# San martin spring drive grand diver



## Triton9 (Sep 30, 2011)

up









From the photo, the side case finished of San martin seems even surpass Seiko spring diver. But the back case and bezel of Seiko is better. Dial from the look, seems similar quality.


----------



## Ezy101 (Sep 18, 2012)

Hi

Model number???
Or maybe price and specs???

Thanks

Enviado desde mi M2007J20CG mediante Tapatalk


----------



## catsteeth (Apr 8, 2016)

SN0009


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

LOL


----------



## O . (May 13, 2020)

longtimelurker said:


> LOL


My thoughts exactly. I'd like to see them side by side with my own eyes regarding the dial and case finishing. I have a feeling the laughs would continue.


----------



## LosAngelesTimer (Aug 24, 2017)

I can’t decide if it’s shamelessly embarrassing or embarrassingly shameless. 

Also, it’s a safe bet this comes out of the same factory that makes full-on replicas, so there’s another reason to be proud of your purchase.


----------



## mougino (Jun 12, 2017)

Hoho, it looks like the Grand Seiko mob suddenly felt bored and ventured into the Affordable subforum...


----------



## Triton9 (Sep 30, 2011)

O . said:


> My thoughts exactly. I'd like to see them side by side with my own eyes regarding the dial and case finishing. I have a feeling the laughs would continue.


I think the finish will be good except the movement will be eta clone and not spring drive.... Its good for those asking for a seiko grand diver without the power reserve indicator while at same time without burning a hole in your pocket.

I bought a Seiko Tuna SBBN017 and I sold it after getting a steeldive homage. The steeldive tuna is incredible finished and no different from Seiko Tuna. No Joke! Brushed exactly where needed and well polished on spot that it wants.


----------



## Alex_B. (May 31, 2016)

Not my cup of tea but to me the SM looks better. Guess some grand seiko owners feel threatened in some way 🤣


----------



## nello (Jan 2, 2014)

Other than the crown and the movement, I don’t see $5500.00 more value in the spring diver. I have only handled one briefly, but I thought the bezel looked like an overpolished mess on the seiko. I know that the movement is a big difference, but not that much to me.


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

From the title, I thought San Martin had actually come out with their own Spring Drive type movement...


----------



## O . (May 13, 2020)

Alex_B. said:


> Not my cup of tea but to me the SM looks better. Guess some grand seiko owners feel threatened in some way ?


Threatened? Nope. Whether or not you like GS dive watches (I'm not really a fan), I just find it interesting laughable that anyone thinks they'll get GS level finishing for $400.

Additionally, there's the issue of straight up design theft. If that doesn't bother you, so be it. We all have differing values. For me, it's a turn off.


----------



## Alex_B. (May 31, 2016)

O . said:


> Threatened? Nope. Whether or not you like GS dive watches (I'm not really a fan), I just find it interesting laughable that anyone thinks they'll get GS level finishing for $400.
> 
> Additionally, there's the issue of straight up design theft. If that doesn't bother you, so be it. We all have differing values. For me, it's a turn off.


Having briefly owned a San Martin I'm sure the finishing is excellent on this one whether it's GS level or not who cares.

I'm not really bothered about it being a copy as it's not a replica and those who would buy this would most likely never buy the real thing. 
Trying to put it in the context of morality and values is absolutely pathetic.


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

O . said:


> Threatened? Nope. Whether or not you like GS dive watches (I'm not really a fan), I just find it interesting laughable that anyone thinks they'll get GS level finishing for $400.
> 
> Additionally, there's the issue of straight up design theft. If that doesn't bother you, so be it. We all have differing values. For me, it's a turn off.


Unless the aesthetic design of the GS is protected by trademark, copyright, etc, there is no "theft". Intellectual laziness, perhaps, but nothing illegal.


----------



## Triton9 (Sep 30, 2011)

O . said:


> Threatened? Nope. Whether or not you like GS dive watches (I'm not really a fan), I just find it interesting laughable that anyone thinks they'll get GS level finishing for $400.
> 
> Additionally, there's the issue of straight up design theft. If that doesn't bother you, so be it. We all have differing values. For me, it's a turn off.


Being original doesn't gives u the right to overcharge your customer with exorbitant price tag.. Grand Seiko is no rolex. You spend $10000 and the moment it leaves the shop, I gonna suffer a 30-40% depreciation losses.

I sold by Seiko Tuna becos I believe it dont deserve its $700 pre-owned price tag. I got a mineral crystal and a quartz movement vs Steeldive $150 with same level of finished as Seiko, sapphire crystal and an automatic movement.....

I fully support San Martin and other homage of Seiko. Seiko been too arrogant recently and start selling their watches with overprice price tag like captain willard reissue with little in merit of upgrade of spec. The price tag obviously dont match the watch. Seiko obviously try to rip off unaware customers with their current pricing strategy.

I hope these homage will teach Seiko to be humble again.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

Triton9 said:


> Being original doesn't gives u the right to overcharge your customer with exorbitant price tag.. Grand Seiko is no rolex. You spend $10000 and the moment it leaves the shop, I gonna suffer a 30-40% depreciation losses.
> 
> I sold by Seiko Tuna becos I believe it dont deserve its $700 pre-owned price tag. I got a mineral crystal and a quartz movement vs Steeldive $150 with same level of finished as Seiko, sapphire crystal and an automatic movement.....


What exactly is "exorbitant" to you? I mean, GS had to design the damn thing, and develop the movement, and hand-finish and assemble it (by a watchmaker), etc.
Not saying it doesn't have a luxury price tag, but trying to equate the two is kind of disingenuous, if not outright silly.

The only thing they have in common is the exterior design. If that's all that matters to you, great. But let's not get carried away.

At what point would the price be exorbitant for the san martin? Knowing that it can sell for a few hundred, what about 1000? There's no limiting principle to your assertion, is what I am getting at.

Being original is means you can exactly charge whatever you want (in the patent/trademark sense). Some see the distinction as a point of legality, others as a point of principle.

I only found it laughable that you were making a judgement on finishing from photos. Regardless of which watches, finishing is a very nuanced thing where tiny differences can vastly affect the outcome. You gotta see it in the metal. Especially if you're gonna swim with the GS finishing geeks.

And dismissing the tunas quartz movement is fine, but understand that it's not just any quartz movement and that's why people pay for it.

Some people (particularly in the west) value original design (regardless of law). This doesn't seem to be as strong a trend in places like china and india.

Also, attributing malicious intent to an entire corporation is kind stupid and juvenile. 
Also, where is a GS suffering 40% depreciation out the door? Maybe a particular model, but hardly across the board. Not like a used san martin doesn't depreciate either.

Just seems like you are on a trip again seiko, rather than a reasoned supporter of whatever. You can go join khemin on his crusade.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

Alex_B. said:


> Having briefly owned a San Martin I'm sure the finishing is excellent on this one whether it's GS level or not who cares.
> 
> I'm not really bothered about it being a copy as it's not a replica and those who would buy this would most likely never buy the real thing.
> Trying to put it in the context of morality and values is absolutely pathetic.


He's not trying to put it in that context. That's just how he sees it. Take it easy.

And probably more like "annoyed" than threatened. I don't think you're going to convince anyone who buys into GS quality that SM is encroaching on their level.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

MX793 said:


> From the title, I thought San Martin had actually come out with their own Spring Drive type movement...


LOL #2


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

mougino said:


> Hoho, it looks like the Grand Seiko mob suddenly felt bored and ventured into the Affordable subforum...


A lot us also buy affordables and came from humble seiko divers. 
Just thought it was kind of ridiculous to make conjecture about finishing from photos.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

MX793 said:


> Unless the aesthetic design of the GS is protected by trademark, copyright, etc, there is no "theft". Intellectual laziness, perhaps, but nothing illegal.


Not that most Chinese companies would respect IP protection anyways.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

Putting aside my thoughts on "homages":

I, for one, wish they would make more copies with different colors not available from the original brand. It would distance themselves in my mind, at least. And they would have a unique selling point beyond "it's the same but not, but it's definitely cheaper". 

A tuna with a turquoise dial or maybe this GS in salmon, etc. Get wild. You don't have to be conservative. You're not seiko.


----------



## Alex_B. (May 31, 2016)

longtimelurker said:


> Putting aside my thoughts on "homages":
> 
> I, for one, wish they would make more copies with different colors not available from the original brand. It would distance themselves in my mind, at least. And they would have a unique selling point beyond "it's the same but not, but it's definitely cheaper".
> 
> A tuna with a turquoise dial or maybe this GS in salmon, etc. Get wild. You don't have to be conservative. You're not seiko.


That i agree with. 😃


----------



## Triton9 (Sep 30, 2011)

longtimelurker said:


> Putting aside my thoughts on "homages":
> 
> I, for one, wish they would make more copies with different colors not available from the original brand. It would distance themselves in my mind, at least. And they would have a unique selling point beyond "it's the same but not, but it's definitely cheaper".
> 
> A tuna with a turquoise dial or maybe this GS in salmon, etc. Get wild. You don't have to be conservative. You're not seiko.


I think it just a headstart, sooner or later, more color may follow. Just saw a thread about a happy owner of his new San Martin DSSD with mother of pearl dial.


----------



## Bird-Dog (Jan 22, 2021)

MX793 said:


> Unless the aesthetic design of the GS is protected by trademark, copyright, etc, there is no "theft". Intellectual laziness, perhaps, but nothing illegal.


I'm not even sure you can call it intellectual laziness. They recognize it's a handsome design. Good design aesthetics sells. Why struggle to create an original design that may or may not sell well when you can utilize an existing one that's virtually guaranteed to? Well, at least, why should a company like San Martin?

Considering the "homage" stigma among watch enthusiasts, I dare say they'll sell more of them to people who aren't even aware it mimics a GS, simply see it and like the design for the sake of the design itself (as they should). Of course it'll still sell to a certain segment who desire a GS but can't (or won't) spring for GS prices. But I can't imagine they represent the entire market.


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

Bird-Dog said:


> I'm not even sure you can call it intellectual laziness. They recognize it's a handsome design. Good design aesthetics sells. Why struggle to create an original design that may or may not sell well when you can utilize an existing one that's virtually guaranteed to? Well, at least, why should a company like San Martin?
> 
> Considering the "homage" stigma among watch enthusiasts, I dare say they'll sell more of them to people who aren't even aware it mimics a GS, simply see it and like the design for the sake of the design itself (as they should). Of course it'll still sell to a certain segment who desire a GS but can't (or won't) spring for GS prices. But I can't imagine they represent the entire market.


Creating a 1:1 copy of someone else's design instead of investing in the effort to do something original (or even starting with an existing design and putting your own spin on it) is pretty much the definition of intellectual laziness.


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

Alex_B. said:


> Trying to put it in the context of morality and values is absolutely pathetic.


Dont you care about morality & values?


----------



## O . (May 13, 2020)

Alex_B. said:


> Trying to put it in the context of morality and values is absolutely pathetic.


Ouch, sounds like I struck a nerve there, hence the ad-hominem reaction. You do you, man, but if you think it's "pathetic" when someone else's values don't exactly align with yours, you may want to look inward.



MX793 said:


> Unless the aesthetic design of the GS is protected by trademark, copyright, etc, there is no "theft". Intellectual laziness, perhaps, but nothing illegal.


I too appreciate semantics, but your take is pedantic. 



Triton9 said:


> Being original doesn't gives u the right to overcharge your customer with exorbitant price tag.. Grand Seiko is no rolex. You spend $10000 and the moment it leaves the shop, I gonna suffer a 30-40% depreciation losses.


Sure it does. It's called a free market for a reason. Don't like it, don't buy it. Or, in this case, buy a shameless copy if that floats your boat. Also, who pays MSRP for almost any GS or high-end Seiko? I know I don't.



Triton9 said:


> I sold by Seiko Tuna becos I believe it dont deserve its $700 pre-owned price tag. I got a mineral crystal and a quartz movement vs Steeldive $150 with same level of finished as Seiko, sapphire crystal and an automatic movement.....


I'm sure that Seiko Tuna was a hell of a watch, but it ain't no GS, which is what your OP was comparing.



Triton9 said:


> I fully support San Martin and other homage of Seiko. Seiko been too arrogant recently and start selling their watches with overprice price tag like captain willard reissue with little in merit of upgrade of spec. The price tag obviously dont match the watch. Seiko obviously try to rip off unaware customers with their current pricing strategy.
> 
> I hope these homage will teach Seiko to be humble again.


I'm sorry, but this is the funniest thing I've read yet in this thread. It's like you're taking personal affront at a business trying to move up-market. It's not like they ran over your dog.

Seriously though, why do you think the recent Willards (I'm assuming you mean the SPB versions) are overpriced? You certainly can't buy a 6105 for any less. Also, based on discussions I've had with ADs, the chatter on this board, and the release of more and more color variants, the SPB Willards have been very good, and more likely great sellers for Seiko. Again, this is the market telling us they're not overpriced.


----------



## LosAngelesTimer (Aug 24, 2017)

O . said:


> Ouch, sounds like I struck a nerve there, hence the ad-hominem reaction. You do you, man, but if you think it's "pathetic" when someone else's values don't exactly align with yours, you may want to look inward.
> 
> I too appreciate semantics, but your take is pedantic.
> 
> ...


There's no point in trying to reason with people who purchase copies. They've already rationalized their decisions in highly irrational ways. Their arguments either deny a designer's right to own their design or accuse people who call them out of being snobs. Neither argument stands up to basic scrutiny. I just point out (and occasionally ridicule) their highly questionable choices and move along.

As for San Martin, the brand owner or rep has recently started posting on here in an attempt to reach out to WIS. If they're listening, move away from producing copies. You're only undermining what appear to be attempts to make a name with original designs.


----------



## Alex_B. (May 31, 2016)

Simon said:


> Dont you care about morality & values?


Does buying a copy make you a bad person or does buying the original make you a morally superior person?

I tend not to look down on people for enjoying homages/copies nor do i feel superior for just owning 2 originals and no copies but you do you.


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

Alex_B. said:


> Does buying a copy make you a bad person or does buying the original make you a morally superior person?


Making a copy imitating design is morally inferior to investing in designing an original


----------



## Alex_B. (May 31, 2016)

Simon said:


> Making a copy imitating design is morally inferior to investing in designing an original


Not what i asked. Does BUYING the copy make you morally inferior?


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

Alex_B. said:


> Not what i asked. Does BUYING the copy make you morally inferior?


Not what I answered


----------



## mconlonx (Sep 21, 2018)

If Seiko thought a design was worth protecting they could patent it and go after homage makers who infringe on their design patent. Quite frankly, some homage companies do Seiko better than Seiko.

But having owned San Martin watches, and handled GS watches, it's laughable to equate the two. Might be a nice watch with similar styling, but far, far off from the original.


----------



## dfwcowboy (Jan 22, 2017)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> I can't decide if it's shamelessly embarrassing or embarrassingly shameless.
> 
> Also, it's a safe bet this comes out of the same factory that makes full-on replicas, so there's another reason to be proud of your purchase.


Not according to the owner of San Martin who is a site sponsor and posts here along with pictures of his factory. It's a safe bet your bet isn't as safe as you thought.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

MX793 said:


> Creating a 1:1 copy of someone else's design instead of investing in the effort to do something original (or even starting with an existing design and putting your own spin on it) is pretty much the definition of intellectual laziness.


It's not 1:1 though.
From the photos on page 1, the only part that's a 1:1 copy is the seconds hand.

Sure, they didn't have to come up with the concept. But to recreate something that at a glance looks like a clone without having the same shape or dimensions on any of the elements and components aren't as easy as you might think.

To me, the SM looks like someone has described the GS over the phone to someone who was later tasked to draw it from memory.
It's not a 1:1 copy. If you think it is, look closer.


----------



## Alex_B. (May 31, 2016)

Simon said:


> Not what I answered


🤡


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

Alex_B. said:


> 🤡


bravo


----------



## LosAngelesTimer (Aug 24, 2017)

dfwcowboy said:


> Not according to the owner of San Martin who is a site sponsor and posts here along with pictures of his factory. It's a safe bet your bet isn't as safe as you thought.


So you're taking the word of brand owner or flack for a company that produces shameless copies. Seems legit.


----------



## Mavrobasilis (Sep 13, 2008)

give me one good reason to buy this travesty instead of a turtle or save a bit more and buy a 62mas reinterpretation


----------



## LosAngelesTimer (Aug 24, 2017)

Alex_B. said:


> Does buying a copy make you a bad person or does buying the original make you a morally superior person?


That's the very definition of a false dichotomy or the false dilemma fallacy. Yet another example of paper-thin reasoning coming from people who buy shameless copies.

How about this: instead of shoveling money at a company that rips off others, why not support a brand at the same price point that prides itself on original designs? Nodus is a great place to start.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

Mavrobasilis said:


> give me one good reason to buy this travesty instead of a turtle or save a bit more and buy a 62mas reinterpretation


If you like the looks of it, I think you should get it. Otherwise, don't.
It doesn't look like a turtle or a 62mas, so the looks would be it.
Or if you really like San Martin...

Basically. The same as for any other watch. Why would one need any special reasons for buying this particular piece?


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> That's the very definition of a false dichotomy or the false dilemma fallacy. Yet another example of paper-thin reasoning coming from people who buy shameless copies.
> 
> How about this: instead of shoveling money at a company that rips off others, why not support a brand at the same price point that prides itself on original designs. Nodus is a great place to start.


Why does it bother you so much how people spend their money?
Did you design the spring drive in question? In that case, I could see why you would be offended if someone took the liberty of making a similar product.

Otherwise, I can't see how this could possibly have an impact on your life.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

Alex_B. said:


> Having briefly owned a San Martin I'm sure the finishing is excellent on this one whether it's GS level or not who cares.
> 
> I'm not really bothered about it being a copy as it's not a replica and those who would buy this would most likely never buy the real thing.
> Trying to put it in the context of morality and values is absolutely pathetic.


Whether its GS level is what everyone would care about. If you dont care when about quality, so be it, but certainly you are not the norm.

If you think morality is pathetic ... that's quite strong of a statement that I don't wish to get into with a stranger online. I suspect we will have a very different point of view on right vs wrong.


----------



## jkpa (Feb 8, 2014)

One made by highly skilled craftsmen trained for years. The other made by the cheapest labor money can buy. If you’re happy with that, more power to you. I find it disgusting


----------



## LosAngelesTimer (Aug 24, 2017)

[BOBO] said:


> Why does it bother you so much how people spend their money?
> Did you design the spring drive in question? In that case, I could see why you would be offended if someone took the liberty of making a similar product.
> 
> Otherwise, I can't see how this could possibly have an impact on your life.


So I should only be upset by theft perpetrated against my person? You must realize how ridiculous that assertion sounds.

Dear supporters of copies,
Please keep tossing out paper thin arguments - that expose deep seated personality and morality... I'll kindly refer to them as "challenges" - and I'll keep knocking them down.


----------



## Mavrobasilis (Sep 13, 2008)

[BOBO] said:


> If you like the looks of it, I think you should get it. Otherwise, don't.
> It doesn't look like a turtle or a 62mas, so the looks would be it.
> Or if you really like San Martin...
> 
> Basically. The same as for any other watch. Why would one need any special reasons for buying this particular piece?


I need good reasons for everything I buy 

same goes for clothes, shoes, etc but with wheeled indulgences and watches I'm borderline ocd; probably's got to do with the assurance (or delusion) of value through engineering or manufacturing quality


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

MX793 said:


> Unless the aesthetic design of the GS is protected by trademark, copyright, etc, there is no "theft". Intellectual laziness, perhaps, but nothing illegal.


Theft and illegal are two separate concepts.

Outright copying a design, equates to stealing it whether it's legal or not.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

jkpa said:


> One made by highly skilled craftsmen trained for years. The other made by the cheapest labor money can buy. If you're happy with that, more power to you. I find it disgusting


But it's two different products in two completely different price brackets. If SM charged the same as GS I would agree. But it's a cheap mass produced homage watch that costs pretty much nothing.

It's not as if they charge people for designing it...


----------



## dfwcowboy (Jan 22, 2017)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> So you're taking the word of brand owner or flack for a company that produces shameless copies. Seems legit.


Pretty sure more legit than taking the word of an anonymous person posting on the internet with exactly zero evidence of his defamation of a site sponsor. Especially when your claim makes exactly zero sense. SM makes all sorts of models, including original designs, and they do so very much out in the open. That's exactly the opposite of how replica makers operate.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

Mavrobasilis said:


> I need good reasons for everything I buy
> 
> same goes for clothes, shoes, etc but with wheeled indulgences and watches I'm borderline ocd; probably's got to do with the assurance (or delusion) of value through engineering or manufacturing quality


If I like the look of something and I think I'll like it forever. I get it. I don't focus on who made it or what the price is. I don't see the value of a watch as the sum of its parts. If I like it enough, thats all that matters.

Let me clarify, I'm not in the market for the SM. I don't like the looks of it... 
I have no dog in this fight. Just curious about why people who don't like something have to try to make everyone else dislike it too.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

cheu_f50 said:


> Theft and illegal are two separate concepts.
> 
> Outright copying a design, equates to stealing it whether it's legal or not.


But they didn't copy the design. As I wrote earlier, the only part that I can see that's 1:1 copy is the seconds hand.


----------



## mconlonx (Sep 21, 2018)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> So you're taking the word of brand owner or flack for a company that produces shameless copies. Seems legit.


Instead of pure, unsubstantiated conjecture from some random dude on a watch forum...?


