a different word you like better?

Show me the petition, I'll sign it.

What the hell difference does it make what word we use to describe a thing if we all know what we mean when we use the word?

Is there some sort of prize for making the most obtuse point on the internet today?

The point isn't the precision/accuracy of the word we use to describe one thing which resembles another thing. I thought the point of the thread was whether or not we're embarrassed by wearing the thing that looks like some other thing.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I read more than the first page in threads like this.


----------



## dan.05 (Sep 27, 2018)

If a watch looks good and works well it’s a winner. Doesn’t matter who it is made by. Done. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

docvail said:


> So...you want everyone to stop using a word you don't want them to use, and instead use a different word you like better?
> 
> Show me the petition, I'll sign it.
> 
> ...


Words have meaning and power. The use of euphemisms desensitize us to things which we are inherently uncomfortable with. A person who is uncomfortable with his Tisell being referred to as a copy, is uncomfortable with the reality of what his watch truly represents. This speaks to the issue raised in this thread. Put another way, if you're embarrassed about your Tisell being referred to as a copy, then you should be embarrassed to wear one. Conversely, if you're comfortable having it referred to as a copy, then there should be no embarrassment in wearing the watch.


----------



## mrmorfo (May 5, 2016)

When I read a watch enthusiast telling another watch enthusiast that he should be embarrassed to wear X kind of watch, it makes me think there's something wrong in some people's heads.

Who the hell are you to tell anyone what to wear? Are you the Great Jury of Watches? You guys make yourself look really ridiculous.

So, according to some people's views, if I like the look of one of the most iconic watches in the history of horology, my only option is to pony up $10,000? (that is if I want the latest iteration, I guess if I want a big crown sub, or a COMEX, or a Milsub, I'll better start selling my house and buying a tent).

And if I prefer to keep that money for a deposit for a 2nd house to pass onto my kids, or for their uni, and buy a Ginault/Square/MkII/Steinhart/Whatever then I should feel embarrassed? And even worse, I will be faced with your sanctimonious criticism? For Christ sake. You guys are no different than a school bully.


----------



## docvail (Oct 24, 2012)

mleok said:


> Words have meaning and power. *The use of euphemisms desensitize us to things which we are inherently uncomfortable with*.


Uhm...we're still talking about WATCHES here, right?

I think you're giving this topic a bit too much importance, with that sort of grandiose rhetoric.

"Meaning"? "Power"?

Watches are expensive man-jewelry, no matter what you call them. The only meaning is what you impose by way of your own mental garbage. The only power they have is the power you give them, over you.



mleok said:


> A person who is uncomfortable with his Tisell being referred to as a copy, is uncomfortable with the reality of what his watch truly represents. This speaks to the issue raised in this thread. Put another way, if you're embarrassed about your Tisell being referred to as a copy, then you should be embarrassed to wear one. Conversely, if you're comfortable having it referred to as a copy, then there should be no embarrassment in wearing the watch.


1. I don't own a Tisell, because, as I've said ad nauseum, I'm not interested in close homages to recent vintage watches. Rather than wonder if you're deliberately ignoring the many times I've tried to make that clear, which is just a troll move, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just mean "anyone" when you say "you".

2. I didn't decide that design copies would be called homages. That's what people called them when I showed up here. If you think it's stupid, okay, I agree with you. Again, I'm not going to assume you're deliberately ignoring what I've said for the sake of perpetuating a pointless argument (as if winning was even possible). I've said many times, in all these stupid homage debates, that we could use more and better terms, with clearer definitions, so that we can effectively differentiate between a cheap POS copy of a current production model and a really well executed, high-quality reproduction of something you can't get any more, for love or money.

I didn't make up the "rules" for what words WIS use to describe a lot of things, not all of which have a whole lot in common. I agree, they shouldn't all be called homages. Congrats, you "won" the pointless, off-topic argument that wasn't the point of this thread.

And, for whatever it's worth, if I did buy a Tisell, I'm sure I wouldn't be uncomfortable with it, because, if I was, I wouldn't have bought it. Are you saying people aren't smart enough to intuit their way through thinking about the possible social situations which might include wearing a watch they bought, knowing it looked like something else? Really?

I'm not made at all uncomfortable by the words other people use to describe the watch I bought for my own enjoyment. Call them copies, fakes, replicas, knockoffs, whatever you want. I don't care. I can't imagine what I need to do to prove that what other people think of me really doesn't worry me at all, if I haven't done that in any of my previous 21,000+ posts. I'm comfortable sharing stories of my own idiocy online. I'm not going to be made uncomfortable by a seven-letter "euphemism".

I don't care what words you use. I'm not made at all uncomfortable by your words. Therefore, I'm not getting my pants in a wad worrying about whether or not "homage" is being used correctly. I don't see the point you're trying to make, or how it's relevant to the question of whether or not I'm embarrassed by wearing a watch that I bought with the 100% certainty it wasn't a Rolex when I bought it, and never will be, and might at some point be identified by some other person as being not a Rolex, as if it would matter to me (it wouldn't).

Am I the only one who sees the inherent ridiculousness in the very question? Who's embarrassed by their own watch? Why buy it if you're going to be embarrassed by it? Even if someone bought one, then later felt the unbearable shame of wearing it in public, then stopped wearing it, okay, then that just seems to prove that people's feelings about homages are driven by their own mental garbage, and the two sides in this debate are self-selecting, and self-segregating, so what's the point of arguing about it every week?

Like homages, don't like homages, like some of them, prefer some other term for them, this just seems like a lot of hand-wringing over what a bunch of strangers on the internet like. I can't imagine how awesome your life must be if "guys I don't know wearing watches I don't like" is high enough on your list of concerns to warrant arguing about it, with anyone, much less people you'll never see in real life.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

docvail said:


> Like homages, don't like homages, like some of them, prefer some other term for them, this just seems like a lot of hand-wringing over what a bunch of strangers on the internet like. I can't imagine how awesome your life must be if "guys I don't know wearing watches I don't like" is high enough on your list of concerns to warrant arguing about it, with anyone, much less people you'll never see in real life.


I'm not the one who feels the need to write walls of text in a thread which you feel poses an inherently ridiculous question.

Also, I am not judging what people wear. I am simply saying that if one is not comfortable referring to a copy watch as a copy, then one is not really comfortable with what the watch really is, nothing more, nothing less. A euphemism simply allows one to pretend it's something that it's not.

For the record, I have a bunch of design copies, including the Borealis Estoril (copy of the Omega Seamaster 300), Helson Skindiver (copy of the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms), and Steinhart Ocean Vintage Military (copy of the Rolex 5517 Milsub). Heck, I have the Borealis Estoril despite the fact that I also have a Watchco assembled Omega Seamaster 300.


----------



## docvail (Oct 24, 2012)

mleok said:


> I'm not the one who feels the need to write walls of text in a thread which you feel poses an inherently ridiculous question.
> 
> Also, I am not judging what people wear. I am simply saying that if one is not comfortable referring to a copy watch as a copy, then one is not really comfortable with what the watch really is, nothing more, nothing less. A euphemism simply allows one to pretend it's something that it's not.
> 
> For the record, I have a bunch of design copies, including the Borealis Estoril (copy of the Omega Seamaster 300), Helson Skindiver (copy of the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms), and Steinhart Ocean Vintage Military (copy of the Rolex 5517 Milsub). Heck, I have the Borealis Estoril despite the fact that I also have a Watchco assembled Omega Seamaster 300.


I get it. You think "homage" is an ill-used term. I agree with you, in many cases, it is.

You seem to think that the reason people use that term is because we're uncomfortable using some other, most likely uglier term, like "blatant copy", and that if we used the uglier term, maybe we'd feel uncomfortable wearing the watch to which the term is applied.

Maybe you're right. I think you're wrong, but if you want to start a petition to get people to use uglier words than "homage", start it, and I'll sign it. I'm a huge fan of clarity in language, and I've got no problem brow-beating strangers on the internet to be more precise in their language.

The reason I think you're wrong is that whenever anyone posts anything about "homages", there's a gang of people sneering about them being "blatant copies", or some other uglier-than-"homage"-term, yet all the sneering doesn't seem to make very many people uncomfortable enough to change what they buy and wear.

I got sucked into this thread because I stupidly opened it, stumbled over your pedantic reference to the Aevig-Sea-gull debacle, my OCD-need for clarity kicked in, and I tried to set the record straight.

I regret it, and should have known I would, since I always end up regretting getting sucked into stupid arguments over pointless $hlt where no outcome will ever lead to any noticeable change in anything. I should know that as soon as it seems like I might be gaining ground, the ad hominem attacks will start (as if telling me I type too much negates the basic truth of what I typed), because that's what people do when it seems like they're losing a debate - they attack their opponent, rather than their opponent's argument.

Let me sum up, then I'll bugger off. Here goes...

1. Aevig-Sea-gull debacle - not relevant here. Never was a good example of the hypothetical hypocrisy of anyone. Stop dredging it up in every homage debate.

2. IP Law - doesn't apply to aesthetic design, at least not in the USA, within the context of homages.

3. Some people don't like some other people's watches - those other people don't care that you don't like their watches, and they're not going to care just because you use ugly words instead of not-ugly words.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

TheWalrus said:


> I wish people would judge me by my watch.
> 
> "Why look, here. This man is wearing a Doxa - he must be the Jacques Cousteau and/or Dirk Pitt of our time! What a stunning specimen!"
> 
> Instead, they insist on judging me on the whole - and that's not a good look.


That may be a good thing, though. Jacques Cousteau has been dead for 20 years, and you know how itchy people are to react to the whole zombie thing. I wouldn't want you to get a cricket bat to the head because someone thinks you're the start of the zombie apocalypse. And, most people only know Dirk Pitt from the pre-McConaissance movie Sahara, so that may also be a bullet dodged. I mean, that movie had Steve Zahn as one of the top billed actors--that's never a good sign.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

docvail said:


> I think it's intellectually dishonest to refuse to admit that all design advancement comes from noting what works well, and adopting it. If we don't allow for some imitation, then there's no moving forward, and we're just stuck in place.
> 
> No one can make anything that in any way resembles anything anyone else happened to do first? How is that going to work?
> 
> ...


No one is saying you can't make a watch that borrows or actually pays homage to design elements from other watches. But when your goal is to appeal to people because at 10 feet you look exactly like something much more expensive that you've copied, it is absolutely intellectually dishonest. Great artists may steal, but when I was a kid I learned that I couldn't pass off other people's ideas as my own; I had to put a works cited at the end of my paper (later on, footnote citations in law school, which are much better). It's Integrity 101--if it's someone else's work, you don't put your name on it and call it yours.

There is nothing "intellectually intelligent" about most of the watches we've discussed here from an ethical or artistic standpoint. Sure, it's smart from a business standpoint--rip off a much more expensive and popular design as sell it for much less because someone else did all the work in designing it. Push the envelope as far as you can without actually doing anything illegal. It's fine, I guess. But don't ask me to praise it.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

cel4145 said:


> No. It's only intellectually dishonest if someone pretends that it's their original work. Most of capitalism thrives off mirroring or adapting the successful (and even mediocre) ideas of others.


You put your name on it, you claim it's your work.


----------



## arogle1stus (May 23, 2013)

Orion:
Embarrassed a wearing an Homage?
Homage? No. Replica YES!!!! The way
I roll.

X Traindriver Art


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

Could some-one define exactly what they mean by intellectually dishonest please.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

Carl.1 said:


> Could some-one define exactly what they mean by intellectually dishonest please.


In this context, I would define it as fraudulent, underhanded, or misleading with regards to intellectual property origin and/or a misleading insult to my intellect when trying to pass off someone else's design as your own, public domain or not.


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

Ok, ta. So just a personal definition from yourself of a practice you personally dislike ?

This is obviously quite an emotive subject but i do not see any of these homages as misleading any one or being 'wrong' in their practice if they do not breach any law. 
I think it is great that folk out there can get a design they like on their wrist for a good price that is not a fake.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Carl.1 said:


> Ok, ta. So just a personal definition from yourself of a practice you personally dislike ?
> 
> This is obviously quite an emotive subject but i do not see any of these homages as misleading any one or being 'wrong' in their practice if they do not breach any law.
> I think it is great that folk out there can get a design they like on their wrist for a good price that is not a fake.


At its essence, intellectual honesty is about a dispassionate pursuit of the truth, irrespective of one's personal beliefs.

I think it's important to distinguish between legal and ethical, they are not equivalent. For example, unless they were bound by a non-disclosure or non-compete clause, what Seagull did to Aevig might not have been illegal, but I think most people would agree that it was unethical.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

Carl.1 said:


> Ok, ta. So just a personal definition from yourself of a practice you personally dislike ?
> 
> This is obviously quite an emotive subject but i do not see any of these homages as misleading any one or being 'wrong' in their practice if they do not breach any law.
> I think it is great that folk out there can get a design they like on their wrist for a good price that is not a fake.


If you think legal and ethical are the same thing, that's up to you. I don't.

Like you, I'm fine if people want to buy a watch that looks like another watch. But I'm not going to endorse the practice of taking someone else's design and passing it off as your own. Mind you, I'm not judging the buyer, it's the manufacturer.


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

No i do not think legal and ethical are the same thing.

But we are talking watches here, and business, so ethics are always a personal issue. What is ethically acceptable in one society is morally reprehensible in another.

if a company has not safe guarded their design then they will always fall foul of people who are after making some money. Personally i am not a fan of what happened and would not buy the watch but the company will make money as the vast majority out there will not have a clue as the the back ground.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

Carl.1 said:


> No i do not think legal and ethical are the same thing.
> 
> But we are talking watches here, and business, so ethics are always a personal issue. What is ethically acceptable in one society is morally reprehensible in another.
> 
> if a company has not safe guarded their design then they will always fall foul of people who are after making some money. Personally i am not a fan of what happened and would not buy the watch but the company will make money as the vast majority out there will not have a clue as the the back ground.


You can't safeguard a design once it's in the stream of commerce.


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

Then the conversation is mute.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Carl.1 said:


> Then the conversation is mute.


I think the word you're looking for is "moot".


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

mleok said:


> I think the word you're looking for is "moot".


I think you are right.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

Carl.1 said:


> Then the conversation is mute.


Well, from a legal standpoint, that's why things like patents, trademarks, and copyrights exist. Once those protections lapse, it's no longer a legal issue--it's all about ethics. When you take someone else's design and put your name on it, I call it plagiarism, and that's an ethical issue.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

mleok said:


> I think the word you're looking for is "moot".


I think both words could work....


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

TheWalrus said:


> I think both words could work....


Mute.... on this forum?!


----------



## bigvatch (Sep 25, 2007)

Carl.1 said:


> Could some-one define exactly what they mean by intellectually dishonest please.


Basically it's when someone purposely avoids truth/facts say like in a debate, while they are well aware of what they are doing. Political pundits on both sides do it all the time.


----------



## bigvatch (Sep 25, 2007)

edit


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

There's always the amusing logical fallacies and cognitive bias posters.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
https://yourbias.is/


----------



## mtnmdc (Oct 21, 2018)

Personally I could care less what people think about the watch I wear. Who cares. If you like it, wear it. 

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

mtnmdc said:


> Personally I could care less what people think about the watch I wear. Who cares. If you like it, wear it.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

mleok said:


> There's always the amusing logical fallacies and cognitive bias posters.
> 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
> https://yourbias.is/


Great! So the spotlight effect bias explains why some people are embarrassed to wear homages, which is what some posters in this thread have been saying all along.


----------



## Kenuko (Apr 20, 2018)

Why would one be embarassed by wearing homages watches? I wear other jeans than Levi’s and don’t own a single Lacoste polo shirt. Many consumer products are more or less clones of each other and no one cares.

I have owned a few homage watches, but the only watch I’ve sold because I was a bit embarassed to wear it was my 16610.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Kenuko said:


> the only watch I've sold because I was a bit embarassed to wear it was my ______


My sympathies at your lack of self-confidence, if you were embarrassed to wear any watch that you (presumably) rightfully *chose* to acquire.

As for choosing not to wear a watch - here's how it breaks down:
- Some people dont wear homages because they are afraid of what others will think if they find out it isnt real
- Some people dont wear homages because they personally dont like wearing stuff that copies a well-known design as much as possible without getting into outright fakery
- Some people wear homages because they like the original design but cant/wont spend as much money for it
- Some people wear homages because they want to give off the impression that they are wearing a more expensive watch

The bickering starts because people in each camp are too insecure and feel that knocking the choices of someone in a different camp is the way to make themselves feel better.


----------



## Kenuko (Apr 20, 2018)

It was not about self-confidence. Or maybe it was, we are all insecure and self-concious space-monkeys after all. 

I just felt stupid felt wearing such a flimsy watch for a relatively high price. Not money well spent. The quality is just not there compared to modern watches. So yeah, felt a bit embarrased with myself and learned my lesson.

We all own homages. Dozens of them. Watches aren’t any different than other consumer products. We just get more attached to brand and status.

And I really don’t mean to put down Rolexes. Modern Rolexes are great watches and the more vintage ones have their charm. But I feel better wearing a good quality homage than I ever felt wearing my 16610.


----------



## hairythomas (Aug 4, 2014)

I’m not embarrassed about owning a “homage” - I have a Steinhart that is pretty much a “copy” and probably the type that some WIS here hate. I feel no shame in this. I love the design, it is of good quality and at a price I was happy to pay. I am not trying to convince anyone it is a Rolex, I just like the way it looks. 

To me it breaks down like this (with made up numbers but I reckon they are reasonably indicative). 

- Out of 100 people 95 only recognise Rolex by the name on the dial - they don’t recognise the sub look or the Mercedes hands as “belonging” to Rolex. They won’t realise my Steinhart has anything to do with Rolex. 
- Out of the remaining 5, probably 3 recognise some of the cues but would not think them exclusive. 
- 2 recognise the history and Rolexness of them. 1 would love to have a chat with you about watches. 1 would hate you because of your watch. 
- I’d enjoy chatting to the first and am fairly sure I wouldn’t like the second person so wouldn’t be bothered by their opinion. 

What always baffles me is why anyone cares. I don’t understand the logic - why would anyone get exercised by the purchase choice of someone else? 

Genuine question, why do you care? The only way I could see anyone would hold an opinion is if they own the original? But that doesn’t stack up either. 

Let’s say I own the Rolex. Why do I own it? Any one of the following (or a blend of each):

- I want the horological history of the watch
- I enjoy the quality and the accuracy
- I love the design
- I have worked hard for my money and I like to look down at my wrist and see something I have bought and know it’s value
- I like the status of the Rolex

There is no judgment from me on any of the above. But how does me owning a Steinhart impact on any of them? With the possible exception of its status and that I want a one of a kind design. In which case I’m back to the 100 people above and all most people recognise is the name on the dial so I reckon you are fine. 

Other than that, maybe it’s a principle thing? But these are items of jewellery. They are design. Do you apply this principle to everything else? Your shoes? Your jeans? Your items of furniture? Phone? Probably not. 

I hardly ever enter into internet debates because they hurt my head but I had time on my hands today!


----------



## nabbasi (May 23, 2018)

I think you nailed it hairythomas.



hairythomas said:


> Let's say I own the Rolex. Why do I own it? Any one of the following (or a blend of each):
> 
> - I want the horological history of the watch
> - I enjoy the quality and the accuracy
> ...


This pretty much sums it up for me. How does someone else owning or wearing a Steinhart or any homage take anything away from you and your original design? A lot of people against them are the same people that say "wear the watch you want to wear" or "buy a watch for yourself not for others."



hairythomas said:


> Do you apply this principle to everything else? Your shoes? Your jeans? Your items of furniture? Phone? Probably not.


I've found that people into watch are often quirky, so you can't rule stuff like that out. I do make frequent trips to the vintage shops in town looking for original furniture designs!

Overall, if someone likes something and they're wearing it, good for them. Homages serve a purpose and there's a huge market for them.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

hairythomas said:


> Other than that, maybe it's a principle thing? But these are items of jewellery. They are design. Do you apply this principle to everything else? Your shoes? Your jeans? Your items of furniture? Phone? Probably not.


It's a good post, but I specifically wanted to address this. Yes. I do. But I already stated in this thread that I have ridiculous quirks and standards for myself. I think it's fun and charming, others say it's "maladjusted" and a "neurosis".


----------



## hairythomas (Aug 4, 2014)

Raza said:


> It's a good post, but I specifically wanted to address this. Yes. I do. But I already stated in this thread that I have ridiculous quirks and standards for myself. I think it's fun and charming, others say it's "maladjusted" and a "neurosis".


 I do enjoy some maladjusted neurosis! Good on you!


----------



## hairythomas (Aug 4, 2014)

nabbasi said:


> I think you nailed it hairythomas.
> ....
> I've found that people into watch are often quirky, so you can't rule stuff like that out.


Cheers! And fair point


----------



## jinusuh (Aug 14, 2013)

hairythomas said:


> I'm not embarrassed about owning a "homage" - I have a Steinhart that is pretty much a "copy" and probably the type that some WIS here hate. I feel no shame in this. I love the design, it is of good quality and at a price I was happy to pay. I am not trying to convince anyone it is a Rolex, I just like the way it looks.
> 
> To me it breaks down like this (with made up numbers but I reckon they are reasonably indicative).
> 
> ...


Nailed it. I picked up my very first Rolex this year and it hasn't made me want to sell a homeage piece I already own. Granted, it doesn't get much wrist time anymore, but neither does any other watch.


----------



## Watch-Collector7 (Nov 15, 2011)

I know there is a lot of talk on both sides of the homage story but I buy watches I like, have an interesting history, serve a purpose or just look good on my wrist. I picked up a steinhart pespi and paired it with a red and blue navy band, I get lots of comments and on a few people notice its not a rolex (or care its not a rolex)


----------



## LaneP (Nov 17, 2018)

Man...I've been studying the Steinhart Ocean 1 42 all morning. Reading specs, reviews, (There's a great thread here from 2015 by member watchmetal) looking at prices. Sure looks like a nice one. What I really like most is the cyclops. With my near vision, the standard size date display of most watches is impossible to read without reaching for a magnifier.


----------



## Watch-Collector7 (Nov 15, 2011)

LaneP said:


> Man...I've been studying the Steinhart Ocean 1 42 all morning. Reading specs, reviews, (There's a great thread here from 2015 by member watchmetal) looking at prices. Sure looks like a nice one. What I really like most is the cyclops. With my near vision, the standard size date display of most watches is impossible to read without reaching for a magnifier.


Its a great watch and if you're patience on eBay you can pick one up for $400 to $500. I really like my Pepsi GMT and seems to keep good time.


----------



## watchcrank_tx (Sep 1, 2012)

hairythomas said:


> What always baffles me is why anyone cares. I don't understand the logic - why would anyone get exercised by the purchase choice of someone else?
> 
> Genuine question, why do you care?


Warning: this post uses the word "I" a lot, because you asked for a personal perspective.  I know from experience here however that I'm not alone in any of the views I'll express..

I care* because:


I believe plagiarism of creative work is bad for society on several fronts.
I believe originality is good.
I believe the widespread acceptance of plagiarism and the widespread obfuscation by plagiarists of their wholesale Xeroxing of other people's hard work** are both bad for society.

So while I *don't* hold clone-buyers in contempt, I *do* think they are losing sight of some important net ills that their purchases further, and I wish they would buy something original instead.

I'm not an absolutist. I'm a lot softer on clones of ubobtanium (Milsubs or whatever), though I still think there are more worthy purchases, and I'm all in favor of accepting strong influences and even outright cloning true functional innovations, like the highly legible dials of the B. Uhr variations or the A-13A clock, so long as the origins of the designs elsewhere is clear and the rest of the watch isn't a line-for-line copy of the original (again excepting unbotanium). There's so little good UI in the world, that I'm happy when I see truly great UI spread. I also can't indict "reissues" from the same brand (and several of my favorite watches are of this category), as they're neither theft nor dishonesty, though again I'd usually be happier with more originality.

I'm also not going to cast the first stone. I budget all things and do not have unlimited funds, and even to this day, I'll occasionally buy a non-clone product (or at least one I believe to be) from a maker who does make some clones, especially as a gift to someone who's not as particular about what they wear. Giving a cloner money is not my ideal, nor something I'm especially proud of, but such is life as a non-billionaire.

I'll also buy the occasional watch which is a lazy recombination of a few standard elements in a new but low-effort way. No, it's not original, but it's not outright theft either.



> Other than that, maybe it's a principle thing? But these are items of jewellery. They are design. Do you apply this principle to everything else? Your shoes? Your jeans? Your items of furniture? Phone? Probably not.


I would certainly prefer to. I know a lot more about the design of watches than I do about these other things. If I cannot choose an original design because plagiarists are doing their best to claim the designs as their own and are joined by retailers and pay-for-play fashion critics in their obfuscation and intentional deception, is it my fault if I cannot achieve this ideal?

BTW (and not replying directly to you, but to a common trope in this neverending debate), I reject the Levi's argument and other similar "so-and-so invented the genre" arguments. Yes, almost all jeans are influenced by Levi's, but Levi's created a genre in which there is nearly unlimited space for original design, even if merely - like most watch dials - by recombination of sets of fairly common elements, but few jeans I've seen are line-by-line copies of Levi's. From what I can tell of a few other fashion rabbit holes I've gone down, the same is less true of many other things (e.g., Converse All-Stars) which are commonly shamelessly copied line-for-line, even by some famous fashion brands perfectly capable of designing their own shoes. Influence by great design is by no means a bad thing. Stealing exact designs with no attempt at original work is what I have an issue with and try not to support when I'm aware of it and educated enough to avoid it.

* The extent to which I care about what other people do is far less than what I care about what I do, but it's still there. It's there for everyone who has posted in this thread, because if people really didn't care what their peers in this hobby think, they wouldn't feel the need to attempt to justify themselves or convince anyone else, i.e., to reply at all.

** E.g., I have several times seen a few of the slightly more honest than the norm clone makers mention words to the effect that their watches are "inspired by a famous watch," but with very rare exception (e.g., a few Milsub cloners) they still shy away from "copied line for line directly from a popular Rolex." Most say nothing at all, in a silent wink to those who know but don't care and a total F-you to newbies who see a watch they like, see the design as implicitly claimed by the cloner, and think they're getting something original. (Call me naive - for I was - but when I first returned to watches, I assumed that makers who didn't mention they'd stolen the designs they sold actually employed their own designers, so I inadvertently ended up with a few stolen designs.)


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

watchcrank said:


> Warning: this post uses the word "I" a lot, because you asked for a personal perspective.  I know from experience here however that I'm not alone in any of the views I'll express..
> 
> I care* because:
> 
> ...


So at what point (after how long) is it OK to buy a clone of an original creator's work? I am asking because I imagine it must be especially hard to verify originality--as well as expensive--to avoid clones of original designs/inventions for all of time across all consumer products that one buys in their lifetime. Especially if one also rejects derivative works that are only slight variations. And finally, how does one decide where the line is on derivative works? This, too, seems very difficult to form a personal heuristic for determining across genres of consumer products.


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

You see it, like it, then just buy it. Life is too short.


----------



## watchcrank_tx (Sep 1, 2012)

cel4145 said:


> So at what point (after how long) is it OK to buy a clone of an original creator's work? I am asking because I imagine it must be especially hard to verify originality--as well as expensive--to avoid clones of original designs/inventions for all of time across all consumer products that one buys in their lifetime.


See what I said about my own ignorance. We can't know everything, especially given the mendacity of the industry (by cloners certainly, but by non-clomers too: watch marketing runs on BS 24/7/365, as does marketing in other fields). I cannot endorse an indictment of my personal values that is based on "you can't possibly know everything," because it is not necessary to be omniscient or infallible in order to hold and exercise a set of values. I do not believe my values to be fraudulent because I am occasionally gulled by a cloner when seeking original design.

Also note: I said nothing at all about inventions, only designs. (Well, actually I did, in explicitly endorsing the cloning of good functional elements like flieger dials.) Patent systems have recognized for more than five hundred years the need to balance the good of the innovator with the good of society as a whole by establishing protections for innovation but expiring those protections after a certain time. I don't hold the same to be true of aesthetics. Given the stronger protection granted by copyrights than by patents, that society as a whole has limited protection for aesthetic design indicates to me the greater difficulty of establishing such protections against a mountain of lobbying counter-interests, not a societal agreement in favor of plagiarism. (If in the latter conception I err, I find society somewhat inconsistent.)



> Especially if one also rejects derivative works that are only slight variations.


Which I do not, in terms of combining limited sets of functional elements, as I said explicitly in two places.  (If you mean instead variations as limited as "changing the logo," or even "using a snowflake hand in place of a Mercedes hand, and vice-versa," then I do.)



> And finally, how does one decide where the line is on derivative works?


A personal judgement, surely.



> This, too, seems very difficult to form a personal heuristic for determining across genres of consumer products.


See again my point about ignorance. My yardstick for watches is much different than that for sofas, about which I know little. I know a lot more about Converse All-Stars than I do about many other shoes. Etc.

Forgive me, but I don't see why any of this is puzzling. Do you have no yardsticks of what you do and don't like, and do such yardsticks not vary in their rigor depending on the degree of your interest or knowledge? Are you as particular in what you like about disposable picnic cups or replacement glass for a broken window as you are in what you like about a watch? I'm not.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

watchcrank said:


> See what I said about my own ignorance. We can't know everything, especially given the mendacity of the industry (by cloners certainly, but by non-clomers too: watch marketing runs on BS 24/7/365, as does marketing in other fields). I cannot endorse an indictment of my personal values that is based on "you can't possibly know everything," because it is not necessary to be omniscient or infallible in order to hold and exercise a set of values. I do not believe my values to be fraudulent because I am occasionally gulled by a cloner when seeking original design.
> 
> Also note: I said nothing at all about inventions, only designs. (Well, actually I did, in explicitly endorsing the cloning of good functional elements like flieger dials.) Patent systems have recognized for more than five hundred years the need to balance the good of the innovator with the good of society as a whole by establishing protections for innovation but expiring those protections after a certain time. I don't hold the same to be true of aesthetics. Given the stronger protection granted by copyrights than by patents, that society as a whole has limited protection for aesthetic design indicates to me the greater difficulty of establishing such protections against a mountain of lobbying counter-interests, not a societal agreement in favor of plagiarism. (If in the latter conception I err, I find society somewhat inconsistent.)
> 
> ...


In some sense, I don't tend to separate inventors vs. designers. I think all creators are equally entitled to intellectual property protection and deserving of equivalent lengths of protection. And to me, design and invention is intertwined.

Note that the US law does allow for "plagiarism," contrary to what you describe. Once an intellectual property work is in the public domain, there is no legal obligation to attribute the original creator with a cloned work: no one person has any rights to the work over another at that point. In fact, the part of the US Constitution from which US intellectual property law is derived is not based on some implicit right of a creator to their designs or writing. Rather, it says, [The Congress shall have power] "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

Thus, the ultimate purpose of IP law is to benefit society, with the limited monopoly benefit to the creator a means to that end. It often best serves the public's interest if eventually inexpensive versions of a product are available. Almost no consumers would be happy if patent or copyright provided perpetual ownership to creators. And if you are not certain that's true, imagine how much medicine would cost in the US if medical patents did not expire.

Now personally, when it comes to watches, I am uncomfortable with companies who make exact replicas before the design patent period of 14 years expires, whether or not the creator applied for and obtained such a patent. But beyond that time limit, it seems the purpose of IP protection would have been served. Now if you wanted to argue that watch designs deserve protection under copyright, I could see that. However, I find our current copyright terms to be absurd for various reasons, some covered in this position statement by the EFF.


----------



## watchcrank_tx (Sep 1, 2012)

cel4145 said:


> Note that the US law does allow for "plagiarism," contrary to what you describe.


Of that I am well aware. Plagiarism is nonetheless well established as a contemptible practice and often ends careers when exposed.



> Almost no consumers would be happy if patent or copyright provided perpetual ownership to creators. And if you are not certain that's true, imagine how much medicine would cost in the US if medical patents did not expire.


You may note that in my earlier posts I explicitly endorsed patents both in their device and in their expiration.  I hold similar views on copyrights but don't see the relevance of either to the specific combination of myriads of non-function elements of the aesthetic design of a physical object. I also haven't argued that clones are or should be illegal (though the ones which violate trademarks and active patents are already illegal).



> I find our current copyright terms to be absurd for various reasons.


I agree but don't find that relevant to anything we're discussing here.


----------



## cel4145 (Sep 17, 2015)

watchcrank said:


> Of that I am well aware. Plagiarism is nonetheless well established as a contemptible practice and often ends careers when exposed.


I'm not completely sure, but it sounds like your main beef with the likes of Tisell, Steinhart, and Ginault for their reproductions of Rolex sub designs, designs no longer covered by design patents, is that they plagiarize. If so, you have set an impossible standard for them.

If I want to make a collection of short stories and include a couple of works by Edgar Allan Poe, I legally can since these are public domain. In the collection, I would include the title of the story and his name with each. And thus no plagiarism, right? To avoid plagiarism with texts, we just include the author's name. Easy enough.

However, Tisell, Steinhart, and Ginault cannot put the word Rolex on their watches. They cannot attribute the Rolex design in their marketing materials. If they do, you and I both know that Rolex will sue them for trademark infringement. Otherwise, of course they would put some kind of attribution on the dial or on the back of the case. And I'm sure they would mention in their marketing materials not only that it's a Rolex reproduction, but also the specific model Rolex. It would help them to sell their homages. They benefit more financially from attributing Rolex than not doing so.

So calling this plagiarism? I think that's an unfair label for this situation, as they cannot legally provide the attribution to Rolex that you seek without legal ramifications. Well, unless Rolex licenses their trademark to them at a reasonable price, and we know that won't happen.

Does not seem reasonable to me that if someone wants to use public domain IP, then we should consider it unethical if they do not attribute the original creation, when the original creator will deny them from doing so or charge expensive fees. That's not serving the public interest, as is the purpose of IP under the US Constitution. For that matter, if Rolex wants attribution, they could offer licensing of their trademark for a nominal fee. Apparently they don't care or they would. I am willing to be that they don't want their name on homages like those for any amount of money.

See how this is not the same "contemptible practice" that "often ends careers?"


----------



## watchcrank_tx (Sep 1, 2012)

cel4145 said:


> I'm not completely sure, but it sounds like your main beef with the likes of Tisell, Steinhart, and Ginault for their reproductions of Rolex sub designs, designs no longer covered by design patents, is that they plagiarize. If so, you have set an impossible standard for them.


I have already said I do not feel that copyright is directly applicable - or what it protects to be analogous - to aesthetic design of a physical object. So the "impossible" standard I impose is merely to employ their own designers and come up with their own designs. Doesn't sounds so impossible to me.

Also, Rolex is only one example among thousands. I don't even like the Sub as a design, but it does seem to be the most prominent victim of cloning.



> when the original creator will deny them from doing so or charge expensive fees. That's not serving the public interest, as is the purpose of IP under the US Constitution.


1) As said above - in this post and at least one that preceded it - I do not feel the situations analogous.

2) As said in the previous post, I do not feel that a "public interest" argument caries weight with the specific recombination of minute details within aesthetic design.

3) As also said in the previous post, I am not advocating the banning of clones, so the entire thrust of your argument about fees, rights, etc., while perhaps a valid rebuttal to someone, is irrelevant both to me and to what I posted.



> I am willing to be that they don't want their name on homages like those for any amount of money.


Gee, I wonder why? :-d



> See how this is not the same "contemptible practice" that "often ends careers?"


No, it still looks to me like making a buck off of someone else's work, with only the specifics of the medium varying in any significant way, certainly not the intent.

I posted in this thread in response to a question that asked why anyone who disliked clones would care about the existence of the clone market. After a few rounds of elaboration - and, I might add, some removing of words placed in my mouth, not that I'm mad about or believe that was your intent - I find I'm mostly repeating myself so conclude I've said all I have to say on the topic without going into the whole discussion of the supply chain crossover between some (by no means all) of the clone makers and some of the counterfeiters. As broaching that latter topic elsewhere saw me threatened with a ban, I'll leave exploration of that one as an exercise for the curious with plenty of time to kill on Chinese domestic market websites and simply return to lurking on this topic for now. Interesting discussion with you as always, but it's run its course.


----------



## hairythomas (Aug 4, 2014)

watchcrank said:


> Warning: this post uses the word "I" a lot, because you asked for a personal perspective.  I know from experience here however that I'm not alone in any of the views I'll express..
> 
> I care* because:
> ....


Hi.

I'm out and about doing holiday family type things at the moment so a short response but wanted to say thank you, a very eloquent reply addressing my question which is much appreciated - we disagree on some of the finer points but isn't that what makes the world interesting.

I don't really do too much back and forth over the internet (stuff gets lost in translation and no-one ever changes their opinion) but would have been a fun chat over a beer


----------



## askew (Oct 10, 2018)

Post deleted.


----------



## askew (Oct 10, 2018)

cfracing said:


> You were too quick. I was going to edit my post to tone it down a little, or maybe even delete it, but I still think the Helsons look as much like an homage as all the other watches posted on this thread as examples of homages, at least the ones without the Mercedes hand. But I am sure there are others who would agree with you and pinkybrain.


I agree, the Helson does look like a Rolex. The only difference is in the Helson's non-Mercedes hands and its 3, 6 and 9 hour markers which are triangular shaped. The rest of the watch is just like a Rolex Sub.


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

You also forgot the bezel, lugs, dimensions and proportions, crown guards and...wait a minute, what about the Helson and Submariner do look the same?



askew said:


> I agree, the Helson does look like a Rolex. The only difference is in the Helson's non-Mercedes hands and its 3, 6 and 9 hour markers which are triangular shaped. The rest of the watch is just like a Rolex Sub.


----------



## tennesseean_87 (May 31, 2011)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jooxbox (Mar 2, 2016)

To answer the original question, no, i wouldn't feel embarrassed. It could actually indicate that you appreciate the design, and not the name.


----------



## 41Mets (Dec 25, 2014)

My friend bought this. Actually looks fairly good!!


----------



## Ian Michael (Apr 13, 2019)

I have a Steinhart, love it. Short of a lottery win I’m never going to own a Rolex Sub.


----------



## Munchie (Dec 20, 2013)

When this thread popped up again last week I thought it said "Is anyone embarrassed by wearing a Rolex Submariner?" which might have made for an interesting thread in itself. Mind you that has probably been done too.

I wondered why everyone was talking about homages..


----------



## orian (Feb 10, 2010)

cfracing said:


> Yes, but the OP stated he saved up 4 months' salary to buy a Breitling SOHC 46, which means he had to be making over $1,000 - $1,300 a month. It's been several decades since I was in high school, but I find it hard to believe there are part-time jobs for high school students that pay that much, unless you have "connections".


Just saw this now.

I'm the OP. You are referring to another poster here, not me. I forget his name. He was a kid still at school or something. I'm in my 50s and have never been able to afford a luxury watch.


----------



## askew (Oct 10, 2018)

pinkybrain said:


> You also forgot the bezel, lugs, dimensions and proportions, crown guards and...wait a minute, what about the Helson and Submariner do look the same?


Thanks. Yes, I forgot all those.


----------



## Egsise (Jul 12, 2018)

Munchie said:


> When this thread popped up again last week I thought it said "Is anyone embarrassed by wearing a Rolex Submariner?" which might have made for an interesting thread in itself. Mind you that has probably been done too.
> 
> I wondered why everyone was talking about homages..


90% of the people you meet are in a distance where they can't see if you're wearing a Rolex or a homage.
It's all inside your head.


----------



## Homo Sapien X (Sep 15, 2018)

Many of us don’t want to or can’t buy a sub or any popular expensive watches , the homage watches give us an experience at a much lower price with absolutely good value. I see no reason why is there embarrassment to own one. There are more important things to do with money than to purchase luxury watches. Like the Patek Nautilus, it is foolish to pay well above retail....when you can just own a $50 steel bagel sports Nautilus which quality is almost 80% of the Patek. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## supawabb (Aug 27, 2007)

**** Sapien X said:


> There are more important things to do with money than to purchase luxury watches.


I guess this would depend on your values and how much money you make. Maybe a guy wants a really nice watch is all.



**** Sapien X said:


> Like the Patek Nautilus, it is foolish to pay well above retail....when you can just own a $50 steel bagel sports Nautilus which quality is almost 80% of the Patek.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not too sure where you got your stats, as even a used late 80's Nautilus will run over $6/7K and you think the $50 bagel sport is 80% of the Nauti? Please lay off of whatever it is you are smoking as it's causing you to be delusional.


----------



## Homo Sapien X (Sep 15, 2018)

supawabb said:


> I guess this would depend on your values and how much money you make. Maybe a guy wants a really nice watch is all.
> 
> Not too sure where you got your stats, as even a used late 80's Nautilus will run over $6/7K and you think the $50 bagel sport is 80% of the Nauti? Please lay off of whatever it is you are smoking as it's causing you to be delusional.


Check out IDGuy and some reviews in YouTube. Please don't act like a grandpa clinging to the 80s, welcome to the new world where homages are near perfect. 
You need to broaden your mind or you will be left behind dark and cold.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

**** Sapien X said:


> Check out IDGuy and some reviews in YouTube. Please don't act like a grandpa clinging to the 80s, welcome to the new world where homages are near perfect.
> You need to broaden your mind or you will be left behind dark and cold.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Oh, when I first read your other post, I thought you were joking. Now I'm not sure.

But no, having never handled either a Bagel Sport (though I've played some bagel sports in my life) nor a Nautilus, I can promise that the Bagel Sport isn't 80% as good. Maybe some guy on YouTube said it, but that doesn't make it true.


----------



## ox71 (Aug 15, 2011)

642 posts of people trying tI justify wearing homages and others people trying to exert there opinion.
Neither of you are going to win.









Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

**** Sapien X said:


> Check out IDGuy and some reviews in YouTube. Please don't act like a grandpa clinging to the 80s, welcome to the new world where homages are near perfect.
> You need to broaden your mind or you will be left behind dark and cold.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Until I see a homage with this kind of workmanship, I will stay as narrow minded as I'd like to be and keep spending money on whatever I fancy.









brother 60,OoO


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Just don't take off those 'Rose Colored Glasses', "homage" turns to knockoff real fast.


**** Sapien X said:


> Many of us don't want to or can't buy a sub or any popular expensive watches , the homage watches give us an experience at a much lower price with absolutely good value. I see no reason why is there embarrassment to own one. There are more important things to do with money than to purchase luxury watches. Like the Patek Nautilus, it is foolish to pay well above retail....when you can just own a $50 steel bagel sports Nautilus which quality is almost 80% of the Patek.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

**** Sapien X said:


> ....when you can just own a $50 steel bagel sports Nautilus which quality is almost 80% of the Patek.


I'll have whatever you're smoking 

brother 60,OoO


----------



## mmathews1971 (Oct 10, 2012)

A Rolex is always a Rolex, Nothing to be embarrassed about it at all.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

**** Sapien X said:


> Like the Patek Nautilus, it is foolish to pay well above retail.... when you can just own a $50 steel bagel sports Nautilus which quality is almost 80% of the Patek.


Hmm... I'm not sure what metric you're using where a Bagelsport is 80% the quality of the Patek, but whatever floats your boat. I wouldn't pay three times the retail price for a Nautilus, but if one has the dosh to do so, who am I to judge?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Watchbreath said:


> Just don't take off those 'Rose Colored Glasses', "homage" turns to knockoff real fast.


Let's be honest, Bagelsport watches draw upon the same supply chain as fake watches.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

To be "honest", you call a knockoff, a knockoff.


mleok said:


> Let's be honest, Bagelsport watches draw upon the same supply chain as fake watches.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

**** Sapien X said:


> Many of us don't want to or can't buy a sub or any popular expensive watches , the homage watches give us an experience at a much lower price with absolutely good value. I see no reason why is there embarrassment to own one. There are more important things to do with money than to purchase luxury watches. Like the Patek Nautilus, it is foolish to pay well above retail....when you can just own a $50 steel bagel sports Nautilus which quality is almost 80% of the Patek.


If one just wants the front side look of a watch without wanting the refinements or the cachet of the brand, I agree that a homage/copy watch gets one most of the way there without paying the high price.

In practice, I wanted to experience the refinements and cachet of a brand. While they are nice to have/experience, my regular watches get me most of the way there most of the time if I just want to wear a watch that looks okay on-wrist.

I don't care about the Patek brand or the Nautilus look.

I think embarrassment could arise if one wants the prestige of a brand, but cannot afford the brand, and buy the copy watch to satisfy desire for the look, but don't want to look like an impostor in front of others?

Some people, like me, might prioritize "how I look to others", so I would choose either "the real thing" or nothing, I wouldn't spring for a copy watch (if wanting to look a certain way in front of others is a priority/concern).

Some people might prioritize "I (just) want the look (without desire for the prestigious brand or refinements) (and I prioritize satisfying desire for the look above how I look to others)", so spring for a copy watch? That makes sense to me, even though that is not my priority/preference for myself.


----------



## orian (Feb 10, 2010)

I'm sorry I started this thread. It's going round and round in circles.


----------



## Mr.Jones82 (Jul 15, 2018)

Ah, good old Bagel Sport. Doubles as a watch and a safe word


----------



## ox71 (Aug 15, 2011)

orian said:


> I'm sorry I started this thread. It's going round and round in circles.


with no winner ever, because there is no authority in any of the comments, just opinion, and like those nether region orifices, everyone has one.

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk


----------



## James A (Jan 5, 2014)

Rolex nailed a legendary design style for dive watches early on - so much so that any diver with a black dial and bezel tends to look derivative.

Here Citizen add Mercedes hands resulting in a watch that does venture into the plagiaristic zone.









That's not to say this diver can't create its own legendary status.






Regards,


----------



## Toonces (Jan 14, 2017)

^ That is a seriously cool story.


----------



## docdoowop (Nov 25, 2006)

Tohono Rat said:


> Is anyone embarrassed to be wearing a Rolex Submariner?


sorry to revive this but i gotta say most Submariners are worn (in general) by two groups of dudes:

1-complete tools like car salesmen (not all car salesmen)
2-and dudes that know very little about horology. I have met a ton of Submariner owners and many of them know hardly anything about even their own watch, for pete's sake. I may not own a Sub but i can open a watch, change the date wheel, repair a keyless, change a mainspring and regulate my own watches...now, i respect those kinds of WIS....

in conclusion:
i have respect for the heritage and great history of Rolex
i have less respect for a brand that seems popular with posers, tools and snobs (look at their fugly diamond encrusted gold Day Dates,uuuggh)
i have even less respect for people who are Rolex owners and demean other people who own micro brands, Tag Heuer and other non Rolex watches.
i have NO respect for Rolex owners who think they have any valid rationale that they have a better watch than most others because they wear a pathetic, oh so common Submariner.


----------



## LowIQ (Apr 3, 2019)

I will never wear a Rolex, I will never drive a BMW.......just to name 2, there are other luxury brands I would not wear nor drive...

I would be embarrassed .......but I do not mind if others do...it has no meaning for me, what others do in that respect...

The wife agrees, well, she got a JLC she rarely wears and some Manolo Blahniks....

Its not a case of sour grapes....it's more to do with our lifestyle....

I happily go to Michelin Star Restaurants a few times a year, I happily go camping with our roof tent on the car and cook myself....

In case of divers, got since ages a quartz Tag Heuer, and, new, a bronze Steinhart....the wife wears a Ocean 1 GMT 39mm from Steinhart most of the time...

























Nice is, when travelling, one does not have to care about those watches, broken, stolen, lost, scratched....it's just a watch....the Tag did that now for me more than 20 years, with all kind of outdoor sports and on all continents (apart from Antarctica), her Tag got stolen, hence her Steinhart....


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

docdoowop said:


> sorry to revive this but i gotta say most Submariners are worn (in general) by two groups of dudes:
> 
> 1-complete tools like car salesmen (not all car salesmen)
> 2-and dudes that know very little about horology. I have met a ton of Submariner owners and many of them know hardly anything about even their own watch, for pete's sake. I may not own a Sub but i can open a watch, change the date wheel, repair a keyless, change a mainspring and regulate my own watches...now, i respect those kinds of WIS....
> ...


Cool story, bro.


----------



## LowIQ (Apr 3, 2019)

James A said:


> View attachment 14218613


That watch tells a story I like...I take it it's yours...the above..not the one in the youtube link...


----------



## docdoowop (Nov 25, 2006)

Tohono Rat said:


> Is anyone embarrassed to be wearing a Rolex Submariner?


sorry to revive this but i gotta say most Submariners are worn (in general) by two groups of dudes:

1-complete tools like car salesmen (not all car salesmen)
2-and dudes that know very little about horology. I have met a ton of Submariner owners and many of them know hardly anything about even their own watch, for pete's sake. I may not own a Sub but i can open a watch, change the date wheel, repair a keyless, change a mainspring and regulate my own watches...now, i respect those kinds of WIS....

in conclusion:
i have respect for the heritage and great history of Rolex
i have less respect for a brand that seems popular with posers, tools and snobs (look at their fugly diamond encrusted gold Day Dates,uuuggh)
i have even less respect for people who are Rolex owners and demean other people who own micro brands, Tag Heuer and other non Rolex watches.
i have NO respect for Rolex owners who think they have any valid rationale that they have a better watch than most others because they wear a pathetic, oh so common Submariner.


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

LowIQ said:


> I will never wear a Rolex, I will never drive a BMW.......just to name 2, there are other luxury brands I would not wear nor drive...
> 
> I would be embarrassed .......but I do not mind if others do...it has no meaning for me, what others do in that respect...
> 
> ...


And any Rolex isn't "just a watch"?


----------



## Rizzole (Jul 11, 2019)

sticky said:


> No. I wear my Steinharts and Squales because I want to wear them and not because they look like a Sub. If I wanted a Sub that badly I'd nip out and buy/order one.


But they do look like a sub and you clearly know that, seems very contradictory to me...


----------



## Rizzole (Jul 11, 2019)

orian said:


> But they look exactly like Subs anyway, so what is their intrinsic value? You might as well buy a real Sub.


+1


----------



## Rizzole (Jul 11, 2019)

OnlyOneMore said:


> Buy what you can afford and wear what you enjoy.
> 
> Anyone who actually cares enough about your watch to judge you is probably not someone you need to care about anyway.


+1

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

Too much for me to read so excuse me if this hasn't already been raised but i wouldn't be too embarrassed to wear a Sub homage given I see more people wearing fake ones than real ones - at least the homage isn't claiming to be a rolex


----------



## Gunnar_917 (Feb 24, 2015)

vkalia said:


> Cool story, bro.


Jaded by the 'waitlist'???

Bro of OoO


----------



## LowIQ (Apr 3, 2019)

mui.richard said:


> And any Rolex isn't "just a watch"?


It is indeed.....some people might be scared wearing it....taking it with them travelling....getting a scratch on it.....etc etc...

But, yes you are right....it's just a watch.....but it's also a statement....and the statement part being more important....?

They, the company, wanted us now to take a BMW, as a company car, I fought claw and tooth to stay with a Peugeot, at a third of the price..........but yes, it's just a car...


----------



## jbglock (Jun 16, 2019)

camb66 said:


> Too much for me to read so excuse me if this hasn't already been raised but i wouldn't be too embarrassed to wear a Sub homage given I see more people wearing fake ones than real ones - at least the homage isn't claiming to be a rolex


This sums up how I feel about it. I have no problems with sub homages but wouldn't take a fake if it was given to me.


----------



## FarmKid (Jul 12, 2018)

You can see some of my other watches in my signature below, but this is the one I grabbed out of the ol' watch box this morning. Not to mention, this watch is potentially more robust than 95% of the other so called fashion watches people are wearing in my building.


----------



## Kuldeep_singh (Dec 14, 2018)

I respect the heritage and definitely wanna have Rolex Submariner and I own few Steinhart Oceans and I enjoy wearing them not because they are the homage but what they offer in terms of value for money.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Gunnar_917 said:


> Jaded by the 'waitlist'???


Hey, I got my BLRO at retail. I figure any waitlist I am on now is merely balancing of the karmic scales 

That said, I do have a couple of irons in the fire re getting a SS Daytona - nothing imminent, however and I am not too fussed one way or the other: if I get it, great, if not, I'll get something else.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

LowIQ said:


> But, yes you are right....it's just a watch.....but it's also a statement....and the statement part being more important....?


It is about as much of a statement as a 3-series BMW is a statement: not much of one.

Now, if someone is wearing a Lange Zeitwerk minute repeater or a Patek perpetual chrono, THAT is a statement. A mid-range watch that is well within the reach of most middle class people if they are willing to put in the effort is hardly a statement watch.