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> So I should only be upset by theft that's perpetrated against my person? You must realize how ridiculous that assertion sounds.
> 
> Dear supporters of copies,
> Please keep tossing out paper thin arguments - that expose deep seated personality and morality... I'll kindly refer to them as "challenges" - and I'll keep knocking them down.


It wasn't an argument...
You didn't answer the question, though.
But I'll answer yours. Yes. You should only care about stuff that affects you personally.

My argument would be I don't care who made it first. That's pretty rock solid, I think.
I don't believe copyrights, trademarks or intellectual property are something positive for humanity. It's a system that keeps poor people poor and rich people rich. And sick people sick.


----------



## mconlonx (Sep 21, 2018)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> That's the very definition of a false dichotomy or the false dilemma fallacy. Yet another example of paper-thin reasoning coming from people who buy shameless copies.
> 
> How about this: instead of shoveling money at a company that rips off others, why not support a brand at the same price point that prides itself on original designs? Nodus is a great place to start.


OK... where can I buy a $230 Nodus?


----------



## LosAngelesTimer (Aug 24, 2017)

mconlonx said:


> Instead of pure, unsubstantiated conjecture from some random dude on a watch forum...?


Please by all means, buy every San Martin copy out there. I'm sure you'll be very happy together.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

[BOBO] said:


> But they didn't copy the design. As I wrote earlier, the only part that I can see that's 1:1 copy is the seconds hand.


Didn't see what you wrote or really care for that matter. I looked at the first post of this thread where OP literally post side by side photos showing how one is a copy of the other.

The owner of San Martin also openly said in the other thread he make copies of watches and put his logo on it, because thats the bread and butter of his business. His original designs isn't selling at the volume to sustain his business.

Personally I don't care if others want to buy a knock off, or as people here likes to call them "homage". But I'm not going to pretend it's respectable either.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> Please by all means, buy every San Martin copy out there. I'm sure you'll be very happy together.


That's the spirit!
Wasn't that hard, was it?

If you'd started out with that instead of typing it sarcastically, maybe the discussion would be less hostile...


----------



## dfwcowboy (Jan 22, 2017)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> Please by all means, buy every San Martin copy out there. I'm sure you'll be very happy together.


Quite possibly more so than those who get wrapped around the axle and post passive aggressive responses over things that don't amount to a hill of beans. Just sayin'


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

cheu_f50 said:


> Didn't see what you wrote or really care for that matter. I looked at the first post of this thread where OP literally post side by side photos showing how one is a copy of the other.
> 
> The owner of San Martin also openly said in the other thread he make copies of watches and put his logo on it, because thats the bread and butter of his business. His original designs isn't selling at the volume to sustain his business.
> 
> Personally I don't care if others want to buy a knock off, or as people here likes to call them "homage". But I'm not going to pretend it's respectable either.


Blue!
See, I didn't read your post either.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

Alex_B. said:


> Not what i asked. Does BUYING the copy make you morally inferior?


Yes. If you don't understand why, I'm not surprised since you already said it's pathetic to discuss morality when it comes to copying a design.

So clearly morals mean something entirely different to you than it is to me.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

cheu_f50 said:


> Yes. If you don't understand why, I'm not surprised since you already said it's pathetic to discuss discuss morality when it comes to copying a design.
> 
> So clearly morals mean something entirely different to you than it is to me.


😂😂😂


----------



## Alex_B. (May 31, 2016)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> Please by all means, buy every San Martin copy out there. I'm sure you'll be very happy together.


That'd be so terrible. All those people liking things you don't like and being happy with their copies, how dare they!?


----------



## Barnaby'sDad (Feb 12, 2019)

[BOBO] said:


> But they didn't copy the design. As I wrote earlier, the only part that I can see that's 1:1 copy is the seconds hand.


I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. It's so close (appearance wise) that it would be like a guest speaker stealing someone else's speech, using the synonym feature in MS Word to change out a couple words, and claiming that they didn't plagiarize because the wording isn't exact. The intent is clearly there.

That being said&#8230;I have to agree that I find it hard to believe that Seiko is harmed by this. No one that's prepared to drop $5,000+ on a watch is going to put that piece on their wrist.


----------



## dfwcowboy (Jan 22, 2017)

cheu_f50 said:


> Yes. If you don't understand why, I'm not surprised since you already said it's pathetic to discuss discuss morality when it comes to copying a design.
> 
> So clearly morals mean something entirely different to you than it is to me.


Quite often morality is defined by those who don't like something, but can't explain exactly why it's wrong. As long as what SM is doing is fully legal, then any claims of immorality aren't worth much outside of subjectivity. If they were, it would clearly be illegal. It's not as if the owner of SM is taking food off Shinji Hattori's table.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

Barnaby'sDad said:


> I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. It's so close (appearance wise) that it would be like a guest speaker stealing someone else's speech, using the synonym feature in MS Word to change out a couple words, and claiming that they didn't plagiarize because the wording isn't exact. The intent is clearly there.
> 
> That being said&#8230;I have to agree that I find it hard to believe that Seiko is harmed by this. No one that's prepared to drop $5,000+ on a watch is going to put that piece on their wrist.


If that's what you see, that's what you see. We are looking at the same pictures and I see differences in every component. If you don't, I don't know what to say.

I'm a trained graphical designer. I look at details.
As I wrote before, to me one looks like it was designed by someone who got the original described over the phone and later drew it from memory.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

[BOBO] said:


> If that's what you see, that's what you see. We are looking at the same pictures and I see differences in every component. If you don't, I don't know what to say.
> 
> I'm a trained graphical designer. I look at details.
> As I wrote before, to me one looks like it was designed by someone who got the original described over the phone and later drew it from memory.


🤣😂😅 As a trained graphic designer, if you dont see an issue with people copying others work ...


----------



## ChaseOne (Feb 14, 2019)

This is a Fiero with a body kit...

Sent from my IN2015 using Tapatalk


----------



## Barnaby'sDad (Feb 12, 2019)

[BOBO] said:


> If that's what you see, that's what you see. We are looking at the same pictures and I see differences in every component. If you don't, I don't know what to say.
> 
> *I'm a trained graphical designer. I look at details.*
> As I wrote before, to me one looks like it was designed by someone who got the original described over the phone and later drew it from memory.


That's exactly my point. The SM looks like someone started from the baseline of the GS, went into a drafting program and made a few changes (i.e. The hour and minute hands) to make it just different enough to avoid litigation.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

dfwcowboy said:


> Quite often morality is defined by those who don't like something, but can't explain exactly why it's wrong. As long as what SM is doing is fully legal, then any claims of immorality aren't worth much outside of subjectivity. If they were, it would clearly be illegal. It's not as if the owner of SM is taking food off Shinji Hattori's table.


I can exactly explain what is wrong. The owner of San Martin openly said copying other watch design and selling replicas is the core of his business.

What is wrong is people acting as if selling copies of someone else's design is a fair and reasonable practice.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

cheu_f50 said:


> 🤣😂😅 As a trained graphic designer, if you dont see an issue with people copying others work ...


No, not at all.
Anyone is free to use my material and profit from it. I got paid already. Why would I hinder someone else to get paid?


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

[BOBO] said:


> No, not at all.
> Anyone is free to use my material and profit from it. I got paid already. Why would I hinder someone else to get paid?


The trouble isn't someone else copying your work and you are ok with it. For all I know you are the one copying someone else's work, when the original creator is not ok with it.

That's the moral hazard.


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

[BOBO] said:


> If that's what you see, that's what you see. We are looking at the same pictures and I see differences in every component. If you don't, I don't know what to say.
> 
> I'm a trained graphical designer. I look at details.
> As I wrote before, to me one looks like it was designed by someone who got the original described over the phone and later drew it from memory.


Or a copy by someone who didn't have the capability to truly craft an absolutely identical design. If I had the Mona Lisa at my disposal and did my darnedest to reproduce it myself, the product isn't going to look _exactly_ like the original, because I'm not a great artist/painter. However, any differences would be an unintentional result of my lack of ability, not differences I intentionally made to make my version distinct from the original.

The only changes I would say were intentional here were the text/branding on the dial. Obviously also a lack of a PR complication as well. Everything else I would say qualifies as "closest we could get it with the budget, tools, and materials".


----------



## seadial (Jan 14, 2010)

The San Martin watch has just used design cues from the Seiko watch as it has enough differences to not be a copy. The San Martin guy said the Chinese watch industry has not developed the stylistic design capacity yet, but has advanced technically to offer machining and fabrication capabilities in their many factories that produce components and undertake watch assembly. There are many dive watches out of China that mimic features from the Submariner, but no one gets all steamed up over them. The attraction of the Seiko watch is the “Spring Drive”, that is if you are interested in the workings of your watch, many just buy a watch to tell the time and find a design that appeals to them. Often whatever watch they wear goes unnoticed by others as they don't parade it in front of others, who may not care less anyway.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

Barnaby'sDad said:


> That's exactly my point. The SM looks like someone started from the baseline of the GS, went into a drafting program and made a few changes (i.e. The hour and minute hands) to make it just different enough to avoid litigation.


Yup. And that's legal and is done in every industry everyday.
That's how it works. You may not like it when it comes to watches. But it doesn't change the practice.

This design is based on the Ferrari California. So what?
It's not as if someone mistake one for the other...


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

MX793 said:


> Or a copy by someone who didn't have the capability to truly craft an absolutely identical design. If I had the Mona Lisa at my disposal and did my darnedest to reproduce it myself, the product isn't going to look _exactly_ like the original, because I'm not a great artist/painter. However, any differences would be an unintentional result of my lack of ability, not differences I intentionally made to make my version distinct from the original.
> 
> The only changes I would say were intentional here were the text/branding on the dial. Obviously also a lack of a PR complication as well. Everything else I would say qualifies as "closest we could get it with the budget, tools, and materials".


I think they could have made it an exact clone if that's what they were going for.


----------



## Alex_B. (May 31, 2016)

cheu_f50 said:


> The trouble isn't someone else copying your work and you are ok with it. For all I know you are the one copying someone else's work, when the original creator is not ok with it.
> 
> That's the moral hazard.


I take it when you wear jeans you only wear Levi's.


----------



## dfwcowboy (Jan 22, 2017)

cheu_f50 said:


> I can exactly explain what is wrong. The owner of San Martin openly said copying other watch design and selling replicas is the core of his business.
> 
> What is wrong is people acting as if selling copies of someone else's design is a fair and reasonable practice.


He did not say selling replicas is the core of his business.

I'd venture to guess the majority of your possessions are copies of other's designs at least partially. There is very little in this world which is completely original. I don't blame small business owners copying those of larger ones nearly as much as the other way around and even then I wouldn't have to spend long coming up with more bothersome things.


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

cheu_f50 said:


> Theft and illegal are two separate concepts.
> 
> Outright copying a design, equates to stealing it whether it's legal or not.


Theft requires ownership. For IP, that means IP protection. Public domain is just that: Public.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

dfwcowboy said:


> He did not say selling replicas is the core of his business.
> 
> I'd venture to guess the majority of your possessions are copies of other's designs at least partially. There is very little in this world which is completely original. I don't blame small business owners copying those of larger ones nearly as much as the other way around and even then I wouldn't have to spend long coming up with more bothersome things.


From the other thread, see below. He literally said in order to maintain his livelihood, he will make recognizable replicas, but all with his own branding.

I get it, he's not making fakes-replicas. He's putting his logo on the replicas so they are not fakes.

He even said his original designs are not selling. I dont know how much clearly the owner (and founder?) Of San Martin needs to be.



sanmartinwatch said:


> I agree with you very much. My initial idea was to make original styles. In 2016, I started to make the first three styles of bronze watches. There are also watches designed with niche styles in the back, but when they came out, they were not very affected. Accepted, I started to try to make high-end originals in 18 years, and the original styles of gr5 titanium alloy were also not accepted (now it is still backlogged in the warehouse). I realized that I have to continue to improve my design ability. Only original styles will be recognized. In order to maintain my livelihood, I will make some recognized replica styles. Constant contact with production will also enrich my knowledge and have better quality. So now my idea is that I will make some replica watches, but they are all my own logos. I will try my best to make their quality very good. At the same time, I will continue to try original styles. I hope that the combination of good design and good quality will be recognized by everyone


----------



## Barnaby'sDad (Feb 12, 2019)

[BOBO] said:


> Yup. And that's legal and is done in every industry everyday.
> That's how it works. You may not like it when it comes to watches. But it doesn't change the practice.
> 
> This design is based on the Ferrari California. So what?
> It's not as if someone mistake one for the other...


Oh, I have no doubt that it's legal. I just think it's lazy and lacking creativity.

Then again&#8230;I guess I don't have much room to talk, as my current favorite is a homage to 60's era skin divers. Most would probably just say it's a GO clone (though they weren't the first to put the design out).


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

MX793 said:


> Theft requires ownership. For IP, that means IP protection. Public domain is just that: Public.


Refer to the thread where the owner of San Martin said his business relies on copying well know watches to stay in business.

This is about copying other peoples design. And no the design of the GS diver is not "public".


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

cheu_f50 said:


> The trouble isn't someone else copying your work and you are ok with it. For all I know you are the one copying someone else's work, when the original creator is not ok with it.
> 
> That's the moral hazard.


If I did, I wouldn't last long in my field. Not because people would think it was a moral hazard, but because it would mean my work wouldn't be as personal and therefore not as good.

To use other artists work as an inspiration, sure. But at the end of the day, it's me you see on the paper. And when someone uses my stuff, it's still me on the paper. Regardless of who signed it.

I create images for people to see. If someone copy's my work, more people get to see it. I don't need/want any recognition for it. I only want people to see what I've made. I never sign my work or watermark it. Never have. Never will.

I don't even sign the watch straps I make and sell.

To bring it back to topic. One could even see the SM as an inferior version of the GS that makes the GS shine even brighter.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

Alex_B. said:


> I take it when you wear jeans you only wear Levi's.


Oh wow would you look at that!


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

Barnaby'sDad said:


> Oh, I have no doubt that it's legal. I just think it's lazy and lacking creativity.
> 
> Then again&#8230;I guess I don't have much room to talk, as my current favorite is a homage to 60's era skin divers. Most would probably just say it's a GO clone (though they weren't the first to put the design out).


Lazy and lacking in creativity, indeed.


----------



## Alex_B. (May 31, 2016)

cheu_f50 said:


> Oh wow would you look at that!
> View attachment 15950810


Look at you! So pure and moral. ?
I'm quite evil and don't mind wearing cheaper jeans that copy Levi's. I'm going straight to hell.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

cheu_f50 said:


> Oh wow would you look at that!
> View attachment 15950810


Now let's see the fridge!
And the toolbox...


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

If the adjustable wrench in the haters tollboxes isn't a swedish made J.P Johansson, I think we can close this thread.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

[BOBO] said:


> If I did, I wouldn't last long in my field. Not because people would think it was a moral hazard, but because it would mean my work wouldn't be as personal and therefore not as good.
> 
> To use other artists work as an inspiration, sure. But at the end of the day, it's me you see on the paper. And when someone uses my stuff, it's still me on the paper. Regardless of who signed it.
> 
> ...


I appreciate you being civil about this discussion. But I just don't understand the argument that the San Martin isn't a copy of the GS. The owner is rather open about how maintaining his livelihood rely on copying well recognized watches.

This isn't a case of MILSUB dial being used that isn't legally owned by Rolex, or how people mod their SKX007 to look like a Blancpain. I get that it's not identical in every regard, but I suppose we will just agree to disagree whether this is a copy or not.


----------



## dfwcowboy (Jan 22, 2017)

cheu_f50 said:


> From the other thread, see below. He literally said in order to maintain his livelihood, he will make recognizable replicas, but all with his own branding.
> 
> I get it, he's not making fakes-replicas. He's putting his logo on the replicas so they are not fakes.
> 
> He even said his original designs are not selling. I dont know how much clearly the owner (and founder?) Of San Martin needs to be.


It should be clear to anyone he isn't making replicas. He said he's replicating styles which is clear to anyone who has seen one. English isn't his first language and it's doubtful he understands the connotations associated with using any form of that word here. The claim that he's making replicas seems a bit disingenuous as even you admit. Put that together with at least one other in this thread who flat out bet he was making fakes and there doesn't seem to be a lot of morality demonstrated by the sanctimonious crowd.


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

cheu_f50 said:


> Refer to the thread where the owner of San Martin said his business relies on copying well know watches to stay in business.
> 
> This is about copying other peoples design. And no the design of the GS diver is not "public".


Is there a trademark, copyright, design patent, or other protection applied to the design? If not, it's public domain.

Fact is, outside of the branding, there's nothing about the GS's visual design that could qualify for any kind of IP protection.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

cheu_f50 said:


> I appreciate you being civil about this discussion. But I just don't understand the argument that the San Martin isn't a copy of the GS. The owner is rather open about how maintaining his livelihood rely on copying well recognized watches.
> 
> This isn't a case of MILSUB dial being used that isn't legally owned by Rolex, or how people mod their SKX007 to look like a Blancpain. I get that it's not identical in every regard, but I suppose we will just agree to disagree whether this is a copy or not.


You are 100% correct that it is a design copy. No doubt about that. But it's not 1:1. They didn't just trace it, stick a movement in it and called it a day.

I don't remember if it was you or the other guy who claimed they're made in the same factory that makes replicas. If they were, they'd be 1:1. You couldn't put a GS logo on the SM and pass it as a real GS. Most of all since it doesn't have the power reserve indicator. And probably, most likely, isn't anywhere near as well finished as the GS.

I personally don't think it's close enough to be confusing. But I realize it's very personal. I'm a bit anal when it comes to details. Sometimes, perhaps enough to miss the big picture.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

dfwcowboy said:


> It should be clear to anyone he isn't making replicas. He said he's replicating styles which is clear to anyone who has seen one. English isn't his first language and it's doubtful he understands the connotations associated with using any form of that word here. The claim that he's making replicas seems a bit disingenuous as even you admit. Put that together with at least one other in this thread who flat out bet he was making fakes and there doesn't seem to be a lot of morality demonstrated by the sanctimonious crowd.


I'm sorry, but is calling it a replica style supposed to make this all better?

The crux of it, is the owner openly said his business depends on selling copies of other people's design. Don't think second language or not alters that intent. The owner is ok with making a business out of copying, buyers are ok with a copy of the original. Other thinks it's a slimy practice, even if no laws are broken.


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

[BOBO] said:


> You are 100% correct that it is a design copy. No doubt about that. But it's not 1:1. They didn't just trace it, stick a movement in it and called it a day.
> 
> I don't remember if it was you or the other guy who claimed they're made in the same factory that makes replicas. If they were, they'd be 1:1. You couldn't put a GS logo on the SM and pass it as a real GS. Most of all since it doesn't have the power reserve indicator. And probably, most likely, isn't anywhere near as well finished as the GS.
> 
> I personally don't think it's close enough to be confusing. But I realize it's very personal. I'm a bit anal when it comes to details. Sometimes, perhaps enough to miss the big picture.


I've seen plenty of intended reps with more differences from the original design than this watch. I don't believe any of the visual differences here were an intentional effort to give the design a unique spin. I think they were simply the result of an imperfect duplication of the original design, perhaps limited by ability or budget. Not like they used a completely different style of handset or completely different index shapes where one reasonably familiar with the GS wouldn't need to examine features side by side with an actual GS to spot the differences.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

[BOBO] said:


> You are 100% correct that it is a design copy. No doubt about that. But it's not 1:1. They didn't just trace it, stick a movement in it and called it a day.
> 
> I don't remember if it was you or the other guy who claimed they're made in the same factory that makes replicas. If they were, they'd be 1:1. You couldn't put a GS logo on the SM and pass it as a real GS. Most of all since it doesn't have the power reserve indicator. And probably, most likely, isn't anywhere near as well finished as the GS.
> 
> I personally don't think it's close enough to be confusing. But I realize it's very personal. I'm a bit anal when it comes to details. Sometimes, perhaps enough to miss the big picture.


Not me. I don't engage in speculation or hear say, or at least try not to. I have no idea which factory makes what, nor do I think that even matters. The way manufacturing works, even if they come from the same factory, it doesnt mean they use the same tooling anyway.

If it wasnt for the fact that just a couple of days ago, the owner out right posted about San Martin, I would't even know what they sell.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

cheu_f50 said:


> I'm sorry, but is calling it a replica style supposed to make this all better?
> 
> The crux of it, is the owner openly said his business depends on selling copies of other people's design. Don't think second language or not alters that intent. The owner is ok with making a business out of copying, buyers are ok with a copy of the original. Other thinks it's a slimy practice, even if no laws are broken.


Everyone has to make a living somehow. He said himself that his own designs aren't selling well enough, so he had to take a shortcut. A legal one. Instead of treading water, he made it work. Is he happy about it? Doesn't seem like it. But hey, here we are.

I don't see the slimyness in that. I bet he has kids to feed.


----------



## dfwcowboy (Jan 22, 2017)

MX793 said:


> Is there a trademark, copyright, design patent, or other protection applied to the design? If not, it's public domain.
> 
> Fact is, outside of the branding, there's nothing about the GS's visual design that could qualify for any kind of IP protection.