----------



## tropis (Nov 8, 2008)

Half the dive watches look like the submariner, so it has to look really similar to notice. A classic look but a tired look to me.


----------



## LowIQ (Apr 3, 2019)

vkalia said:


> It is about as much of a statement as a 3-series BMW is a statement: not much of one.
> 
> Now, if someone is wearing a Lange Zeitwerk minute repeater or a Patek perpetual chrono, THAT is a statement. A mid-range watch that is well within the reach of most middle class people if they are willing to put in the effort is hardly a statement watch.


I kind of agree, depends on ones social environment.....or social context in a particular situation........one Bugatti might not be enough....


----------



## Howbouthemcwbys (Apr 11, 2019)

I like my steinhart black ceramic because it offers excellent value. I get thick sapphire, ceramic bezel, decent bracelet and the eta 2824 Elabore movement. It was 400$. I’m not either of those 2 options the op wants to box me up in. This has been rehashed and rehashed man. If u really wanna get ur fix at bashing watches that look like a Rolex, simply use the search bar for the hundreds of old threads that say the same stuff throughout.


----------



## Howbouthemcwbys (Apr 11, 2019)

Plz ignore my comment. I completely misread the topic the op started. My apologies op. My answer would be no. I wouldn’t be embarrassed to wear a Rolex sub. I think their beautiful. Idk they’d be my first choice for a Rolex, but their a great watch. I hope to save up for a Rolex one day.


----------



## VicLeChic (Jul 24, 2013)

I'm not embarrassed at all! I'm really enjoying my Kentex Marineman at the beach.

I own a Yacht-Master and a SD43 and I happen to dislike the supercase of the six digits Sub .


----------



## Nippon Rookie (Mar 11, 2016)

VicLeChic: I own a similar Marineman with green MOP dial. Sapphire crystal, ceramic bezel, cyclops date, and an interesting case back. Kentex offers a lot for the money.


----------



## VicLeChic (Jul 24, 2013)

Nippon Rookie said:


> VicLeChic: I own a similar Marineman with green MOP dial. Sapphire crystal, ceramic bezel, cyclops date, and an interesting case back. Kentex offers a lot for the money.


Agreed, I also have the green MOP dial ref s706M-12, on top of the black MOP dial ref s706M-08 . I find the dials amazing.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

docdoowop said:


> i have even less respect for people who are Rolex owners and demean other people who own micro brands, Tag Heuer and other non Rolex watches.
> i have NO respect for Rolex owners who think they have any valid rationale that they have a better watch than most others because they wear a pathetic, oh so common Submariner.


I'm not sure why the last case gets less respect from you than the one above it. You don't think that an in-house movement with a free sprung balance, Breguet overcoil, and an extremely robust quickset instantaneous date change mechanism, cased in a watch with industry leading manufacturing tolerances deserves some respect as a watch? I will say that your characterization of the Submariner says more about you than Rolex owners.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

My Story:

When I first got into collecting watches, I bought a Steinhart Ocean One 39 because I wanted a cheap watch with an ETA movment in it. The fact it looked like a Submariner didn't attract me - I don't aspire to own a real Submariner in the future (I would prefer an Explorer I instead). After a month of Steinhart ownership, it did bother me that it was a Submariner imitation. I sold it.
My logic was there are so many watches out there that are original so you're doing yourself a disservice buying a watch that is clearly basing most of its merit on the fact it looks like something else.

My most recent purchase though, was a Steinhart OVM 39, which is a copy of the Rolex MilSub. The difference here is that I bought the watch to be a beater, a real MilSub is unobtainable for almost all of us and the MilSub design is different enough from most Submariners that it doesn't look like a blatant copy (i.e. no Mercedes hands or cyclops date window).
Mainly though, the fact it's a beater watch makes wearing the Submariner copy watch OK for me. It was either that or a Vostok and I prefer the ETA 2824 movement.


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

LowIQ said:


> It is indeed.....some people might be scared wearing it....taking it with them travelling....getting a scratch on it.....etc etc...
> 
> But, yes you are right....it's just a watch.....but it's also a statement....and the statement part being more important....?
> 
> They, the company, wanted us now to take a BMW, as a company car, I fought claw and tooth to stay with a Peugeot, at a third of the price..........but yes, it's just a car...


If you're referring to the statement that it's got a world class workhorse movement with one of the tightest accuracy in the industry guaranteed, encased in a most robust case, strapped on with a bracelet that has such tight tolerance that puts Grand Seiko to shame and the comfort of on-the-fly adjustment for comfort, yes that IS a statement I'm making.









brother of OoO


----------



## harryst (Nov 5, 2012)

I will play devil's advocate (mostly due to insomnia)



mleok said:


> docdoowop said:
> 
> 
> > have even less respect for people who are Rolex owners and demean other people who own micro brands, Tag Heuer and other non Rolex watches.
> ...


Because he does not like the submariners' - real/homage/whatever - owners.

I do not either. The watches are plain UGLY - among the worst-looking watches anywhere (Rolexes, included). Every time I see somebody wearing one, I count it against him...



> You don't think that an in-house movement with a free sprung .... respect as a watch?


He was talking about the owners - not the tech in the watches. 95-99% of Submariner owners have never heard these terms. What they know, and what they respect, is what they see: the name on the dial.



> will say that your characterization of the Submariner says more about you than Rolex owners.


Every characterization says something about the owner. And the item characterized. The "more" part must involve a rather elaborate computation.


----------



## LowIQ (Apr 3, 2019)

mui.richard said:


> If you're referring to the statement that it's got a world class workhorse movement with one of the tightest accuracy in the industry guaranteed, encased in a most robust case, strapped on with a bracelet that has such tight tolerance that puts Grand Seiko to shame and the comfort of on-the-fly adjustment for comfort, yes that IS a statement I'm making.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice watch..!!


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

harryst said:


> I will play devil's advocate (mostly due to insomnia)
> 
> Because he does not like the submariners' - real/homage/whatever - owners.
> 
> ...


I don't know. Judging a person without actually getting to know them sounds a little... prejudicial? Maybe?

Also, where did you get the 95-99% number from? That's a very precise range, so I imagine you must have some objective method of measuring these figures.


----------



## harryst (Nov 5, 2012)

TheWalrus said:


> I don't know. Judging a person without actually getting to know them sounds a little... prejudicial? Maybe?


First impressions matter. This is a first judgment - I did not say it is the final.

Incidentally, when I see somebody wearing a Nomos, I form an opinion, too. You do not think I should be doing that, do you?



> Also, where did you get the 95-99% number from? That's a very precise range, so I imagine you must have some objective method of measuring these figures.


Gut feeling. However, please don't be pedantic... (and I am going against myself in saying this because I generally like discussions about manners + scolding @ elementary school level)


----------



## Hamstur (Nov 6, 2017)

This forum cracks me up. I feel like the only one who couldn't tell if someone sitting across the table from me is wearing a Sub, Squale or Invicta ... because staring at people's wrists is odd and unnatural behavior.

I'm a bit more judgmental about obvious things, like obese parents ordering obese kids 2 large burgers, pet owners who prioritize boozing and are never home, people who bring phones into the gym.

Watches = mechanical art = jewelry = vanity decor. How does matter if someone wears jewelry they don't know brand history of. My wife wears Versace eyeglasses and didn't care to watch American Crime Story season 2. Does that make her a poseur?


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

This watch is a great example of a design that's derivative and arguably unoriginal but not an out-and-out homage. It just looks like a generic diver without trying to purposely look like a Rolex Sub. Regardless, I do really like the color.



VicLeChic said:


> Agreed, I also have the green MOP dial ref s706M-12, on top of the black MOP dial ref s706M-08 . I find the dials amazing.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

harryst said:


> I will play devil's advocate (mostly due to insomnia)
> 
> Because he does not like the submariners' - real/homage/whatever - owners.
> 
> ...


I think very poorly of people who feel entitled to judge a person on the basis of their material possessions. To me, that is the height of superficiality and a mark of a mediocre mind.

He said he had absolutely no respect for a Rolex Submariner owner who feels there is any justification for thinking that it is better watch than most of the watches out there. I am a Rolex Submariner owner who does think exactly that, and that there are excellent reasons that go beyond superficial considerations like brand cachet. The funny thing is that for all the protestations, it's precisely Rolex haters who seem obsessed with brands.

He also refers to a Submariner as a pathetic and oh so common watch, so he's not simply denigrating the owners.


----------



## harryst (Nov 5, 2012)

mleok said:


> I think very poorly of people who feel entitled to judge a person on the basis of their material possessions. To me, that is the height of superficiality and a mark of a mediocre mind.


(This gets played a lot around here, and nobody objects. It is about time...).

I feel entitled to judge a gold leash around a dog's neck. Or a Ferrari with dollar signs on the rims/wheels. Feel free to consider me a superficial/mediocre mind - while reserving judgement as to the owner of said dog/Ferrari.



> It's precisely Rolex haters who seem obsessed with brands.


Which brands are they obsessed with? Patek? (also: Rolex owners are not obsessed with brands? Are we being serious now?)



> He also refers to a Submariner as a pathetic and oh so common watch, so he's not simply denigrating the owners.


It is pathetic because it looks the part (well, at least I think, so); this being subjective, however, it can be stated but not disputed.

The "common" part applies to the owners, I suppose - it being common because people wear it a lot.


----------



## One-Seventy (Mar 25, 2019)

harryst said:


> (This gets played a lot around here, and nobody objects. It is about time...).
> 
> I feel entitled to judge a gold leash around a dog's neck. Or a Ferrari with dollar signs on the rims/wheels. Feel free to consider me a superficial/mediocre mind - while reserving judgement as to the owner of said dog/Ferrari.


People judge the absolute _hell_ out of others all the time, they just don't say it. With the internet, they can say it, safe behind a keyboard. I mean judge people all the time; the loud guy with an Omega, the old guy with a vintage gold DJ, the screeching girls all up in the clerb; the guy with an accent from _there_. Of course it influences me! I am - The Judg-OR, but then, everybody is. We judge the moment we get out of bed, to the moment we fall asleep. What we use to determine the verdict and pass sentence changes - watches, shoes, accents, collar stiffeners, behaviours - but we judge and we like it that way.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

harryst said:


> (This gets played a lot around here, and nobody objects. It is about time...).
> 
> I feel entitled to judge a gold leash around a dog's neck. Or a Ferrari with dollar signs on the rims/wheels. Feel free to consider me a superficial/mediocre mind - while reserving judgement as to the owner of said dog/Ferrari.
> 
> ...


Are you seriously comparing a Rolex Submariner to a gold leash on a dog or dollar signs on a Ferrari? I do find it amusing why the Rolex brand bothers people like you so much, it's just a watch.

Saying something is pathetic is a value judgement, and is most certainly open to criticism, even if it is expressed as an opinion. The phrase you're searching for is "de gustibus non est disputandum," but that would only cover a statement like "Submariners are ugly," and not any value judgements about the owners of said watches.

Also, there's again a big difference between saying that a watch is common, which can refer to how often one sees them, to saying that an owner of such a watch is common, which is a much more ugly statement.


----------



## Homo Sapien X (Sep 15, 2018)

If you wear a sub homage, people will ask you “is that a Rolex?”, if you wear a sub , “is that a real one?”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

harryst said:


> I feel entitled to judge a gold leash around a dog's neck. Or a Ferrari with dollar signs on the rims/wheels. Feel free to consider me a superficial/mediocre mind - while reserving judgement as to the owner of said dog/Ferrari.


That level of envy is pretty sad, to be honest, but atleast you are honest enough to admit it.

If I see a dog with a gold leash, my first thought is "the guy really likes his dog" and that makes me happy.

Similarly, when I see a guy with a mechanical watch - be it an uber-expensive one or an inexpensive one- my first thought is "cool, another watch enthusiast" (regardless of whether I like the watch or not).

Obviously your mind works differently.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## LowIQ (Apr 3, 2019)

#736

I doubt it......Rolexes stay cushioned...no scratches on them...

Homages get beaten...sometimes by Rolex owners...

But I might be wrong....

Would love to see beaten up Rolexes...pics please...

As to dog collars, I worked once with a famous Opera singer, her Chiahua had a diamond collar.....so people said...they were in fact Swarowsky crystals...mean spirited dog he was...mostly...she loved him to bits...


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

LowIQ said:


> I doubt it......Rolexes stay cushioned...no scratches on them...
> 
> Homages get beaten...sometimes by Rolex owners...
> 
> ...


Tell you what - why don't you show us ANY $8000 watch that you've beaten up.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## LowIQ (Apr 3, 2019)

None....nothing to show...you win...

Tried to ruin this one over 25 years....unsuccessfully...









tool watch...every scratch a mark of honour for the Tag...


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

harryst said:


> First impressions matter. This is a first judgment - I did not say it is the final.
> 
> Incidentally, when I see somebody wearing a Nomos, I form an opinion, too. You do not think I should be doing that, do you?
> 
> Gut feeling. However, please don't be pedantic... (and I am going against myself in saying this because I generally like discussions about manners + scolding @ elementary school level)


To the first point - it depends on the judgment. You see someone with a Nomos and you think they're a watch enthusiast. Seems fair, and not particularly harmful. It would only change the way you treat someone in, presumably, a positive way. But assuming a long list of negative attributes about a person because of the watch they wear is a different thing entirely.

To the second point - making up an arbitrary range of numbers to reinforce your argument is an invitation for a pedantic response.


----------



## chronomaestro (Mar 23, 2006)

I would say yes. I bought an Invicta Diver a while ago (when it first came out and created all the news) and I used to love wearing it. I went on vacation that year on a tropical island and loved to wear the watch to the beach. One day I saw a guy wearing an Invicta diver as well. I walked up closer with the intention to strike a conversation when I saw that he was actually wearing a Rolex Submariner. Then I came to the realization that I was wearing a "wannabe", "homage", "copy", "fake", etc. whatever one wants to call it. Basically it was not the real thing. All of a sudden, the watch felt cheap (and indeed it was cheap - $99 at the time) and I felt ashamed for wearing it.

So, here is my opinion about "homage" (or whatever you prefer to call it). By the end of the day, what you like, regardless of the brand name, original or homage, is the design/look of the watch. All credits therefore should go the the original designer, which is the original brand. Period. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with wearing a "look-a-like" if you feel fine wearing it. But I guarantee you that if money is not the object, and that the cost of the homage is almost the same as the original watch, no one will choose to purchase the homage but will purchase the real thing.


----------



## mconlonx (Sep 21, 2018)

I'd be no more embarrassed to wear a Sub homage than to wear and actual Sub. 

Just not for me. Not a fan of the mercedes hand; not a fan of the cyclops. Not a fan of the Explorer, either -- no date, mercedes hand. 

Give me a DJ with an OP crystal and I'd prob be pretty happy with it. Aside from those judging a person based on what kind of watch they wear...


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

LowIQ said:


> None....nothing to show...you win...
> 
> Tried to ruin this one over 25 years....unsuccessfully...
> 
> ...


That's not a $8000 watch.

Bit of a double standard, isnt it, challenging others to show that they have the stones to beat up a $8000 watch, when you haven't done the same yourself?

Or are you actually surprised by the concept that people treat their more expensive possessions with more care than they do their cheaper ones?

I have taken my Explorer 2 on glacier hikes and on snow leopard photography trips to 6000m. And yet I also avoid situations where there is a high risk of having it beaten up or scratched. I would also exercise a similar precaution for my less expensive watches. You consider "scratches" to be marks of honor? I consider them to be ugly dings - scratching a watch isnt much of an achievement, IMO, let alone a badge of honor. And words cannot describe how irrelevant I consider the approval of strangers as far as how I take care of my watches is concerned.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## harryst (Nov 5, 2012)

...while this thread is about discussing Submariner/homage owners, essentially in the abstract, fellow posters feel obligated to critique my own life stance. In a sense they are playing the man, not the ball (which says something about them. I do not know if I should feel flattered).
___________________



TheWalrus said:


> To the first point - it depends on the judgment. You see someone with a Nomos and you think they're a watch enthusiast. Seems fair, and not particularly harmful. It would only change the way you treat someone in, presumably, a positive way. But assuming a long list of negative attributes about a person because of the watch they wear is a different thing entirely.


I am temperamentally suited to making negative judgements/seeing-faults-everywhere (a side effect being that it gives extra weight to my - rare - positive ones).



TheWalrus said:


> To the second point - making up an arbitrary range of numbers to reinforce your argument is an invitation for a pedantic response.


...arguably a pedantic response is never appropriate (not even for teenagers), invitation/provocation notwithsanding. But I am not here to preach manners.



mleok said:


> Are you seriously comparing a Rolex Submariner to a gold leash on a dog or dollar signs on a Ferrari?


No (the question was about judging people via their material possessions - not via their Sub alone).



mleok said:


> I do find it amusing why the Rolex brand bothers people like you


Bothers? Monumental extrapolation. I was seriously considering a Rolex OP last week (decided against as I do not like the way it looks on a strap - thank god for the related thread that popped up).

___________________

Edit: In theory the comments can be construed as criticizing, using _harryst_ as an odious example, the people who criticize the Sub owners. For some reason I doubt this was the motivation. But who cares...

Enough about me - better discuss Sub homage owners: I think more highly of those than the owners of the original; at least they did not spend a hefty sum on an eyesore.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

harryst said:


> But I am not here to preach manners.


That's good, people who live in glass houses and all that...


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

harryst said:


> I am temperamentally suited to making negative judgements/seeing-faults-everywhere (a side effect being that it gives extra weight to my - rare - positive ones).
> 
> ...arguably a pedantic response is never appropriate (not even for teenagers), invitation/provocation notwithsanding. But I am not here to preach manners.


That's not how it work. In my experience the more critical and antagonistic you are, the less likely people are to take your criticisms seriously. With, as a general rule, the "I'm a jerk most of the time - so you must really love me when I'm not!" approach to life generally failing to gain traction. Or should I say "fails to gain traction 73.5% - 92.3% of the time"?


----------



## Hamstur (Nov 6, 2017)

vkalia said:


> That's not a $8000 watch.
> 
> Bit of a double standard, isnt it, challenging others to show that they have the stones to beat up a $8000 watch, when you haven't done the same yourself?
> 
> Or are you actually surprised by the concept that people treat their more expensive possessions with more care than they do their cheaper ones?


You know the forum fairytale lore is Rolex owners have more money than sense. Obviously, it's 100% true because it requires utter lack of common sense to be successful, have great tastes, drive luxury cars, own a nice house in a great neighborhood with no mortgage...


----------



## harryst (Nov 5, 2012)

Hamstur said:


> You know the forum fairytale lore is Rolex owners have more money than sense. Obviously, it's 100% true because it requires utter lack of common sense to be successful, have great tastes, drive luxury cars, own a nice house in a great neighborhood with no mortgage...


"successful", "great taste", "luxury car", "nice house", "great neighborhood" - it is raining adjectives here (did you go to business school, perchance?)

No matter - they are nice.

"pretty wife" tramples all of them (is also much more rare; eg much harder to find than a Sub, me thinks)


----------



## Bass (Nov 17, 2012)

Far be it from me to judge. If someone wants to rock a Steinhart because they can't afford to pay 10-15x the price for a real Sub then that's their prerogative.


----------



## Hamstur (Nov 6, 2017)

harryst said:


> "successful", "great taste", "luxury car", "nice house", "great neighborhood" - it is raining adjectives here (did you go to business school, perchance?)
> 
> No matter - they are nice.
> 
> "pretty wife" tramples all of them (is also much more rare; eg much harder to find than a Sub, me thinks)


It's all part of forum lore. Just like how guys into affordable homages are thinking men, money wise, modest, honest, hard working, genuine, non-judgmental (except against the more affluent but that's ok), more knowledgeable, etc. Obviously, we know all these things are 100% true too -- because we read it on the internet!

Oh, and don't forget -- the only actual "losers" are people who wear watches that know nothing about watches. How dare they! Which by the way, does that mean anybody who drives a Toyota or Lexus but never knew Toyota was originally a textile loom company is a loser who doesn't deserve to own their car?


----------



## Time4Playnow (Jun 27, 2011)

I'm not interested in all the stuff this thread has devolved into... So to answer the original thread question - I don't wear a Submariner homage. BUT, when I first got into watches, I had some Invicta Pro Divers. I did not even KNOW at the time that those were Submariner homages. Then again, I was not aware of the Submariner either, back then, having been a non-watch person most of my life.

That was years ago. Today, the only reason I might wear a Sub homage is if I just like the watch in question - not because it's a Sub homage. The Steinhart Ocean 1, for example. I would never get a watch just because it was a Submariner homage. If/when I do get a Steinhart Ocean 1, I would not be embarrassed to wear it in the least.

I would actually be embarrassed to wear a FAKE Rolex. Homages, not so much. ;-)


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

harryst said:


> "pretty wife" tramples all of them (is also much more rare; eg much harder to find than a Sub, me thinks)


My pretty wife bought me my Sub for a career milestone.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

harryst said:


> "successful", "great taste", "luxury car", "nice house", "great neighborhood" - it is raining adjectives here (did you go to business school, perchance?)
> 
> No matter - they are nice.
> 
> "pretty wife" tramples all of them (is also much more rare; eg much harder to find than a Sub, me thinks)


Not sure that being married to a 'pretty woman' is something that really goes with the rest of that list.

I mean, we all agree that being in a relationship with someone is not even remotely same thing as buying a product or achieving some personal success, right?


----------



## rob_honer (Jun 19, 2007)

Would not matter to me, I do not hang around people that are into watches so wearing a homage would not bother me at all. I get more compliments on my Orient Star Retrograde then I do on my Rolex day date and my JLC Master Control Hometime.


----------



## coffeebreak (Jun 22, 2013)

Time4Playnow said:


> I did not even KNOW at the time that those were Submariner homages. Then again, I was not aware of the Submariner either, back then, having been a non-watch person most of my life.


I had not thought about it till now, but when I bought my first sub homage (a Bulova) I didn't know it was an homage. I thought dive watches just looked that way. Since then I've acquired other sub homage watches, and happy with them. 
Sometimes I wear the sub homage, sometimes I wear the sub. Nobody really notices either way. I traded away this rootbeer sub homage, and I still miss it









But I still have my 20 year old Bulova sub, and I also have a milsub homage now. Here's a family pic with my 16610 and my tudor jumbo


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

As I wrote on another thread:

Why buy a fake/fraudulent copy?

By their very nature Dive style watches are going to look similar, but there is a limit. 

I could buy a fibreglass bodied Porsche 993 fake with VW beetle engine and say I just love the smell of fibreglass resin and VW beetle engines, but that does NOT mean I have to buy something that looks like a 993. I could buy a beach buggy and there is no confusion.

Some of these watches are CLEARLY intended to fool people in bars and boardrooms that it is something that it isnt. 

There are a lot of good microbrands and alternatives that do not look like a Rolex out there. There are plenty to chose from. 

Just like my fake 993 example. It doesnt have to look the same, unless you are trying to fool people. 

Buy an ETA or Seagull movement divers by all means, lots to chose from. But buying a direct replica intended to fool people at ten paces - that gets no credibility in my eyes. 

What next, a Chinese made Range Rover replica? “Oh its not that its half the price, I just prefer these fake leather seats to the real thing”.


----------



## ronsetoe (Jul 19, 2007)

**** Sapien X said:


> Many of us don't want to or can't buy a sub or any popular expensive watches , the homage watches give us an experience at a much lower price with absolutely good value. I see no reason why is there embarrassment to own one. There are more important things to do with money than to purchase luxury watches. Like the Patek Nautilus, it is foolish to pay well above retail....*when you can just own a $50 steel bagel sports Nautilus which quality is almost 80% of the Patek.
> *
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


that is possibly the dumbest statement I have read on this forum...ever. JMHO


----------



## khronolektur (Mar 14, 2018)

It would be a bit strange indeed if watch enthusiasts are made to believe that there are certain watches that they must not wear or else they would become an embarrassment.

We could list down many reasons why we wear what we wear but in the end they’re just watches. 

It’s more exciting to just wear what we like, whether it’s the original or the “homage”.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

I could understand why some buy a copy watch.

My partner is interested in a watch with some aesthetic attributes, but the watch is not worth the asking price to her. So I try to find a watch with same or similar look, but much lower price tag.

If I were to want a watch simply for the look, but don't want to pay so much, a copy watch makes sense.

People don't understand this when people want the brand? LOL Can't get the brand with a copy watch. e.g. I wanted the brand, so buying a copy watch would not make sense to me.


----------



## 41Mets (Dec 25, 2014)

Funny, I was actually a little embarrassed when I was wearing the real Rolex Submariner. I don't travel in circles where many people have luxury watches. So for the two weeks that I had a Submariner, I was self-conscious almost the whole time.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## LowIQ (Apr 3, 2019)

coffeebreak said:


> I had not thought about it till now, but when I bought my first sub homage (a Bulova) I didn't know it was an homage. I thought dive watches just looked that way. ]


I think thats pretty much how it is, most dive watches just look that way........similar to T-shirts.......or Jeans....or...

Oh, look, a 1943 Levis homage over there....

Another homage, this time from 1958..

https://pikebrothers-shop.com/ItemV...lView=&number=P0101-17-0005&request_locale=en

?

Homage?.... Ridiculous....!


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

TheWalrus said:


> Not sure that being married to a 'pretty woman' is something that really goes with the rest of that list.
> 
> I mean, we all agree that being in a relationship with someone is not even remotely same thing as buying a product or achieving some personal success, right?


Well, I think we can all agree that we value relationships to varying degrees personal to each of us.


----------



## Elfer996 (Oct 1, 2015)

IG: valhallalegend


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

41Mets said:


> Funny, I was actually a little embarrassed when I was wearing the real Rolex Submariner. I don't travel in circles where many people have luxury watches. So for the two weeks that I had a Submariner, I was self-conscious almost the whole time.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


I also generally don't talk about watches when I'm around people who aren't into or don't have luxury goods. I don't want to make them feel bad or anything like that--maybe they will, maybe they won't--so I just avoid it. I won't not wear the watch I want, but I won't draw attention to it or talk about how a Submariner is a watch that apparently "anyone can afford" if they just save up for a bit (I have friends who work retail; $8,000 at $15 an hour is over 500 hours, which is more than a quarter of the year assuming a 40 hour work week...without paying for taxes, rent, water, or food, so let's be honest with each other about what these things cost) or the history or the robustness or whatever or why it's worth it.


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

LowIQ said:


> #736
> 
> I doubt it......Rolexes stay cushioned...no scratches on them...
> 
> ...