The other aspect is regardless of how well the execution of the watch is, outside of the movement there is exactly nothing inspirational about the watch's design. Yet there are those here who seem to be suggesting copying what has been already copied from countless other dive watches is the immoral equivalent of drowning kittens in a bathtub.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

MX793 said:


> I've seen plenty of intended reps with more differences from the original design than this watch. I don't believe any of the visual differences here were an intentional effort to give the design a unique spin. I think they were simply the result of an imperfect duplication of the original design, perhaps limited by ability or budget. Not like they used a completely different style of handset or completely different index shapes where one reasonably familiar with the GS wouldn't need to examine features side by side with an actual GS to spot the differences.


I would imagine you find the exact same index on the other SM watches with round index. Keeps cost down.

I don't know Seiko well enough to remember how any of them looks, really. So I would always need a side by side to be able to tell.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

MX793 said:


> Is there a trademark, copyright, design patent, or other protection applied to the design? If not, it's public domain.
> 
> Fact is, outside of the branding, there's nothing about the GS's visual design that could qualify for any kind of IP protection.


I have not search the patent office to confirm whether or not GS have filed a design patent on their watch, or this specific watch. If you think the lack of design patent, and in other words someone who came up with the design cannot sue you, means copying is ok, then we disagree in principle on what's socially acceptable as a practice, and what isn't.

Hell even if San Martin offer this watch in red when GS doesn't, I can make the case that a buyer wants a red dive watch and GS doesn't offer such a product (kinda like what steinhart does). But this isn't the case here.


----------



## dfwcowboy (Jan 22, 2017)

cheu_f50 said:


> I'm sorry, but is calling it a replica style supposed to make this all better?
> 
> The crux of it, is the owner openly said his business depends on selling copies of other people's design. Don't think second language or not alters that intent. The owner is ok with making a business out of copying, buyers are ok with a copy of the original. Other thinks it's a slimy practice, even if no laws are broken.


Meanwhile pretty much every single element of the GS has been copied from some other watch manufacturer, so cobbling them from different places is somehow better how exactly?

I get that some people get their blood pressure up over this issue. That doesn't mean there's a good reason for it. You have to remember we are talking about a round dial and three hands with a rotating bezel and every other aspect is equally banal. What separates GS from the pack is their craftsmanship, and that isn't being "replicated" here.


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

cheu_f50 said:


> I have not search the patent office to confirm whether or not GS have filed a design patent on their watch, or this specific watch. If you think the lack of design patent, and in other words someone who came up with the design cannot sue you, means copying is ok, then we disagree in principle on what's socially acceptable as a practice, and what isn't.
> 
> Hell even if San Martin offer this watch in red when GS doesn't, I can make the case that a buyer wants a red dive watch and GS doesn't offer such a product (kinda like what steinhart does). But this isn't the case here.


Copying protected IP is both illegal and immoral. It harms the owner of the IP.

I think copying something from public domain is intellectually lazy.


----------



## Hard Learner (May 17, 2021)

All I see is how Invicta tries to mimic Rolex.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

MX793 said:


> Copying protected IP is both illegal and immoral. It harms the owner of the IP.


But benefits humanity...

Edit: sometimes!



MX793 said:


> I think copying something from public domain is intellectually lazy.


Couldn't agree more.
One should not stay away from copying others work because it's morally wrong or because it harms the one that's copied, but because it's lazy. Regardless if it's copyrighted or not. Just don't do it.

I would hate to work as a designer and having to turn out this kind of shait.
But I defend their right to do it till the bitter end.


----------



## LosAngelesTimer (Aug 24, 2017)

Hey Guys, check out my brand new Mercedes G-Wagen copy. It's all good because they call it the H-Wagen, right? RIGHT?!?!?


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

[BOBO] said:


> But benefits humanity...
> 
> Edit: sometimes!


No. In a world where no IP is protected, no one is going to invest in being innovative, which is a scenario that would be a net detriment to humanity.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

MX793 said:


> No. In a world where no IP is protected, no one is going to invest in being innovative, which is a scenario that would be a net detriment to humanity.


Let's agree to disagree.


----------



## Alex_B. (May 31, 2016)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> Hey Guys, check out my brand new Mercedes G-Wagen copy. It's all good because they call it the H-Wagen, right? RIGHT?!?!?
> 
> View attachment 15950884


Another example of something that YOU don't like. How sad ??????


----------



## nello (Jan 2, 2014)

I guess none of Seikos early models looked like anything else on the market. 
















Yep. Totally revolutionary. Unique designs.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> Hey Guys, check out my brand new Mercedes G-Wagen copy. It's all good because they call it the H-Wagen, right? RIGHT?!?!?
> 
> View attachment 15950884


Fine by me. 
Congrats on the sweet new ride!


----------



## Alex_B. (May 31, 2016)

[BOBO] said:


> Fine by me.
> Congrats on the sweet new ride!


If it's safe to drive I'd drive it wearing my San Martin and cheap jeans after having drunk a cheap unknown brand cola. ?


----------



## Scbr24 (Oct 21, 2017)

Triton9 said:


> View attachment 15949819
> View attachment 15949820
> 
> View attachment 15949821
> ...


It's more than likely that San Martin swapped the dial, crown and case back of the GS and put it into their watch. Wouldn't be the first brand to do such thing, Pagani Design for example uses a real Explorer II for their online pictures (you can tell because the rehaut says Rolex) and they either swap or photoshop the dial.

I have nothing against San Martin or Chinese brands by the way, in fact I'm thinking about buying a SM in the Aliexpress summer sale, let's just not pretend it's anywhere near a real GS in pretty much any aspect, let alone finishing. I agree that it's probably better than a lot of $1000 Seiko watches though.


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

[BOBO] said:


> Let's agree to disagree.


Do you think pharma companies would invest in groundbreaking, life-saving new medicines if they knew that their rivals would legally be able to just reverse engineer and copy their recipe as soon as their product hit the market and then sell that copy for less, since they don't have the R&D costs to recoup?

Or a software company developing some new application?


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

MX793 said:


> Do you think pharma companies would invest in groundbreaking, life-saving new medicines if they knew that their rivals would legally be able to just reverse engineer and copy their recipe as soon as their product hit the market and then sell that copy for less, since they don't have the R&D costs to recoup?
> 
> Or a software company developing some new application?


Ask Richard Stallman.

This will become political if we don't put a plugg in it. So as I said. Let's agree to disagree.


----------



## Scbr24 (Oct 21, 2017)

Triton9 said:


> I think it just a headstart, sooner or later, more color may follow. Just saw a thread about a happy owner of his new San Martin DSSD with mother of pearl dial.


Do you happen to remember the title of the thread?


----------



## Saswatch (Dec 23, 2020)

It has a semblance to that GS SD but clearly isn’t. Some one mentioned Fiero and I’m thinking Fiero with a Lambo body kit.

SM can produce good quality stuff but going up against GS is mmm Sparta.


----------



## swolelax (Apr 5, 2016)

If you like like these watches good for you, but I'd go bare wristed before wearing one of these "homages."


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

dfwcowboy said:


> Quite often morality is defined by those who don't like something, but can't explain exactly why it's wrong. As long as what SM is doing is fully legal, then any claims of immorality aren't worth much outside of subjectivity. If they were, it would clearly be illegal. It's not as if the owner of SM is taking food off Shinji Hattori's table.


I would be verrry careful about moral vagueness and dependence on legality. I can do a lot of immoral things that are perfectly legal. It would definitely be worth something beyond subjectivity if it happened to you. You're starting to broaden your argument here into moral relativism. Not where you want to go, I don't think.


----------



## dfwcowboy (Jan 22, 2017)

longtimelurker said:


> I would be verrry careful
> I would be verrry careful about moral vagueness and dependence on legality. I can do a lot of immoral things that are perfectly legal. It would definitely be worth something beyond subjectivity if it happened to you.


I can also come up with an endless list of perfectly legal things some people consider immoral, but most don't give a second thought. So while we could trade tangential analogies ad nauseum, I'm not sure they would shed much light on the subject at hand. It just seem like the best arguments people make against homages involve some form of sensationalism and/or false equivalence, which leads me to think there never was much of an argument that gets past subjectivity.


----------



## mconlonx (Sep 21, 2018)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> Please by all means, buy every San Martin copy out there. I'm sure you'll be very happy together.


No, please, substantiate your assertion that factories used by San Martin to produce their watches also produce replica watches, or parts for such.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

dfwcowboy said:


> I can also come up with an endless list of perfectly legal things some people consider immoral, but most don't give a second thought. So while we could trade tangential analogies ad nauseum, I'm not sure they would shed much light on the subject at hand. It just seem like the best arguments people make against homages involve some form of sensationalism and/or false equivalence, which leads me to think there never was much of an argument that gets past subjectivity.


The best argument is:
People own their own labor (creative and otherwise) as if it were property. They are free to alienate themselves from that property for any rate (or no rate) willingly on an individual basis. (meaning no one else decides what you do, even if everyone else doesn't care like BOBO)

This is a basic tenet of western society.

Now whether or not a particular watch design represents property is a line that is perfectly reasonable to question.

Obviously the anti-copy camp rests on one side. Usually ceding that the line is not entirely clear.

The other side cites legality and such. But legality is not morality. Slavery was legal after all.

So both sides are just talking past each other and ignoring the base dilemma :

If it's property, copying it is theft and immoral.
If it's not property, or it's not copying, then it's not theft and it's not immoral.

Then you have the morally obtuse that think the size of the entity, the depths of their pocketbooks, or whether or not food is being stolen off a table has anything to do with the principle argument. Moral relativism is a concept that is not only dangerous, but pointless in discussing.


----------



## mconlonx (Sep 21, 2018)

longtimelurker said:


> The best argument is:
> People own their own labor (creative and otherwise) as if it were property. They are free to alienate themselves from that property for any rate (or no rate) willingly on an individual basis. (meaning no one else decides what you do, even if everyone else doesn't care like BOBO)
> 
> This is a basic tenet of western society.
> ...


Following that line of reason...

A designer working for Seiko is paid to make a case design. Work for hire, Seiko owns the design to do with as they wish, including actually manufacturing it.

The case design is only one part of the watch, which may also include, for the sake of this discussion, movement, finishing, and branding.

Where Seiko is concerned, it may be that the shape of the watch case is not that important, when considering the whole. Zaratsu finishing is time consuming, expensive, and they market it as such - the exact copy used to market it, and any photography, is copyrighted. The Spring Drive movement is patented. And the Grand Seiko brand is trademarked.

If they wanted to register a design patent for the shape of the case, they could. But they don't; essentially, the case shape design is not what defines a Grand Seiko. And because they have not protected it, yes, it is in the public domain.

The San Martin is very obviously not a Grand Seiko, even though the shape is very similar, even as close as San Martin could plausibly make it.

Bottom line: Seiko doesn't care if others copy their designs. Case shape and other design cues is not what makes a Seiko a Seiko. Why do some customers and even non-customers care...?


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

mconlonx said:


> Following that line of reason...
> 
> A designer working for Seiko is paid to make a case design. Work for hire, Seiko owns the design to do with as they wish, including actually manufacturing it.
> 
> ...


All plausible and reasonable suppositions.
It's possible that seiko does care, but doesn't find it financially (or other adverbs) worthwhile to protect or otherwise claim it. So, I don't think it's clear that they don't care. Not enough to do anything about it, which is functionally the same, though.
People can care despite that because people can disagree with a corporation's stance on any issue on a matter of principle. Even if it doesn't affect them in any tangible way. It doesn't have to be on behalf of that particular company's interest. 
Chik fil a and lots of other companies have this issue. Sometimes for an official position or even a unofficial non-position.


----------



## dfwcowboy (Jan 22, 2017)

longtimelurker said:


> The best argument is:
> People own their own labor (creative and otherwise) as if it were property. They are free to alienate themselves from that property for any rate (or no rate) willingly on an individual basis. (meaning no one else decides what you do, even if everyone else doesn't care like BOBO)
> 
> This is a basic tenet of western society.
> ...


I guess I wasn't clear before. I'm just looking for an argument against a homage that doesn't rely on sensationalism such as analogies to slavery, theft, and drowning kittens in the bathtub. I'm looking for something remotely resembling moral realism and not finding much of it. So what was the principle argument again?


----------



## brash47 (Jul 14, 2018)

Triton9 said:


> I hope these homage will teach Seiko to be humble again.


I almost spit my coffee out when I saw that statement. Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

dfwcowboy said:


> I guess I wasn't clear before. I'm just looking for an argument against a homage that doesn't rely on sensationalism such as analogies to slavery, theft, and drowning kittens in the bathtub. I'm looking for something remotely resembling moral realism and not finding much of it. So what was the principle argument again?


In either the legal or moral context (not both, mixing the premise isn't going to compute) :

That a watch design (as a whole) is creative labor and is considered property.
Alienating the owner from that property without their permission and consent is theft.

The theft part isn't an analogy, as many comparable product designs are treated precisely congruent (in terms of the law). The law treats IP as property, and infringement as a form of damaging theft.

If we're talking legal, not-protected is a big part of the determination; but not all of it, as patent lawyers will tell you. Lots of illegal infringement happens without consequence. Doesn't make it not illegal. The presumption is that doing illegal things (caught or not) is objectionable. I think that's a safe one.

If we're talking moral, things like intent, knowledge, and where you draw the distinction of property and ownership.

Morally, it's not an analogy. Taking stuff that belongs to someone else is theft and is immoral.

Point being that we would need to agree on all parts of the premise to really have a literal argument. Otherwise, we are just arguing about the premise. Which some people like to do to sound smart. But it isn't productive.

When people argue, it isn't really to convince the other person (not sane people anyways); it's to find out where they disagree. Disagreement on the grounds and premise is a one-step dead-end that should be identified by one party or another. Then each can concede to discuss on the other's terms (mutually exclusively) or just stop altogether.


----------



## dfwcowboy (Jan 22, 2017)

longtimelurker said:


> In either the legal or moral context (not both, mixing the premise isn't going to compute) :
> 
> That a watch design (as a whole) is creative labor and is considered property.
> Alienating the owner from that property without their permission and consent is theft.
> ...


I disagree with "That a watch design (as a whole) is creative labor and is considered property." At least not within any tort law of which I'm aware and I'm sure if there were any validity to such a premise the anti-homage torch and pitchfork mobs would be repeating that case law in every single one of these threads. In the few cases which have prevailed I have seen it has always been specific unique aspects of design, not the entire watch.


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

dfwcowboy said:


> I disagree with "That a watch design (as a whole) is creative labor and is considered property." At least not within any tort law of which I'm aware and I'm sure if there were any validity to such a premise the anti-homage torch and pitchfork mobs would be repeating that case law in every single one of these threads. In the few cases which have prevailed I have seen it has always been specific unique aspects of design, not the entire watch.


But then we go around to the "legal and moral aren't necessarily the same"


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

longtimelurker said:


> In either the legal or moral context (not both, mixing the premise isn't going to compute) :
> 
> That a watch design (as a whole) is creative labor and is considered property.
> Alienating the owner from that property without their permission and consent is theft.
> ...


The question of "property" gets hazy because intellectual property, an idea, is not corporeal. Tangible material is much less abstract a concept when it comes to property. The apples at fruit stand belong to the owner of the fruit stand until a transaction to transfer ownership takes place. If someone takes an apple without said transactional transfer of ownership, they have committed theft. Said theft is immoral because it causes harm to fruit stand owner. Very cut and dry. But ideas are intangible. It's possible for two people to separately and independently arrive at the same idea. It's not possible for two people to separately and independently come into possession of the same apple, as the apple cannot exist in two places at once.

The answer to the question of whether or not an idea is property is "Maybe". And, therefore, the question as to whether or not the copying of an idea is necessarily theft is also answered with "Maybe".

Because it's possible for an idea to be arrived at independently by multiple people, very simple ideas are not deemed eligible for protection and thus are not considered property. For example, one cannot universally claim ownership over an arrangement of simple geometric shapes, as such an arrangement could have been independently devised by almost anyone. One may, however, claim ownership of such a design within a specific context, such as a trademark for a brand logo. Here the combination of design plus context creates an idea that may not have been so readily formed by other parties. If we allowed all simple ideas, or designs, to be considered "property" universally, we would quickly find ourselves mired in a veritable minefield and largely unable to function.

To whit, the following sentence is an "idea": "The sly, red fox jumped over the white fence."

Can I claim this string of words as my exclusive property in all contexts? Based on the framework of intellectual property laws, no. It's a basic sentence that could have easily been arrived at by any number of people, and I am most certainly not the first to craft such a string of words. And allowing such a simple "idea", or sentence in this case, to be considered property would significantly hinder the ability of others to express their own ideas.

So whether or not an idea, like a design, can be considered "property" comes down to whether or not it is protected or protectable IP. If it's protected, it's property. If it's not protected, it isn't.

Because watch designs are largely just arrangements of simple geometric shapes, and largely constrained by the functional requirements of a watch, most aesthetic design elements are not deemed eligible for protection for much the same reason that my simple sentence about the fox isn't eligible for protection. And those that might be eligible only become property if the creator lays claim by registering those elements as protected IP.


----------



## Bird-Dog (Jan 22, 2021)

If one finds it morally unscrupulous for San Martin to copy the Gran Seiko design, what, then, is the penalty for such transgressions? It's that those consumers finding it objectionable won't buy one.

The question Seiko cares about is whether potential customers would decline to purchase the GS because of the existence of the SM homage? That's the measure, in legal and financial terms, of any damage done to Seiko by San Martin producing their version. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it's negligible.

Ultimately, for whatever reason, Seiko does indeed allow it to continue. Therefore, it seems those SM customers who consider that a signal of Seiko's acquiescence stand on no less moral high-ground than those who object on supposed moral grounds on Seiko's behalf. IOW, to each their own!


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

longtimelurker said:


> The best argument is:
> People own their own labor (creative and otherwise) as if it were property. They are free to alienate themselves from that property for any rate (or no rate) willingly on an individual basis. (meaning no one else decides what you do, even if everyone else doesn't care like BOBO)
> 
> This is a basic tenet of western society.
> ...


I don't know that it was intended to be moral relativism.

If we are unable to come to a consensus on whether an idea, a design in this context, is property and therefore whether the copying of said design is theft, then the next step would be to try to test whether the act of copying in and of itself, separate from whether or not it is theft, is immoral. As noted, legal and moral are not necessarily the same thing. Broadly speaking, most would weigh the morality of an action by determining whether or not said action causes harm to another party. Which then leads to the question: Does the existence of the SM "homage" cause harm to GS? One measure of harm is whether or not "food is taken off the table", so to speak.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

dfwcowboy said:


> I disagree with "That a watch design (as a whole) is creative labor and is considered property." At least not within any tort law of which I'm aware and I'm sure if there were any validity to such a premise the anti-homage torch and pitchfork mobs would be repeating that case law in every single one of these threads. In the few cases which have prevailed I have seen it has always been specific unique aspects of design, not the entire watch.


See, at least it's clear on which grounds you are arguing, so the right people can respond.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

MX793 said:


> I don't know that it was intended to be moral relativism.
> 
> If we are unable to come to a consensus on whether an idea, a design in this context, is property and therefore whether the copying of said design is theft, then the next step would be to try to test whether the act of copying in and of itself, separate from whether or not it is theft, is immoral. As noted, legal and moral are not necessarily the same thing. Broadly speaking, most would weigh the morality of an action by determining whether or not said action causes harm to another party. Which then leads to the question: Does the existence of the SM "homage" cause harm to GS? One measure of harm is whether or not "food is taken off the table", so to speak.


Fair enough. We'd then end up talking about positive versus negative rights in relation to morality.

In the end, I don't have as staunch a position as others. I just got tired of watching two parties bang on trashcans facing opposite corners. It just makes it noisy and annoying for everyone.


----------



## Buramu (Oct 19, 2015)

What a shameless knockoff. Who buys this crap?


----------



## seadial (Jan 14, 2010)

If the thread on this watch did not have the Spring Drive lead in then I would never have thought that this was a Seiko. The details are where the differences lie; the side by side photos clearly show these from the different milled patterns in the bezel rims, the shaping of the shoulders of the lugs and the varying crown positions.

P.S. Never liked that shark logo on the caseback of these models, looks like a cartoon image.


----------



## brash47 (Jul 14, 2018)

This company has been making Seiko copies for years. No issue. I don't think Seiko is worried about this company taking any of its business.


----------



## Jugsy (Jan 7, 2021)

Barnaby'sDad said:


> That's exactly my point. The SM looks like someone started from the baseline of the GS, went into a drafting program and made a few changes (i.e. The hour and minute hands) to make it just different enough to avoid litigation.


Pretty sure you just described 99% of watches in existence.


----------



## Buramu (Oct 19, 2015)

Jugsy said:


> Pretty sure you just described 99% of watches in existence.


To be more correct: 99% of the watch discussed in the Affordable Watches subforum


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

Barnaby'sDad said:


> Oh, I have no doubt that it's legal. I just think it's lazy and lacking creativity.
> Then again&#8230;I guess I don't have much room to talk, as my current favorite is a homage to 60's era skin divers. Most would probably just say it's a GO clone (though they weren't the first to put the design out).


GO skin diver design's were generic in the late 1960's - look at this amazing collection - I think in the late 1960's a French company was pushing out cases & dials and companies would buy them & put their own or other mvmnts in - clearly there was a 'borrowing' of designs as someone had to have first designed such - Eterna flag dial design/ 12/2/4/6/8/10 dial with arrow minute hand etc


----------



## Triton9 (Sep 30, 2011)

Buramu said:


> What a shameless knockoff. Who buys this crap?


Plenty... And even Seiko produced knock off...










Does this watch looks familiar to some? Dont be selective of your accusation.. I would love to heard your insult for Seiko for doing this knock off.


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

MX793 said:


> Is there a trademark, copyright, design patent, or other protection applied to the design? If not, it's public domain.
> 
> Fact is, outside of the branding, there's nothing about the GS's visual design that could qualify for any kind of IP protection.


I'm sure this is correct - it is clearly not illegal to make copies with changed name/logo.
It would be interesting to explore further the basis on which we construct our ethics, but I suspect the Mods would intervene

For me one possible analogy would be from the academic world, where "plagiarism" - the presenting of someone else's work as one's own without consent or acknowledgement (OU definition)- is a disciplinary matter and is predicated on a moral foundation. It is regarded as wrong to do so. Not illegal, but not not acceptable - in part because it is a deceit and it does not reflect the true ability of the person submitting the piece to think or write, only their ability to find and cut n paste. With replica watches sold to the public there is not the disingenuous, as there is in plagiarism when passing off as your work someone else's - that is a deceit. A knock off is not a deception, but is it a theft? Some have even justified them as a recognition, an honouring - hence naming it 'homage'. Many years ago I had to correct an essay from a young visiting student from another country and different culture (Asian) who had heavily borrowed from something I'd written without reference. When I challenged they were hurt as they had seen their use of my work as 'honouring' me their teacher not stealing/plagiarising.

funny old life


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

Triton9 said:


> Plenty... And even Seiko produced knock off...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


always a strong point


----------



## Jugsy (Jan 7, 2021)

How do you guys feel about Squale? I feel like they often get a free pass on this stuff but any Chinese brand gets crucified.


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

Jugsy said:


> How do you guys feel about Squale? I feel like they often get a free pass on this stuff but any Chinese brand gets crucified.


interesting - most squale look like squale - but presumably you mean the sub copy?


----------



## dfwcowboy (Jan 22, 2017)

longtimelurker said:


> See, at least it's clear on which grounds you are arguing, so the right people can respond.


I'm not the one making an argument. I'm responding to the argument homages are immoral by asking why. This topic gets discussed almost daily around here and I've read the lots of opinions of those who believe it is, but I haven't found any I thought were all that convincing. That doesn't mean you or anyone else making such arguments are wrong.


----------



## Jugsy (Jan 7, 2021)

Simon said:


> interesting - most squale look like squale - but presumably you mean the sub copy?


Yes, I'm interested to know the general feeling on copies made by non Chinese brands. Also wondering if you feel like the fact that a brand is Chinese or not changes your opinion on whether it's ok?


----------



## dfwcowboy (Jan 22, 2017)

Jugsy said:


> How do you guys feel about Squale? I feel like they often get a free pass on this stuff but any Chinese brand gets crucified.


It's certainly notable how Squale, Steinhart, et al don't get nearly the hate you see directed toward Chinese homage manufacturers.


----------



## S1919 (Jun 14, 2020)

Simon said:


> I'm sure this is correct - it is clearly not illegal to make copies with changed name/logo.
> It would be interesting to explore further the basis on which we construct our ethics, but I suspect the Mods would intervene
> 
> For me one possible analogy would be from the academic world, where "plagiarism" - the presenting of someone else's work as one's own without consent or acknowledgement (OU definition)- is a disciplinary matter and is predicated on a moral foundation. It is regarded as wrong to do so. Not illegal, but not not acceptable - in part because it is a deceit and it does not reflect the true ability of the person submitting the piece to think or write, only their ability to find and cut n paste. With replica watches sold to the public there is not the disingenuous, as there is in plagiarism when passing off as your work someone else's - that is a deceit. A knock off is not a deception, but is it a theft? Some have even justified them as a recognition, an honouring - hence naming it 'homage'. Many years ago I had to correct an essay from a young visiting student from another country and different culture (Asian) who had heavily borrowed from something I'd written without reference. When I challenged they were hurt as they had seen their use of my work as 'honouring' me their teacher not stealing/plagiarising.
> ...


This is a very interesting comparison, but I would argue there is certainly acknowledgement in the case of these homages. Even if it is not explicitly written, everyone knows what it is they are homaging.

Continuing the academic analogy, there are many instances where reference conventions are not as strict. For example, in an introductory class to economics, the lecturer would explain the foundational concepts (rationality, utility, scarcity, and so on) and how they interact. Clearly, the concepts are not the lecturer's original contributions, but they are rarely cited (beyond maybe assigning a textbook in the first slide or something like that). Is this plagiarism? Obviously not, and I think the crucial element is whether the audience thinks the contributions are original. In a summative assessment or a published article, the audience evidently assumes the content is original. In a lecture, not so much. Given San Martin are known as a premium homage brand, the audience expects that their watches are homages, so there is acknowledgement.


----------



## Springy Watch (Nov 11, 2020)

If San Martin called theirs a "spring drive" and claimed to have an actual spring drive in the watch I would be either amazed (what an achievement!) or outraged (what a lie!). They are doing neither. That's the difference, and all buyers know it. Nobody will buy this San Martin watch thinking it really has a spring drive in it, nor will they buy it hoping to fool other people into thinking they have a Grand Seiko. Likewise, nobody will buy a Grand Seiko thinking "I wasted my money. I could have bought the same thing for much less from San Martin". So, I don't see any deception, or fleecing of customers, from either.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

dfwcowboy said:


> I'm not the one making an argument. I'm responding to the argument homages are immoral by asking why. This topic gets discussed almost daily around here and I've read the lots of opinions of those who believe it is, but I haven't found any I thought were all that convincing. That doesn't mean you or anyone else making such arguments are wrong.


When I was young and I grade school, I was taught that copying someone's homework is wrong. Now copying homework isn't illegal, but that's hardly an argument to say copying someone's homework is acceptable practice or should be encouraged.

Let's take a look at a few other offerings from San Martin. I just dont understand why some people think this is ok.


----------



## Alex_B. (May 31, 2016)

cheu_f50 said:


> When I was young and I grade school, I was taught that copying someone's homework is wrong. Now copying homework isn't illegal, but that's hardly an argument to say copying someone's homework is acceptable practice or should be encouraged.
> 
> Let's take a look at a few other offerings from San Martin. I just dont understand why some people think this is ok.
> 
> ...


That's a false equivalence. When you're copying homework you're deceiving the teacher and not learning anything which is what you're supposed to do at school. 
When you're copying designs in a legal manner you're just being lazy in order to make money and aren't deceiving anyone. 
Those 2 things aren't even close to being similar.

Sooo&#8230; Are they trying to deceive people? Are they taking away business from say Rolex? Are what they're doing illegal? Are they in any way harming anyone?
I don't understand why this wouldn't be ok&#8230;


----------



## Chronopolis (Apr 8, 2009)

longtimelurker said:


> Not that most Chinese companies would respect IP protection anyways.


True that.
I do not care to take sides in this thread, and I have no dog. In this fight, or in real life.

But can we at least acknowledge one possible CAUSE behind WHY Chinese companies (and CCP) do NOT respect IP laws, as pertaining to ideas originating from outside (West, Japan)?

*Many of China's BEST and most important artworks are in Britain and France. And also in Japan (but mostly private collections).*
How many people (outside of China / East Asia) are aware of this? Very few. Mostly specialists.

*Britain and France (and Japan) do not possess them because they paid for them.*
See where this could go?

Just sayin...


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

Chronopolis said:


> True that.
> I do not care to take sides in this thread, and I have no dog. In this fight, or in real life.
> 
> But can we at least acknowledge one possible CAUSE behind WHY Chinese companies (and CCP) do NOT respect IP laws, as pertaining to ideas originating from outside (West, Japan)?
> ...


That, and maybe the communism thing.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

Alex_B. said:


> That's a false equivalence. When you're copying homework you're deceiving the teacher and not learning anything which is what you're supposed to do at school.
> When you're copying designs in a legal manner you're just being lazy in order to make money and aren't deceiving anyone.
> Those 2 things aren't even close to being similar.
> 
> ...


I am well aware by now that you and a few others here accepts copying someone else's design as reasonable business practice, a practice I believe to be deplorable.

I'm no lawyer, so I certainly have no authority to claim whether the practice is legal or not, but in my mind this would not be legal. As to why they have not been sued, if they can be sued, I have no idea. But that's hardly a deciding factor for me.

This also have nothing to do with people being harmed, physically, financially, or otherwise. The principle that copying someones design is wrong, apparently is just not a value you share.


----------



## Alex_B. (May 31, 2016)

cheu_f50 said:


> I am well aware by now that you and a few others here accepts copying someone else's design as reasonable business practice, a practice I believe to be deplorable.
> 
> I'm no lawyer, so I certainly have no authority to claim whether the practice is legal or not, but in my mind this would not be legal. As to why they have not been sued, if they can be sued, I have no idea. But that's hardly a deciding factor for me.
> 
> This also have nothing to do with people being harmed, physically, financially, or otherwise. The principle that copying someones design is wrong, apparently is just not a value you share.


The principle is stupid if it's not doing harm in any way and I don't accept your feelings on the matter as being leading when it comes to values. ?


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

cheu_f50 said:


> The principle that copying someones design is wrong, apparently is just not a value you share.


Me neither. Not wrong. Just lazy and boring.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

[BOBO] said:


> Me neither. Not wrong. Just lazy and boring.


And thats ok. People have different opinions. 👍


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

cheu_f50 said:


> And thats ok. People have different opinions. ?


I try to follow all the laws and expect others to do the same. But I wouldn't go out of my way to make life more difficult by adding my own "laws" based on my personal values or morals. The law is the law.

If it's legal, it's ok. If not, I'm against it.
If they change the law, I'll adapt to it and have no problems changing my standpoint.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

[BOBO] said:


> I try to follow all the laws and expect others to do the same. But I wouldn't go out of my way to make life more difficult by adding my own "laws" based on my personal values or morals. The law is the law.
> 
> If it's legal, it's ok. If not, I'm against it.
> If they change the law, I'll adapt to it and have no problems changing my standpoint.


Outside of watches, I wouldn't talk about someone behind their back, I wouldn't engage in extramarital affairs.

It's not values and morals I came up with and try to impose on others. They are already established. I suppose different cultures (maybe even different social circles) would have different norms and standards, but just because it's legal I don't necessarily think it equates to acceptable practice, certainly not encouraged to say the least.


----------



## nello (Jan 2, 2014)

Triton9 said:


> Plenty... And even Seiko produced knock off...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good burn


----------



## Chronopolis (Apr 8, 2009)

MX793 said:


> Copying protected IP is both illegal and immoral. It harms the owner of the IP.
> I think copying something from public domain is intellectually lazy.


I agree on all points.
BUT, ...
this is why we have laws, and ways of enforcing said laws, with violence, if necessary, depending on HOW negatively consequential the violation is to the parties involved.

For example, who could possibly support the "moral position" of a serial murderer?
No-one that I know.
But what about a sniper in the military? Is he not the very embodiment of skillful serial murdering?

We can't keep speaking of morality -- as many do -- when the matter at hand involves $$$, which is directly tied to pleasure (hedonism).

Morality is (always was) a matter of honor, with NO tangible benefit.
Otherwise, it's just another word for justifying the collective immorality of the majority.

To wit:
Does anyone here condemn teenage premarital sex as IMMORAL?
No? I didn't think so.


----------



## Chronopolis (Apr 8, 2009)

longtimelurker said:


> That, and maybe the communism thing.


Maybe, I doubt it.
I think they (CCP) would be VERY harsh on IP theft among corporations inside of China.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

cheu_f50 said:


> Outside of watches, I wouldn't talk about someone behind their back, I wouldn't engage in extramarital affairs.
> 
> It's not values and morals I came up with and try to impose on others. They are already established. I suppose different cultures (maybe even different social circles) would have different norms and standards, but just because it's legal I don't necessarily think it equates to acceptable practice, certainly not encouraged to say the least.


You are mixing apples and pears, I think. We were talking about companies copying each other's designs...
Companies are only supposed to make money.

Of course I have my own morals as an individual and there are lots of legal stuff that I wouldn't do because it wouldn't feel right. To me!
But that's the thing. One can't expect anyone else to share one's morals. Hence, we can't base the rules and laws on morals.

As I said, I think it's lazy to copy. And I think it's a bit douchy to make a pass at the neighbors wife. But I wouldn't want to stop anyone who doesn't feel the same from engaging in said activities.


----------



## Chronopolis (Apr 8, 2009)

[BOBO] said:


> As I said, I think it's lazy to copy. And I think it's a bit douchy to make a pass at the neighbors wife. But I wouldn't want to stop anyone who doesn't feel the same from engaging in said activities.


Is yer wife Hawt?
I might get douchy.


----------



## TheBearded (Jan 8, 2020)

dfwcowboy said:


> It's certainly notable how Squale, Steinhart, et al don't get nearly the hate you see directed toward Chinese homage manufacturers.


I was kinda wondering when Swiss outfits would get brought up. As an example... Most everyone thinks the Oris Divers 65 is a great watch. The "modern" version is a throwback to the original from Oris' catalog. Well where did the original get its inspiration?

From the UG Polerouter Sub. Produced from '60-'69.


















Not a 1:1 copy. But the resemblance is uncanny. Homage_y,_ even.

If folks wanna throw homage hate around, fine by me, no skin off my back. But throw it around equally. The Swiss and Germans copy too.

Oh. Heres my homage to the Polerouter. 









Maybe. Just maybe. The big thing for homage haters isn't that it's a copy? It's that it's from China, and that it's so cheap?


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

Chronopolis said:


> Is yer wife Hawt?
> I might get douchy.


😂😂😂


----------



## Springy Watch (Nov 11, 2020)

For people complaining that San Martin should show some creativity and make their own original design, they already do have quite a few original watch designs.

Have you bought one of these San Martin originals? If not, why not? Start buying watches like this, and San Martin won't feel compelled to make watches with designs that are more popular with their customers.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

Springy Watch said:


> For people complaining that San Martin should show some creativity and make their own original design, they already do have quite a few original watch designs.
> 
> Have you bought one of these San Martin originals? If not, why not? Start buying watches like this, and San Martin won't feel compelled to make watches with designs that are more popular with their customers.
> 
> View attachment 15951644


I've been looking at their Damascus puck a bit too much over the last year. Kind of hoping it sells out so I can stop looking at it.😬


----------



## Moonshine Runner (Sep 29, 2016)

Alex_B. said:


> Are they trying to deceive people? Are they taking away business from say Rolex? Are what they're doing illegal? Are they in any way harming anyone?
> I don't understand why this wouldn't be ok&#8230;


I assume you will also buy a Landwind X7 as your next car?
After all, Jiangling Motors is not trying to deceive anyone with the Range Rover Evoque copy. They also don't take business from Jaguar Land Rover Ltd and they aren't harming anyone&#8230;

That the San Martin / Pagani Design / Bersigar / Heimdallr / whatever copies fall from the same assembly lines from which the Rolex, Omega, IWC and Seiko counterfeits come and that with the purchase of these San Martin / Pagani Design / Bersigar / Heimdallr / whatever copies, the Chinese counterfeiting industry is also supported, should probably be undisputed.

Perhaps one considers under this aspect once that the industry by product piracy worldwide annually a damage of over 350 billion dollars arises.

If you think you have to support the Chinese (watch) industry, why not support the companies that develop their own designs? Seagull, for example, has something nice and independent in its program with the 1963 Airforce Watch and the Ocean Star Diver. Or how about the Fiyta Spacemaster?
Well, these watches are not available in a three-pack for $9.99....


----------



## Nitsab (Jan 27, 2021)

Does anyone else feel uneasy that San Martin is a site sponsor? Any discussion around fakes is considered wrong are banned, but change the logo on the dial the forum is happy to promote the manufacturer. I almost feel complicit being here.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

Moonshine Runner said:


> Perhaps one considers under this aspect once that the industry by product piracy worldwide annually a damage of over 350 billion dollars arises.


Those numbers are always based on the bizarre notion that people who buy counterfeit goods would buy the real thing if the counterfeits weren't available.

That simply is not the case. People don't choose between the real and the fake. Those who buy fakes are not in the market for the real ones.

Just as those who don't pay for the bus don't choose between paying or not. They're choosing to not pay, or walk.

I would argue not a single sale if a genuine product is affected by a sale of a counterfeit.

The problems occur when the fakes are sold as if they were authentic for the same price as the actually authentic ones.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

Nitsab said:


> Does anyone else feel uneasy that San Martin is a site sponsor? Any discussion around fakes is considered wrong are banned, but change the logo on the dial the forum is happy to promote the manufacturer. I almost feel complicit being here.


It's ok according to the law.


----------



## Springy Watch (Nov 11, 2020)

Nitsab said:


> Does anyone else feel uneasy that San Martin is a site sponsor? Any discussion around fakes is considered wrong are banned, but change the logo on the dial the forum is happy to promote the manufacturer. I almost feel complicit being here.


What do you mean? If you bought a pair of denim trousers ("jeans") would you feel shameful that you were stealing the original design of Jacob Davis? Or would you not care, so long as they didn't have a fake label on them?


----------



## Alex_B. (May 31, 2016)

Moonshine Runner said:


> I assume you will also buy a Landwind X7 as your next car?
> After all, Jiangling Motors is not trying to deceive anyone with the Range Rover Evoque copy. They also don't take business from Jaguar Land Rover Ltd and they aren't harming anyone&#8230;
> 
> That the San Martin / Pagani Design / Bersigar / Heimdallr / whatever copies fall from the same assembly lines from which the Rolex, Omega, IWC and Seiko counterfeits come and that with the purchase of these San Martin / Pagani Design / Bersigar / Heimdallr / whatever copies, the Chinese counterfeiting industry is also supported, should probably be undisputed.
> ...


Absolutely do i have to buy that because if you're ok with copies you're not only ok with supporting the counterfeit industry but you also have to buy every copy of everything that's ever been made.

Oh and do provide us with proof that companies like San Martin are using the same factories that produce counterfeit goods&#8230; I'm sure you have plenty of proof for this very bold claim. ??


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

S1919 said:


> This is a very interesting comparison, but I would argue there is certainly acknowledgement in the case of these homages. Even if it is not explicitly written, everyone knows what it is they are homaging.
> 
> Continuing the academic analogy, there are many instances where reference conventions are not as strict. For example, in an introductory class to economics, the lecturer would explain the foundational concepts (rationality, utility, scarcity, and so on) and how they interact. Clearly, the concepts are not the lecturer's original contributions, but they are rarely cited (beyond maybe assigning a textbook in the first slide or something like that). Is this plagiarism? Obviously not, and I think the crucial element is whether the audience thinks the contributions are original. In a summative assessment or a published article, the audience evidently assumes the content is original. In a lecture, not so much. Given San Martin are known as a premium homage brand, the audience expects that their watches are homages, so there is acknowledgement.


Yes that's true - the analogy breaks down because it is clear & stated & defined by a university that "you cannot plagiarise"...but no such is or could be legally defended by Seiko of homaging - sure, once it is badged with a false name at that point it is theft/fraud but until then not illegal.


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

cheu_f50 said:


> When I was young and I grade school, I was taught that copying someone's homework is wrong. Now copying homework isn't illegal, but that's hardly an argument to say copying someone's homework is acceptable practice or should be encouraged.
> 
> Let's take a look at a few other offerings from San Martin. I just dont understand why some people think this is ok.
> 
> ...


Plagiarism in an academic setting can result in someone attaining academic credentials that they didn't actually earn, which is construed as fraud in many settings.

Plagiarism is not just copying someone's words but also their ideas and presenting those as your own without citation. Taking someone else's idea and changing their words (paraphrasing) without changing the message and without citation is also plagiarism. Presenting someone else's ideas in your term paper with citation of the source is not plagiarism.

Let's take the moral objection towards copying in watch design a bit further. About 200 years ago, the modern lever escapement was created by George Savage. A copy of this design is used in practically every mechanical wristwatch today. Implementations may be aesthetically a little different from what Savage came up with, but paraphrasing is still copying/plagiarism. Do you find the copying of Mr. Savage's work in mechanical movements from ETA, Seiko, Miyota, Eterna, Rolex, etc as reprehensible as what SM is doing? Why or why not?

Does it bother you that every wristwatch today copies the idea of whomever conceived of affixing a strap to a watch so that it could be worn on the wrist?


----------



## Nitsab (Jan 27, 2021)

Springy Watch said:


> What do you mean? If you bought a pair of denim trousers ("jeans") would you feel shameful that you were stealing the original design of Jacob Davis? Or would you not care, so long as they didn't have a fake label on them?


There are many reasons why this analogy falls short. The one requiring the least explaining is that modern jeans are considerably different to the original Jacob Davis. I have not mentioned San Martin is passing off the design of Breguets first wrist watch, significant differences, but the GS&#8230;


----------



## Moonshine Runner (Sep 29, 2016)

Springy Watch said:


> For people complaining that San Martin should show some creativity and make their own original design, they already do have quite a few original watch designs.
> 
> Have you bought one of these San Martin originals? If not, why not? Start buying watches like this, and San Martin won't feel compelled to make watches with designs that are more popular with their customers.
> 
> View attachment 15951644


Here you can see that design has its price. MSRP $2,163.00!
This puts the Chinese no-name brand on par with established Swiss companies like Tissot, Certina and Longines and I guess that's the point, why no-one would buy those San Martin.

The purchase of luxury products always has something to do with the prestige that the product exudes - even if some people want to deny this now.
In addition, if I spend a four-digit amount, then I also want to be sure that I have no problems in the warranty case and the watch can still be serviced in a few years.I can be sure of this with the Swatch Group brands, but not with the Chinese one-man show.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

Moonshine Runner said:


> The purchase of luxury products always has something to do with the prestige that the product exudes - even if some people want to deny this now.