1665 Great White Sea Dweller, Queensland farmer

Very rare, cost you about $35,000 to buy.

He still cuts cane with it.


----------



## Katakuri17 (May 24, 2019)

That's a great way to describe it. People tend to throw around the "If you want a rolex just save up for it" quite frequently but it's so subjective to the individual.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Would really like to sit-in on their 'design review meetings', maybe not, I would be the only one there.


Elfer996 said:


> IG: valhallalegend


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Raza said:


> I also generally don't talk about watches when I'm around people who aren't into or don't have luxury goods. I don't want to make them feel bad or anything like that--maybe they will, maybe they won't--so I just avoid it. I won't not wear the watch I want, but I won't draw attention to it or talk about how a Submariner is a watch that apparently "anyone can afford" if they just save up for a bit (I have friends who work retail; $8,000 at $15 an hour is over 500 hours, which is more than a quarter of the year assuming a 40 hour work week...without paying for taxes, rent, water, or food, so let's be honest with each other about what these things cost) or the history or the robustness or whatever or why it's worth it.


I have bought 3 new Rolex watches, roughly one every 20 years. 1980, 1999, and 2016. Based upon a cost per day worn, it is less than a cheap coffee.

I still have two of them, I sold the 1980 GMT Master at a massive profit, after 24 years of ownership. Tell me when a coffee ever paid a return.

Like most things, people prioritise spending. I know people who think I am an evil capitalist because I wear a Rolex, but they spend a fortune on drugs, booze, tattooes and music. They could afford my Rolex in a year if they reprioritised spending.

BUT:
BUT, and its a BIG BUT, I prioritise a lot of other things way above owning a Rolex, or even a homage, fake, clone or whatever.

Health. Family. Well being. Education. Life Experience.

Thats all that matters. Not fooling some guy in the bar that you have an expensive Swiss watch.

Get fit, really fit, it pays off later in life when things go wrong or you get old. 
Look after your family. Give them the best you can. 
Look after yourself spiritually and mentally. 
Get educated, formally and informally. Do free courses, read good books, watch videos, listen to podcasts, attend lectures. 
Get some life experiences. Do the Seven Summits. Dive on the Coolidge, cross a desert on foot, shake a dictators hand, and shake a Nobel prize winners hand.

Do all of the above, whilst wearing a cheap secondhand Timex off ebay.

If you have cash left over, buy a Rolex.


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

Not the least bit embarrassed!









brother of OoO


----------



## T1meout (Sep 27, 2013)

Well, they should.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

I think the "embarrassed" part is an intrinsic acknowledgement that a Rolex watch communicates something to others? Otherwise, there's nothing to be embarrassed about, if a watch is solely worn for one's own enjoyment. But with a Rolex or Rolex homage/copy, that's difficult, because the look/design/marketing has been done to explicitly/implicitly be used to communicate with others about the owner...

I'm self-conscious in general, so I wear a generic watch in front of others. No Rolex, no Rolex homage/copy.


----------



## PetrosD (Jun 18, 2017)

I have a Squale 1545 30 Atmos homage, and I do pick and choose when I wear it based on who I will be associating with. I don't wear it on business trips to NYC, for example, because I associate with people that have Rolexes.

I also don't wear it to pretend to others that I have a Sub. I bought it because I couldn't afford a Sub at the time and wanted to see if I'd like the experience before making such an investment. Since then I've come to really like the slightly larger size of the 42mm Squale and really enjoy wearing it, as Squale makes a great watch. I'm generally proud to wear it as a Squale, but do refrain from wearing it in clearly Rolex environments.

I could now buy a Sub but know I will likely never be able to get one from an AD, and I don't want to pay the premiums just to own one. Maybe someday, but until then I'm happy with my Squale and just choose to wear one of my other dozens of watches around Rolex owners.


----------



## Elfer996 (Oct 1, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> Would really like to sit-in on their 'design review meetings', maybe not, I would be the only one there.


No. Your mom would be there too.

IG: valhallalegend


----------



## American Jedi (May 27, 2017)

I don't own a look-alike, but if I did it would probably feel like one would if he were to pull up next to a real Ferrari in a kit car (dirty). I prefer the real thing overpriced or not.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Today I saw an older lady on the subway that looked like she was wearing a pretty small fluted bezel Datejust. After a better look, think I saw day and date at 3 o'clock, which looked like a Seiko thing rather than a Rolex thing? She didn't seem embarrassed about wearing the watch. I don't know what she thinks, but I suspect it could be along the lines of, "I like the look for lower price... what's not to like... it's so small others won't notice... don't care what others think"???

Maybe like some others mentioned, in her shoes, knowing the watch looks like another famous watch, I couldn't do it. But at least today I saw one person that could, assuming she knows it looks like a Rolex. More power to her if that's the case, she could do what I couldn't, to wear something (in front of others) just for herself? Some things I don't care what others think. This thing apparently I care very much.


----------



## Julien Portside (Jun 3, 2019)

If you are a watch enthusiast like us yes you care about wearing a pale copy of a famous brand! 
But maybe your old woman in the subway didn’t care and didn’t know neither her watch looks like a Rolex...


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

CaptainCustard said:


> I have bought 3 new Rolex watches, roughly one every 20 years. 1980, 1999, and 2016. Based upon a cost per day worn, it is less than a cheap coffee.
> 
> I still have two of them, I sold the 1980 GMT Master at a massive profit, after 24 years of ownership. Tell me when a coffee ever paid a return.
> 
> ...


Can you nutshell this for me? Because your post was kind of all over the place. What are you trying to say? I'm not sure I got your point, but I know I'm not the kind of guy who would shake a dictator's hand.


----------



## Metallman (May 8, 2014)

I have a Sub and a SD43, along with 150 other watches. I wear all my watches the same way, when I want, wherever I want. I am no more self-conscience wearing a Rolex than I am wearing a Seiko, Oris, Invicta or micro-brand. It's rare that anybody even notices I'm wearing a watch and if they do, it's hey nice watch and I say thanks, end of conversation. I will not be shamed or guilted because I choose to wear a nice watch, or that I own nice watches. I see people spend all kinds of money on their own interests, boats, high performance cars, designer clothes, the latest I-phones, etc. My thing is watches, period. I collect the whole gammit of styles and price points including some more expensive pieces because I am now in a place financially that I can. 
I guess I just don't understand the whole "Rolex" complex, I mean there are LOTS of more expensive brands yet I don't see anybody posting how they are hesitant to wear (insert way expensive brand here) _______ because it might make someone feel bad. Even when I couldn't afford nicer things, I never looked at somebody with nice things and felt bad because I didn't, I was genuinely happy for the other person.


----------



## Motorcycle Man (Feb 7, 2018)

Having once owned the real deal my question is why buy a "homage" at all?!?!?!...


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Raza said:


> Can you nutshell this for me? Because your post was kind of all over the place. What are you trying to say? I'm not sure I got your point, but I know I'm not the kind of guy who would shake a dictator's hand.


I get what he's saying. And I agree, and I also disagree. In almost equal measure. Experiences are great. And the thing about them is that it can be harder and harder to make room in your life for them as you age (kids, reduced fitness, career goals, etc). So, in a lot of ways if you have Rolex money at a younger age - the best thing to do is spend it doing all the things you may not be able to do in later stages of life. Minus shaking a dictators hand... not sure why anyone would want to do that. But, in general, it's good advice - when you're young, its easy to think you'll always have opportunities in the future. Some opportunities expire before others - and traveling and hiking remote areas and generally living somewhat 'unsettled' is one of the first to go. Buying a Rolex is one of the last.

On the other hand though - a lot of people just don't value those experiences. We're all different, and I don't think a 'good life' is a one size fits all proposition. I know people who've been obsessed with stamp and coin collections their entire lives. Devoted to finding the rarest and most expensive examples for their collections. From a young age too! And I don't think they ever felt like it was a waste of their life. Others have never travelled abroad, but traveled around their home province extensively - claimed every accessible peak, and explored every trail. Who am I to say that the fact that they didn't spend a week and a half in Thailand means they haven't lived fully, or well? And I think the same thing applies to this hobby. If someone loves watches, and really wants a Rolex (for whatever reason) - they should fully engage. Go in eyes wide open - you're gaining something but giving up other things - but do it if you love it. And no one should judge someone for making that call.


----------



## Julien Portside (Jun 3, 2019)

It looks like if you don't have a Rolex at the end of your life you are a loser!
Actually I would prefer to have a nice IWC perpetual calendar digital date 

I am not a fan of Rolex style (especially the submariner because everybody has it) but I have to agree that the mechanism is bloody awesome, one of the best accurate brand I think. 
I love the last Yacht Master in rose gold from Baselworld 2019!! But I definitely cannot afford it 

????????? @??????.????????


----------



## playinwittime (Feb 22, 2015)

Agree with post #779 completely. I have Rolexes and homages, as well as many other pieces. Why buy homages if you have or can have the real deal? Sometimes you want to wear them without care. I’m looking forward to the homage (yes, with Mercedes hands that many have a problem with) to my Explorer I, just to wear it in lieu of the Explorer when I feel like it. 

Some people feel that scratch and dents to an expensive watch create character. Some of us feel that we’d rather not. I seriously scratched the clasp of my Sub 116610ln and my Omega Railmaster bezel. That bothers me, despite the time that has passed and even though I can have them both polished out when I get around to service, if I so choose. Also, traveling abroad can warrant a cheap homage, rather than invite robbery. I can achieve the ”half-feeling” of one of my Rolexes when I shouldn’t be wearing them without concern of damage or theft. 

I can also achieve pieces in an homage that I’m not going to buy in the real deal, e.g. Rolex Explorer II 1655 vs. Steinhart Ocean Vintage GMT (I’ll buy many, but not all and that’s not going to stop me from having the look. Why be a snob about it and deprive yourself when you can enjoy it, even if to a lesser degree?). So, wear whatever watch you want when you want to wear it.


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

American Jedi said:


> I don't own a look-alike, but if I did it would probably feel like one would if he were to pull up next to a real Ferrari in a kit car (dirty). I prefer the real thing overpriced or not.


I'd rather just drive a used Miata. No, I would love to drive a used Miata!


----------



## Jtragic (Jan 10, 2015)

Not me.


----------



## Hands90 (Jun 8, 2015)

Homage = Fake


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

There is such a thing as a real homage, but not on this thread.


Hands90 said:


> Homage = Fake


----------



## Hands90 (Jun 8, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> There is such a thing as a real homage, but not on this thread.


I agree but too often people get the terms twisted. 
You are 100% right.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

pinkybrain said:


> I'd rather just drive a used Miata. No, I would love to drive a used Miata!


Absolutely. And, of course, knowing that the Miata is an homage too.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Motorcycle Man said:


> Having once owned the real deal my question is why buy a "homage" at all?!?!?!...


Valid/logical question for sure, but logic goes out the window with this passion, at least for me . . . the copy watches came in after the Rolex pieces, what can I say, just love the look of 'em all no matter the company name on the dial


----------



## 96nick (May 16, 2019)

I would never wear something that says 'Rolex' when it isn't a genuine Rolex. But I am more than happy to wear a Steinhart, since it isn't claiming to be a Rolex with a Rolex logo.


----------



## American Jedi (May 27, 2017)

pinkybrain said:


> I'd rather just drive a used Miata. No, I would love to drive a used Miata!


I heard the Miata is a fun car to drive.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

TheWalrus said:


> I get what he's saying. And I agree, and I also disagree. In almost equal measure. Experiences are great. And the thing about them is that it can be harder and harder to make room in your life for them as you age (kids, reduced fitness, career goals, etc). So, in a lot of ways if you have Rolex money at a younger age - the best thing to do is spend it doing all the things you may not be able to do in later stages of life. Minus shaking a dictators hand... not sure why anyone would want to do that. But, in general, it's good advice - when you're young, its easy to think you'll always have opportunities in the future. Some opportunities expire before others - and traveling and hiking remote areas and generally living somewhat 'unsettled' is one of the first to go. Buying a Rolex is one of the last.
> 
> On the other hand though - a lot of people just don't value those experiences. We're all different, and I don't think a 'good life' is a one size fits all proposition. I know people who've been obsessed with stamp and coin collections their entire lives. Devoted to finding the rarest and most expensive examples for their collections. From a young age too! And I don't think they ever felt like it was a waste of their life. Others have never travelled abroad, but traveled around their home province extensively - claimed every accessible peak, and explored every trail. Who am I to say that the fact that they didn't spend a week and a half in Thailand means they haven't lived fully, or well? And I think the same thing applies to this hobby. If someone loves watches, and really wants a Rolex (for whatever reason) - they should fully engage. Go in eyes wide open - you're gaining something but giving up other things - but do it if you love it. And no one should judge someone for making that call.


I get that part too. But I don't think a lot of people who are buying Rolex are doing so to the exclusion of other things. I've never had to choose between a meal and a watch before, you know? I've never had to choose between a vacation and a watch either. A watch like a Rolex is a thing, a luxury item, and I've got several, including a Rolex, and I still find time for things like vacations (well, I find money for vacations, time is a completely different story). If you're choosing between a watch and basic living requirements, you don't have a love for watches, you have an addiction.

But I agree with you; people are allowed to value what they want to value. Let's say that I have a Rolex Submariner since age 31 (really stretching fantasy here, I know). I get to wear that everyday for the rest of my life, which will, hopefully, be several decades. And then, I can hand it off to my kids, if I have any, or my brother's kids, or whatever. The money was spent, I have a physical thing to show for it, and it's one that will last, conservatively, a couple hundred years, provided that there are still resources to service the movement and people capable of doing so. Okay, so I got busy later in life and never made it Machu Picchu. Is that really the worst thing in the world? That's a singular experience. I've created memories, but memories fade. That's probably a great experience, sure, but isn't also sitting at waterfront bar, sipping a beer with friends?

Life is about balance, and too often we set up this false dichotomy for, well, almost everything. Here I often see "Don't buy a watch, go on vacation!" (or "Don't buy a watch, invest it in municipal bonds" from really boring people) to people who ask for advice on what watch to buy. I've never understood that. I toured some of Napa Valley's finest wineries and put my feet up on my lanai, staring at the ocean in Maui while wearing my Submariner. I'm lucky, though, you know, because I generally don't have to choose. I know that. I've known that for a while. And I know that's not the case for a lot of people--most people. But those people usually aren't contemplating buying a four or five figure watch. But if someone's on here asking for one thing, I don't presume to know better than they do about their own life and then tell them to do something else.

I don't know, maybe it's time I get off my soapbox about other people getting on theirs. At least for a little while.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

pinkybrain said:


> I'd rather just drive a used Miata. No, I would love to drive a used Miata!


Depends on the generation for me. The NA is just too old, but it's a nice blank canvas. The NB looks really good, but the NC has that sweet spot of dynamics and drivability. I haven't driven an ND yet, but from what I hear, it's like an NC and an NA had a baby; all the sharpness, all the drivability, none of the drawbacks. I wouldn't trade my E85 Z4 for one, though. So disappointed the new one won't have a manual. They go back to soft top, but then take away the manual. Giveth with one hand, right? And the new Boxsters being four cylinders just feels wrong. I had a 987 S and it was a wonderful car. I feel like I'd be better off saving a ton of money and just getting one of those again rather than buying a new one.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

TheWalrus said:


> Absolutely. And, of course, knowing that the Miata is an homage too.


Hm. I guess that's true. I never really thought of it that way. Long live the spirit of the Lotus Elan.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

American Jedi said:


> I heard the Miata is a fun car to drive.


Oh, it really is. I remember the first time I got behind the wheel of an NC Miata, every other sports car felt slightly superfluous. Of course, it didn't stop me from not buying a Miata and getting other sports cars, but they did offer something different. Based on pure logic, the Miata is all the sports car you could ever need. But logic, sports car, and need have a strange relationship with each other, one that doesn't, in the end, really exist. Ultimately, I was more emotionally connected to the others, and went with them instead. Though, I could easily buy a Miata and be happy with it until the end of my days. They're great cars.


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

TheWalrus said:


> Absolutely. And, of course, knowing that the Miata is an homage too.


hmm...I think the original Miata is far enough away from the Lotus. I don't think it's an "homage" like we use the word on WUS, but yes, it pays homage to the Lotus, obviously. Saying it's an "homage" by the WUS definition would be like saying every dive watch with a bezel is an homage to the BB FF. Also, the F40 in the picture is not an homage or a knockoff - it's a fake (note the Ferrari badging).

There are different levels of copying:

1) fake/rep
2) 1:1 knockoff (called an homage on WUS)
3) loosey-goosey knockoff (called an homage on WUS) 
4) A watch that copies one particular design element but is otherwise completely and totally different. See the picture of my TAG, below
5) Homage of company's own design but the company was acquired by another brand/conglomerate (Zodiac and most Swiss retro designs)
6) Homage of the company's own design and the company has not changed hands. In some cases this could even be considered just a re-release of a long discontinued model. (Tudor Black Bay always comes to mind)

#1 is not to be discussed here, illegal, and can have negative effects on brands/markets etc. 
#2-3 I'm fine with just not my cup of tea. They're like white shirts with pink polka dots. Nothing at all against them, just not my style. (I've made an exception for my Crepas Tornado because it's such a rare and unusual watch that even most WIS don't recognize that it's an "homage") 
#4-6 I'll continue to own and purchase in the future. 
#6 Not even sure these should be called "homages" on WUS considering how we normally use the word. Maybe vintage-inspired re-release or something like that. The Black Bay is just the original Tudor brand copying the original Tudor brand. Gravy.

Here's the TAG. Elements of the dial are derivative/homage like, but everything else about the watch is quite unique.









Here's the Crepas. It's a 1:1 "homage", but the original is such a rare duck it doesn't bother me. Not like wearing a Sub homage would. (I'd still rather wear the original if I could find it for the same price in NOS condition).


----------



## Jon Butcher (Jun 22, 2012)

There are a thousand different reasons to buy a homage of a Rolex or Patek or any watch if one so desires, none of them requiring justification.
What the OP was asking if I understand correctly is whether or not one would/ should be embarrassed by _not wearing_ an authentic Rolex vs some other brand. 
I'm trying to imagine the context where any other persons opinion about a watch would even matter or register, unless i was inquiring for data prior to purchasing? 
Beyond that..


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Raza said:


> Can you nutshell this for me? Because your post was kind of all over the place. What are you trying to say? I'm not sure I got your point, but I know I'm not the kind of guy who would shake a dictator's hand.


Sorry if I rambled on.

Nutshell version:

Spend your money wisely, focussing on opportunities that are available at your age.

There is no impediment to buying a Rolex at the age of 80, but you will not climb Everest at that age.

Spend your money on quality time with your family, on getting a decent education, and on life experiences.

Dictators: I shook the hand of several. One bought me a beer. Were they so bad? Well in every case the people did better under the Dictators than under so called "democratically elected" leaders - who usually turn out to be money grubbing scum out only to line their own pockets.


----------



## Hands90 (Jun 8, 2015)

People from this thread ride the tupolev tu-144 thinking it's the concorde.


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

I wasnt talking about visiting a winery, or a week in Thailand. 

I posted:

1. Get fit, really fit, it pays off later in life when things go wrong or you get old.

I cannot see much confusion here. Get Fit. Damn fit. Marathon or Triathlon fit. When you are older you will appreciate the investment on the health bank ,and the fact that you didnt spend your 20s and 30s in obesity. 


2. Look after your family. Give them the best you can. 

Seems pretty simple to me. Spend time and money on your family. You will remember for ever teaching your son to swim, or talking to your father on the beach. 


3. Look after yourself spiritually and mentally.

Get your mental state squared away. Get your priorities sorted, get your plans done. 


4. Get educated, formally and informally. Do free courses, read good books, watch videos, listen to podcasts, attend lectures. 

Educate yourself. Undergrad, post grad, masters, doctorate. Self educate. Learn to learn. 

5. Get some life experiences. Do the Seven Summits. Dive on the Coolidge, cross a desert on foot, shake a dictators hand, and shake a Nobel prize winners hand. 

Cant see the confusion here either.

You can do all of this without a watch. Every cent you spend on one, fake, homage, or real, is a cent off the above goals.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

pinkybrain said:


> hmm...I think the original Miata is far enough away from the Lotus. I don't think it's an "homage" like we use the word on WUS, but yes, it pays homage to the Lotus, obviously. Saying it's an "homage" by the WUS definition would be like saying every dive watch with a bezel is an homage to the BB FF.


Nah, I think the Miata is a full on homage. And an excellent example of an homage. It was literally a smooth edged, two seat roadster that had an I4 powering the rear wheels, in a car with perfect 50 / 50 balance, next to no weight and pop up head lights when no one else made one. And no one else had since the Elan. I feel it really looks like what the Elan would have evolved to after another two decades of design and implementation. As I understand it, the designers of the NA even tuned the sound to replicate the Lotus. You put that car in british racing green (slap on some yellow racing stripes for good measure) and if that's not an homage (in the truest and best sense), I don't know what is.

Certainly, someone no less than Peter Egan bought into that concept:

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/classic-cars/news/a21126/the-allure-of-the-lotus-elan/


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

CaptainCustard said:


> I wasnt talking about visiting a winery, or a week in Thailand.
> 
> I posted:
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone misunderstood. But to be honest - a watch doesn't, really, take away from almost any of those goals.

You can get fit for next to free - running is free. Body weight exercises are free. Outdoor training is free. Hiking is free. And even a gym membership is... at most... 20 - 30 a month. A Rolex won't keep you from any of that.

The most important elements of family life are also free - in fact all of the examples you mentioned are free. And I you can't provide the basics - the essentials - for your family, you aren't buying a Rolex anyway.

In terms of spiritual and mental health - if anything spending money puts you further from that goal.

Free education is free. Getting formal education is great, but by your own admission it's not essential for achieving that goal. Most of the wisest people I've known had limited formal education, but a rich education they earned for themselves, for free.

So, really, the only element of your post that _really_ requires money is the last one - which is experiences - like diving and climbing the 7 summits. And that's great, but also - I think - the least important of all the goals. By a wide margin.


----------



## koolpep (Jul 14, 2008)

Back to the original OP question:

Embarrassed to wear an homage.....Sort of. But only after I had purchased the real deal. Then suddenly my earlier homages seemed obsolete and yes, maybe I felt a tiny bit embarrassed about my earlier self at first. But that faded too. Nowadays I can wear a $12 watch or a $20k watch and not be bothered and enjoy the hell out of myself. I wear what I like and what gives me pleasure.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Metallman said:


> I will not be shamed or guilted because I choose to wear a nice watch, or that I own nice watches.


^^^ This.

Buy a Rolex if you like it.
Dont buy a Rolex if you dont.

Whatever decision you make, base it on your own preferences. I have never understood choosing to buy/not buy based on the actions of others, especially given that hardly anyone is gonna notice your watch. Are we in freaking high school?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

TheWalrus said:


> I don't think anyone misunderstood. But to be honest - a watch doesn't, really, take away from almost any of those goals.
> 
> You can get fit for next to free - running is free. Body weight exercises are free. Outdoor training is free. Hiking is free. And even a gym membership is... at most... 20 - 30 a month. A Rolex won't keep you from any of that.
> 
> ...


Hands up everyone who in the last 30 days has run more than 10k in one go.

Keep your hands up if in the last 30 days you spent real quality time with your family. A weekend away? Picnic? Trip to the zoo?

Keep your hands up if you have a five year life plan, and you checked how you were tracking to it within the last 30 days.

Keep those hands up of you read a serious non fiction book in the last 30 days. History? Economics? Politics? Or you attended a formal lecture. Or even watched a couple of Ted talks.

Hands still up of you have done something on the last 30 days that you will remember in a years time.

I seriously doubt many hands are still up. Those that are, well done.

Now put your hand up if you have worn a watch worth more than $200 in the last 30 days. 
Keep them up of you have visited a watch website (including WUS) in the last 30 days. 
Keep them up if you have mentally considered another watch in the last 30 days.

Bet there are a lot of hands up this time.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

CaptainCustard said:


> Hands up everyone who in the last 30 days has run more than 10k in one go.
> 
> Keep your hands up if in the last 30 days you spent real quality time with your family. A weekend away? Picnic? Trip to the zoo?
> 
> ...


Not to blow my own horn... but yeah. Right to the end.

Canada Day 10 K - July 1
Parents Visited end of June, in-laws visited Canada Day long weekend.
Have to - kid on the way in 5 weeks. So yeah - we've been planning and tracking constantly.
Just finished a book on marine archaeology. Reading Cousteau's work on the "Silent World" now.
Just on Sunday I did my first over-head dive down a 'swim-through' tunnel, opening to a kelp forest. I'll remember that for years.

While that's horn tooting, no doubt - I also, seriously, doubt that I'm the only one whose done it - or done something similar over the last 30 days - on this website. Fact is, though, that the only thing keeping people from doing most of that is motivation. Not money. And if someone wanted to do all of that _and_ buy an expensive watch, they could.


----------



## Ard (Jul 21, 2014)

orian said:


> Is anyone embarrassed by wearing a Rolex Submariner homage?
> 
> I used to have one but hardly wore it, in case people looked at it closely and saw it wasn't the real thing, and thaught I was a "wannabe" Rolex owner. That would be very embarrassing for me.
> 
> ...


Unless you travel in fairly high end circles at least 95% of people you encounter don't care what you use for a watch. Probably 75% of the 95% don't know what a 'Sub' is.

So you may have dumped a decent watch for no good reason. If I chose to wear it I have a Tag Heuer Aquaracer 41mm black ceramic I can wear, I seriously doubt anyone ever noticed it and if they did I don't care what they thought. Could be they thought geez what a cheapskate wearing a 2500 dollar watch that looks like a Rolex...&#8230; I'd bet on no one noticed though.

I wear a 35 year old G Shock I bought new no one even knows it's a classic, you gotta let go of the idea that people care about you and especially your watch. If an homage gets to you because you don't have 12 grand to spend on a watch that's something else entirely. I only wear and own what I can afford and sometimes I feel guilty for having wasted so much money on them... There was a thread just yesterday wherein the poster was asking whether people thought he should sell his Rolex watches because he didn't have enough for a down payment on a condo. Go figure? Basically he described around 26,000 worth of watches (3 of them) and doesn't have the down payment, shouldda bought an homage and got the condo I think.


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

TheWalrus said:


> Not to blow my own horn... but yeah. Right to the end.
> 
> Canada Day 10 K - July 1
> Parents Visited end of June, in-laws visited Canada Day long weekend.
> ...