But that argument falls flat when you realize most of the brands out there are totally unknown to everyone outside of the watch hobby.
Girard Perregaux is not more known than San Martin.

There's no prestige in having a luxurious watch. Unless you shuv your watch in the face of people and tell them how expensive it is, nobody will ever know.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

MX793 said:


> Plagiarism in an academic setting can result in someone attaining academic credentials that they didn't actually earn, which is construed as fraud in many settings.
> 
> Plagiarism is not just copying someone's words but also their ideas and presenting those as your own without citation. Taking someone else's idea and changing their words (paraphrasing) without changing the message and without citation is also plagiarism. Presenting someone else's ideas in your term paper with citation of the source is not plagiarism.
> 
> ...


It bothers me that people think San Martin selling this Omega Ploprof copy is acceptable practice.

No one is talking about pocket watch, we are not taking about similar looking watches, this isn't inspiration. It's just an outright copy.










How about this Seiko Tuna by San Martin? They even go as far to put the crown at 4 o'clock.


----------



## Springy Watch (Nov 11, 2020)

Moonshine Runner said:


> The purchase of luxury products always has something to do with the prestige that the product exudes - even if some people want to deny this now.


That depends what you mean by luxury goods. If you mean famous labels, that the masses would recognise, then I guess some people see that as prestigue. But many people find famous labels cringe-worthy, and prefer to focus on things such as quality or value for money. I would be ashamed of wearing a Rolex, for example, because it is a label known by the masses, and it poor value for money. A Grand Seiko, on the other hand, is a watch I would be much happier to wear, because it is less well known and has great value for money compared to a Rolex. Yet I don't own a Grand Seiko, because I prefer other brands, such as San Martin, and Zelos, that hardly anybody has heard of, and that offer great value for money.


----------



## Alex_B. (May 31, 2016)

cheu_f50 said:


> It bothers me that people think San Martin selling this Omega Ploprof copy is acceptable practice.
> 
> No one is talking about pocket watch, we are not taking about similar looking watches, this isn't inspiration. It's just an outright copy.
> 
> ...


Yes we know how you feel.

Is copying your own post ok or are you not sure and do you need to post it for a third time with the same righteous indignation&#8230;


----------



## dfwcowboy (Jan 22, 2017)

TheBearded said:


> I was kinda wondering when Swiss outfits would get brought up. As an example... Most everyone thinks the Oris Divers 65 is a great watch. The "modern" version is a throwback to the original from Oris' catalog. Well where did the original get its inspiration?
> 
> From the UG Polerouter Sub. Produced from '60-'69.
> View attachment 15951632
> ...


Then you have Rolex and Blancpain bringing to market watches with previously unseen innovations at nearly the same time. It's not hard to figure out how much IP theft was going on and it was a more nefarious sort which involved industrial espionage.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

cheu_f50 said:


> It bothers me that people think San Martin selling this Omega Ploprof copy is acceptable practice.


I'll have to admit that the SM Ploprof kind of pisses me of too. If they would have made a reproduction of the Ploprof 600, no problems. I've got one of those from Helson.

It's weird. I shouldn't care. But for some reason I think it's more ok to copy a design that's no longer in use by the original designer.

To copy a current model that is as recognizable as the Ploprof is a bit of a black spot in my otherwise gray analysis.
The same goes for the nautilus homage...
Too similar to the current models.

I think Omega just discontinued the Ploprof, but the SM was out way before that. The same goes for the steeldive 1969. I kind of liked that one in bronze, but I'd rather get the Omega.


----------



## Saswatch (Dec 23, 2020)

cheu_f50 said:


> It bothers me that people think San Martin selling this Omega Ploprof copy is acceptable practice.
> 
> No one is talking about pocket watch, we are not taking about similar looking watches, this isn't inspiration. It's just an outright copy.
> 
> View attachment 15951746


Similar thoughts here as you but there's not a chance this would fool anyone. The person wearing this however will look like one.


----------



## Moonshine Runner (Sep 29, 2016)

[BOBO] said:


> Those numbers are always based on the bizarre notion that people who buy counterfeit goods would buy the real thing if the counterfeits weren't available.
> 
> That simply is not the case. People don't choose between the real and the fake. Those who buy fakes are not in the market for the real ones.
> 
> ...


The fact that counterfeits do not cause any (economic) damage is simply wrong. The fact that, in addition to textiles, watches, perfumes, music carriers and computer software, mechanical engineering components are also increasingly being counterfeited is something that you tend to gloss over.

Formula 1 driver Mika Häkkinen did not reach the finish line at the 1998 San Marino Grand Prix because a counterfeit ball bearing did not withstand the stresses of the race, and I sincerely hope that you do not feel the same way as the 55 people who died in the 1989 crash of a passenger plane on its way from Oslo to Hamburg because a counterfeit screw did not withstand the stresses during the flight (see: Partnair Flight 394).



Alex_B. said:


> Absolutely do i have to buy that because if you're ok with copies you're not only ok with supporting the counterfeit industry but you also have to buy every copy of everything that's ever been made. F-ing clown. ??
> 
> Oh and do provide us with proof that companies like San Martin are using the same factories that produce counterfeit goods&#8230; I'm sure you have plenty of proof for this very bold claim. ??


Als u zich verontschuldigt voor uw belediging, dan zal ik overwegen op uw vragen te antwoorden.



[BOBO] said:


> But that argument falls flat when you realize most of the brands out there are totally unknown to everyone outside of the watch hobby.
> Girard Perregaux is not more known than San Martin.
> 
> There's no prestige in having a luxurious watch. Unless you shuv your watch in the face of people and tell them how expensive it is, nobody will ever know.


I am very sure that the buyer of a Girard Perregaux knows exactly about the prestige of his choice.

... and if luxury watches are not about prestige, why does every hipster want a Rolex so badly? Why are the Geneva models the most counterfeited watches in the world? Exactly! Because of the prestige...


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

Moonshine Runner said:


> The fact that counterfeits do not cause any (economic) damage is simply wrong. The fact that, in addition to textiles, watches, perfumes, music carriers and computer software, mechanical engineering components are also increasingly being counterfeited is something that you tend to gloss over.
> 
> Formula 1 driver Mika Häkkinen did not reach the finish line at the 1998 San Marino Grand Prix because a counterfeit ball bearing did not withstand the stresses of the race, and I sincerely hope that you do not feel the same way as the 55 people who died in the 1989 crash of a passenger plane on its way from Oslo to Hamburg because a counterfeit screw did not withstand the stresses during the flight (see: Partnair Flight 394).
> 
> ...


In the post you quoted first, I wrote that it's a problem if the counterfeits are sold as originals at the same price.
I bet the ones who purchased the bolts didn't know they were fakes.

Luxury watches and Rolex is not the same thing. Rolex is an anomaly. But I think my argument stands for pretty much all other brands. 
If it's not a Rolex, it may as well be a San Martin.


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

cheu_f50 said:


> It bothers me that people think San Martin selling this Omega Ploprof copy is acceptable practice.
> 
> No one is talking about pocket watch, we are not taking about similar looking watches, this isn't inspiration. It's just an outright copy.
> 
> ...


You didn't answer the question. You said it was wrong to copy someone else's work. Yes, we know you find SM copying the appearance of watches made by other companies is immoral or otherwise objectionable. Do you find it equally objectionable that all Seiko mechanical movements use a copy of Savage's lever escapement?

How about Sellita or STP or Nomos (among others) copying off-patent ETA movement designs? Are you OK with this?


----------



## mconlonx (Sep 21, 2018)

cheu_f50 said:


> When I was young and I grade school, I was taught that copying someone's homework is wrong. Now copying homework isn't illegal, but that's hardly an argument to say copying someone's homework is acceptable practice or should be encouraged.
> 
> Let's take a look at a few other offerings from San Martin. I just dont understand why some people think this is ok.
> 
> ...


Strange that you neglected to post any of their original designs...


----------



## captainmorbid (Mar 3, 2016)

While I currently have no horse in this race, I’ve always found it curious that there is none of the usual “homage” debate when it comes to Flieger style watches. At least limited to the “type A,B,C” styles. 

I know that Damasko/Fortis/IWC/Sinn/Alpina/Zenith/Laco etc. have relatively unique designs, but there are dozens and dozens of watches out there with identical dials. No debate… 

Just curious..

Also, the SM and the GS have a resemblance to each other, but they are about as different as possible to stay within the homage category, without being a straight replication. At least to my eyes, and based on the OP’s pics. 

Plus, it is near impossible to buy a watch, at most people’s financial standing, that is 100% original design. At what percentage of “homage” design element does the debate dissipate? 


Sent from bizarro world via Tapatalk


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

cheu_f50 said:


> It bothers me that people think San Martin selling this Omega Ploprof copy is acceptable practice.
> 
> No one is talking about pocket watch, we are not taking about similar looking watches, this isn't inspiration. It's just an outright copy.
> 
> ...


If you ask 1000 WIS on WUS "what watch does that look like?" no one will answer "SM"


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

captainmorbid said:


> While I currently have no horse in this race, I've always found it curious that there is none of the usual "homage" debate when it comes to Flieger style watches. At least limited to the "type A,B,C" styles.
> 
> I know that Damasko/Fortis/IWC/Sinn/Alpina/Zenith/Laco etc. have relatively unique designs, but there are dozens and dozens of watches out there with identical dials. No debate&#8230;
> 
> ...


True - but is that because they were a 'military' design per se, not a watch house design? I wonder....


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

Simon said:


> If you ask 1000 WIS on WUS "what watch does that look like?" no one will answer "SM"


And if you ask 1000 WIS on WUS which is the rip off between the SM and Omega Ploprof, I would not be surprised if Omega is considered the rip off because it's too expensive 🤣.


----------



## O . (May 13, 2020)

Springy Watch said:


> Have you bought one of these San Martin originals? If not, why not? Start buying watches like this, and San Martin won't feel compelled to make watches with designs that are more popular with their customers.
> 
> View attachment 15951644


I guess I'm just not sure why I should be punished for SM's transgressions?? I kid, I kid! (not really)

It's interesting how this discussion has morphed from a finishing comparison between GS and a lesser copy to a debate about intellectual property. Even more interesting how it touched on the possible anti-Chinese bias at play for some consumers. It's also remained mostly civil, which in today's online environment, should be applauded. Well done WUS community for giving me an intriguing read over a mostly lazy weekend! ???

I'd like to think that I value originality, especially when it comes to watches. This is why I wouldn't ever wear a homage watch, regardless of where it's made or who is selling it. If I'm honest, I have less regard for any watch company that derives a large part of its business from copies that bring nothing new to the table, and that includes Squale, Steinhart, Invicta, San Martin, and many others. However, these are just my personal preferences. If someone wants to wear one of these copies, I won't think less of them, though I will think less of the watch they're wearing. That personal preference apparently put some panties in a bunch earlier, and I have to wonder if the folks that took offense feel at some level that they're perpetrating a slight fraud, and don't like having light shined on it.


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

cheu_f50 said:


> And if you ask 1000 WIS on WUS which is the rip off between the SM and Omega Ploprof, I would not be surprised if Omega is considered the rip off because it's too expensive 🤣.


did you say Ploprof?


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

captainmorbid said:


> While I currently have no horse in this race, I've always found it curious that there is none of the usual "homage" debate when it comes to Flieger style watches. At least limited to the "type A,B,C" styles.
> 
> I know that Damasko/Fortis/IWC/Sinn/Alpina/Zenith/Laco etc. have relatively unique designs, but there are dozens and dozens of watches out there with identical dials. No debate&#8230;
> 
> ...


Flieger styles are defined by government/military standards, which are and always have been public domain.


----------



## Chronopolis (Apr 8, 2009)

O . said:


> I'd like to think that *I value originality*, especially when it comes to watches.


Of course I don't doubt you !! Who doesn't value originality? 
But, "here's the deal" :
I bet you don't own any Invictas. I don't either. I had one long ago, but not anymore.
I am talking about those that WIS like to scoff at.

They're original alright (so, kudos to Invicta!) , but people with discriminating taste don't want those. A bit like that meme: Society says: "Be yourself! Mmmmm no, not like that."

The range of Beauty that people recognize is more limited than most people realize. And, 
in a thing like a watch, it's even more limited.
And, most people are conformist (not a bad thing!), and like what they've been conditioned to like.

Put all that together, you get million upon millions of submariners, and endless repeats of 60's "vintage" chronos, produced by every "micro" brand and their uncles.

My point?
There is no point in praising "originality" for its own sake if you're not gonna support it enough for people / brands to make a living BEING original. (Why do so many talented artists starve?)

Just like, there is no point in demanding everyone drive a Tesla (cleaner air, etc), while flying around the globe to preach it, and is not willing to turn off that A/C at home.


----------



## CMSgt Bo (Feb 12, 2006)

Nitsab said:


> Does anyone else feel uneasy that San Martin is a site sponsor? Any discussion around fakes is considered wrong are banned, but change the logo on the dial the forum is happy to promote the manufacturer. I almost feel complicit being here.


That's right, fake/counterfeit/replica discussions and images are banned, homages are not. You don't have to like or even approve of homages, but don't mischaracterize them as something they're not to support your bias.


----------



## O . (May 13, 2020)

Chronopolis said:


> There is no point in praising "originality" for its own sake if you're not gonna support it enough for people / brands to make a living BEING original.


Based on my modest collection, I do believe I'm "walking the walk" when it comes to original designs.


----------



## CMSgt Bo (Feb 12, 2006)

[BOBO] said:


> The problems occur when the fakes are sold as if they were authentic for the same price as the actually authentic ones.


No, the problem occurs when a trademarked name or feature is added to a watch not made by the trademark owner.

DO NOT try to legitimize illegal practices here.


----------



## mconlonx (Sep 21, 2018)

Moonshine Runner said:


> I assume you will also buy a Landwind X7 as your next car?
> After all, Jiangling Motors is not trying to deceive anyone with the Range Rover Evoque copy. They also don't take business from Jaguar Land Rover Ltd and they aren't harming anyone&#8230;
> 
> That the San Martin / Pagani Design / Bersigar / Heimdallr / whatever copies fall from the same assembly lines from which the Rolex, Omega, IWC and Seiko counterfeits come and that with the purchase of these San Martin / Pagani Design / Bersigar / Heimdallr / whatever copies, the Chinese counterfeiting industry is also supported, should probably be undisputed.
> ...


Someone else used this tack about counterfeit watches... is there proof? What factories does SM use that also produce fakes? Are we 100% sure that these same factories are not used by somehow more legit companies, like Swatch Group...?

FWIW, yes, I have a Sea-Gull watch... which shares a whole buch of characteristics of a bauhaus-style Nomos... which in turn is very much like Stowa...

I also have a Seiko SNXS77, but the homage-faulters like to ignore stuff like that...

This is a San Martin I've had my eye on since it was announced. Far as I know, not a copy of anything...


----------



## nello (Jan 2, 2014)

Moonshine Runner said:


> I assume you will also buy a Landwind X7 as your next car?
> After all, Jiangling Motors is not trying to deceive anyone with the Range Rover Evoque copy. They also don't take business from Jaguar Land Rover Ltd and they aren't harming anyone&#8230;
> 
> That the San Martin / Pagani Design / Bersigar / Heimdallr / whatever copies fall from the same assembly lines from which the Rolex, Omega, IWC and Seiko counterfeits come and that with the purchase of these San Martin / Pagani Design / Bersigar / Heimdallr / whatever copies, the Chinese counterfeiting industry is also supported, should probably be undisputed.
> ...


You may want to leave Seagull out of your argument. 
There was the Aevig fiasco.


----------



## CMSgt Bo (Feb 12, 2006)

Moonshine Runner said:


> That the San Martin / Pagani Design / Bersigar / Heimdallr / whatever copies fall from the same assembly lines from which the Rolex, Omega, IWC and Seiko counterfeits come and that with the purchase of these San Martin / Pagani Design / Bersigar / Heimdallr / whatever copies, the Chinese counterfeiting industry is also supported, should probably be undisputed.


I'd like to see your undisputed proof supporting this worn out claim by homage haters.


----------



## O . (May 13, 2020)

mconlonx said:


> Someone else used this tack about counterfeit watches... is there proof? What factories does SM use that also produce fakes? Are we 100% sure that these same factories are not used by somehow more legit companies, like Swatch Group...?
> 
> FWIW, yes, I have a Sea-Gull watch... which shares a whole buch of characteristics of a bauhaus-style Nomos... which in turn is very much like Stowa...
> 
> ...


Dial furniture and handset are certianly Seiko-ey, but I do like that case.


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

O . said:


> Dial furniture and handset are certianly Seiko-ey, but I do like that case.


That is what I consider a proper homage. One can clearly see some Seiko design influence, but it's not a facsimile of any particular reference. It looks like something Seiko might build, but not exactly like something Seiko has made.


----------



## [BOBO] (May 12, 2020)

CMSgt Bo said:


> No, the problem occurs when a trademarked name or feature is added to a watch not made by the trademark owner.
> 
> DO NOT try to legitimize illegal practices here.


I agree. And that's what I've been writing in all the posts regarding the issue.
The part you quoted could be interpreted as something else when you leave the rest of it out.

The quoted part was about when it economically affects the trademark owner. Not when it would be "ok" to do so or not.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.


----------



## captainmorbid (Mar 3, 2016)

Simon said:


> True - but is that because they were a 'military' design per se, not a watch house design? I wonder....


As were dive watches.

Sent from bizarro world via Tapatalk


----------



## captainmorbid (Mar 3, 2016)

MX793 said:


> Flieger styles are defined by government/military standards, which are and always have been public domain.


Hm. Milsub?

Sent from bizarro world via Tapatalk


----------



## flowzario (Jan 12, 2021)

That san martin look great


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

captainmorbid said:


> Hm. Milsub?
> 
> Sent from bizarro world via Tapatalk


There are military design standards for field and dive watches as well which govern the appearance/aesthetics of such watches. These are also public domain.


----------



## captainmorbid (Mar 3, 2016)

MX793 said:


> There are military design standards for field and dive watches as well which govern the appearance/aesthetics of such watches. These are also public domain.


Indeed. And every dive watch since, pays homage to those committees.

I do wonder if this factor is why the fancy diver manufacturers, are blatantly silent on the "homage" debate.

Sent from bizarro world via Tapatalk


----------



## Moonshine Runner (Sep 29, 2016)

CMSgt Bo said:


> I'd like to see your undisputed proof supporting this worn out claim by homage haters.


<Admin Edit: keep politics off WUS please>

But you are right, such big companies like San Martin, Pagani Design, Bersigar, Lige, Heimdallr, Parnis, Age Girl* and so on of course manufacture everything themselves. Cases, straps, movements, design - everything is made "in-house" and by hand in the highest quality by the best trained professionals. The factories of San Martin, Pagani Design, Bersigar, Lige, Heimdallr, Parnis, Age Girl* and the many other exclusive Chinese brands can be found without any problems.
The fact that these manufactories can nevertheless realize such great prices is also only due to the fact that direct sales eliminate the costs for authorized dealers. [/sarcasm]

* By the way, the watches from Age Girl are regularly taken out of circulation by customs when imported to Germany, because somehow "Rolex", "Omega" and "Breitling" are always written on the dial. But that surely can't be and so only "Homage Haters" work at the German customs, who take the watches out of circulation completely unjustified...


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

captainmorbid said:


> Indeed. And every dive watch since, pays homage to those committees.
> 
> I do wonder if this factor is why the fancy diver manufacturers, are blatantly silent on the "homage" debate.
> 
> Sent from bizarro world via Tapatalk


The military dive watch standards ("milsub") were created after the first of what we'd consider modern dive watches like the Fifty Fathoms and Submariner. The standards were based heavily on those earlier commercial/civilian dive watch designs. I would not say that every dive watch since the MIL specs is an homage to the MIL spec designs.

Edit: MIL-W-22176, the US Navy's first submersible watch standard, came out in 1959.


----------



## Alex_B. (May 31, 2016)

Moonshine Runner said:


> <Admin Edit: keep politics off WUS please>
> 
> But you are right, such big companies like San Martin, Pagani Design, Bersigar, Lige, Heimdallr, Parnis, Age Girl* and so on of course manufacture everything themselves. Cases, straps, movements, design - everything is made "in-house" and by hand in the highest quality by the best trained professionals. The factories of San Martin, Pagani Design, Bersigar, Lige, Heimdallr, Parnis, Age Girl* and the many other exclusive Chinese brands can be found without any problems.
> The fact that these manufactories can nevertheless realize such great prices is also only due to the fact that direct sales eliminate the costs for authorized dealers. [/sarcasm]
> ...


Asking for proof is discrediting to the hilt and apparently repeating outrageous claims makes it magically true. Du bist etwas ganz besonderes ?


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

cheu_f50 said:


> It bothers me that people think San Martin selling this Omega Ploprof copy is acceptable practice.
> 
> No one is talking about pocket watch, we are not taking about similar looking watches, this isn't inspiration. It's just an outright copy.
> 
> ...





MX793 said:


> You didn't answer the question. You said it was wrong to copy someone else's work. Yes, we know you find SM copying the appearance of watches made by other companies is immoral or otherwise objectionable. Do you find it equally objectionable that all Seiko mechanical movements use a copy of Savage's lever escapement?
> 
> How about Sellita or STP or Nomos (among others) copying off-patent ETA movement designs? Are you OK with this?


For the record, I'm not trying to convince you to necessarily change your mind or your morals on this. Nor am I trying to poke holes in your beliefs. Rather, I'm trying to better understand your point of view, and my questions are an effort to understand. You claim that your moral compass tells you that "copying is wrong", yet I suspect that your thoughts and beliefs on the matter are more nuanced and complicated than that. I suspect that, if you take the time to think on my questions honestly, you'll find that your beliefs aren't actually "all copying is immoral", but rather only some copying disagrees with your moral standards. That doesn't mean that your beliefs are necessarily inconsistent, but it does mean that you haven't accurately or completely articulated what your beliefs are.


----------



## Bird-Dog (Jan 22, 2021)

Someone was first to conceive the measurement of time.
Someone was first to invent the mechanical clock.
Someone was first to design the 12-hr/60-min two-hand dial.
Someone was first to miniaturize it into a portable watch.
Someone was first to make it self-winding.
Someone was first to imagine it strapped on the wrist.
Someone was first to invent the rotating timing bezel.
Someone was first to create the metal watch bracelet.
Someone was first to decide improved finishing was desirable.
Someone was first to invent the quartz movement.
And so on...

Therefore the Gran Seiko in question, and virtually every other watch in existence, is nothing more than a "homage" to that which came before it. That happens to be how the world works, though. Successful inventions lead to successful products. Successful products lead to other similar products.


----------



## FatalException (Jun 28, 2015)

Got excited and thought it had a spring drive for a second. 

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## captainmorbid (Mar 3, 2016)

MX793 said:


> The military dive watch standards ("milsub") were created after the first of what we'd consider modern dive watches like the Fifty Fathoms and Submariner. The standards were based heavily on those earlier commercial/civilian dive watch designs. I would not say that every dive watch since the MIL specs is an homage to the MIL spec designs.
> 
> Edit: MIL-W-22176, the US Navy's first submersible watch standard, came out in 1959.


I have no problem standing corrected.

It does seem that dive watches are all, more or less, based on those first few, with the mil spec contribution being a huge defining factor in the design language that most divers seem to employ.

Whether my assumption is correct or not, it still seems like there are common ancestors, from which most of the preceding diver design is derived. Which is why the "original design" perspective seems odd to me when it comes to divers. It's likely a "form follows function" limitation to the design vocabulary. Maybe all dive watches pay homage to their intended function?

It would seem tough to legally claim function as proprietary, which is perhaps, another factor in why Seiko/Rolex etc can't claim IP on close homages.

In this SM's case, if it had the words "spring drive" on it(even though ALL mechanical movements are driven by a spring), it would probably attract legions of attorneys. Even so, I doubt they'd be able to do much more than have that term struck from the dial.

Sent from bizarro world via Tapatalk


----------



## brash47 (Jul 14, 2018)

I go back to my original point a couple hundred posts ago. Seiko, Omega, Grand Seiko, etc....are not losing a penny of business to any of these homage companies. SM in particular has been doing Seikos for years and now they've moved up to GS. 

If anything, someone wanting the "real deal" might buy one of these and I'll bet it only fuels their desire to get a real GS. Eventually they may get one. The same with Rolex and Omega Homages....it fuels desire.

There will always be a segment for folks to NEVER want to spend thousands on a watch. Homage companies cater as well to these folks. Rolex, Omega, GS were never going to sell a watch to these folks, so they buy an homage and the niche is there and there is money to be made. Good for them. They aren't selling their item as the actual "real deal."

Then there is the market where some folks will never be able to afford a Rolex, etc....and so what. Do they not deserve a pretty damn nice product in the range they can afford and become part of a community where they can discuss watches with anyone willing to discuss watches?

I have no problem with homage watches. I proudly wear a Steinhart OVM from time to time....I will never have the original nor would I be willing to part with the money for the original, and....the homage is probably a better product now than the original from 50-60 years ago was......I enjoy the look and own and wear it. I appreciate the original all the more! What a cool timepiece!!

Take it for what it is. I initially laughed at the person saying this product would make Seiko become more humble...that part I thought was hilarious. 

Again, Grand Seiko ain't losing a penny of sales to an homage. Different price class and different purchaser mindset. It may though entice a person into wanting the real one even more.....

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk


----------



## Nitsab (Jan 27, 2021)

CMSgt Bo said:


> That's right, fake/counterfeit/replica discussions and images are banned, homages are not. You don't have to like or even approve of homages, but don't mischaracterize them as something they're not to support your bias.


It's fair for WUS to be able to defend their position on this. However you can't say I have mischaracterised this watch. I only stated the difference between this watch and a replica is the logo on the dial. Considering this is a near 1 to 1 copy, bar the logo, this doesn't seem to be mischaracterised to me.

As for stating I am assessing this watch due to some kind of internal bias, I couldn't think how you would assume this based on what you could possibly know about me.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> Hey Guys, check out my brand new Mercedes G-Wagen copy. It's all good because they call it the H-Wagen, right? RIGHT?!?!?
> 
> View attachment 15950884


Does the H in H-wagen stand for Homage?


----------



## LosAngelesTimer (Aug 24, 2017)

cheu_f50 said:


> Does the H in H-wagen stand for Homage?


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

FatalException said:


> Got excited and thought it had a spring drive for a second.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


just a copy without the spring drive


----------



## CMSgt Bo (Feb 12, 2006)

Nitsab said:


> As for stating I am assessing this watch due to some kind of internal bias, I couldn't think how you would assume this based on what you could possibly know about me.


It wasn't much of a stretch, you incriminated yourself...



Nitsab said:


> Does anyone else feel uneasy that San Martin is a site sponsor? Any discussion around fakes is considered wrong are banned, but change the logo on the dial the forum is happy to promote the manufacturer. I almost feel complicit being here.


----------



## sjd92 (Aug 18, 2008)

MX793 said:


> From the title, I thought San Martin had actually come out with their own Spring Drive type movement...


Me too!


----------



## Scbr24 (Oct 21, 2017)

Jugsy said:


> How do you guys feel about Squale? I feel like they often get a free pass on this stuff but any Chinese brand gets crucified.


Although I've read plenty of whining about Squale, they definitely get treated a lot better than Chinese brands. It's also worth noting that the Squale "sub homages" were actually produced by Blancpain when Squale made their cases so the Squale 1945 is just the brand doing the same thing they did 40 years ago, hence the reason for a different treatment. If anything Blancpain should be blamed for it, assuming the idea of homages is reprehensible to begin with.


----------



## acidrain33 (Sep 6, 2018)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> I can't decide if it's shamelessly embarrassing or embarrassingly shameless.
> 
> Also, it's a safe bet this comes out of the same factory that makes full-on replicas, so there's another reason to be proud of your purchase.


No one put their hands on GS yet. Though I agree on your view on the first half. Most of his homage models are shockingly similar to the real deal's finishing from picture. To an extend, I often think if it's just came out of the same place as those fake watches.


----------



## FatalException (Jun 28, 2015)

acidrain33 said:


> No one put their hands on GS yet. Though I agree on your view on the first half. Most of his homage models are shockingly similar to the real deal's finishing from picture. To an extend, I often think if it's just came out of the same place as those fake watches.


I've no doubt they do. Or at least they're used as the base for superfakes.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## sdiver68 (Aug 6, 2010)

Seiko is the number 1 all time and present worldwide producer of homage and direct copy watches. Given their own brand history and identity I dont feel Seiko has a leg to stand on in regards to the homage question.


----------



## Alex_B. (May 31, 2016)

FatalException said:


> I've no doubt they do. Or at least they're used as the base for superfakes.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


Nonsens, you guys must be blind if you're not seeing any difference ???


----------



## flaggermi (Aug 26, 2020)

Here's their new logo:


----------



## WeyeS (Jan 13, 2019)

L😂L! I’ll wait for a JOMW review to see what I decide!


----------



## Saswatch (Dec 23, 2020)

flaggermi said:


> Here's their new logo:
> 
> View attachment 15955290


Grand Martin?


----------



## RetiredKarlMarx (Dec 7, 2020)

Personally, I don't care what people buy or enjoy. Some people may make a claim that they like a design that due to [insert reason] is not affordable enough to them. I think those people just lack creativity and confidence in their own taste - otherwise, they would find something original at that price point. The only problem with enthusiasts supporting brands like SM is it chokes the air out of original designs at their price point. Maybe the owner of SM would love to peddle his original creations instead, but you guys wanted a homage explorer and a homage sub.

So no, this doesn't hurt GS (actually its a good sign for the brand when replicas/fakes/homages appear). It hurts Halios and its peers out there.


----------



## Ofrankb (Mar 4, 2020)

Lol#3


----------



## WatchGeek (Feb 21, 2007)

I will be you that it is made in China.


----------



## ddru (Mar 2, 2018)

Any more pics or reviews?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> Also, it's a safe bet this comes out of the same factory that makes full-on replicas, so there's another reason to be proud of your purchase.


How is that any different from homages to Rolex Submariners?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

longtimelurker said:


> Some people (particularly in the west) value original design (regardless of law). This doesn't seem to be as strong a trend in places like china and india.


I'm sorry, but this statement is laugable, since homages and fakes are primarily made for a Western audience. If you see a person in Asia wearing a Rolex Submariner, it is far more likely to be the genuine article than in the West.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

Saswatch said:


> Grand Martin?


They copied everything else already ... why not.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

It's interesting how people who would happily close an eye to Rolex homages suddenly take umbrage when it's Seiko that's being homaged.


----------



## carlowus (Oct 12, 2008)

I don't get it. San Martin makes nice watches, some are really well made and put together, they could easily create something different rather then copy another watch. 

No, someone is not getting a Grand Seiko for $400. He is getting a San Martin for that money. I am sure it will be nice, but again, I would prefer $200, Seiko movement and different looks, at least the hands... now, that's an idea...


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

O . said:


> Threatened? Nope. Whether or not you like GS dive watches (I'm not really a fan), I just find it interesting laughable that anyone thinks they'll get GS level finishing for $400.
> 
> Additionally, there's the issue of straight up design theft. If that doesn't bother you, so be it. We all have differing values. For me, it's a turn off.


Reminds me of silly young couples who spend $25,000 on a flawless diamond ring when they could have bought one for $5,000 that looks the same to the naked eye.

You enjoy looking at your GS under a loupe. I'll enjoy the five grand in my wallet.

diam


----------



## carlowus (Oct 12, 2008)

Ticonderoga said:


> Reminds me of silly young couples who spend $25,000 on a flawless diamond ring when they could have bought one for $5,000 that looks the same to the naked eye.
> 
> You enjoy looking at your GS under a loupe. I'll enjoy the five grand in my wallet.
> 
> diam


LOL


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

mleok said:


> It's interesting how people who would happily close an eye to Rolex homages suddenly take umbrage when it's Seiko that's being homaged.


I'm sorry, but your quote is invisible. I don't see anyone doing that here.


----------



## flaggermi (Aug 26, 2020)

I think the use of the word "homage" is really inappropriate for these kinds of watches. I don't think the people at SM are sitting around at lunch all starry-eyed about how much they admire this GS, so they decide to pay tribute to it. This watch, as with all watches like it, are made to trick other people into thinking you have something that you don't.
Now, I don't really see a big ethical or moral problem here as such (perhaps a little bit), but what gets to me is the whole attitude of the thing.
I mean, in the car world, is it common for manufacturers to take the innards of a Ford Pinto, put a Porsche 911 body and a different brand name on it, and call it a homage?


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

MX793 said:


> Creating a 1:1 copy of someone else's design instead of investing in the effort to do something original (or even starting with an existing design and putting your own spin on it) is pretty much the definition of intellectual laziness.


Yes, but only in the watch world does anyone get antsy about it. Look around your house, your TV, sofa, refrigerator, shoes, windows, even your carpet, they're all blatant ripoffs of someone else' design.

The only people who care about it are those who swallowed the pill that paying 1,200% the actual value of something is a noble idea.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

cheu_f50 said:


> Whether its GS level is what everyone would care about. If you dont care when about quality, so be it, but certainly you are not the norm.
> 
> If you think morality is pathetic ... that's quite strong of a statement that I don't wish to get into with a stranger online. I suspect we will have a very different point of view on right vs wrong.


Sorry but your broken rolex sub arguments don't work here. How is it moral to sell a $1,500 sub for $35,000? The cost to make most rolex models is $1,500 to $2,000 save for the precious metals models. And those are even more immorally priced. If a rolex retails for ten grand and the gold model has $2,000 worth of gold in it how is the watch now double in price? Yeah, that's moral.

"If you don't care about (Rolex/GS) quality, so be it, but certainly you are not in the norm." Maybe in WIS geekdom but this is a small niche community. I hate to break it to you but 99% of the world don't carry a loupe around to check the fit and finish on the watch hands of stranger's watches. You my friend are not in the norm.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

mleok said:


> I'm sorry, but this statement is laugable, since homages and fakes are primarily made for a Western audience. If you see a person in Asia wearing a Rolex Submariner, it is far more likely to be the genuine article than in the West.


... Made by people /companies in China and India that have much less respect for intellectual property. That was my point.
And counterfeits are made for westerners... Who want to be seen as having the real thing. As opposed to a copy/homage/dupe.

To clarify : I mean institutionally and culturally. A factory churning out LV counterfeits, or even borderline dupes doesn't make it proverbial five feet without getting shut down, litigated, or at least publicly shamed in most western countries. Obviously not the case everywhere and maybe SM would be fine. But my point stands.


----------



## tresconik (Jul 29, 2020)

I don't have 5k to spend on a watch. Can't I enjoy a nice design for less?

That being said, I wouldn't pay more than 200 for the SM.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

mleok said:


> It's interesting how people who would happily close an eye to Rolex homages suddenly take umbrage when it's Seiko that's being homaged.


How do you know they are the same people?


----------



## tresconik (Jul 29, 2020)

longtimelurker said:


> ... Made by people /companies in China and India that have much less respect for intellectual property. That was my point.
> And counterfeits are made for westerners... Who want to be seen as having the real thing. As opposed to a copy/homage/dupe.


What designs are Indian manufacturers ripping off? I would rather say it's the westerners buying the products who don't have any respect for IP.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

Ticonderoga said:


> Sorry but your broken rolex sub arguments don't work here. How is it moral to sell a $1,500 sub for $35,000? The cost to make most rolex models is $1,500 to $2,000 save for the precious metals models. And those are even more immorally priced. If a rolex retails for ten grand and the gold model has $2,000 worth of gold in it how is the watch now double in price? Yeah, that's moral.
> 
> "If you don't care about (Rolex/GS) quality, so be it, but certainly you are not in the norm." Maybe in WIS geekdom but this is a small niche community. I hate to break it to you but 99% of the world don't carry a loupe around to check the fit and finish on the watch hands of stranger's watches. You my friend are not in the norm.


You must've quoted the wrong person, since I don't recall talking about the sub at all. Nonetheless the waitlist at Rolex says otherwise, they can't make them fast enough.

Reminds me of silly boyfriends who tries to convince their girlfriends that a $5,000 diamond is just as good as a $25,000 rock. No shame in not wanting to spend $25,000, but trying to rationalize the cheaper thing is as good as the nicer item is only fooling yourself.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

Ticonderoga said:


> Sorry but your broken rolex sub arguments don't work here. How is it moral to sell a $1,500 sub for $35,000? The cost to make most rolex models is $1,500 to $2,000 save for the precious metals models. And those are even more immorally priced. If a rolex retails for ten grand and the gold model has $2,000 worth of gold in it how is the watch now double in price? Yeah, that's moral.
> 
> "If you don't care about (Rolex/GS) quality, so be it, but certainly you are not in the norm." Maybe in WIS geekdom but this is a small niche community. I hate to break it to you but 99% of the world don't carry a loupe around to check the fit and finish on the watch hands of stranger's watches. You my friend are not in the norm.


Literally no one is talking about the morality of pricing....


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

Ticonderoga said:


> Yes, but only in the watch world does anyone get antsy about it. Look around your house, your TV, sofa, refrigerator, shoes, windows, even your carpet, they're all blatant ripoffs of someone else' design.
> 
> The only people who care about it are those who swallowed the pill that paying 1,200% the actual value of something is a noble idea.


And this relates to the point, how?


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

longtimelurker said:


> Literally no one is talking about the morality of pricing....


If they don't go off topic, there's nothing else for the pro-replica styles to talk about.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

cheu_f50 said:


> You must've quoted the wrong person, since I don't recall talking about the sub at all. Nonetheless the waitlist at Rolex says otherwise, they can't make them fast enough.
> 
> Reminds me of silly boyfriends who tries to convince their girlfriends that a $5,000 diamond is just as good as a $25,000 rock. No shame in not wanting to spend $25,000, but trying to rationalize the cheaper thing is as good as the nicer item is only fooling yourself.


Dude coming in hot doing the exact "besides-the-point-ism" I was talking about...


----------



## tresconik (Jul 29, 2020)

RetiredKarlMarx said:


> So no, this doesn't hurt GS (actually its a good sign for the brand when replicas/fakes/homages appear). It hurts Halios and its peers out there.


Halios is far higher than SM in terms of price


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

flaggermi said:


> I think the use of the word "homage" is really inappropriate for these kinds of watches. I don't think the people at SM are sitting around at lunch all starry-eyed about how much they admire this GS, so they decide to pay tribute to it. This watch, as with all watches like it, are made to trick other people into thinking you have something that you don't.
> Now, I don't really see a big ethical or moral problem here as such (perhaps a little bit), but what gets to me is the whole attitude of the thing.
> I mean, in the car world, is it common for manufacturers to take the innards of a Ford Pinto, put a Porsche 911 body and a different brand name on it, and call it a homage?


In every other situation, the homage pays respect and honors the original.

Except in WUS, the word is bastardized for design rip offs.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

tresconik said:


> What designs are Indian manufacturers ripping off? I would rather say it's the westerners buying the products who don't have any respect for IP.


Have you experienced, for example, the culture around software licensing? The culture literally looks at you like some sort of crazy money-waster for buying official (non-pirated) software. 
I am talking about the culture. Of course, there are consumers all over the world supporting counterfeiting and copies. But in some cultures, the idea of IP just isn't as strong. It's not malicious, it's just not as ingrained.


----------



## chas58 (Aug 29, 2018)

> _Being original doesn't gives u the right to overcharge your customer with exorbitant price tag_.. Grand Seiko is no rolex. You spend $10000 and the moment it leaves the shop, I gonna suffer a 30-40% depreciation losses.


funny guy. Ever held a GS and a Rolex together? The finishing on the GS blows away a Rolex (much less a generic homage). Besides, GS gives you a choice of Quartz, Spring drive, and High Beat (among others). At least someone in the industry is innovating.

"You spend $10000" - no I don't I spend much less that that! Geeze
"gonna suffer a 30-40% depreciation losses." No I don't. The difference from an AD price and used price is about 5%. I know. I've bought and sold a couple.

But, being original does give Rolex the right to _"overcharge your customer with exorbitant price tag._" LMAO.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

longtimelurker said:


> Literally no one is talking about the morality of pricing....


I'm talking about it. We have a bunch of people who bought the luxury propaganda and to justify to us (and themselves) that they didn't waste their money they're trying to assign standards of immoral behavior. But same folks who drank the Kool-aid never once took a critical look at the same companies who have swindled them of tens of thousands under the pretext of luxury.

If you want to take that stance please head over to the rolex forum, this isn't the place for your delusions.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

cheu_f50 said:


> You must've quoted the wrong person, since I don't recall talking about the sub at all. Nonetheless the waitlist at Rolex says otherwise, they can't make them fast enough.
> 
> Reminds me of silly boyfriends who tries to convince their girlfriends that a $5,000 diamond is just as good as a $25,000 rock. No shame in not wanting to spend $25,000, but trying to rationalize the cheaper thing is as good as the nicer item is only fooling yourself.


Silly is subjective. Who brings a loupe and checks women's diamond rings? I guess you do.


----------



## tresconik (Jul 29, 2020)

longtimelurker said:


> Have you experienced, for example, the culture around software licensing? The culture literally looks at you like some sort of crazy money-waster for buying official (non-pirated) software.


I think this is common to countries with a lower cost of living and I wouldn't blame them for doing it. Also, those in these countries who can afford to buy the licensed software don't bother with piracy.



longtimelurker said:


> But in some cultures, the idea of IP just isn't as strong. It's not malicious, it's just not as ingrained.


I don't agree entirely. I think people are aware of IP, but certain countries don't enforce it to the same degree. However, I can only think of China in that regard.


----------



## Dietly (Feb 24, 2018)

I don’t get it. You buy a Grand Seiko because it’s beautifully hand made in a Japanese alpine workshop by master craftsmen.

We really shouldn’t be supporting this kind of stuff. There are PLENTY of affordable watches with ORIGINAL designs. I hate that this subforum is largely about Chinese Rolex and Seiko knockoffs anymore.

OK rant over.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

Ticonderoga said:


> I'm talking about it. We have a bunch of people who bought the luxury propaganda and to justify to us (and themselves) that they didn't waste their money they're trying to assign standards of immoral behavior. But same folks who drank the Kool-aid never once took a critical look at the same companies who have swindled them of tens of thousands under the pretext of luxury.
> 
> If you want to take that stance please head over to the rolex forum, this isn't the place for your delusions.


What you're doing is assigning intent. And it's a fallacy. 
Intellectual theft (if that's what it is) is not the same as overpaying for something. I can live a very humble and frugal life and still find IP theft or copying or whatever equally distasteful. 
What you're doing is framing the discussion so that you can go on an anti-luxury tirade.