I am suitably impressed!!!


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

TheWalrus said:


> Not to blow my own horn... but yeah. Right to the end.
> 
> Canada Day 10 K - July 1
> Parents Visited end of June, in-laws visited Canada Day long weekend.
> ...


You've got a kid coming? Congratulations, man! As I recall, it'll be your first, right?


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

CaptainCustard said:


> Hands up everyone who in the last 30 days has run more than 10k in one go.
> 
> Keep your hands up if in the last 30 days you spent real quality time with your family. A weekend away? Picnic? Trip to the zoo?
> 
> ...


I'm not saying you're giving bad advice, and you seem like a nice and well-intentioned fellow, but I will say that not everything is right for everyone.

Also, running can be really bad for you. It just destroys your knees.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Raza said:


> Also, running can be really bad for you. It just destroys your knees.


Not to get too caught up in relatively unimportant details, but good form running doesnt really destroy your knees. Pretty much anyone can run (although if one is very overweight, walk+run may be better). My knees are messed, courtesy a knee bar in a jujitsu match and later being low-bridged in a hockey game, but running hasn't affected them. If anything, my legs are stronger now, compared to when I used to just cycle.

But getting back to the main point - I agree that experiences generally tend to be more enriching than possessions. Also agree that these typically are not either-or propositions.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## Hands90 (Jun 8, 2015)

CaptainCustard said:


> I wasnt talking about visiting a winery, or a week in Thailand.
> 
> I posted:
> 
> ...


Do all of this with a fake watch (homage) and look like a criminal or a complete novice.


----------



## calote (Apr 30, 2015)

I can think of several Steinharts inspired by the Sub that are not at all 1:1 reproductions. I have an Ocean One Vintage that I find gorgeous, and quite different from any Rolex.


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

Raza said:


> I'm not saying you're giving bad advice, and you seem like a nice and well-intentions fellow, but I will say that not everything is right for everyone.
> 
> Also, running can be really bad for you. It just destroys your knees.


Only if you have bad knees to begin with. I've always been a runner, I've done 5 marathons, and I'm over 40. I have never had knee pain. I've pulled some muscles and had some sprains, but never knee pain.

My dad never ran and had bad knees his whole life, even in his 20's. At around 60 they had to be replaced.

But I agree there's no template for life or goals.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Raza said:


> You've got a kid coming? Congratulations, man! As I recall, it'll be your first, right?


Thanks! yep. It's our first, and I'm equal parts excited and terrified. 5 weeks is not a lot of time anymore... that's like, two pay periods or something crazy.

To make this watch related - I've already picked up the necessary commemorative watch, that blue Seiko Turtle I'd been eyeing for a while.


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

calote said:


> I can think of several Steinharts inspired by the Sub that are not at all 1:1 reproductions. I have an Ocean One Vintage that I find gorgeous, and quite different from any Rolex.


Seriously? It's not 1:1. But the resemblance...


----------



## Dr. Robert (Jun 10, 2008)

No

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk


----------



## harryst (Nov 5, 2012)

vkalia said:


> But getting back to the main point - I agree that experiences generally tend to be more enriching than possessions. Also agree that these typically are not either-or propositions.


What about the experience - likely fitting this thread's topic - where

a) you are sitting at a random bar 
b) a guy, wearing an homage, grabs the spot next to you
c) he sees (you see him squinting) you are wearing a Submariner - the real thing
d) his face turns *red*

...you see, sometimes they are _and_ propositions :-!

-- h

PS I still remember - after 3+ years - the shock in the face of the gentleman sitting next to me (at Madison Bistro, in NYC) when he saw my Vacheron (he could not get his eyes off it, either...). Nobody said anything, of course.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

pinkybrain said:


> Only if you have bad knees to begin with. I've always been a runner, I've done 5 marathons, and I'm over 40. I have never had knee pain. I've pulled some muscles and had some sprains, but never knee pain.
> 
> My dad never ran and had bad knees his whole life, even in his 20's. At around 60 they had to be replaced.
> 
> But I agree there's no template for life or goals.


As it so happens, I do have a bad knee. Developmental issue that causes it to be prone to dislocation and causes near constant pain. I try to limit my running. Also, the sidewalks out here are a mess. I feel as likely to roll, sprain, or break an ankle as I am to dislocate my knee. But I've always hated the outdoors and have always worked out in a gym or home gym.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

TheWalrus said:


> Thanks! yep. It's our first, and I'm equal parts excited and terrified. 5 weeks is not a lot of time anymore... that's like, two pay periods or something crazy.
> 
> To make this watch related - I've already picked up the necessary commemorative watch, that blue Seiko Turtle I'd been eyeing for a while.


Excited and terrified I think will describe the how you'll feel about your kid, probably for the rest of your life. :-d

Congratulations again, I'm very happy for you. Good choice on the Turtle. But have you given any thought to something more heirloomable...maybe a Ro....Omega, perhaps? b-)


----------



## Seabee1 (Apr 21, 2017)

I always forget which, is Invicta owned by Rolex or by Tudor?


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Raza said:


> Excited and terrified I think will describe the how you'll feel about your kid, probably for the rest of your life. :-d
> 
> Congratulations again, I'm very happy for you. Good choice on the Turtle. But have you given any thought to something more heirloomable...maybe a Ro....Omega, perhaps? b-)


Oh yeah - I'm thinking about that, for sure. Omega seems right to me, too. Or Tag Heuer. We'll see - maybe a 'one year in' type of thing - which would give me a chance to save up some money, and incessantly browse WUS.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

I think it was Buick.


Seabee1 said:


> I always forget which, is Invicta owned by Rolex or by Tudor?


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

Seabee1 said:


> I always forget which, is Invicta owned by Rolex or by Tudor?


I thought it's owned by Omega?


----------



## Die_Superarmbanduhr (Apr 15, 2019)

A little bit. That is why I mod them to make them unique.


----------



## SG_Lefty (Aug 10, 2012)

This is silly, wear what you like and what you can afford. Who cares what the snobs think...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Homo Sapien X (Sep 15, 2018)

SG_Lefty said:


> This is silly, wear what you like and what you can afford. Who cares what the snobs think...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Absolutely. I wouldn't pay premium for a brand over MSRP

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

harryst said:


> What about the experience - likely fitting this thread's topic - where
> a) you are sitting at a random bar
> b) a guy, wearing an homage, grabs the spot next to you
> c) he sees (you see him squinting) you are wearing a Submariner - the real thing
> d) his face turns *red*


I imagine that would be the other guy's issue.

I dont wear homages because I find them to be wanna-be designs - but that's just my own personal preference. If someone else feels differently, more power to them: no skin off my nose.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

TheWalrus said:


> Oh yeah - I'm thinking about that, for sure. Omega seems right to me, too. Or Tag Heuer. We'll see - maybe a 'one year in' type of thing - which would give me a chance to save up some money, and incessantly browse WUS.


I'll tell you, I love having a Speedmaster (Pro) and a Seamaster (300MC). Such great watches. I know you're a diver, so the SM300 might appeal to you more, but don't discount the Speedmaster.

Although I will say the Seamaster kind of killed the Black Bay for me, which was already marginalized after I got my Submariner (see, back on topic, Rolexes). I love the Black Bay, but in trying to keep a small collection, having a Submariner, Black Bay, and SM300 was just too much.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Raza said:


> I'll tell you, I love having a Speedmaster (Pro) and a Seamaster (300MC). Such great watches. I know you're a diver, so the SM300 might appeal to you more, but don't discount the Speedmaster.
> 
> Although I will say the Seamaster kind of killed the Black Bay for me, which was already marginalized after I got my Submariner (see, back on topic, Rolexes). I love the Black Bay, but in trying to keep a small collection, having a Submariner, Black Bay, and SM300 was just too much.


Yeah - I love both of those. And the Speedmaster actually has a lot of personal relevance for me - my uncle worked on the Saturn V and the Lunar Lander when he worked as an engineer in the 60s. Super cool, and I think the connection would be really cool to have for a heirloom type watch.


----------



## calote (Apr 30, 2015)

mui.richard said:


> Seriously? It's not 1:1. But the resemblance...





























Vintage divers are likely to resemble other vintage divers regardless of the brand. Rolex fans seem to be a bit paranoid.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

calote said:


> Vintage divers are likely to resemble other vintage divers regardless of the brand. Rolex fans seem to be a bit paranoid.


If you think the above examples are the same as hordes of budget makers copying Rolex in virtually every way except the logo, then it is you who is selectively filtering facts to support his beliefs.

Hint - none of those examples you listed were instances of brands blatantly trying to piggyback off the popularity of a highly recognizable, high-demand luxury item.

But hey, why let little things like that way come in the way of making yet more idiotic statements about Rolex fans?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## briang583 (Mar 25, 2014)

This thread is getting egalitarian (see an opera, run with the bulls, fly a kite over the artic circle in your underwear, ride a bike to your moms house) it reminds me of the famous Karl Lagerfeld quote (not sure if anyone already wrote this in here) " Leaving your home in sweatpants is a sign you have lost control over your life"


----------



## ryanboude (Feb 17, 2019)

CaptainCustard said:


> I have bought 3 new Rolex watches, roughly one every 20 years. 1980, 1999, and 2016. Based upon a cost per day worn, it is less than a cheap coffee.
> 
> I still have two of them, I sold the 1980 GMT Master at a massive profit, after 24 years of ownership. Tell me when a coffee ever paid a return.
> 
> ...


Nicely said.

IMO any watch should add to your confidence, joy, satisfaction, etc when you wear it. If it doesn't, then maybe it's either the wrong watch for you or the wrong watch for the situation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LowIQ (Apr 3, 2019)

1953 Blancpain Fifty Fathoms









copied by Rolex in 1954....?


----------



## LowIQ (Apr 3, 2019)

I said it before, they are all just dive watches, with a bezel to turn....all look similar....

Homage to Rolex is Rolex marketing speech....

Still nice watches, if one could get one in steel....Rolex I mean....good luck...

Blancpain I would prefer, as it is the real deal..... ;-) .....only pulling your legs...well, who knows...



vkalia said:


> But hey, why let little things like that way come in the way of making yet more idiotic statements about Rolex fans?


----------



## calote (Apr 30, 2015)

What I think is that almost all watches have hands, dial, bezel, crown and bracelet. I also believe that most vintage style diving watches have a turning coin-edge bezel with numbers, a dark dial with clear numbers or markers, a medium to big sized crown (with or without crown-guards), lumed hands, domed crystal and oyster bracelet. 
But going back to the central issue, I do not feel bad wearing any watch as long as it is not a fake.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

briang583 said:


> This thread is getting egalitarian (see an opera, run with the bulls, fly a kite over the artic circle in your underwear, ride a bike to your moms house) it reminds me of the famous Karl Lagerfeld quote (not sure if anyone already wrote this in here) " Leaving your home in sweatpants is a sign you have lost control over your life"


Not egalitarianism!!


----------



## LowIQ (Apr 3, 2019)

Not a homage, despite the Mercedes hands,  ....but a steady and reliable companion over the last 25 years to do...everything....from the first nights at the Opera to...


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

LowIQ said:


> I said it before, they are all just dive watches, with a bezel to turn....all look similar....


No they dont. There are plenty of dive watches that look nothing like a Submariner. Oris, Tudor, Blancpain, Longines, Tag, IWC, Hamilton, Maurice Lacroix, Citizen, Omega, Sinn, GO, AP, etc all manage to make dive watches that dont like clones of Rolex.

And re the claim that Rolex copied the Blancpain design - it's a common misconception but is factually wrong.

Your preferences are your business: if you were to just say "I hate Rolex", you wouldnt get any argument from me. My issue is only with the incorrect/stretched facts that are being paraded around in this thread.

PS: I have a Blancpain Fifty Fathoms and by all objective measures, the Rolex is better value. The FF costs more, doesnt come with a bracelet, doesnt hold its value well and is not as versatile as the Sub.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## LowIQ (Apr 3, 2019)

I don't hate Rolex at all.....


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

LowIQ said:


> I don't hate Rolex at all.....


Sarcasm or just a lack of self awareness?


----------



## Homo Sapien X (Sep 15, 2018)

Not everyone would want to spend that over the top premium for a Rolex steel sports which are heavily speculated. I have been wearing homage GMT, and happy wearing it.
It is better to have lot of cash in your saving than being poor with a Rolex. I love Rolex Sub a lot and I own one, but I think it’s grossly overpriced in the grey market. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AFG08 (Mar 31, 2010)

I owned.a Sub for a few years, great watch but since none of my friends owned anything other than a low cost quartz watch, I was always somewhat embarrassed about owning it and having so much money tied up in a watch. I sold it and have no regrets. Tried a few homages. It wasn’t the same and never liked wearing those either. So, I am Rolex and homage free and happy about it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fish70 (Oct 12, 2006)

Nope. The only people I know who have any idea what a Rolex Sub is are on the internet.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

**** Sapien X said:


> Not everyone would want to spend that over the top premium for a Rolex steel sports which are heavily speculated. I have been wearing homage GMT, and happy wearing it.
> It is better to have lot of cash in your saving than being poor with a Rolex. I love Rolex Sub a lot and I own one, but I think it's grossly overpriced in the grey market.


If you are happy with a Rolex homage, that's great - as I've said before, you like watches, i like watches, it's all cool (well, except the G-Shock fans. They can FRO* ).

Interesting that you say that the steel Rolex are overpriced in the grey market - like you, I too hesitate to pay a premium over MRP for watches (which, incidentally, bit me in the ass bigtime, as i could have bought a 5711 for $27k a couple of years ago). But it did get me thinking - if Rolex were to set the MRP of the Pepsi at $15k, and the Daytona at $20-21k, would we feel the same way?

I suspect a large part of the outrage is because we "expect" the price of the watch to be its MRP, and not because we feel that these are intrinsically $8-12k watches (based on quality, heritage, history, brand and all the other variables that go into luxury purchases). The very fuzziness of luxury purchases makes it very hard to determine price vs quality, and so we rely on price as a guide - and that's where things get asymmetrical, in terms of how we perceive discounts vs premiums.

Eg, I would never buy a JLC or a Blancpain or a Breguet or a GO or a VC at MRP - I can get them at anywhere from 20-35% off MRP at an AD, and to me, that is the "fair value" for the watch. So the street price of a watch is where I set the "correct price" of these watches. However, for watches that sell at a premium, the mind doesnt work the same way - the MRP is the correct price of the watch, not the street price.

I dont really have a point per se - just found it interesting.

*I kid.


----------



## Combat Jump (May 8, 2008)

While not embarrassed, I won't wear a homage watch unless there is utility in it. As an example, I wore a copy of a Marathon because it had tritium tubes, and I couldn't get a real Marathon at the time. Not that anyone would think a Marathon is homage-worthy. For me, it was just a tool watch to wear on deployment.


----------



## LowIQ (Apr 3, 2019)

mleok said:


> Sarcasm or just a lack of self awareness?


Would happily wear any of these....on a daily basis....mowing the lawn, climbing, snorkeling, hiking, biking etc etc...

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/rolex-submariner-reference-points

that much about me hating Rolex......#843.....or lacking self awareness...... 

Currently I am lusting after a Sinn....


----------



## Homo Sapien X (Sep 15, 2018)

I am sensing many Archieluxury fans down in this forum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 10Swiss10 (Apr 17, 2019)

I dont get why people care about this so much. The only reason its an issue is because its Rolex.

Props to Rolex for inventing two genres of watch. They basically created the dive watch and GMT market.

But at the end of the day those are the only two watches people get upset about "homages with"

Plenty of brands make field watches and fliegers that all look the same and no one cries foul over it. So if youre ok with wearing a timex expedition while your friend wears a hamilton khaki field then be ok with sub homages.


----------



## LowIQ (Apr 3, 2019)

10Swiss10 said:


> Props to Rolex for inventing two genres of watch. They basically created the dive watch and GMT market.
> 
> But at the end of the day those are the only two watches people get upset about "homages with"
> .


Blancpain....Glycine...


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

10Swiss10 said:


> I dont get why people care about this so much. The only reason its an issue is because its Rolex.
> 
> Props to Rolex for inventing two genres of watch. They basically *popularized* the dive watch and GMT market.


Fixed it for you.



10Swiss10 said:


> But at the end of the day those are the only two watches people get upset about "homages with"


No. See the recent response to the AP homage someone posted. Rolex is simply more popular, but homages of other luxury brands get the same treatment.

It is true that homages to really old, out of production or obscure watches often get a pass by WIS, including me. As noted earlier in the thread, I have a 1:1 copy (with different branding, obviously) of a very unusual and unique dive watch from the 1970's. It's not something anyone would accuse of being a knockoff because so few people - even WIS - would even recognize the original!


----------



## MZhammer (Feb 27, 2009)

Realistically, we aren't talking about Homages, we're talking about copies with a different brand on the dial. The Tudor black Bay is a homage, a Steinhart Ocean One is a Copy of a Rolex in all but the most minute details to give the visual effect of a Rolex without overstepping legal bounds. Homage is usually a word used by those who feel uneasy about admitting they're buying a knockoff.

I'm in the camp of "only the original brand can copy/homage itself and be on my wrist" such as:
1. The Longines Legend Diver, a copy of their original super compressor diver from the 60s
2. The Tudor Black Bay, a Homage to the Snowflake divers of the 70s
3. The Tag Heuer 1964 Re-Editions, a near-copy of their 2447 Carreras
4. The Oris 65 Diver, a funky Homage to a diver from the 60s.

For others, I give a pass to homages/copies of obscure watches that are not meant to connote wealth or status and are therefore almost exclusively for the owners sole enjoyment. 

For copies/"homages" of known Rolex, AP, Patek models etc etc it is not something I'd ever wear and, like it or not, I'd definitely formulate an opinion about the wearer. There are enough original watches in any Homage price bracket that you could be original. You want buy a Steinhart Rolex Knockoff for ~$600, go buy a Seiko turtle instead or spring a little more for a Halios Seaforth. Both killer, original watches.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Add 'Rose Colored Glasses' and presto; homage!


MZhammer said:


> Realistically, we aren't talking about Homages, we're talking about copies with a different brand on the dial. The Tudor black Bay is a homage, a Steinhart Ocean One is a Copy of a Rolex in all but the most minute details to give the visual effect of a Rolex without overstepping legal bounds. Homage is usually a word used by those who feel uneasy about admitting their buying a knockoff.
> 
> I'm in the camp of "only the original brand can copy/homage itself and be on my wrist" such as the Longines Legend Diver, a copy of their original super compressor diver from the 1960s, or the Tudor Black Bay, a Homage to the Snowflake divers of the 70s. For others, I give a pass to homages/copies of obscure watches that are not meant to connote wealth or status and are therefore almost exclusively for the owners sole enjoyment.
> 
> For copies/"homages" of known Rolex, AP, Patek models etc etc it is not something I'd ever wear and, like it or not, I'd definitely formulate an opinion about the wearer. There are enough original watches in any Homage price bracket that you could be original. You want buy a Steinhart Rolex Knockoff for ~$600, go buy a Seiko turtle instead or spring a little more for a Halios Seaforth. Both killer, original watches.


----------



## 10Swiss10 (Apr 17, 2019)

pinkybrain said:


> Fixed it for you.
> 
> No. See the recent response to the AP homage someone posted. Rolex is simply more popular, but homages of other luxury brands get the same treatment.
> 
> It is true that homages to really old, out of production or obscure watches often get a pass by WIS, including me. As noted earlier in the thread, I have a 1:1 copy (with different branding, obviously) of a very unusual and unique dive watch from the 1970's. It's not something anyone would accuse of being a knockoff because so few people - even WIS - would even recognize the original!


I think what it really comes down to is that a lot of people are trying to make money on watches and not a lot of people are good designers. Some micro brands just try to copy a sub or other high end piece to make quick buck. Others just splice together components of different watches and eras to make a quick buck.

Really, there are only a handful of good micro brands with real design chops and unless they really speak to you they are not worth the money.

im more offended by lazy design than I am with outright fa...homages. then again I dont care what anyone wears but I know where I wont spend my money.


----------



## Jtragic (Jan 10, 2015)

MZhammer said:


> Realistically, we aren't talking about Homages, we're talking about copies with a different brand on the dial. The Tudor black Bay is a homage, a Steinhart Ocean One is a Copy of a Rolex in all but the most minute details to give the visual effect of a Rolex without overstepping legal bounds. Homage is usually a word used by those who feel uneasy about admitting their buying a knockoff.
> 
> I'm in the camp of "only the original brand can copy/homage itself and be on my wrist" such as:
> 1. The Longines Legend Diver, a copy of their original super compressor diver from the 60s
> ...


So, what your saying is if you only like the sub design, but you don't have $8k to spend on a Rolex, you just don't wear a watch?


----------



## MZhammer (Feb 27, 2009)

Jtragic said:


> So, what your saying is if you only like the sub design, but you don't have $8k to spend on a Rolex, you just don't wear a watch?


Yup, if you are so restrictive in your taste that the _ONLY_ design of a watch, out of the relatively infinite creative executions for telling time, that you like is a Submariner, and you can't afford a Submariner, then you don't wear a watch. Use your phone.


----------



## Jtragic (Jan 10, 2015)

I was going to start a separate thread asking people if they were pretentious tools before they started collecting watches but I guess I’ll just ask here.


----------



## Whisky Beer Bob (Jan 29, 2017)

Jtragic said:


> I was going to start a separate thread asking people if they were pretentious tools before they started collecting watches but I guess I'll just ask here.


Why I don't know I'll ask Biff and Muffy by the yacht later and see what they say.

I give them crap all the time because they waste their time drinking wine that is under $200...... I mean gag me with a Tiffany spoon why don't you.

My $200 thousand dollar car is making noises so I have to buy another one. Who has time to talk about watches I mean, I have a phone...daaaah.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## Whisky Beer Bob (Jan 29, 2017)

Lol at the Hammer dude. 

Why not just come with an original name. I mean you can't be the real MC Hammer. Why not just become a singer? 

Same thing a watch. You are literally trying to Homage a rapper, a crap one at that. But to Homage a watch is wrong. 

I am MZ oxymoron....

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## skyefalcon6 (Apr 10, 2015)

Every single car on the road is an homage to the first one by Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot. 

If you’re not driving one of these then you should walk.


Sent using Timex-Sinclair 1000


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Ojibway Bob said:


> Lol at the Hammer dude.
> 
> Why not just come with an original name. I mean you can't be the real MC Hammer. Why not just become a singer?
> 
> ...


Congrats on taking this thread to a new and puerile low. What are you, 12 years old?

You almost got the last sentence right.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Jtragic said:


> So, what your saying is if you only like the sub design, but you don't have $8k to spend on a Rolex, you just don't wear a watch?


I'd say you would have an exemption but only if that Sub clone is your only watch - you not allowed to own any other watch (because, as you said, the Sub is the *only* watch you like).

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

Nope, not embarrassed. Not even slightly 









brother of OoO


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

**** Sapien X said:


> I am sensing many Archieluxury fans down in this forum
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Who's Archieluxury?


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

10Swiss10 said:


> I dont get why people care about this so much. The only reason its an issue is because its Rolex.
> 
> Props to Rolex for inventing two genres of watch. They basically created the dive watch and GMT market.
> 
> ...


Field watches and fliegers were essentially born out of World War 2. They were _originally_ made by several manufacturers concurrently.

The original fliegers were made for the Luftwaffe by A. Lange & Sohne, Laco, Stowa, Wempe, and IWC. Source: https://www.watchuseek.com/flieger-friday-fundamentals-flieger-watch/

Field watches came in two flavors; the American A-11 and British WWW. The A-11 was manufactured by Hamilton, Elgin, Bulova, and Waltham. The WWW was made by Buren, Cyma, Eterna, Grana, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Longines, IWC, Omega, Record, Timor, and Vertex. Sources: https://coolmaterial.com/style/history-of-field-watch/ and https://hiconsumption.com/history-of-the-field-watch/

So by the nature of those watches, they are a very different thing and always made by several company at the same time. I don't know too much about fliegers, but as I recall, the A-11 and WWW were built to specs set forth by the American military and British MOD. The Submariner and the GMT Master were Rolex inventions (although the GMT Master was at the request of Pan Am, they didn't hand them a requirements sheet with the specs necessary to do the job). The origins of the watches are not comparable at all.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

Jtragic said:


> So, what your saying is if you only like the sub design, but you don't have $8k to spend on a Rolex, you just don't wear a watch?


You know, I really, really want a 1978 Aston Martin V8 Vantage. But I can't afford one.

So I drive a different car.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

Jtragic said:


> I was going to start a separate thread asking people if they were pretentious tools before they started collecting watches but I guess I'll just ask here.


Yeah, I was. What's your point?


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

How is this thread still going? Also why am I avidly reading through it?

Actually. I went to the GP the other day and immediately noticed he was wearing a Rolex pepsi. I said nice watch. He said thanks.

The end.


----------



## UberDave (Jan 13, 2015)

Jtragic said:


> I was going to start a separate thread asking people if they were pretentious tools before they started collecting watches but I guess I'll just ask here.


Guilty. Can I be of any assistance?


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Raza said:


> You know, I really, really want a 1978 Aston Martin V8 Vantage. But I can't afford one.
> 
> So I drive a different car.


You could get a fibreglass replica with a VW engine that could, just, in the dark, if you were drunk, fool people into thinking it was the real thing.

But at 240kmh on the Autobahn that fibreglass is going to flap a lot and those volkie brakes may struggle....


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Raza said:


> You know, I really, really want a 1978 Aston Martin V8 Vantage. But I can't afford one.
> 
> So I drive a different car.


Fair point - but would you really say no to, say, a Caterham Super 7?

Or a Beck 550 Spyder?

Or a Factory 5 Cobra?


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Jtragic said:


> I was going to start a separate thread asking people if they were pretentious tools before they started collecting watches but I guess I'll just ask here.


Wasnt then, and still not.

I bought the real deal aged 27 and never looked back.

I only have pity for people who have to pretend.

Military Service: "yes mate, I was a USMC forward scout ranger sniper with six CMH"

Cars: "yes mate, i have a v12 Ferrari outside on the street. Yes thats a Ford key on my Ferrari keyring. No you cant see my Ferrari"

Education: "Did my MBA at Harvard mate. Michael Porter? Never heard of him. wasnt in my class"

Career: "I was head trader at Lehman mate. Leonardo DiCaprio played me in the Wolf of Wall Street"

Pens: "Its a Montblonc mate. They all drip like this...."