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

tresconik said:


> What designs are Indian manufacturers ripping off? I would rather say it's the westerners buying the products who don't have any respect for IP.


Not "ripping off" designs. There are a lot of straight-up fakes coming out of India (along with loads of Frankens). Mostly vintage stuff sold for very cheap.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Dietly said:


> I don't get it. You buy a Grand Seiko because it's beautifully hand made in a Japanese alpine workshop by master craftsmen.
> 
> With this you're buying a piece of garbage most likely made by Chinese slaves in absolutely abhorrent working conditions. Almost certainly made in the same factory that also churns out actual counterfeits as well.
> 
> ...


There are two kinds of luxury-brand watch buyers: those who care about homages and fakes and who get aggravated by their existence, and those who can actually afford their luxury watch.


----------



## tresconik (Jul 29, 2020)

MX793 said:


> Not "ripping off" designs. There are a lot of straight-up fakes coming out of India (along with loads of Frankens). Mostly vintage stuff sold for very cheap.


I've seen some of those fakes. But most are redialed HMT's. It's not like they're manufacturing vintage cases and stamping rolex on them, are they?


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

longtimelurker said:


> What you're doing is assigning intent. And it's a fallacy.
> Intellectual theft (if that's what it is) is not the same as overpaying for something. I can live a very humble and frugal life and still find IP theft or copying or whatever equally distasteful.
> What you're doing is framing the discussion so that you can go on an anti-luxury tirade.


I see now I'm making fallacious arguments and you're a patent lawyer. Can you please quote to us the law that is being violated that legally represents the "illegal theft" you're referring to? Fallacious indeed...

How am I on a tirade? Am I in the Rolex forum? Methinks you're on the tirade brother.

As I'd said before, you're in the wrong forum. Please go drink your Kool-aid at the other sub with the other folks who think that a measure of their self-worth is how much they paid for their watch.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

Ticonderoga said:


> Silly is subjective. Who brings a loupe and checks women's diamond rings? I guess you do.


Here you go with the straw man argument again. You as the buyer would know what you bought. You don't need a loupe to remember whether you bought an internally flawless diamond, or not.


----------



## tresconik (Jul 29, 2020)

Dietly said:


> With this you're buying a piece of garbage most likely made by Chinese slaves in absolutely abhorrent working conditions. Almost certainly made in the same factory that also churns out actual counterfeits as well.


I get that you're angry but it's definitely not a piece of garbage and no one has proven san martin are made in the same factory that also churns out actual counterfeits.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

tresconik said:


> I think this is common to countries with a lower cost of living and I wouldn't blame them for doing it. Also, those in these countries who can afford to buy the licensed software don't bother with piracy.
> 
> I don't agree entirely. I think people are aware of IP, but certain countries don't enforce it to the same degree. However, I can only think of China in that regard.


I agree that there seems to be a correlation. Just as very poor countries don't tend to be as environmentally-conscious. I don't blame them for it. It's just kind of a common point to miss the nuance in the cultural differences.


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

tresconik said:


> I've seen some of those fakes. But most are redialed HMT's. It's not like they're manufacturing vintage cases and stamping rolex on them, are they?


The are frequently a newly manufactured, generic case with some cheap vintage movement and a new or refinished dial with counterfeit branding on the dial and engraved into the caseback. I've seen a lot of them sporting Oris branding, but also the occasional Rolex branded example. Whether convincing or not, this is counterfeiting and very much illegal.


----------



## tresconik (Jul 29, 2020)

MX793 said:


> The are frequently a newly manufactured, generic case with some cheap vintage movement and a new or refinished dial with counterfeit branding on the dial and engraved into the caseback. I've seen a lot of them sporting Oris branding, but also the occasional Rolex branded example.


I've heard of the Oris examples, but not of newly manufactured cases. Do you have any links on hand?



MX793 said:


> Whether convincing or not, this is counterfeiting and very much illegal.


Of course.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

cheu_f50 said:


> Here you go with the straw man argument again. You as the buyer would know what you bought. You don't need a loupe to remember whether you bought an internally flawless diamond, or not.


I'm sorry but you don't get to inert fallacy arguments for each argument you disagree with. I'm happy to have a VS2 diamond of larger size and better color for a lower price than a perfect clarity stone. NOBODY CARES if a stone has tiny microscopic spots that no one can see. I don't care if my watch says Rolex or Brolex or Steeldive. You do care. Good for you. Go and spend five figures on a watch. I'm 100% satisfied with my $82 watch. So why are you folks here in our sub telling us that we're immoral because we like a particular watch at a price-point we're comfortable paying? I don't care if you waste your money on the fantasy of luxury but you certainly seem concerned that I under-spent by $9,918.


----------



## tresconik (Jul 29, 2020)

longtimelurker said:


> Just as very poor countries don't tend to be as environmentally-conscious.


I think focusing on being environmentally friendly can get expensive and a lot of poorer countries cannot afford it.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

Ticonderoga said:


> I see now I'm making fallacious arguments and you're a patent lawyer. Can you please quote to us the law that is being violated that legally represents the "illegal theft" you're referring to? Fallacious indeed...
> 
> How am I on a tirade? Am I in the Rolex forum? Methinks you're on the tirade brother.
> 
> As I'd said before, you're in the wrong forum. Please go drink your Kool-aid at the other sub with the other folks who think that a measure of their self-worth is how much they paid for their watch.


Starting out with a reductionist straw-man. And an appeal-to-authority. Both logical fallacies.

Well, now you are re-framing it frim morality to legality. Another fallacy. They're not the same, as pointed out dozens of times in this thread. Pick one to be the grounds of your argument.

You are on a tirade by all reasonable understandings of the definition.

Ad hominem. I have plenty of affordable watches and enjoy them equally as much my more pricey pieces. You can't see the difference. That's fine. But you're literally going to end up talking to no one, because there's not really anyone discussing the "luxury ripoff thing" in this thread.


----------



## sdiver68 (Aug 6, 2010)

mleok said:


> I'm sorry, but this statement is laugable, since homages and fakes are primarily made for a Western audience. If you see a person in Asia wearing a Rolex Submariner, it is far more likely to be the genuine article than in the West.


Actually, a Professor of Business from China stated almost exactly that in a graduate school guest lecture I attended. In China, being copied is considered an honor of your own success. Not saying I agree, particularly in relation to IP theft, but there are absolutely cultural differences on this topic.


----------



## tresconik (Jul 29, 2020)

Ticonderoga said:


> you certainly seem concerned that I under-spent by $9,918.


It's because the bubble bursts when people see the quality these Chinese manufacturers are putting out. Suddenly the real thing doesn't seem worth the price paid, unless you can somehow justify it to purchasers of the Chinese copy on watchuseek.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

Ticonderoga said:


> I'm sorry but you don't get to inert fallacy arguments for each argument you disagree with. I'm happy to have a VS2 diamond of larger size and better color for a lower price than a perfect clarity stone. NOBODY CARES if a stone has tiny microscopic spots that no one can see. I don't care if my watch says Rolex or Brolex or Steeldive. You do care. Good for you. Go and spend five figures on a watch. I'm 100% satisfied with my $82 watch. So why are you folks here in our sub telling us that we're immoral because we like a particular watch at a price-point we're comfortable paying? I don't care if you waste your money on the fantasy of luxury but you certainly seem concerned that I under-spent by $9,918.


No one is saying that the pricing is immoral. It's the morality or immortality of (maybe) design theft, or distasteful copying. Everyone else here seems to understand the premise except you.


----------



## Watchout63 (Mar 1, 2021)

Ticonderoga said:


> There are two kinds of luxury-brand watch buyers: those who care about homages and fakes and who get aggravated by their existence, and those who can actually afford their luxury watch.


I would add a 3rd kind which is me. The kind that can afford the luxury watch but refuses to pay the insane prices and play the silly ....example (Rolex) game. Having said that I have a single Rolex to my collection and don't wish to pursue any additional.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

tresconik said:


> It's because the bubble bursts when people see the quality these Chinese manufacturers are putting out. Suddenly the real thing doesn't seem worth the price paid, unless you can somehow justify it to purchasers of the Chinese copy on watchuseek.


I don't think the amount anyone spends on a watch is what's being (mainly) discussed here. Except by the one angry person on each side who don't seem to be up for nuanced discussion.


----------



## cheu_f50 (Oct 26, 2012)

Ticonderoga said:


> I'm sorry but you don't get to inert fallacy arguments for each argument you disagree with. I'm happy to have a VS2 diamond of larger size and better color for a lower price than a perfect clarity stone. NOBODY CARES if a stone has tiny microscopic spots that no one can see. I don't care if my watch says Rolex or Brolex or Steeldive. You do care. Good for you. Go and spend five figures on a watch. I'm 100% satisfied with my $82 watch. So why are you folks here in our sub telling us that we're immoral because we like a particular watch at a price-point we're comfortable paying? I don't care if you waste your money on the fantasy of luxury but you certainly seem concerned that I under-spent by $9,918.


If you want to start alternative off topic discussions, Make a new thread. I am very happy with my SKX007, which cost me a total $197.20 in 2017. I also have a Citizen Nighthawk that I cherish. You know whats great about those two watches? Original design that I cannot get elsewhere.

Literally no one was talking about price, yet you keep trying to pivot to that.


----------



## Chronopolis (Apr 8, 2009)

longtimelurker said:


> No one is saying that the pricing is immoral. It's the* morality *or *immortality *of (maybe) design theft, or distasteful copying. Everyone else here seems to understand the premise except you.


Just curious. Do you drive at the speed limit (65) when driving across a desert? Nobody around for 100 miles.

I wouldn't.
Would I get caught? Maybe, but I'd probably take my chances.
But if I do get caught, that's the *LAW* I gotta deal with, not morality.
The LAW exists to deal with violations, not morality.
Am I _*immoral *_to drive 120 mph? To whom? Why?

Where there is no harm, there is no crime. Why should the law have a say?
*And if there IS harm, that's between the homage maker and the original manufacturer.*
Why should I (or anyone) have a say?

I find it incomprehensible that so many people are bringing morality into this.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

longtimelurker said:


> No one is saying that the pricing is immoral. It's the morality or immortality of (maybe) design theft, or distasteful copying. Everyone else here seems to understand the premise except you.


Maybe you missed my last reply. Someone is saying that pricing is immoral - I'm saying it. Rolex can make a sub for a grand and a half and they sell it for five figures. That's immoral.



mleok said:


> I'm sorry, but this statement is laugable, since homages and fakes are primarily made for a Western audience. If you see a person in Asia wearing a Rolex Submariner, it is far more likely to be the genuine article than in the West.


This will probably go down as the most asinine statement ever made at WUS. Your statement may be true if "Asia" was fit solely into the borders of Singapore and Hong Kong. But you're going to tell me that in all the little villages I've visited in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Indonesia, Korea, Mongolia, India, Pakistan, where the average salary is $150 a month that everyone has a genuine Rolex? I never saw so many fake Rolexes until I got to Asia.


----------



## sdiver68 (Aug 6, 2010)

Ticonderoga said:


> Yes, but only in the watch world does anyone get antsy about it. Look around your house, your TV, sofa, refrigerator, shoes, windows, even your carpet, they're all blatant ripoffs of someone else' design.
> 
> The only people who care about it are those who swallowed the pill that paying 1,200% the actual value of something is a noble idea.





flaggermi said:


> I think the use of the word "homage" is really inappropriate for these kinds of watches. I don't think the people at SM are sitting around at lunch all starry-eyed about how much they admire this GS, so they decide to pay tribute to it. This watch, as with all watches like it, are made to trick other people into thinking you have something that you don't.
> Now, I don't really see a big ethical or moral problem here as such (perhaps a little bit), but what gets to me is the whole attitude of the thing.
> I mean, in the car world, is it common for manufacturers to take the innards of a Ford Pinto, put a Porsche 911 body and a different brand name on it, and call it a homage?


In the Fashion industry it's business as usual. Ultra-luxury gets copied by luxury gets copied by mainstream which gets copied by store brands/generics.


----------



## tresconik (Jul 29, 2020)

Ticonderoga said:


> Someone is saying that pricing is immoral - I'm saying it. Rolex can make a sub for a grand and a half and they sell it for five figures. That's immoral.


I don't think that's immoral. It would be immoral if you were forced to buy it. The market talks.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

Chronopolis said:


> Just curious. Do you drive at the speed limit (65) when driving across a desert? Nobody around for 100 miles.
> 
> I wouldn't.
> Would I get caught? Maybe, but I'd probably take my chances.
> ...


I am not saying it's conclusively anything. I am just saying that there are different grounds on which to argue. And that it's pointless to keep mixing up the two.

There are lots of legal things that are immoral (in most cultures) and lots of illegal things that have no moral implications whatsoever.

I don't care on which premise people discuss, but be consistent and clear so people can respond intelligently.


----------



## sdiver68 (Aug 6, 2010)

chas58 said:


> funny guy. Ever held a GS and a Rolex together? The finishing on the GS blows away a Rolex (much less a generic homage). Besides, GS gives you a choice of Quartz, Spring drive, and High Beat (among others). At least someone in the industry is innovating.
> 
> "You spend $10000" - no I don't I spend much less that that! Geeze
> "gonna suffer a 30-40% depreciation losses." No I don't. The difference from an AD price and used price is about 5%. I know. I've bought and sold a couple.
> ...


I wore my Rolex into the Rolex store @ Design District Miami. No watches to be found. Walked into the GS boutique next...and no...GS does not overwhelm anything in its price range. Probably the reason they had full stock of everything on hand.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

Ticonderoga said:


> Maybe you missed my last reply. Someone is saying that pricing is immoral - I'm saying it. Rolex can make a sub for a grand and a half and they sell it for five figures. That's immoral.
> 
> This will probably go down as the most asinine statement ever made at WUS. Your statement may be true if "Asia" was fit solely into the borders of Singapore and Hong Kong. But you're going to tell me that in all the little villages I've visited in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Indonesia, Korea, Mongolia, India, Pakistan, where the average salary is $150 a month that everyone has a genuine Rolex? I never saw so many fake Rolexes until I got to Asia.


Sorry, never saw that post about morality. That's a discussion that's kind of doomed from the start. I don't know why anyone would bring that up.


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

tresconik said:


> I've heard of the Oris examples, but not of newly manufactured cases. Do you have any links on hand?


Here is an Oris someone asked about.

Can anyone identify this watch?

The cases used are typical of so called "Mumbai Specials". It's a generic case, Oyster-esque in design, and clearly new (no dents or scratches or worn plating one would expect of a watch supposedly made decades ago).


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

Ticonderoga said:


> Maybe you missed my last reply. Someone is saying that pricing is immoral - I'm saying it. Rolex can make a sub for a grand and a half and they sell it for five figures. That's immoral.
> 
> This will probably go down as the most asinine statement ever made at WUS. Your statement may be true if "Asia" was fit solely into the borders of Singapore and Hong Kong. But you're going to tell me that in all the little villages I've visited in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Indonesia, Korea, Mongolia, India, Pakistan, where the average salary is $150 a month that everyone has a genuine Rolex? I never saw so many fake Rolexes until I got to Asia.


It's immoral for the maker of a non-essential luxury item to charge what the market will bear for their products?


----------



## flaggermi (Aug 26, 2020)

Ticonderoga said:


> I'm sorry but you don't get to inert fallacy arguments for each argument you disagree with. I'm happy to have a VS2 diamond of larger size and better color for a lower price than a perfect clarity stone. NOBODY CARES if a stone has tiny microscopic spots that no one can see. I don't care if my watch says Rolex or Brolex or Steeldive. You do care. Good for you. Go and spend five figures on a watch. I'm 100% satisfied with my $82 watch. So why are you folks here in our sub telling us that we're immoral because we like a particular watch at a price-point we're comfortable paying? I don't care if you waste your money on the fantasy of luxury but you certainly seem concerned that I under-spent by $9,918.


I understand your argument here, but listen:
Let's say you're fine with a rolex homage that says Brolex and costs a fraction of the genuine article. Ok, that's fine.
Now, _all_ the groundwork for the models that are copied is payed for by us dopes who buy genuine ones at genuine prices. The copy is effectively a subsidised product.

You're welcome.


----------



## tresconik (Jul 29, 2020)

MX793 said:


> Here is an Oris someone asked about.
> 
> Can anyone identify this watch?
> 
> The cases used are typical of so called "Mumbai Specials". It's a generic case, Oyster-esque in design, and clearly new (no dents or scratches or worn plating one would expect of a watch supposedly made decades ago).


Looks like an HMT case. Probably has an HMT movement too.


----------



## sdiver68 (Aug 6, 2010)

flaggermi said:


> I understand your argument here, but listen:
> Let's say you're fine with a rolex homage that says Brolex and costs a fraction of the genuine article. Ok, that's fine.
> Now, _all_ the groundwork for the models that are copied is payed for by us dopes who buy genuine ones at genuine prices. The copy is effectively a subsidised product.
> 
> You're welcome.


You mean like Western medicine? Paid for at full cost of development plus profit expectation in the US, while the rest of the world gets those advances at unit cost?


----------



## S1919 (Jun 14, 2020)

flaggermi said:


> I understand your argument here, but listen:
> Let's say you're fine with a rolex homage that says Brolex and costs a fraction of the genuine article. Ok, that's fine.
> Now, _all_ the groundwork for the models that are copied is payed for by us dopes who buy genuine ones at genuine prices. The copy is effectively a subsidised product.
> 
> You're welcome.


This is exactly how technological innovation works in capitalism. Somebody invents something, they get a period in which they have exclusive rights (in order to recoup their costs) and then everybody else gets to free-ride on that invention. Given watch designs might not even be protected by IP, and that Rolex 100% recoups their costs, what is the harm of that free-riding? The competition from homages is literally capitalism.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

flaggermi said:


> I understand your argument here, but listen:
> Let's say you're fine with a rolex homage that says Brolex and costs a fraction of the genuine article. Ok, that's fine.
> Now, _all_ the groundwork for the models that are copied is payed for by us dopes who buy genuine ones at genuine prices. The copy is effectively a subsidised product.
> 
> *You're welcome.*


Thanks!


----------



## flaggermi (Aug 26, 2020)

sdiver68 said:


> You mean like Western medicine? Paid for at full cost of development plus profit expectation in the US, while the rest of the world gets those advances at unit cost?


Same principle, yes. Although, I'm pretty sure that GS at unit cost is still a healthy chunk more than the SM.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

S1919 said:


> This is exactly how technological innovation works in capitalism. Somebody invents something, they get a period in which they have exclusive rights (in order to recoup their costs) and then everybody else gets to free-ride on that invention. Given watch designs might not even be protected by IP, and that Rolex 100% recoups their costs, what is the harm of that free-riding? The competition from homages is literally capitalism.


Patent and trademark protection is not capitalism. It's actually a curb/control to free markets. Which is also not capitalism.


----------



## flaggermi (Aug 26, 2020)

Ticonderoga said:


> Thanks!


Anytime, bro ;-)


----------



## O . (May 13, 2020)

Ticonderoga said:


> Reminds me of silly young couples who spend $25,000 on a flawless diamond ring when they could have bought one for $5,000 that looks the same to the naked eye.
> 
> You enjoy looking at your GS under a loupe. I'll enjoy the five grand in my wallet.


Cool story bro, but I don't own a loupe. Nor do I need one to appreciate GS case and dial finishing either. That you think a loupe is needed to see finishing differences between the 2 watches in the OP tells me that you've never even handled, much less owned a Grand Seiko. Please do continue the attempt to interject your class warfare narrative, it's quite entertaining. 🍿


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

O . said:


> Cool story bro, but I don't own a loupe. Nor do I need one to appreciate GS case and dial finishing either. That you think a loupe is needed to see finishing differences between the 2 watches in the OP tells me that you've never even handled, much less owned a Grand Seiko. Please do continue the attempt to interject your class warfare narrative, it's quite entertaining. 🍿


What do you think he did with other 15k? That's a lot of san martins...


----------



## RetiredKarlMarx (Dec 7, 2020)

tresconik said:


> Halios is far higher than SM in terms of price


It was a quick and dirty example. I am sure you can find original design work at any price level.


----------



## tresconik (Jul 29, 2020)

RetiredKarlMarx said:


> It was a quick and dirty example. I am sure you can find original design work at any price level.


Personally I cannot find sapphire, NH35, good lume, solid end links, milled clasp etc for under 200 with original design, and I value the specs more highly.


----------



## RetiredKarlMarx (Dec 7, 2020)

tresconik said:


> Personally I cannot find sapphire, NH35, good lume, solid end links, milled clasp etc for under 200 with original design, and I value the specs more highly.


Don't know much about this price range, but Seagull?


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

O . said:


> Cool story bro, but I don't own a loupe. Nor do I need one to appreciate GS case and dial finishing either. That you think a loupe is needed to see finishing differences between the 2 watches in the OP tells me that you've never even handled, much less owned a Grand Seiko. Please do continue the attempt to interject your class warfare narrative, it's quite entertaining. ?


I've never picked up a GS because I think they are ugly the same as the rolex explorer. Lots of folks like the style but not for me. I prefer a watch with a numbered and rotating bezel. But if there was a sub-looking GS I still wouldn't buy it and if I won it in a charity raffle it would be for sale on WUS before midnight. I certainly appreciate the technology and the frictionless movement but it all comes down to marketing and that it, and most luxury watches are massively overpriced for no other reason than some sales and marketing folks know how to build virtual value. I'm not a sucker for trends and marketing propaganda and if it is "class warfare" to not be a victim to fashion, well then shame on me.