Watches: "course its a real one......."

I just snigger and walk on.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

TheWalrus said:


> Fair point - but would you really say no to, say, a Caterham Super 7?
> 
> Or a Beck 550 Spyder?
> 
> Or a Factory 5 Cobra?


Those do pose tough questions. I've never driven one to know whether or not I'd actually feel funny about it, but while I drool over them, I kind of do think I'd feel strange driving one. I mean, they've been legislated out of existence as production cars, so it is a bit of a different, but I'm not sure. On the other hand, they're still making Rolexes, around 800,000 to 1,000,000 a year. I even tried a Newman Daytona homage once, it lasted about 20 minutes on the wrist before I was 100% sure I couldn't do it.

Kit cars are interesting because they can't make them as production cars anymore. I don't think we're in danger of laws being passed making it illegal to sell an assembled Submariner anymore.

But really, as I've said before, even if I personally feel uncomfortable, I don't say that people shouldn't wear homages or that they should feel embarrassed or anything like that if they like homages or wear them. I don't think it's unreasonable, though, for me to offer up alternatives to homage watches.


----------



## coffeebreak (Jun 22, 2013)

This thread needs more pics of embarrassing homage watches. Here's some of mine. 
I'm still not embarrassed to wear the milsub homage 








But I wear the Bulova sub homage a lot less









And shouldn't we include homage watches of other brands?
This one's not a Rolex homage, but it's still an homage. 








I've had this Archimede for about 5 years, but it was only last year that IWC actually made a big pilot with the seconds subdial at 6 o'clock. So mine wasn't an homage when I got it, but it became an homage of the IWC last year.








And my Tudor Oyster Prince is also an homage (pictured here with the watch it looks exactly like, our Rolex 6694. They're the exact same size btw, the Rolex is just further from the camera)


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Raza said:


> Those do pose tough questions. I've never driven one to know whether or not I'd actually feel funny about it, but while I drool over them, I kind of do think I'd feel strange driving one. I mean, they've been legislated out of existence as production cars, so it is a bit of a different, but I'm not sure. On the other hand, they're still making Rolexes, around 800,000 to 1,000,000 a year. I even tried a Newman Daytona homage once, it lasted about 20 minutes on the wrist before I was 100% sure I couldn't do it.
> 
> Kit cars are interesting because they can't make them as production cars anymore. I don't think we're in danger of laws being passed making it illegal to sell an assembled Submariner anymore.
> 
> But really, as I've said before, even if I personally feel uncomfortable, I don't say that people shouldn't wear homages or that they should feel embarrassed or anything like that if they like homages or wear them. I don't think it's unreasonable, though, for me to offer up alternatives to homage watches.


Caterham I don't think you should feel bad about - I understand they bought the tooling and designs straight from Lotus - which is what makes them so close to the originals and also gives a certain degree of continuity.

Fair points on the distinction between that and a Rolex - new or used Rolexes are still available, and easily accessible.


----------



## Mr.Jones82 (Jul 15, 2018)

CaptainCustard said:


> Wasnt then, and still not.
> 
> I bought the real deal aged 27 and never looked back.
> 
> ...


One thing I think you're dead wrong about is that people sporting homages are trying to pretend or fool others into believing they have the real deal. I don't think the guy purchasing a Steinhart Pepsi GMT is doing so because he thinks it is going to get the waitress at Chili's to bang him. While I don't own any homages and I personally never would, I honestly don't think anyone is trying to pass off their Ford as a Ferrari. From what I've gathered on this site, homage owners generally like the style of a certain watch but lack the funds to purchase it (or want to test drive a homage before purchasing the real deal) so a homage fills that void for them. The person you so lovingly described above sounds more like a stereotype for replica owner in my opinion.


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Mr.Jones82 said:


> One thing I think you're dead wrong about is that people sporting homages are trying to pretend or fool others into believing they have the real deal. I don't think the guy purchasing a Steinhart Pepsi GMT is doing so because he thinks it is going to get the waitress at Chili's to bang him. While I don't own any homages and I personally never would, I honestly don't think anyone is trying to pass off their Ford as a Ferrari. From what I've gathered on this site, homage owners generally like the style of a certain watch but lack the funds to purchase it (or want to test drive a homage before purchasing the real deal) so a homage fills that void for them. The person you so lovingly described above sounds more like a stereotype for replica owner in my opinion.


I didnt say they lived a fake life to get sex from a waitress - I think it is far more fundamental.

Back in 1969 I started dating a farmers girl. We were both under age to be in a pub, but the village pub was the only choice as her parents forbade her to go on the back on my BSA 250.

In the pub every night sat the "old Major". Tweed suit, copy of the telegraph, walking stick. He would hint and suggest about his life from the bar top.

"You have never been frightened boy, until you have opened for a minor public school" (he meant cricket)
"Hot boy, it was a damn sight hotter than this in Poona"
"Oxford, dreamy towers but they are quick to send you down" (he meant expelled from Oxford University).
"The Itchin isnt as good as it was pre war (fly fishing)

He was a master at creating a persona without actually making any claims. The pub deduced that he had gone to a good public school where he excelled at sport, went to Oxford where he seduced his lecturers wife and was expelled. He then joined the British India Army, got a commission and rose to the rank of Major. He had hunted with the Quorn, shot with a syndicate and was an accomplished fly fisherman. Retired to the Uk as Director of a couple of companies.

In some ways I idolised this gruff but educated old man. In some ways I still do.....

Years later I discovered it was ALL fake. All of it. The pub landlord tracked his sister down when he died.

He had been a plumber. No military career at all. Essential war work fixing leaks in Brimingham.

Couldnt ride a horse, never fired a gun, local school somewhere, no Oxford, no India. Nothing of any note at all. Nothing.

According to his sister he had been "friendly" with a man who possibly had lived that life.

Something is wrong with people who try to make others think something of them that isnt the truth.

Can you put homage watches in there? I dont know.....

But I bet the Old Major would wear a homage. "Damn expensive Swiss watches, better off with a $5 quartz" would be exactly how he would add to the persona.


----------



## coffeebreak (Jun 22, 2013)

CaptainCustard said:


> Something is wrong with people who try to make others think something of them that isnt the truth.
> 
> Can you put homage watches in there? I dont know.....


I think, yes and no. 
All those who buy a fake/replica sub clearly hope to fool people around him to think he's wearing a genuine Rolex. 
Some who buy homage subs probably have the same hope, but not all though.


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Mr.Jones82 said:


> . The person you so lovingly described above sounds more like a stereotype for replica owner in my opinion.


Re those characters above:

Military Service - I have lost count of the "Vets" I have come across in my time. They were all SF/SAS, never cooks or Storemen. Come with me one night - I will put my (real) medals on, and watch these losers come out of the woodwork. "I was SAS maaaate", say some fat useless drunken slob. "I was a trained killer on the Nam, the Gan, Iraq, and blah blah blah" I knocked one unconscious one night at a train station. I told him not to touch my uniform and to clear off.

Car - I seem to have met more Porsche, Ferrari, Lambo owners in bars than cars sold in Australia. Even guys with the correct keyring. But as I alluded, they have the key to a humble saloon car on the Ferrari keyring. "Ah maaate, yers average V8 Ferrari doesnt have any torque, yers need a. 12" says some fat idiot in the bar.

Education - I work in banking and finance. Back in the 90s 3 out of 4 MBAs were fake. Guys would just get it printed on a business card. It annoyed me because mine was hard work and cost a lot of money. Even as recently as 2009 my ex boss took my CV and added his name on the top.

Career - same as above. Everyone has some fantastic career behind them, but happens to be stacking shelves in the supermarket these days.

Pens - Im pretty good at spotting real MB. Buying one on you weeks family holiday in Thailand doesnt fool me. I can spot it across a crowded room.

Watches - as above. I can spot a homage or fake across a crowded room. I usually go over and say "Thats not a real Rolex is it"

They could buy any number of cheap divers watches. Lots of good divers out there.

They choose to buy one that emulates mine.


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

coffeebreak said:


> And my Tudor Oyster Prince is also an homage (pictured here with the watch it looks exactly like, our Rolex 6694. They're the exact same size btw, the Rolex is just further from the camera)


I'm not even sure if the Tudor Oyster Prince is considered a homage to the Rolex Oyster Perpetual or the Oysterdate, as they were actually manufactured alongside one another at one time.










brother of OoO


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Probably the best homage story:

The Landwind, which cost £14,000 compared to the £40,000 Range Rover Evoque.

Note that it doesnt say Range Rover on the front - it says Landwing, but it is clearly an attempt to fool anyone.









https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-landmark-case-against-chinese-evoque-copycat

Would I support such an industry?

No.


----------



## coffeebreak (Jun 22, 2013)

That's a good point. The Chinese are copying everyone's car designs now.
Middle of the road cars








Even tiny smart cars








They have their own Geely "Rolls" too


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

it sets an interesting precedent - If Range Rover can shut down a production line and get substantial compensation, because of a visual copy of a product even though it had a different brand name - will Rolex do the same with homages?


----------



## Mr.Jones82 (Jul 15, 2018)

CaptainCustard said:


> I can spot a homage or fake across a crowded room. I usually go over and say "Thats not a real Rolex is it"


I have to say this made me actually crack up. I'd pay money to see you cutting across a party to let the guy wearing the Steinhart know that he isn't wearing a Rolex just in case he forgot.

As for me, I could give a s$#@ if someone was wearing a Steinhart, Squale, or whatever homage brand you want to throw in there. I'll leave it to others to play authenticity police. As for your other examples of inauthenticity, I agree. Those types of individuals are pathetic, but I just don't see the correlation with homage watches personally no matter how many walls of text you want to throw at it.

"Can you put homage watches in there? I don't know....". Okay, we can agree here.

Anyway, as for those cars you posted, have you ever actually seen one of those? Weird. I didn't know they were producing rep/homage cars (although I've probably seen some before without realizing it. I've come across all sorts of weird car brands and names in my travels across Asia). My eyes glaze over when people start waxing about cars, so I'd probably be the last one to ever notice to be fair. Interesting either way.


----------



## harry_flashman (May 30, 2016)

MZhammer said:


> Realistically, we aren't talking about Homages, we're talking about copies with a different brand on the dial. The Tudor black Bay is a homage, a Steinhart Ocean One is a Copy of a Rolex in all but the most minute details to give the visual effect of a Rolex without overstepping legal bounds. Homage is usually a word used by those who feel uneasy about admitting their buying a knockoff.
> 
> I'm in the camp of "only the original brand can copy/homage itself and be on my wrist" such as:
> 1. The Longines Legend Diver, a copy of their original super compressor diver from the 60s
> ...


I agree with all of this... well said. I would be super embarrassed to wear such an "homage."


----------



## Howbouthemcwbys (Apr 11, 2019)

My dad has worked for 40 years at one job. Rarely will miss a day. My hero honestly. He JUST got his first watch over $200. He absolutely refused to treat himself to some watch when he had a few kids to put thru college. His first “nice watch” is a marathon he got last year for his 60th bday. He couldn’t believe my mom spent that much on him. Nonetheless, he enjoys it but says I’d never spend more than that. Just not in his blood. I am buying an oris aquis in 2 weeks. Had to save for awhile for it. Putting away 50 bucks here from each check. Its absolutely nuts the snobbery that can happen here. I have a steinhart black ceramic. I bought it after doing a sound amount of research on what I thought I’d get the most bang for buck for. My budget was under $500. It makes the perfect “work watch/beater” cuz the ceramic and sapphire means it’ll remain clean while I beat it up. It had NOTHING to do w fooling ppl. I wanted a decent watch for the money. It gains 5 seconds in a 7 day period. I’ve dropped it from 5 feet up on the hard floor. Perfect beater. Idk y I even read thru this, the snobs really don’t make a steinhart owner who still spent a good amount of money for their watch feel good. Especially if their like me, only been at this hobby for under a year. I’d never think about buying a Rolex even tho there really nice. I was brought up a little diff. But I will never poo poo on someone for thinking diff. I respect those that say I would never wear one, but more power to those that will. To the ones that think they know exactly y ppl purchase homages (to fool ppl) my only question is, hows the weather up their on ur high horse? Who knew some really were looking for the best possible watch they could w a low budget? Getting up to walk across the room to point out a “fake.” Man get over yourself


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Howbouthemcwbys said:


> My dad has worked for 40 years at one job. Rarely will miss a day. My hero honestly. He JUST got his first watch over $200. He absolutely refused to treat himself to some watch when he had a few kids to put thru college. His first "nice watch" is a marathon he got last year for his 60th bday. He couldn't believe my mom spent that much on him. Nonetheless, he enjoys it but says I'd never spend more than that. Just not in his blood. I am buying an oris aquis in 2 weeks. Had to save for awhile for it. Putting away 50 bucks here from each check. Its absolutely nuts the snobbery that can happen here. I have a steinhart black ceramic. I bought it after doing a sound amount of research on what I thought I'd get the most bang for buck for. My budget was under $500. It makes the perfect "work watch/beater" cuz the ceramic and sapphire means it'll remain clean while I beat it up. It had NOTHING to do w fooling ppl. I wanted a decent watch for the money. It gains 5 seconds in a 7 day period. I've dropped it from 5 feet up on the hard floor. Perfect beater. Idk y I even read thru this, the snobs really don't make a steinhart owner who still spent a good amount of money for their watch feel good. Especially if their like me, only been at this hobby for under a year. I'd never think about buying a Rolex even tho there really nice. I was brought up a little diff. But I will never poo poo on someone for thinking diff. I respect those that say I would never wear one, but more power to those that will. To the ones that think they know exactly y ppl purchase homages (to fool ppl) my only question is, hows the weather up their on ur high horse? Who knew some really were looking for the best possible watch they could w a low budget? Getting up to walk across the room to point out a "fake." Man get over yourself


Why buy a Rolex lookalike?

Lots of other good divers around - same ETA clone movement, good looking dial.

The only reason people buy a Steinhart is it is identical to a Rolex. Admit it and move on mate.

And as sure as sugar, if I see you in a bar wearing a Steinhart I will come over and say "isnt that one of those imitation watches meant to look like mine".

What are you going to do mate?


----------



## koolpep (Jul 14, 2008)

CaptainCustard said:


> Why buy a Rolex lookalike?
> 
> Lots of other good divers around - same ETA clone movement, good looking dial.
> 
> ...


He might sink the HMS Custard with a blow to the face of the Captain.

Jokes aside. It's an homage not a fake. When you are new to that hobby a Steinhart looks like a good value proposition. As I mentioned earlier, I still have mine but feel a wee bit embarrassed once you get the real deal. However, we all started somewhere. Some buyers don't even understand they buy an homage. Or what an homage is....

Anyhow, trying to put someone in their place because of a wrist trinket ... don't you have bigger fish to fry?

Peace.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Howbouthemcwbys said:


> Its absolutely nuts the snobbery that can happen here.


With respect, I think you misunderstand the debate here. No one is slagging anyone for having a $500 watch (plenty of watches in that price range get a lot of love). The issue is the blatant copying - everything but the logo - of an existing design. The price isnt the point.

That said, both sides are guilty of being excessively judgemental about the preferences of others. But that shouldn't be surprising in this day and age, when we as a society seem to have lost the ability to respect different beliefs and opinions.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## Jtragic (Jan 10, 2015)

UberDave said:


> Guilty. Can I be of any assistance?





Raza said:


> Yeah, I was. What's your point?


Thanks for making my point.

Doesn't that make you guilty of what you accuse me of?


----------



## Jtragic (Jan 10, 2015)

CaptainCustard said:


> Why buy a Rolex lookalike?
> 
> Lots of other good divers around - same ETA clone movement, good looking dial.
> 
> ...


I'll look you in the eye and tell you, "Why yes it is. I got this because while I like the look, I don't want the baggage of having to deal people judging me because of Rolex owners like you."


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Jtragic said:


> I'll look you in the eye and tell you, "Why yes it is. I got this because while I like the look, I don't want the baggage of having to deal people judging me because of Rolex owners like you."


Then climb into your fiberglass kit porsche lookalike on a VW chassis and chug off into the sunset?

Will you be wearing a fake military uniform as well? Or would it be the fake Ermenegildo Zegna suit?

Guys like you provide everyone in the bar with endless entertainment. Please dont ever stop.

"I only read it for the articles"


----------



## UberDave (Jan 13, 2015)

Jtragic said:


> Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Doesn't that make you guilty of what you accuse me of?


You asked a question which I assumed would beget more questions. I didn't accuse you of anything. But if you want to talk about what it means to be a pretentious tool, I am your huckleberry.


----------



## Jtragic (Jan 10, 2015)

CaptainCustard said:


> Then climb into your fiberglass kit porsche lookalike on a VW chassis and chug off into the sunset?
> 
> Will you be wearing a fake military uniform as well? Or would it be the fake Ermenegildo Zegna suit?
> 
> ...


No, I'll get into my E350 and drive home.

Actually I don't bother with bars. I have a family to worry about. At 27 you were buying your first Rollie, I was raising my kid and buying my first house.

But you do you bud. You may THINK you know me from my watch choice, but I know I know you by your posts.

Cheers.


----------



## Jtragic (Jan 10, 2015)

UberDave said:


> You asked a question which I assumed would beget more questions. I didn't accuse you of anything. But if you want to talk about what it means to be a pretentious tool, I am your huckleberry.


Actually it was rhetorical.

As for the rest of your post,


----------



## UberDave (Jan 13, 2015)

Jtragic said:


> Actually it was rhetorical.
> 
> As for the rest of your post,


Don't drag Mandy Patinkin into this!


----------



## Jtragic (Jan 10, 2015)

UberDave said:


> Don't drag Mandy Patinkin into this!


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

TheWalrus said:


> Caterham I don't think you should feel bad about - I understand they bought the tooling and designs straight from Lotus - which is what makes them so close to the originals and also gives a certain degree of continuity.
> 
> Fair points on the distinction between that and a Rolex - new or used Rolexes are still available, and easily accessible.


That's true; it's a licensed design, isn't it? There's privity, at the very least.

Plus, I love The Prisoner.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

Jtragic said:


> Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Doesn't that make you guilty of what you accuse me of?


I didn't accuse you of anything. You came in here feeling guilty. That's on you, mate.

From my very first (on topic) post in this thread, I've maintained this:



Raza said:


> Oh, and even though I've said this a million times, I'll say it again so I'm clear. Yes, I would be embarrassed to wear any watch that pretends to be something it's not. A dive style watch that can't go into deep water. A watch that looks like a chronograph, but isn't. An homage watch that is essentially a copy from a different company (as opposed to in-house homage watches/reissues that come out from time to time). But do I think ill of people who wear homages? No, not one bit. I have ridiculous quirks and rules and standards for myself, I don't intend for other people to live by them. And there's nothing inherently wrong with wanting a watch and getting one with a similar style; after all, not everyone can afford an $8,000 watch-I count myself very lucky that I have the means to own luxury goods.


And I don't want to speak for Dave, but as I recall, his message has been consistently similar to mine.


----------



## Jtragic (Jan 10, 2015)

Raza said:


> I didn't accuse you of anything. You came in here feeling guilty. That's on you, mate.
> 
> From my very first (on topic) post in this thread, I've maintained this:
> 
> And I don't want to speak for Dave, but as I recall, his message has been consistently similar to mine.


Guess I'm missing something mate,

What was this meant to imply?


----------



## UberDave (Jan 13, 2015)

Raza said:


> And I don't want to speak for Dave, but as I recall, his message has been consistently similar to mine.


I don't think I have officially weighed in on this topic in this thread, but I'm glad my consistently reasonable posts on this forum have left an impression on you. 

I'm sure my views are not novel, but, for posterity:

Watches which draw inspiration from other watches? Broad description, difficult to define, impossible to avoid.

Homages? They're not for me. They can be for you. I won't judge you for owning one. Don't think me a snob for refusing to consider it.

Replicas (like Bagel Sport or Didun Design)? Oh hell yes I am judging you. You've bought a copy of a well known design which does not deviate in any aesthetic way from the original (aside from being visibly lower quality and having a silly name on the dial). This is outright design theft and I view that as unethical at best. I question how anyone who calls themselves a watch enthusiast can rationalize such a purchase.

Actual fakes? Obviously no.


----------



## Whisky Beer Bob (Jan 29, 2017)

vkalia said:


> Congrats on taking this thread to a new and puerile low. What are you, 12 years old?
> 
> You almost got the last sentence right.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


Thanks for the compliment. It means a lot to me.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

Jtragic said:


> Guess I'm missing something mate,
> 
> What was this meant to imply?


What exactly did I accuse you of there? I see a lot of I statements in there.


----------



## Jtragic (Jan 10, 2015)

UberDave said:


> I don't think I have officially weighed in on this topic in this thread, but I'm glad my consistently reasonable posts on this forum have left an impression on you.
> 
> I'm sure my views are not novel, but, for posterity:
> 
> ...


A reasonable response and one too few people, especially in this thread share.

Directed at the general "you", not you specifically...

Homages not for you, cool, everyone has their own opinion.

You want to judge me because of some pre-conceived idea about why people wear them that has no basis in fact ... that line of thought says more about you then me so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

You want tel tell me to find a different watch to wear, or that i dont get to wear a watch and should just use my phone? Go fukc yourself.


----------



## Jtragic (Jan 10, 2015)

Raza said:


> What exactly did I accuse you of there? I see a lot of I statements in there.


Not exactly an answer as to what your original car comment meant.

Generally speaking, answering a question with a question is a deflection tactic. I asked you to clarify your intent since I guess I got it wrong.

But, you choose not to stand behind your words. Got it.


----------



## Hamstur (Nov 6, 2017)

CaptainCustard said:


> Wasnt then, and still not.
> 
> I bought the real deal aged 27 and never looked back.
> 
> ...


This threads needs fun pics anyways to diffuse the seriousness ... but either way Captain, I told you while we had a drink (i.e., scotch, at least 15yo and neat, of course) that I wasn't making it all up! Why do you have to call me out in public (i.e., utterly anonymous forum)...


----------



## WIS_Chronomaster (Sep 17, 2007)

Doesn't bother me >


----------



## MZhammer (Feb 27, 2009)

Ojibway Bob said:


> Lol at the Hammer dude.
> 
> Why not just come with an original name. I mean you can't be the real MC Hammer. Why not just become a singer?
> 
> ...


Oh good, we're resorting to ad hominem arguments to defend wearing knockoffs.

I stand by my position. If you _only_ like the design of a Rolex Sub, or a Patek Nautilus, and can't appreciate the creativity in a Halios Seaforth, or an Oris 65 diver, or a Seiko SKX, or a Unimatic U1, or a Christopher Ward C60 Trident, or any other option of the near-infinite creative executions for watches that are within any preferred price range, then I'd ask yourself _why_ you only like the designs that also happen to showcase wealth and success to strangers. I find it hard to believe that it springs exclusively from a love of horology.

If you still decide to wear a Steinhart Ocean One, or a Bagelsport Nautilus, that's fine, you do you. Just don't expect others to believe that you're completely of pure intentions.


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Jtragic said:


> No, I'll get into my E350 and drive home.
> 
> Actually I don't bother with bars. I have a family to worry about. At 27 you were buying your first Rollie, I was raising my kid and buying my first house.
> 
> ...


A real E350 - or a cheap chinese copy?

https://www.hotcars.com/20-chinese-copycat-cars-we-wouldnt-touch-with-a-ten-foot-pole/


----------



## Jtragic (Jan 10, 2015)

MZhammer said:


> Oh good, we're resorting to ad hominem arguments to defend wearing knockoffs.
> 
> I stand by my position. If you _only_ like the design of a Rolex Sub, or a Patek Nautilus, and can't appreciate the creativity in a Halios Seaforth, or an Oris 65 diver, or a Seiko SKX, or a Unimatic U1, or a Christopher Ward C60 Trident, or any other option of the near-infinite creative executions for watches that are within any preferred price range, then I'd ask yourself _why_ you only like the designs that also happen to showcase wealth and success to strangers. I find it hard to believe that it springs exclusively from a love of horology.
> 
> If you still decide to wear a Steinhart Ocean One, or a Bagelsport Nautilus, that's fine, you do you. Just don't expect others to believe that you're completely of pure intentions.


You know Rolex were sold as actual tool watches long before they became a "showcase of wealth and success". You used to be able to buy them at military PX's before you had to get on your knees at an AD. Design has been fairly consistent since then. Perhaps it's just a popular design.


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Jtragic said:


> No, I'll get into my E350 and drive home.
> 
> Actually I don't bother with bars. I have a family to worry about. At 27 you were buying your first Rollie, I was raising my kid and buying my first house.
> 
> ...


A real child??.

Or a cardboard cut out....

Or someone elses you rent by the hour? "Oh I like the look of children but this was saves my $50 a day"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-hire-seniors-love-it/?utm_term=.726edf0d5245

I know you from your watch choice mate. All too well.


----------



## Jtragic (Jan 10, 2015)

CaptainCustard said:


> A real E350 - or a cheap chinese copy?
> 
> https://www.hotcars.com/20-chinese-copycat-cars-we-wouldnt-touch-with-a-ten-foot-pole/


No pal, a real one. Two of them actually.

Believe me when I tell you, with you and your hammer buddy as the poster children for Rolex, people aren't buying them to be like you.


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

MZhammer said:


> Oh good, we're resorting to ad hominem arguments to defend wearing knockoffs.
> 
> I stand by my position. If you _only_ like the design of a Rolex Sub, or a Patek Nautilus, and can't appreciate the creativity in a Halios Seaforth, or an Oris 65 diver, or a Seiko SKX, or a Unimatic U1, or a Christopher Ward C60 Trident, or any other option of the near-infinite creative executions for watches that are within any preferred price range, then I'd ask yourself _why_ you only like the designs that also happen to showcase wealth and success to strangers. I find it hard to believe that it springs exclusively from a love of horology.
> 
> If you still decide to wear a Steinhart Ocean One, or a Bagelsport Nautilus, that's fine, you do you. Just don't expect others to believe that you're completely of pure intentions.


^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^

"Its not about the money its not about the image the watch conveys - I just like THAT exact design. The only reason I dont buy the real thing is I dont want to be associated with those nasty Rolex owners"

Seriously guys if you dont want to be mistaken for a Rolex owner DONT BUY A ROLEX HOMAGE!!!!

Buy a Seiko. Buy a G Shock. Buy a Garmin. Buy a Victorinox.

Good honest reliable dive watches that wont let you down.


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Jtragic said:


> No pal, a real one. Two of them actually.
> 
> Believe me when I tell you, with you and your hammer buddy as the poster children for Rolex, people aren't buying them to be like you.


The E350 has a reputation in Oz for being a bit of a pimpmobile. Second hand values fall though the floor (under 10k gets you an old one). Seedy recent arrivals in the country buy them.

https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/de...-6091731?pageSource=details&id=SSE-AD-6091731

You might be better with a cheap Chinese copy. 

I may not be the poster boy for Rolex - couldnt care less TBH. I am not here on this earth to win friends and influence people.

I do wear a real Rolex though.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Agree with Ham, more pics, something for everybody, cause they're just watches, geez . . .


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Personally I would MUCH prefer this on my arm to a Sub homage.

No embarrassing questions in the bar or at work. No chance of a mistake.

Good solid reliable watch.


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Or this. Damn honest reliable watch.


----------



## MZhammer (Feb 27, 2009)

Jtragic said:


> You know Rolex were sold as actual tool watches long before they became a "showcase of wealth and success". You used to be able to buy them at military PX's before you had to get on your knees at an AD. Design has been fairly consistent since then. Perhaps it's just a popular design.


Yes, you're absolutely right, they once were sold as tool watches. And in the mid 80s / early 90s they changed, here's a 1984 article on the "Texas Timex" phenomena in case you don't recall - https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/texas-primer-the-texas-timex/

That's 35+ years of Rolex ceasing to be a workhorse in the consumers mind and becoming a status symbol. The entire millennial generation (1981-1996) and younger has never known Rolex as anything but a luxury. And now that classic design is also one of the most widely known, and faked, luxury brands on the planet.

Hell, we have more "Can I shower with my Rolex" threads than "Look at me diving with my Sub" threads and that ought to show you how it has changed.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

CaptainCustard said:


> Personally I would MUCH prefer this on my arm to a Sub homage.
> 
> No embarrassing questions in the bar or at work. No chance of a mistake.


Eh dunno, I own a few Seiko's but this one would never make into my stash, would much rather have my Steinhart/Davosa/Invicta copies, I don't mind questions or mistakes cause it wouldn't be from me/mine, thank God the (watch) world is such a big, big place, to each their own for sure . . .


----------



## Jtragic (Jan 10, 2015)

CaptainCustard said:


> The E350 has a reputation in Oz for being a bit of a pimpmobile. Second hand values fall though the floor (under 10k gets you an old one). Seedy recent arrivals in the country buy them.
> 
> https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/de...-6091731?pageSource=details&id=SSE-AD-6091731
> 
> ...


Holy ...... I knew something sounded familiar.

Paul Pluta's WUS account. Who knew?

Well done sir. Well done.


----------



## Hamstur (Nov 6, 2017)

drhr said:


> Agree with Ham, more pics, something for everybody, cause they're just watches, geez . . .


Speaking of Submariner homages, I recently got rid of my YM40 Rhodium cause it was just too monotone steely for my tastes in the end (i.e., not because I was embarassed by it). I started wondering how different the blue wears and if I would've kept that one. What's your feeler on the blue vs rhodium YM40 Sub homage?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Hamstur said:


> Speaking of Submariner homages, I recently got rid of my YM40 Rhodium cause it was just too monotone steely for my tastes in the end (i.e., not because I was embarassed by it). I started wondering how different the blue wears and if I would've kept that one. What's your feeler on the blue vs rhodium YM40 Sub homage?


I love blue dials, and the YM has a gorgeous one . . . that said, there is too much contrast with the blue against the polished surfaces surrounding it so I prefer the Rhodium, actually for the exact reason you didn't quite like yours (too monotone). I think Rolex should just solve our problems (well at least mine for sure) by coming out with a non-date stainless steel (no polishes anywhere) blue dialed Sub ;-)


----------



## Hamstur (Nov 6, 2017)

drhr said:


> I love blue dials, and the YM has a gorgeous one . . . that said, there is too much contrast with the blue against the polished surfaces surrounding it so I prefer the Rhodium, actually for the exact reason you didn't quite like yours (too monotone). I think Rolex should just solve our problems (well at least mine for sure) by coming out with a non-date stainless steel (no polishes anywhere) blue dialed Sub


Here here! All brushed SS Smurf is overdue. I was one of the ones hoping for a 40mm Tudor Pelagos Blue Sub homage. Tried the BB58 Sub homage but it was too small and the gilt horribly matched my skin tone. Too bad Rolex and Tudor just prefer to disappoint vs provide the Sub homages we desire (and deserve).


----------



## docvail (Oct 24, 2012)

Not even a little bit embarrassed.










Tapatalk is all natural. Wash in cold water and tumble dry on low heat. Some talk shrinking may occur.


----------



## Whisky Beer Bob (Jan 29, 2017)

MZhammer said:


> Oh good, we're resorting to ad hominem arguments to defend wearing knockoffs.
> 
> I stand by my position. If you _only_ like the design of a Rolex Sub, or a Patek Nautilus, and can't appreciate the creativity in a Halios Seaforth, or an Oris 65 diver, or a Seiko SKX, or a Unimatic U1, or a Christopher Ward C60 Trident, or any other option of the near-infinite creative executions for watches that are within any preferred price range, then I'd ask yourself _why_ you only like the designs that also happen to showcase wealth and success to strangers. I find it hard to believe that it springs exclusively from a love of horology.
> 
> If you still decide to wear a Steinhart Ocean One, or a Bagelsport Nautilus, that's fine, you do you. Just don't expect others to believe that you're completely of pure intentions.


I got nothing bro but I love you man.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## Whisky Beer Bob (Jan 29, 2017)

Jtragic said:


> No pal, a real one. Two of them actually.
> 
> Believe me when I tell you, with you and your hammer buddy as the poster children for Rolex, people aren't buying them to be like you.


I don't know bout that.

Maybe we can be an homage of custard and hammer?

They are the 1% and we are trash. So what better to honour them then to homage them.

They drive the first cars ever made and wear the first dive watches ever, hmmm but Rolex was not but what ever....ALLL the famous people wear rolexes...

Tragic you got's to believe we can be too legit to quit as well.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Jtragic said:


> Holy ...... I knew something sounded familiar.
> 
> Paul Pluta's WUS account. Who knew?
> 
> Well done sir. Well done.


No connection whatsoever with the fat turkey.......


----------



## Whisky Beer Bob (Jan 29, 2017)

docvail said:


> Not even a little bit embarrassed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh my gawd.....

If I had that, I would be the envy of everyone.

You know I got's mad love for you Doc. Fack all these people that think Rolex was the first watch ever made.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## Aychir (Jun 2, 2019)

I wouldn't be. Granted I don't have one but am in the process of looking at some. Honestly, I just love the look of the watch, it's extremely balanced, well sized, and legible. I'm not embarrassed because it's the design I like, not the fact that it looks like a Rolex- for me, it has nothing to do with the brand and I don't intend on flashing it around as something that it's not. I just try to enjoy the piece on my wrist because I like, not because others will.


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

MZhammer said:


> Yes, you're absolutely right, they once were sold as tool watches. And in the mid 80s / early 90s they changed, here's a 1984 article on the "Texas Timex" phenomena in case you don't recall - https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/texas-primer-the-texas-timex/
> 
> That's 35+ years of Rolex ceasing to be a workhorse in the consumers mind and becoming a status symbol. The entire millennial generation (1981-1996) and younger has never known Rolex as anything but a luxury. And now that classic design is also one of the most widely known, and faked, luxury brands on the planet.
> 
> Hell, we have more "Can I shower with my Rolex" threads than "Look at me diving with my Sub" threads and that ought to show you how it has changed.


Indeed - and I am probably one of the few on this thread who bought one as a tool watch:

1978 and I get posted to the Middle East to do a job that I was not qualified, experienced or mature enough for. No one else would go.

The project was the largest in the world at the time, well over a thousand expats from the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc and around a further 3000 workers from developing nations. We lived three guys to a villa, with a central mess with a pool, bar and food hall.

My comrades terrified me. Hardened alcoholics on their 3rd or 4th divorce, they would fight over nothing. But they looked after me.

I arrived on site wearing a reasonable but normal watch. Everyone warned me that that fine sand would kill it. Within six weeks it was dead. Timekeeping was vital to us. The guys took me into town on a Friday and ordered me to buy a Rolex. They ALL wore Rolex. Mainly Subs.

I bought a Seiko quartz diver. It lasted out my contract, and I still have it.

When I got back to the UK I was cashed up and I missed the wild times. I walked into an AD and bought a brand new GMT Master. I wore it all over the world for 20+ years, replacing it in 1999 with the Explorer 2 that is on my wrist as I type this.

Both of these watches were used to keep multiple times across the world, swim in the hotel pool, go for dinner with clients and party the night away in the most sordid Asian bars you could ever dream of.

A few years ago I bought a new 114060. I didnt need it, but it reminded me of times when we swam, snorkelled, wind surfed and dived in the Gulf.

That Submariner was the first time I bought a new Rolex as anything other than a tool watch.


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Ojibway Bob said:


> I don't know bout that.
> 
> Maybe we can be an homage of custard and hammer?
> 
> ...


Dont know about 1%. Maybe I am just too open and honest to hang around on a thread about homages.

Anyone here have those silicon pecs inserts to make them look like they work out?

Anyone got a GF who carries a "homage" Chanel or Hermes bag?


----------



## Ian_61 (Mar 13, 2018)

Have you ever met a better man than yourself Custard?

I strongly suspect that you're just homaging the "Old Major" from the pub in your story.

Maybe we should call you Major Custard from now on!


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Ian_61 said:


> Have you ever met a better man than yourself Custard?
> 
> I strongly suspect that you're just homaging the "Old Major" from the pub in your story.
> 
> Maybe we should call you Major Custard from now on!


Met lots of guys better than me mate. Lots of them. Non wearing imitation Rolex though.

And lots who are a lot worse.

I am old, I didnt have children, I packed a lot into my life and I was given a lot of opportunities. No point in spending your time watching TV.

Unlike the Old Major, I actually did it. All of it. Oxford University. Australian Army. Royal Military College Duntroon. Intermediate Staff College. Sydney University. Banker. Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines. Asian Development Bank, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Nauru, Tonga, Fiji, Vanuatu. Engineer across most of Australia and NZ. Weipa, Roxby Downs, Mount Isa (fun place) Gladstone, Portland, Iron Triangle, Kalgoorlie (fun place) Argyle Diamond, Port Headland. Before that France, before that Dubai. Girlfriend who did 25 years for murder. Serious rock climber. Worked on the NSW Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Royal Commission. Business Project Manager, Eurobond Finance.

I can prove all of it.

Live life.


----------



## 10Swiss10 (Apr 17, 2019)

I actually think collecting sub homages could be a sub hobby within the hobby. Back in the day Casio had a pretty solid homage along with every other brand.

I mean. They’re just watches. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ian_61 (Mar 13, 2018)

CaptainCustard said:


> I am old, I didnt have children, I packed a lot into my life and I was given a lot of opportunities. No point in spending your time watching TV.
> 
> Live life.


And yet here you are making the most of your retirement, posting 10 times a day on a watch forum, disparaging others over the choice of a watch. Nice one.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

What I don't get isn't the fact that people don't like homages. It's the intense vitriol to people who like them - from some people. Why does this hurt you? Why is this something that's so worthy of such an intense emotional response? And if we go this far - why not go further? Someone wearing a submariner that doesn't dive? Seems suspicious. What are you trying to say about yourself and hobbies? A GMT for someone who doesn't travel the world as a pilot, or for business? Is it needed to ensure you stay on time when you take a trip to the time-zone next door? Or is something else going on? Of course, I'm not saying any of those things - but over-the-top criticism of someone wearing a watch that looks like a submariner does open up some interesting 'slipper slope' questions....

You know - if I see some guy pretending to be something he isn't, I don't call him out. I don't ridicule him. I certainly don't 'knock him out'. If anything I just feel sorry for the guy. There's clearly something going on there that involves a lot of self confidence issues - and maybe deeper psychological problems. And yes - I recognize that stolen valour is a hugely important issue. And, as I understand it, criminal charges do accompany those acts. That doesn't mean I'm going to mock some dude who wants to pretend he was in the SAS.


----------



## Mr.Jones82 (Jul 15, 2018)

CaptainCustard said:


> MZhammer said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, you're absolutely right, they once were sold as tool watches. And in the mid 80s / early 90s they changed, here's a 1984 article on the "Texas Timex" phenomena in case you don't recall - https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/texas-primer-the-texas-timex/
> ...


Interesting. When I read stories like this I always wonder if you would still make the same purchase in this day and age? If you were the same age, posted up in the ME now, would you still choose a Rolex as your prefered tool watch? I think part of the deep loyalty people like you have with Rolex is more about your own history that you share with Rolex and less about Rolex as a company. You lived in a time when Rolex watches were tools. If anything Rolex watches are better tool watches than they've ever been, they haven't ceased to exist as tools, but their price tag disqualifies them from tool status for most and they tend to get treated/perceived more as jewelry.

A lot of other tool watches have taken up the mantle. I think Sinn is an excellent candidate. Their watches are generally loaded with useful tech, but Sinn and other lauded tool brands do seem to lack one thing in particular. Finish? No. Bracelet? Rolex has great bracelets, but other great bracelets exist. Style and design? Okay, yes, I find Rolex design timeless and universal, but there are other designs I like or prefer. Movement? Ah, there it is. Well, at least for me. You don't hear a lot of stories about an ETA that has been running for +20 years without being serviced. Rolex movements have gained mythical status, where stories of Grandpa's Rolex that sat in some drawer for decades(where are these drawers that every old person seems to have? They're damn treasure chests) and after a few shakes, starts right up. Not to mention their accuracy. I'm sure someone will attribute all these anecdotes floating around to the Rolex marketing machine and I know there are other competent movements out there, but Rolex does deliver a total package, not just a movement.

I don't own a Rolex and the models I do like I cannot justify spending the kind of dough they demand on them for now. But I appreciate them and think they make a great product, which is why I never understand how these threads always devolve into petty bickering and ad hominem sniping. On the other hand, I don't own any homages and never would, but I don't think any less of anyone else for owning one and could give a [email protected]&.

Anyway, that was a ramble and a half, and slightly off topic at times. I am curious if homage owners draw a line in the sand anywhere (obviously replicas, I'm not talking about that)? No judgement, I am just curious. The Ginault thread was a curious one and full of a lot of venom and contradictory characters and rhetoric.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

I absolutely love the trite “Live life” statement. One side of the mouth espouses finding happiness while the other demonstrates a critical spirit that sows divisiveness and discord. 

I think it’s plain to see which world view this user (and others like him) embraces.

What a great thread for a watch enthusiast forum.


----------



## Jtragic (Jan 10, 2015)

CaptainCustard said:


> Indeed - and I am probably one of the few on this thread who bought one as a tool watch:
> 
> 1978 and I get posted to the Middle East to do a job that I was not qualified, experienced or mature enough for. No one else would go.
> 
> ...


Damn Rosco. I never remember you being this judgmental.


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Interesting. When I read stories like this I always wonder if you would still make the same purchase in this day and age? If you were the same age, posted up in the ME now, would you still choose a Rolex as your prefered tool watch? I think part of the deep loyalty people like you have with Rolex is more about your own history that you share with Rolex and less about Rolex as a company. You lived in a time when Rolex watches were tools. If anything Rolex watches are better tool watches than they've ever been, they haven't ceased to exist as tools, but their price tag disqualifies them from tool status for most and they tend to get treated/perceived more as jewelry.
> 
> .


Almost certainly not, and you are spot on - my loyalty to Rolex is because of my own history and early experiences. I trusted the old guys who said "buy a Rolex".

Its important to note that I didnt buy a Rolex in Dubai in 78 - I bought a Seiko Quartz Diver. The Emirati shopkeeper insisted it was as good as a Rolex and in many ways he was right. It finally broke down about 5 years ago. It is unfixable and sits in a drawer. I dont have the heart to throw it out.

If I were 25 and posted to a developing State like Dubai today (as it was back then) I would buy GShock Mudmaster.


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

CaptainCustard said:


> A real E350 - or a cheap chinese copy?
> 
> https://www.hotcars.com/20-chinese-copycat-cars-we-wouldnt-touch-with-a-ten-foot-pole/


Leasing the E class is only a few hundred bucks a month, no biggie.

brother of OoO


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

TheWalrus said:


> Someone wearing a submariner that doesn't dive? Seems suspicious. What are you trying to say about yourself and hobbies? A GMT for someone who doesn't travel the world as a pilot, or for business?
> .


Thoroughly agree.

Back in the 50s and 60s diving was a dangerous esoteric hobby (or job for some). Diving and skiing became the sports to pursue. James Bond skied down mountains and swam ashore undetected, all wearing a divers watch. Little kids watched and dreamed.

You had to be rich and "in" to ski or dive. The British army used both sports in its 1969s recruiting campaigns.

The dive watch became a badge of honour. "Did you see that watch Jenkins is wearing? He must be one of those Skin Divers. How exciting. We should get him to tell us about it at the next drinks night"

By the early 70s cheap clone dive watches were everywhere. Eddie the Office Boy was wearing one - and he couldnt swim.

By the late 70s dive clubs had sprung up, as had ski clubs. The mystique had gone. Make the effort and you could ski or dive.

The same thing has happened to GMT watches. back in the 80s and even 90s dual time function was a big bonus for people who travelled internationally. PDAs and then Smart Phones made them irrelevant.

You raise a good point. I know both Dive watch owners who cannot swim, and GMT owners who a scared of flying.

But they feel better about themselves when they wear the watch.

its very sad.


----------



## Jtragic (Jan 10, 2015)

mui.richard said:


> Leasing the E class is only a few hundred bucks a month, no biggie.
> 
> brother of OoO


I see Sportura's gotten you under the lease spell, but I own mine.


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

TheWalrus said:


> I certainly don't 'knock him out'. .


This is the story behind that incident. I was at a major train station, in uniform.

It is a red rag to a bull. Within minutes some fat drunken slob came up to me. The conversation went something like this:

"In the aaaaarmy are yer maaate?"

(i was in an army uniform. I avoided my normal response - no I am a tram driver)

"What yer with maaaate, what unit?"

(an ex soldier would know what corps from my collar dogs and cap badge)

"i was SAS maaate, you pussies couldnt get in the SAS and blah blah blah..."

He now had hold of my uniform collar. I twice told him not to touch my uniform. Those in the military will understand the problem with trying to remove greasy chip fat fingerprints off a clean uniform.

"yous wouldnt get near us SAS yous wouldnt"

More sticky fingerprints, then he is lying prone on the floor with blood streaming from his nose.

If you talk the talk you had better be able to walk the walk.


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Jtragic said:


> I see Sportura's gotten you under the lease spell, but I own mine.


Two of them!

Please tell me one isnt a parts donor, half stripped and rusting on the front lawn.


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Ian_61 said:


> And yet here you are making the most of your retirement, posting 10 times a day on a watch forum, disparaging others over the choice of a watch. Nice one.


Retirement?

Whats that?????

Im not disparaging anyone mate.

They are as free to wear an imitation Rolex as to wear a Pink dayglow suit and a pair of underpants on their head.


----------



## Jtragic (Jan 10, 2015)

CaptainCustard said:


> Two of them!
> 
> Please tell me one isnt a parts donor, half stripped and rusting on the front lawn.


Nope, both fully functional.

Why so salty bro? Maybe you should go back on sabbatical.


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Jtragic said:


> Nope, both fully functional.
> 
> Why so salty bro? Maybe you should go back on sabbatical.


That was a joke mate.

The idea of you having a scrapper E350 half stripped on the front lawn!

I didnt mean to imply that you actually had.


----------



## Ian_61 (Mar 13, 2018)

CaptainCustard said:


> Ian_61 said:
> 
> 
> > And yet here you are making the most of your retirement, posting 10 times a day on a watch forum, disparaging others over the choice of a watch. Nice one.
> ...


Haven't you got a marathon to go run, or a mountain to go climb, or a golden gloves trophy to go defend?

Some trolls are entertaining to feed, others are just... sad. I'm saving what's left of my bag of peanuts for another thread!


----------



## CaptainCustard (Jun 8, 2019)

Ian_61 said:


> Haven't you got a marathon to go run, or a mountain to go climb, or a golden gloves trophy to go defend?
> 
> Some trolls are entertaining to feed, others are just... sad. I'm saving what's left of my bag of peanuts for another thread!


No troll mate, just my honest opinion of people who wear imitation Rolex.


----------



## Jtragic (Jan 10, 2015)

CaptainCustard said:


> That was a joke mate.
> 
> The idea of you having a scrapper E350 half stripped on the front lawn!
> 
> I didnt mean to imply that you actually had.


Fair enough.

Can we get back to more important things than this homage pissing match?

Like what the fukc is the deal with your spiders down there?


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Mr.Jones82 said:


> A lot of other tool watches have taken up the mantle. I think Sinn is an excellent candidate.


In this day and age, anything more expensive than a G-Shock is NOT a tool watch.

The moment you spend $2000 or even $1000 for a suppisedly utilitarian watch, when you can get a more robust/more feature-laden time-keeper for $100, you are no longer buying just for time-keeping performance but are buying into brand/style/image/etc. as well.

The only difference between spending $2k or $8k or even $200k on a RM is just one of affordability.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

Jtragic said:


> I see Sportura's gotten you under the lease spell, but I own mine.


Actually I don't believe in leasing, and I own my home, cars...I even paid cash when I gifted my daughter her new car just this January.

I see Sporty as a fun fellow on WUS, but I don't subscribe much to his way of thinking. Was simply stating the fact that while to some an E-class might seem like a lot of money, with the means and good planning it's only a middle class car, much like a Rolex.


----------



## Mr.Jones82 (Jul 15, 2018)

vkalia said:


> Mr.Jones82 said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of other tool watches have taken up the mantle. I think Sinn is an excellent candidate.
> ...


I guess I didn"t realize tool and jewelry had to be mutually exclusive. Just because you don't use a tool watch for its intended purposes doesn't mean it ceases to be a tool.

Anyway, once you start throwing the word tool around I feel like you end up inviting an argument that eventually just breaks down into semantics, but I see your point.


----------



## Fergfour (Jan 4, 2013)

I'm admittedly ignorant (blissfully?) when it comes to Rolex. I can't remember ever visiting the Rolex website or the WUS Rolex forum. I don't frequent jewelers, and I can't say I've ever seen anyone in person wearing one. I do know they're not in my usual price range and that I've never had a watch with "mercedes" hands as I don't particularly like that style.

If a watch I was wearing said "Rolex" on it and it wasn't a real Rolex I _might _be embarrassed if someone walked up to me and called me out on it. But in reality I'd be probably be thinking to myself, wow someone is actually asking me about a watch I'm wearing, which has happened maybe 2-3 times my entire life.

Sometimes when I'm reading a watch review I'll see mentioned about how it's an homage to, or has some stylistic characteristics of some other watch but that doesn't automatically disqualify it from my consideration. To answer the OP's question I suppose I'm with the the "no" crowd.

p.s. As far as WUS goes, embarrassment levels seem low to non-existent in the "Brotherhood of Submariner Watches" thread(s). I think there have been 30-something iterations of that topic over the years. I've seen much interest in the multiple "Silver Watch Co" threads in recent times as well.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Mr.Jones82 said:


> I guess I didn"t realize tool and jewelry had to be mutually exclusive. Just because you don't use a tool watch for its intended purposes doesn't mean it ceases to be a tool.
> 
> Anyway, once you start throwing the word tool around I feel like you end up inviting an argument that eventually just breaks down into semantics, but I see your point.


Not a semantic argument at all.

You had made a distinction between Rolex and Sinn in terms of being "true tool watches" - my point was that there is none, except price. Your first paragraph above applies equally to Rolex as well.

Pretty much no one buys mechanical watches just for time-keeping. Be it a Sinn or a Rolex or a RM. Si it makes no sense to say a $2k watch is "practical" and a more expensive watch isnt. That's all.

Very few people buy a Sinn because they *need* a rugged watch (those that need a rugged watch get a GShock). However, many people buy Sinn because it has the *image* of a rugged watch and thet identify with that image.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 2, 2018)

Ian_61 said:


> Have you ever met a better man than yourself Custard?
> 
> I strongly suspect that you're just homaging the "Old Major" from the pub in your story.
> 
> Maybe we should call you Major Custard from now on!


+1

The braggadocio on this thread is comical (perhaps clinical).


----------



## Mr.Jones82 (Jul 15, 2018)

vkalia said:


> Mr.Jones82 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I didn"t realize tool and jewelry had to be mutually exclusive. Just because you don't use a tool watch for its intended purposes doesn't mean it ceases to be a tool.
> ...


Wait a minute, you mean to tell me people are needlessly buying Sinns for their rugged image or as an accessory to further their own perceived rugged image? So it is toolery after all....? Damn, so that's why I left the Sinn at home today and took my G Shock along for the hike.









Anyway, fair point. 
Now, too bad I didn't wear a Skmei today for the hike so we could then seamlessly segue back to talking about homages...if that was even what people were talking about for the last 5 pages.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Anyway, fair point.
> Now, too bad I didn't wear a Skmei today for the hike so we could then seamlessly segue back to talking about homages...if that was even what people were talking about for the last 5 pages.


After nearly a 1000 posts, I think we are close to reaching a consensus on the homage topic for good.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

Jtragic said:


> Not exactly an answer as to what your original car comment meant.
> 
> Generally speaking, answering a question with a question is a deflection tactic. I asked you to clarify your intent since I guess I got it wrong.
> 
> But, you choose not to stand behind your words. Got it.


I honestly didn't know what you're saying I did. I offered an alternative to buying an homage--that is, buy something different--via analogy. I'm sorry that offended you.

That said, I don't endorse character assassination based on wearing an homage. Not my style.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Hmmm, maybe start a new thread, Is it embarrassing to call a knockoff, a homage?


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

Watchbreath said:


> Hmmm, maybe start a new thread, Is it embarrassing to call a knockoff, a homage?


You know this is one concept I've never been able to really put a grasp on...when Longines release a new watch based on, say, their legend diver, I consider it a homage.

When Tudor released the Black Bay diver, I also consider it a homage to their Submariner.

When Tag released their new Monaco, it's a homage.

I consider the above homages, as while they retain a lot of the same/similar visual cues, they are either in a modernized size or possess some significant differences. So they are not technically reissues. And try are released by the same manufacturer so they are definitely not knock-offs.

When Rolex released the Sub back in 1954, one year after the Fifty Fathom, some calls it a knock-off? A copy-cat?

Now how is the Steinhart Ocean series not a knock-off/copy-cat, but a homage?

Could anyone here explain?


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

If produced by someone else, knockoff. Then there's, what I consider, the greatest 'homage' of them all, the Longines - Hour Angle.


mui.richard said:


> You know this is one concept I've never been able to really put a grasp on...when Longines release a new watch based on, say, their legend diver, I consider it a homage.
> 
> When Tudor released the Black Bay diver, I also consider it a homage to their Submariner.
> 
> ...


----------



## ewhulbert (Jun 14, 2019)

I'm not even remotely embarrassed by my NTH Carolina. I suppose I could buy a real sub, but watches just aren't the thing I value that highly. Rather contribute to my kids 529s or my retirement plans, plus I really like this watch.

You can appreciate nice things and Homages. I was playing poker Friday night and the guy next to me was a watch guy and really liked my watch. I took it off and let him play around with it. He kept saying what a nice watch it was and was floored when I told him it's $650.

I told him I liked his watch too. It was a Richard Mille.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

Watchbreath said:


> If produced by someone else, knockoff. Then there's, what I consider, the greatest 'homage' of them all, the Longines - Hour Angle.


Not exactly my preferred genre, but a very handsome watch nonetheless.


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

vkalia said:


> In this day and age, anything more expensive than a G-Shock is NOT a tool watch.
> 
> The moment you spend $2000 or even $1000 for a suppisedly utilitarian watch, when you can get a more robust/more feature-laden time-keeper for $100, you are no longer buying just for time-keeping performance but are buying into brand/style/image/etc. as well.
> 
> ...


Not necessarily true. My beater/tool watch is the Tudor Ranger. I wear it without a care at all, even managed to put a pretty deep scratch on the sapphire crystal...perhaps it was the Mrs' diamond but I have absolutely no idea how or when it happened.

And, it IS a homage to the original Tudor Ranger released in 1967.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

mui.richard said:


> Not necessarily true. My beater/tool watch is the Tudor Ranger. I wear it without a care at all, even managed to put a pretty deep scratch on the sapphire crystal...perhaps it was the Mrs' diamond but I have absolutely no idea how it when it happened.
> 
> And, it IS a homage to the original Tudor Ranger released in 1967.




















Good choice. And these are a steal on the secondary market.


----------



## MZhammer (Feb 27, 2009)

mui.richard said:


> Not necessarily true. My beater/tool watch is the Tudor Ranger. I wear it without a care at all, even managed to put a pretty deep scratch on the sapphire crystal...perhaps it was the Mrs' diamond but I have absolutely no idea how or when it happened.
> 
> And, it IS a homage to the original Tudor Ranger released in 1967.


What I believe @vkalia is arguing (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that calling a Tudor Ranger a "tool" watch, or any mechanical watch, might be akin to calling a hand-cranked drill a tool in comparison to a Corded Power Drill.

While technically the hand-crank drill is still used by a small subset of people, and can still perform many jobs (though not all) it is slower and more difficult to use in anything but an enthusiast project. Most DIY-ers and professionals opt for the vastly improved corded or cordless drills for modern jobs. A mechanical watch is our crank drill. We're an enthusiast group choosing less accurate, more expensive "tools" for jobs they once performed admirably but technology has left far in the dust. Our Tool watches do the job just as well as they once did but there are now more robust, more accurate and less expensive tools now to do the same job, hence taking the mantle from our beloved mechanical watches.

I don't have any issue with this, I wear my dive watches (which are both proper homages, the Longines LLD and the Doxa Sub Shark-lung) when I go diving but I do it for the romance of it, not because they do a better job than my dive computer.


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

MZhammer said:


> What I believe @vkalia is arguing (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that calling a Tudor Ranger a "tool" watch, or any mechanical watch, might be akin to calling a hand-cranked drill a tool in comparison to a Corded Power Drill.
> 
> While technically the hand-crank drill is still used by a small subset of people, and can still perform many jobs (though not all) it is slower and more difficult to use in anything but an enthusiast project. Most DIY-ers and professionals opt for the vastly improved corded or cordless drills for modern jobs. A mechanical watch is our crank drill. We're an enthusiast group choosing less accurate, more expensive "tools" for jobs they once performed admirably but technology has left far in the dust. Our Tool watches do the job just as well as they once did but there are now more robust, more accurate and less expensive tools now to do the same job, hence taking the mantle from our beloved mechanical watches.
> 
> I don't have any issue with this, I wear my dive watches (which are both proper homages, the Longines LLD and the Doxa Sub Shark-lung) when I go diving but I do it for the romance of it, not because they do a better job than my dive computer.


While I can't really argue with that, there's one circumstance a mechanical device excel over their more "modern" counterpart: the need for electricity/battery. And while I don't dive, I believe a dive watch is still an invaluable tool, imagine if the dive computer breaks or malfunction during a dive...

The chance of a well-made mechanical watch breaking down is extremely low.

While this doesn't exactly apply to a mechanical watch... I remember when I first used a potter's wheel, the manual ones were much easier to manipulate in terms of speed control. So in this aspect I'd still argue that while the power tools are definitely more "efficient", they are not necessarily "better". I truly believe it will depend on what the user is trying to achieve.

Making of this PP's balance staff cannot be done with a machine due to the extreme finess...despite our advancement in technology (3:55 into the video)


----------



## MZhammer (Feb 27, 2009)

mui.richard said:


> While I can't really argue with that, there's one circumstance a mechanical device excel over their more "modern" counterpart: the need for electricity/battery. And while I don't dive, I believe a dive watch is still an invaluable tool, imagine if the dive computer breaks or malfunction during a dive...
> 
> The chance of a well-made mechanical watch breaking down is extremely low.
> 
> ...


I can only speak to the dive example but, as a diver, I generally carry two computers. One integrated into my BCD and one on my wrist as a backup (my backup is a Zoop Novo about $250 so cheaper than any mechanical outside of an SKX). If both of my computer miraculously failed, I'm ending the dive immediately. While you still have gauges to show you depth and air levels it is extremely unwise to dive without a functioning computer. I doubt many divers would rely on their mechanical dive watch in such a case. Even still, a G-Shock would be much better in this case than a mechanical watch. It's radio-controlled accurate, has an LED for easy reading, more robust than a mechanical and can have the battery recharged by the sun. I actually have an old G-Shock I keep in my Dive Box in case I ever forget or leave my mechanical behind.

And the balance staff example doesn't really apply. We're discussing areas where technological improvements have created superior tools to do the same job, such as using a mechanical watch for time keeping. If a better tool doesn't exist for the Balance staff then its still the best tool.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

mui.richard said:


> Not necessarily true. My beater/tool watch is the Tudor Ranger. I wear it without a care at all, even managed to put a pretty deep scratch on the sapphire crystal...perhaps it was the Mrs' diamond but I have absolutely no idea how or when it happened.


Oh, no disagreements there.

My point is that people use all sorts of watches as tools. Nadal uses a RM. Someone else uses a Sub or Explorer. Yet someone else uses a Sinn.

The price of a watch doesnt affect its suitability for use as a tool watch - a Sub is as suitable as a tool watch as a Sinn.

Everyone using a mechanical watch is paying a premium (which is fine, btw). So you cannot argue that a Sub is not suitable as a tool but a Sinn is - both are watches where you are paying a premium for non-utilitarian factors and to argue that a $2000 premium is ok but $8000 (or even $80,000, depending on your pockets) is not doesnt hold water to me.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr.Jones82 (Jul 15, 2018)

vkalia said:


> mui.richard said:
> 
> 
> > Not necessarily true. My beater/tool watch is the Tudor Ranger. I wear it without a care at all, even managed to put a pretty deep scratch on the sapphire crystal...perhaps it was the Mrs' diamond but I have absolutely no idea how or when it happened.
> ...


You're the one who keeps using the term true tool watch. I never used that term.

Also, I never said Rolex was less of a tool, in fact I said the opposite. I said it was a better tool than it has ever been. I also specifically said they DO NOT cease to be tools even though some people view them as jewelry. All I said was that "for most" people they are not viewed as tool watches or used as such because of the price tag. 
The reason I used Sinn as an example because it is more affordable for some and some people are willing to bang it around and use it as a "tool", not because it is a better tool but because they don't mind seeing it get beat up. Same as Richard up above. He has a Tudor he says, doesn't mind seeing it get dinged up and uses it as a tool. His Rolex watches would do just as good of a job I am sure and I don't think he would argue they are any less worthy, but price tag generally does determine how we use something. Does that mean no one uses a Rolex as a "tool"? Nope, never said that. I said "most" because clearly price and value are different things to all of us.
Now if you want to argue that Sinn is just as much of a piece of jewelry to most people, fair enough. I wasn't writing a master thesis so I didn't do the proper research to find out how many Sinn owners actually use their watches as "tools" as opposed to trinkets. In the end, for most I imagine you are right, it is toolery.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

MZhammer said:


> I can only speak to the dive example but, as a diver, I generally carry two computers. One integrated into my BCD and one on my wrist as a backup (my backup is a Zoop Novo about $250 so cheaper than any mechanical outside of an SKX). If both of my computer miraculously failed, I'm ending the dive immediately. While you still have gauges to show you depth and air levels it is extremely unwise to dive without a functioning computer. I doubt many divers would rely on their mechanical dive watch in such a case. Even still, a G-Shock would be much better in this case than a mechanical watch. It's radio-controlled accurate, has an LED for easy reading, more robust than a mechanical and can have the battery recharged by the sun. I actually have an old G-Shock I keep in my Dive Box in case I ever forget or leave my mechanical behind.
> 
> And the balance staff example doesn't really apply. We're discussing areas where technological improvements have created superior tools to do the same job, such as using a mechanical watch for time keeping. If a better tool doesn't exist for the Balance staff then its still the best tool.


Yeah. This seems to be a common topic on here. I get the intuition to want to rely on a mechanical dive watch. But realistically it isn't happening. I dive with one computer - wrist based. If it fails, I'm surfacing. Deco-stop diving isn't my thing (at least not yet) - but if I were to ever go there it'd be with two computers. No exceptions.

Dive watches are cool - and I'd wear one underwater, but only in easy, warm water, dives where it can be relied on to remind me when lunch is.


----------



## Homo Sapien X (Sep 15, 2018)

Many of us wear a Rolex Sub because it’s a most iconic Rolex of them all including an overhyped Daytona which used a celebrity to justify the trend , how lame. Not all wants to pay for that price especially over MSRP. That’s nothing wrong in wearing a homage really. Homages are kind of a tribute to a model, it is not embarrassing, in fact, it can be really cool. 
We should all enjoy the watch we wear and care less about what people has to say. It’s your money and use it wisely. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

MZhammer said:


> I can only speak to the dive example but, as a diver, I generally carry two computers. One integrated into my BCD and one on my wrist as a backup (my backup is a Zoop Novo about $250 so cheaper than any mechanical outside of an SKX). If both of my computer miraculously failed, I'm ending the dive immediately. While you still have gauges to show you depth and air levels it is extremely unwise to dive without a functioning computer. I doubt many divers would rely on their mechanical dive watch in such a case. Even still, a G-Shock would be much better in this case than a mechanical watch. It's radio-controlled accurate, has an LED for easy reading, more robust than a mechanical and can have the battery recharged by the sun. I actually have an old G-Shock I keep in my Dive Box in case I ever forget or leave my mechanical behind.
> 
> And the balance staff example doesn't really apply. We're discussing areas where technological improvements have created superior tools to do the same job, such as using a mechanical watch for time keeping. If a better tool doesn't exist for the Balance staff then its still the best tool.


Hmm, point taken. For me personally, I like mechanical watches as they have NEVER failed on me, yet. Used to have a couple quartz watches and what happened is when I wanted to wear them after a while I found the battery had run out. Once it ran out mid day and I had to wear a dead watch on the wrist...since then no more quartz for me 

Call me old school but I still rely on my wrist watch to tell me the time primarily. Easier and much quicker to check the time at a glance. Even though the time on my phone is always there and accurate to the second.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 2, 2018)

mui.richard said:


> Hmm, point taken. For me personally, I like mechanical watches as they have failed on me, yet. Used to have a couple quartz watches and what happened is when I wanted to wear them after a while I found the battery had run out. Once it really out mid day and I had to wear a dead watch on the wrist...since then no more quartz for me
> 
> Call me old school but I still rely on my wrist watch to tell me the time primarily. Easier and much quicker to check the time at a glance. Even though the time on my phone is always there and accurate to the second.
> 
> brother of OoO


I'm not a diver but spent many years flying internationally (pilot) and felt exactly the same way about my trusty old GMT Master - with no less than six electronic time references staring at me. I set the watch, therefore I knew what I was referencing without having to factor in other human interference, GPS issues (rare, but they do occur), "gremlins," what have you.. Clearly, familiarity drives comfort and the notion of reliability but I wonder if it's just that (?). Hearing parts move and seeing the second hand respond to the escapement mechanism is a form of verification that isn't directly replaced. There are many other examples and certainly good arguments for/against the evolution of technologies but I'm definitely with you on the value of a good, reliable, automatic wristwatch.

To the thread:

Fakes are out: made by thieves, worn by folks with their priorities askew.

Watches made with similar styling: unavoidable. They should all carry their own, genuine branding.

Watches made with identical styling and deceptively similar script, branding, etc: Custard's on their A$$.


----------



## MZhammer (Feb 27, 2009)

mui.richard said:


> Hmm, point taken. For me personally, I like mechanical watches as they have failed on me, yet. Used to have a couple quartz watches and what happened is when I wanted to wear them after a while I found the battery had run out. Once it really out mid day and I had to wear a dead watch on the wrist...since then no more quartz for me
> 
> Call me old school but I still rely on my wrist watch to tell me the time primarily. Easier and much quicker to check the time at a glance. Even though the time on my phone is always there and accurate to the second.
> 
> brother of OoO


Don't get me wrong, I wear a mechanical watch every day 24/7 and use it instead of my phone or computer for simple time references. My watch is my primary timekeeper (although I waste more time staring at it than just reading the time). I wear a watch hiking, camping, hunting and diving but, if my life depends on something, I'm relying on the most accurate and robust tool available to me and generally that is no longer a mechanical watch (though I'll still be wearing one).


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

MZhammer said:


> Don't get me wrong, I wear a mechanical watch every day 24/7 and use it instead of my phone or computer for simple time references. My watch is my primary timekeeper (although I waste more time staring at it than just reading the time). I wear a watch hiking, camping, hunting and diving but, if my life depends on something, I'm relying on the most accurate and robust tool available to me and generally that is no longer a mechanical watch (though I'll still be wearing one).


No right or wrong here, just preference I concur.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Mr.Jones82 said:


> You're the one who keeps using the term true tool watch. I never used that term.
> 
> Also, I never said Rolex was less of a tool, in fact I said the opposite. I said it was a better tool than it has ever been. I also specifically said they DO NOT cease to be tools even though some people view them as jewelry. All I said was that "for most" people they are not viewed as tool watches or used as such because of the price tag.
> The reason I used Sinn as an example because it is more affordable for some and some people are willing to bang it around and use it as a "tool", not because it is a better tool but because they don't mind seeing it get beat up. Same as Richard up above. He has a Tudor he says, doesn't mind seeing it get dinged up and uses it as a tool. His Rolex watches would do just as good of a job I am sure and I don't think he would argue they are any less worthy, but price tag generally does determine how we use something. Does that mean no one uses a Rolex as a "tool"? Nope, never said that. I said "most" because clearly price and value are different things to all of us.
> Now if you want to argue that Sinn is just as much of a piece of jewelry to most people, fair enough. I wasn't writing a master thesis so I didn't do the proper research to find out how many Sinn owners actually use their watches as "tools" as opposed to trinkets. In the end, for most I imagine you are right, it is toolery.


Great. We are in agreement then.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

Watched a great Antiques Roadshow last night - middle age chap turns up with minty looking Rolex - says his older brother had been a merchant sailor and bought it as a presssie decades before - he said he sometimes wore it out in the evenings but not to work. And had now passed it to his son. The expert says "you know what model this is?" Owner says "*yeh, its a submariner*" - expert replies "no its a Rolex Cosmograph" - valued it at 30k - I figured more.


----------



## ari.seoul (Jan 27, 2011)

1. I wouldn't and no one should, either
2. No such thing as a homage, similar-looking, yes, inspired, yes, a copy, yes, a knockoff, yes, but no such thing as a true homage

I would not be embarrass, but (if I had wanted the real thing) I would definitely feel unfulfilled


----------



## HKasdf (Jul 19, 2018)

I recently owned a Steinhart 39 with an Explorer dial and an acrylic domed crystal. I thought and still think it is a great looking, well-made watch.

Then one day, a random guy asked what year Rolex my watch was. I think the Steinhart was based on a 5513 and I had explained that my watch was one made by a German brand. I was weirdly embarrassed. 

I usually don’t care what others think of my appearance but that conversation made me think that every brand usually has their own distinct look/feel/gimmick and stick to it. I sold the Steinhart afterwards. If you like homages, I certainly understand the allure; that’s why people have different interests, and there are markets to cater to everyone. 

I’m not against any modding or homages, but I’ve been recently feeing that I want my Seiko SKX to look like a SKX, G-Shock square to look like a square, and so forth. Each brand has a specific feature or design language that they use and I want to show off the uniqueness. 

Some non-watch examples that comes to my mind are BMW with their grills, or Subaru with standard AWD. 

Anyways, thanks for reading through my rambling thoughts.


----------



## coffeebreak (Jun 22, 2013)

I’m very curious:
1. For those who are against/embarrassed to be caught wearing sub homage watches, do you own a Rolex watch? 
2. For those who like or don’t mind Rolex homage watches, do you own a Rolex watch


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

Fact is, there are interesting watches even when the budget is, for lack of a better word, lacking.
And even though I own my fair share of Rolex, Tudor, Cartier, Omega and what not, I find the design of the Unimatic U2-C very interesting.






A heavy dome sapphire crystal, a very nicely done case, a workhorse Seiko NH35 movement. And no apparent "resemblance" to any well established designs. This is something I can get on board with.

So before you put Steinhart knock-offs on a pedestal, claiming they are the best value on a budget...well, perhaps you haven't looked hard enough.










brother of OoO


----------



## tennesseean_87 (May 31, 2011)

MZhammer said:


> Yup, if you are so restrictive in your taste that the _ONLY_ design of a watch, out of the relatively infinite creative executions for telling time, that you like is a Submariner, and you can't afford a Submariner, then you don't wear a watch. Use your phone.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tennesseean_87 (May 31, 2011)

CaptainCustard said:


> Re those characters above:
> 
> Military Service - I have lost count of the "Vets" I have come across in my time. They were all SF/SAS, never cooks or Storemen. Come with me one night - I will put my (real) medals on, and watch these losers come out of the woodwork. "I was SAS maaaate", say some fat useless drunken slob. "I was a trained killer on the Nam, the Gan, Iraq, and blah blah blah" I knocked one unconscious one night at a train station. I told him not to touch my uniform and to clear off.
> 
> ...


I want to be just like you when I grow up!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drunken-gmt-master (Mar 29, 2018)

mui.richard said:


> Fact is, there are interesting watches even when the budget is, for lack of a better word, lacking.
> And even though I own my fair share of Rolex, Tudor, Cartier, Omega and what not, I find the design of the Unimatic U2-C very interesting.
> 
> 
> ...


I like most of the Unimatic designs, too. However, as is true of many companies making field/dive/military-inspired watches now, too many of them have fauxtina/"vintage"-colored lume.


----------



## ewhulbert (Jun 14, 2019)

coffeebreak said:


> I'm very curious:
> 1. For those who are against/embarrassed to be caught wearing sub homage watches, do you own a Rolex watch?
> 2. For those who like or don't mind Rolex homage watches, do you own a Rolex watch


2. I love my NTH sub, and while I am sure I'd love a Rolex sub too, I just don't value watches that highly. Plenty of my friends and neighbors have $5k+ watches, but I am a simple guy and prefer to save my money. My kids are going to need to go to college and I can't rely on them going for free like I did. I also plan on retiring at some point and know every cent I spend on watches is not going in my investment account.

I get my thrills helping a much better off friend shop for watches. He's already got an RM and a Royal Oak Offshore...me and another buddy are trying to convince him to buy a GS Snowflake.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Porterjrm (Aug 3, 2016)

docvail said:


> Not even a little bit embarrassed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How about 1 of 40?









Or 3 of those 40 together?









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Porterjrm (Aug 3, 2016)

Went to a friend's coworker's house one night and we were taking whiskey and watched. He starts telling me about his Rolex and that it keeps horrible time, loses minutes a week. After a while he goes and gets it and as I'm checking it out and see it's a fake, I don't bash his I just simply suggest he get it checked out by a watch smith and we move the conversation along. This guy knew he had fakes (multiple) and tried to pass them as real. I see a problem with THAT. That is using them for status. Wearing an homage is not about looking for the recognition of wearing a Rolex. I'd also like to mention after this happened I no longer believed that bottle was filled with PVW 20.

Some of us enjoy building or creating watches that may or may not have ever been produced in certain configurations. We don't go out and buy every watch. There is satisfaction in creating something.










I saw it mentioned by one the betters in this thread that he wouldn't hang around in a thread dedicated to homages. I invite you to come in there sometime and see what it's all about. We only ask that you don't be a d!ck.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jz1094 (Jul 19, 2016)

my first auto watch was an invicta pro diver, it looked exactly like a sub. at the time (17 yrs old) thought it was awesome. now... not so much


----------



## jz1094 (Jul 19, 2016)

the only rolex sub "look alike" i would wear is a tudor


----------



## koolpep (Jul 14, 2008)

coffeebreak said:


> I'm very curious:
> 1. For those who are against/embarrassed to be caught wearing sub homage watches, do you own a Rolex watch?
> 2. For those who like or don't mind Rolex homage watches, do you own a Rolex watch


Ad 1) yes, I still own my homage Steinhart too but don't wear it much anymore. For reason 1)


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

Raza said:


> I honestly didn't know what you're saying I did. I offered an alternative to buying an homage--that is, buy something different--via analogy. I'm sorry that offended you.
> 
> That said, I don't endorse *character assassination based on wearing an homage*. Not my style.


I must admit. That I find the fact that several homage proponents had to resort to prolonged personal attacks on other posters. Curious.

It seems like a tactic designed to deflect the questions being asked of them. In fact it's a fairly typical tactic used by loads of people. Especially politicians.


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

stolen-gmt-master said:


> I like most of the Unimatic designs, too. However, as is true of many companies making field/dive/military-inspired watches now, too many of them have fauxtina/"vintage"-colored lume.


The "fauxtina" actually doesn't bother me that much. If done right I think it adds a little character to the overall design.









brother of OoO


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

mui.richard said:


> The "fauxtina" actually doesn't bother me that much. If done right I think it adds a little character to the overall design.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It used to bother me, but now I own a couple of watches with it and I really quite like it when it's done well. There are examples where it's done quite poorly (there was a Sinn released recently that was truly awful), but in the case of the Ranger and the Seamaster 300 (both watches I own with vintage lume), I think it looks great.


----------



## MZhammer (Feb 27, 2009)

Raza said:


> It used to bother me, but now I own a couple of watches with it and I really quite like it when it's done well. There are examples where it's done quite poorly (there was a Sinn released recently that was truly awful), but in the case of the Ranger and the Seamaster 300 (both watches I own with vintage lume), I think it looks great.


I think I actually prefer tinted lume on watches that are meant to be evocative in design of another era. On modern designs, I prefer white lume, but ecru lume on a vintage looking dive watch seems so nice. That said, I thought the brown shade that Omega did for the 60th trilogy was too dark and wasn't pleasing to my eyes. I think Doxa and Panerai have done it best, subtle but clearly a design choice.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

MZhammer said:


> I think I actually prefer tinted lume on watches that are meant to be evocative in design of another era. On modern designs, I prefer white lume, but ecru lume on a vintage looking dive watch seems so nice. That said, I thought the brown shade that Omega did for the 60th trilogy was too dark and wasn't pleasing to my eyes. I think Doxa and Panerai have done it best, subtle but clearly a design choice.


My SM300 isn't a 57, maybe but it's not very dark. But I agree, it works better on vintage styled watches or reissues.


















Strangely, the Speedmaster, which is essentially a "living vintage" watch, doesn't really take to the vintage lume treatment, in my opinion. Like, the 57 Trilogy Speedmaster is one of my least favorite Speedmaster variants. Might be my least favorite, actually.


----------



## drunken-gmt-master (Mar 29, 2018)

mui.richard said:


> The "fauxtina" actually doesn't bother me that much. If done right I think it adds a little character to the overall design.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed that fauxtina can work w/some models that are clearly derived from (will avoid the h-word) or are reproductions of vintage designs (neither of which applies to Unimatic), but we all have different preferences on the details. Like MZHammer, I think the fauxtina on the Omega '57 Trilogy models was just too brown (almost pulled the trigger on a Trilogy Seamaster until I saw one in person). I'm sure Omega based them on actual vintage watches from their archives/museum, but I just don't the color. I prefer vintage style (& sized) watches that aren't actual repros of specific examples but rather capture the spirit (as I see it) of the originals. It reminds me of Japanese military menswear companies like Real McCoys & Buzz Rickson that make super-faithful hand-made reproductions of surviving examples of US Army Air Corps/Force pilot & bomber jackets down to the stitching mistakes, when the originals were mass-produced for government contracts; however, at least they don't go so far as to pre-age the jackets, which would be more like the watch business.


----------



## 10Swiss10 (Apr 17, 2019)

Those unimatic watches borrow heavily from the black bay 36 design which borrows from vintage subs. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

"borrow"?


10Swiss10 said:


> Those animatic watches borrow heavily from the black bay 36 design which borrows from vintage subs.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

10Swiss10 said:


> Those unimatic watches borrow heavily from the black bay 36 design which borrows from vintage subs.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The Black Bay 36 is NOTHING like a vintage Sub... it's practically a Tudor OysterPrince with snowflake hands, nothing more.

brother of OoO


----------



## sikiNS (Mar 11, 2015)

I wear a Steinhart OVM, which is a Rolex Milsub homage and we all know how much their are going for, so there is no chance I would ever own the original. To answer the question, no I am no embarrassed I am proud to wear it. If someone checks it out it will usually lead to a conversion about watches and if someone would comment about the fact its not a Rolex ( which never happened ) the conversation would end right there


----------