Lemme check... yup, making sure I'm not posting in the GS or rolex forum. Class warfare huh? You do realize you're going on about your GS in the affordables forum?

I don't go over to the GS and Rolex forums and tell all the buyers of these overpriced watches how foolish they are with their money. That is a subjective assessment and how they spend their money might be wise for them. But I do find it comical that so many owners of over-priced goods get all in a ruffle when someone else creates a good-looking watch that has ceramic and sapphire and can hold a few seconds a day. If you're happy that you paid five or ten grand for your watch then I'm happy for you. But perhaps raining on someone else's parade who prefers to spend under $100 for a stylish watch, now maybe that _is_ class warfare.


----------



## tresconik (Jul 29, 2020)

RetiredKarlMarx said:


> Don't know much about this price range, but Seagull?


Too expensive for what they offer. They got an excellent chrono for about 160 though.


----------



## acidrain33 (Sep 6, 2018)

WatchGeek said:


> I will be you that it is made in China.


When is it not??? It's been a open secret that brands like SM, Heimdallr, Hroudland and so on are Chinese made.


----------



## Mr.Boots (Feb 13, 2006)

Alex_B. said:


> Look at you! So pure and moral. ?
> I'm quite evil and don't mind wearing cheaper jeans that copy Levi's. I'm going straight to hell.


A lot of us will be going with you.


----------



## Mr.Boots (Feb 13, 2006)

MX793 said:


> Do you think pharma companies would invest in groundbreaking, life-saving new medicines if they knew that their rivals would legally be able to just reverse engineer and copy their recipe as soon as their product hit the market and then sell that copy for less, since they don't have the R&D costs to recoup?
> 
> Or a software company developing some new application?


My sister worked on Pharmaceutical Row in NJ. Actually, the big Pharma companies, to cut research costs, years ago found it to be more cost effective to buy out start-up companies with promising products.


----------



## Mr.Boots (Feb 13, 2006)

dfwcowboy said:


> I guess I wasn't clear before. I'm just looking for an argument against a homage that doesn't rely on sensationalism such as analogies to slavery, theft, and drowning kittens in the bathtub. I'm looking for something remotely resembling moral realism and not finding much of it. So what was the principle argument again?


I see the San Martin owner echoing when Billy Cobham stated in an interview that he accepted that he had to make several commercially "salable" albums, in order to make one creative, artistic album that the critics would love, but would have mediocre sales.
In other words, ya gotta sell some schlock to have the cash to be original. Nobody is forced to buy them.

In fact, I've often posted that the San Martin watches are homages, rather than replicas, because having owned Seiko 6105s and 6309s when they were original, I believe the San Martins are better made and quality than the originals. Better motors, better WR in terms of crown locking, sapphire, better lume.


----------



## countingseconds (Oct 5, 2016)

If I liked the design, I'd buy it. Fortunately for me, I get to save $400


----------



## acidrain33 (Sep 6, 2018)

1800￥ for a PT5000, for that price just a meh.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

flaggermi said:


> I think the use of the word "homage" is really inappropriate for these kinds of watches.


The vast majority of so called "homages" on WUS are similarly inappropriate. But, I don't hear anywhere close to the same level of outrage when San Martin "homages" the Rolex Submariner or the Pepsi GMT.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Ticonderoga said:


> I'm sorry, but your quote is invisible. I don't see anyone doing that here.


Really? I haven't seen any of these critics complaining about the "homages" San Martin made of the Rolex Submariner and Pepsi GMT, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Jugsy said:


> How do you guys feel about Squale? I feel like they often get a free pass on this stuff but any Chinese brand gets crucified.


For that matter, there's the Orient homage to the Rolex Submariner, and the Seiko homages to the Rolex Datejusts.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

O . said:


> Seriously though, why do you think the recent Willards (I'm assuming you mean the SPB versions) are overpriced? You certainly can't buy a 6105 for any less. Also, based on discussions I've had with ADs, the chatter on this board, and the release of more and more color variants, the SPB Willards have been very good, and more likely great sellers for Seiko. Again, this is the market telling us they're not overpriced.


I can't speak for others, but I, for one, do think that the new Seikos are overpriced, primarily because I find the movements used to be disappointly lackluster, and they still can't seem to get a handle on basic things like alignment, something which everybody else seems to have overcome.

Out of curiosity, do you think Rolexes are overpriced? Because the market is telling us it isn't.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> That's the very definition of a false dichotomy or the false dilemma fallacy. Yet another example of paper-thin reasoning coming from people who buy shameless copies.
> 
> How about this: instead of shoveling money at a company that rips off others, why not support a brand at the same price point that prides itself on original designs? Nodus is a great place to start.


Manufacturers produce design copies because they are very popular. In any case, the post you quoted did not present a false dichotomy, it was poorly worded, and was simply asking two questions, both of which are eminently reasonable in the context of the discussion of morality and values, and in light of Simon's evasiveness.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

cheu_f50 said:


> Whether its GS level is what everyone would care about. If you dont care when about quality, so be it, but certainly you are not the norm.


I think you're missing the point entirely. Most people care about quality relative to price, and most people don't care enough about quality to pay Grand Seiko prices.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

seadial said:


> The San Martin watch has just used design cues from the Seiko watch as it has enough differences to not be a copy. The San Martin guy said the Chinese watch industry has not developed the stylistic design capacity yet, but has advanced technically to offer machining and fabrication capabilities in their many factories that produce components and undertake watch assembly. There are many dive watches out of China that mimic features from the Submariner, but no one gets all steamed up over them. The attraction of the Seiko watch is the "Spring Drive", that is if you are interested in the workings of your watch, many just buy a watch to tell the time and find a design that appeals to them. Often whatever watch they wear goes unnoticed by others as they don't parade it in front of others, who may not care less anyway.


Agreed, I don't understand why people are so riled up about this, since the main appeal of the Grand Seiko Spring Drive diver is the movement and the finishing, neither of which is present in this San Martin.


----------



## RetiredKarlMarx (Dec 7, 2020)

mleok said:


> For that matter, there's the Orient homage to the Rolex Submariner, and the Seiko homages to the Rolex Datejusts.


I think homage is an accurate term to describe this SM. Maybe "95% copy"? Similarly, GS grammar of design seems to be inspired by the Patek Calatrava, but nobody would accuse them of producing a copy of the Calatrava. Personally, I don't care if people like homages. Just don't like the delusion that SM and its peers give you similar quality/feel for a bargain price (with the price difference being explained away by "middlemen and marketing budget").

Why people are more tolerant to Sub or DJ copies? I don't like both cases, but it is more acceptable for me because those designs are decades old. Whatever cost Rolex took to design them had more time to amortize. While copying a recent design hurts a brand more (theoretically speaking, I don't think it hurts GS that much).


----------



## mconlonx (Sep 21, 2018)

Q: How do you tell if someone is wearing a real Seiko diver or an homage?
A: If bezel, chapter ring, and dial are misaligned, it's a real Seiko.

🤣🤣🤣


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

RetiredKarlMarx said:


> I think homage is an accurate term to describe this SM. Maybe "95% copy"? Similarly, GS grammar of design seems to be inspired by the Patek Calatrava, but nobody would accuse them of producing a copy of the Calatrava. Personally, I don't care if people like homages. Just don't like the delusion that SM and its peers give you similar quality/feel for a bargain price (with the price difference being explained away by "middlemen and marketing budget").
> 
> Why people are more tolerant to Sub or DJ copies? I don't like both cases, but it is more acceptable for me because those designs are decades old. Whatever cost Rolex took to design them had more time to amortize. While copying a recent design hurts a brand more (theoretically speaking, I don't think it hurts GS that much).


As I said before, I don't think the appeal of the Grand Seiko Spring Drive diver is in the design, it's in the movement and finishing. The delusion that SM offers similar quality/feel for a bargain price is no different when it homages a Rolex Submariner, although having owned San Martins as well as Seikos, Tudors, Rolexes, JLC, Vacheron, Patek, I will say that San Martin puts the sub $1K Seikos to shame in terms of the precision of their manufacturing and the quality control. More so that any other brand I own, I think entry level Seikos are overpriced because you literally can get a better watch for less money, whereas I have yet to find a cheaper alternative to Tudor or Rolex that is comparable or better in every way (excluding branding).


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

mleok said:


> As I said before, I don't think the appeal of the Grand Seiko Spring Drive diver is in the design, it's in the movement and finishing. The delusion that SM offers similar quality/feel for a bargain price is no different when it homages a Rolex Submariner, although having owned San Martins as well as Seikos, Tudors, Rolexes, JLC, Vacheron, Patek, I will say that San Martin puts the sub $1K Seikos to shame in terms of the precision of their manufacturing and the quality control. More so that any other brand I own, I think entry level Seikos are overpriced because you literally can get a better watch for less money, whereas I have yet to find a cheaper alternative to Tudor or Rolex that is comparable or better in every way (excluding branding).


If the appeal of the GS isn't in the aesthetics, why would anyone make a watch that closely imitates that same aesthetic?


----------



## chas58 (Aug 29, 2018)

I'm (sincerely) curious as to why you can't find a better/cheaper alternative to Tudor/Rolex? 
Until recently, the movements in Tudor/Rolex were a bit out dated, although that has changed in the last year or two (better late than never). 
I tend to think the Germans are better built (Sinn, Damasko, Glasshutte) if you like their design language. Personally I went into my AD to buy a Tudor and walked out with an Oris (I just liked the watch better, independent of price).

I'm curious as to what your experience is...?



mleok said:


> As I said before, I don't think the appeal of the Grand Seiko Spring Drive diver is in the design, it's in the movement and finishing. The delusion that SM offers similar quality/feel for a bargain price is no different when it homages a Rolex Submariner, although having owned San Martins as well as Seikos, Tudors, Rolexes, JLC, Vacheron, Patek, I will say that San Martin puts the sub $1K Seikos to shame in terms of the precision of their manufacturing and the quality control. More so that any other brand I own, I think entry level Seikos are overpriced because you literally can get a better watch for less money, whereas I have yet to find a cheaper alternative to Tudor or Rolex that is comparable or better in every way (excluding branding).


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

chas58 said:


> I'm (sincerely) curious as to why you can't find a better/cheaper alternative to Tudor/Rolex?
> Until recently, the movements in Tudor/Rolex were a bit out dated, although that has changed in the last year or two (better late than never).
> I tend to think the Germans are better built (Sinn, Damasko, Glasshutte) if you like their design language. Personally I went into my AD to buy a Tudor and walked out with an Oris (I just liked the watch better, independent of price).
> 
> I'm curious as to what your experience is...?


In what sense do you think Sinn and Damasko are better built? As for Glashutte, the SeaQ is not cheaper than my Rolexes, and why would I buy that when I already have a Vacheron Constantin Overseas?

I find the Tudors and Rolexes to be incredibly well made, their bracelets are exceptional and the precision of manufacturing is top notch. I have no issue with their older 313X movements, they're still capable of exceptional accuracy, and the only thing which really needed to be changed was the jeweled bushing style rotors, but even that wasn't really a problem unless regular servicing was neglected. In any case, they're certainly better in terms of accuracy, functional finishing, and robustness than movements in any of the brands you mentioned (yes, including Glashutte, which is just better decorated on the caseback side). I don't find any real value to the Daniels' coaxial escapement, and it seems to suffer from substantial wear in the gear teeth, so I think the argument that it improves longevity to be questionable at best. The Rolexes at least are also extremely wearable in their style and design, and for me, they offer the complete package, excellent, robust and accurate movement, exceptional build quality, and wearable designs. I will say that the issue of wearable designs is where Grand Seiko and Omega falls far short for me, because of the thickness of their watches, and the mediocre (in comparison) bracelets on the Grand Seikos.


----------



## RetiredKarlMarx (Dec 7, 2020)

mleok said:


> In what sense do you think Sinn and Damasko are better built? As for Glashutte, the SeaQ is not cheaper than my Rolexes, and why would I buy that when I already have a Vacheron Constantin Overseas?
> 
> I find the Tudors and Rolexes to be incredibly well made, their bracelets are exceptional and the precision of manufacturing is top notch. I have no issue with their older 313X movements, they're still capable of exceptional accuracy, and the only thing which really needed to be changed was the jeweled bushing style rotors, but even that wasn't really a problem unless regular servicing was neglected. In any case, they're certainly better in terms of accuracy, functional finishing, and robustness than movements in any of the brands you mentioned (yes, including Glashutte, which is just better decorated on the caseback side). I don't find any real value to the Daniels' coaxial escapement, and it seems to suffer from substantial wear in the gear teeth, so I think the argument that it improves longevity to be questionable at best. The Rolexes at least are also extremely wearable in their style and design, and for me, they offer the complete package, excellent, robust and accurate movement, exceptional build quality, and wearable designs. I will say that the issue of wearable designs is where Grand Seiko and Omega falls far short for me, because of the thickness of their watches, and the mediocre (in comparison) bracelets on the Grand Seikos.


Agree with some of your points, but a lot of your arguments boil down to personal preference. Some people value movement decoration much higher than robustness and accuracy. I do agree that GS bracelets are highly subpar. The SeaQ can be had for cheaper than the Sub on multiple well-known grey dealer websites.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

MX793 said:


> If the appeal of the GS isn't in the aesthetics, why would anyone make a watch that closely imitates that same aesthetic?


Homage companies can make mistakes too, I have honestly no idea what San Martin was thinking in copying the design of that Grand Seiko diver. Only time will tell if it pays off, but given its price, I suspect it might languish for some time.


----------



## RetiredKarlMarx (Dec 7, 2020)

mleok said:


> As I said before, I don't think the appeal of the Grand Seiko Spring Drive diver is in the design, it's in the movement and finishing. The delusion that SM offers similar quality/feel for a bargain price is no different when it homages a Rolex Submariner, although having owned San Martins as well as Seikos, Tudors, Rolexes, JLC, Vacheron, Patek, I will say that San Martin puts the sub $1K Seikos to shame in terms of the precision of their manufacturing and the quality control. More so that any other brand I own, I think entry level Seikos are overpriced because you literally can get a better watch for less money, whereas I have yet to find a cheaper alternative to Tudor or Rolex that is comparable or better in every way (excluding branding).


The appeal might not be in the design (a debatable point), but as we are discussing design here too - it matters. Personally, I prefer the Sub in terms of design, but holy **** the GS diver screams quality! I might actually prefer the bezel action on it vs the Sub.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

RetiredKarlMarx said:


> Agree with some of your points, but a lot of your arguments boil down to personal preference. Some people value movement decoration much higher than robustness and accuracy. I do agree that GS bracelets are highly subpar. The SeaQ can be had for cheaper than the Sub on multiple well-known grey dealer websites.


No, personal preference only enters in how much I weight the individual criteria. But, in multiple objective optimization, there is the notion of Pareto optimality. Put another way, I don't think there is any other watch that Pareto dominates Tudor or Rolex, which is to say they are better in every way (modulo branding) at a comparable or lower price.


----------



## RetiredKarlMarx (Dec 7, 2020)

mleok said:


> Homage companies can make mistakes too, I have honestly no idea what San Martin was thinking in copying the design of that Grand Seiko diver. Only time will tell if it pays off, but given its price, I suspect it might languish for some time.


I think the GS divers are more popular in Asia than we might suspect. Just my speculation though.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

RetiredKarlMarx said:


> I think the GS divers are more popular in Asia than we might suspect. Just my speculation though.


That's possible, but as I said, I tend not to see homages in Asia.


----------



## RetiredKarlMarx (Dec 7, 2020)

mleok said:


> No, personal preference only enters in how much I weight the individual criteria. But, in multiple objective optimization, there is the notion of Pareto optimality. Put another way, I don't think there is any other watch that Pareto dominates Tudor or Rolex, which is to say they are better in every way (modulo branding) at a comparable or lower price.


I agree, but in that framework, there are no watches strictly better than a GS or a Tudor or an Omega (for example if you absolutely need that co-axial escapement and weigh it highly). Otherwise, it's hypocritical.


----------



## RetiredKarlMarx (Dec 7, 2020)

mleok said:


> That's possible, but as I said, I tend not to see homages in Asia.


Weird, all I saw in Asia were homages and straight-up fakes. Exaggerating a bit obviously, but Tokyo and Singapore do not represent Asia imho.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

RetiredKarlMarx said:


> I agree, but in that framework, there are no watches strictly better than a GS or a Tudor or an Omega (for example if you absolutely need that co-axial escapement and weigh it highly). Otherwise, it's hypocritical.


What is the objective reason to prefer a co-axial escapement? It's not more accurate, not more robust, not more reliable, does not have a longer service interval. But, there can be multiple Pareto optimal points, and I agree that Grand Seiko is an example of such a point.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

RetiredKarlMarx said:


> Weird, all I saw in Asia were homages and straight-up fakes. Exaggerating a bit obviously, but Tokyo and Singapore do not represent Asia imho.


Well, I don't see it in China, Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, or Singapore. I guess we visit different parts of Asia.


----------



## RetiredKarlMarx (Dec 7, 2020)

mleok said:


> What is the objective reason to prefer a co-axial escapement? It's not more accurate, not more robust, not more reliable, does not have a longer service interval. But, there can be multiple Pareto optimal points, and I agree that Grand Seiko is an example of such a point.


Maybe someone is a fan of George Daniels or is a sucker for exotic escapements (I am not, but if I want an Omega - I would consider it a plus). My point is you can't exactly apply Pareto to a sentimental irrational good (luxury watches). But I see your point.


----------



## RetiredKarlMarx (Dec 7, 2020)

mleok said:


> Well, I don't see it in China, Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, or Singapore. I guess we visit different parts of Asia.


As I said, China (I assume Shanghai or Shenzhen?), Korea, Japan, HK, and Singapore are not representative. Try Thailand or Vietnam, I am pretty sure 85% of Rolex there are fake. Same story with Malaysia, Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, India etc. In the same way, I don't think New York and Toronto are "typical" American (the continent) cities.


----------



## chas58 (Aug 29, 2018)

mleok said:


> In what sense do you think Sinn and Damasko are better built? As for Glashutte, the SeaQ is not cheaper than my Rolexes, and why would I buy that when I already have a Vacheron Constantin Overseas?
> 
> I find the Tudors and Rolexes to be incredibly well made, their bracelets are exceptional and the precision of manufacturing is top notch. I have no issue with their older 313X movements, they're still capable of exceptional accuracy, and the only thing which really needed to be changed was the jeweled bushing style rotors, but even that wasn't really a problem unless regular servicing was neglected. In any case, they're certainly better in terms of accuracy, functional finishing, and robustness than movements in any of the brands you mentioned (yes, including Glashutte, which is just better decorated on the caseback side). I don't find any real value to the Daniels' coaxial escapement, and it seems to suffer from substantial wear in the gear teeth, so I think the argument that it improves longevity to be questionable at best. The Rolexes at least are also extremely wearable in their style and design, and for me, they offer the complete package, excellent, robust and accurate movement, exceptional build quality, and wearable designs. I will say that the issue of wearable designs is where Grand Seiko and Omega falls far short for me, because of the thickness of their watches, and the mediocre (in comparison) bracelets on the Grand Seikos.


Thanks for the reply. I ended up with a Damasko (among others) as it represents to me what Rolex used to represent to me when they were tool watches. A very accurate workhorse movement in a watch that is overbuilt. Their whole crown sealing is over the top, the lugs are elegant like Rolex used to be, the case is practically scratch proof, the AR coating is amazing, and it is super legible.

There is no right/wrong answer - and I appreciate your perspective.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

RetiredKarlMarx said:


> Maybe someone is a fan of George Daniels or is a sucker for exotic escapements (I am not, but if I want an Omega - I would consider it a plus). My point is you can't exactly apply Pareto to a sentimental irrational good (luxury watches). But I see your point.


I think to the extent one can speak rationally about luxury watches, the notion of Pareto optimality is relevant, but ultimately as you say, the heart wants what it wants, and no amount of rationalization and value proposition is going to change that fact.

But, the notion of Pareto optimality has always been a guiding light for me on the question of whether a watch is overpriced, by asking if there is a cheaper watch that is better in every objective way, that I like as much.


----------



## RetiredKarlMarx (Dec 7, 2020)

mleok said:


> I think to the extent one can speak rationally about luxury watches, the notion of Pareto optimality is relevant, but ultimately as you say, the heart wants what it wants, and no amount of rationalization and value proposition is going to change that fact.
> 
> But, the notion of Pareto optimality has always been a guiding light for me on the question of whether a watch is overpriced, by asking if there is a cheaper watch that is better in every objective way, that I like as much.


That I can agree, I use the same principle, albeit allowing for liberal exceptions for "emotional" pieces.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

RetiredKarlMarx said:


> That I can agree, I use the same principle, albeit allowing for liberal exceptions for "emotional" pieces.


Yes, I reserve the right to be irrational for emotional pieces, like my Patek Philippe Calatrava.


----------



## BMPB (Jul 2, 2017)




----------



## Chronopolis (Apr 8, 2009)

What moral judgment should there be, if any, for people who buy a FAKE / HOMAGE / CLONE / COPY with NO idea that it is a RIPOFF of some alleged "original" design?

I myself have bought watches not knowing that it WAS a COPY of some more "famous" design.

I don't really venture too far above my pay grade, so I tend not to pay to much attention to those "original" designs with fancy pants names.

I still don't know, (or care) which original this one is a copy of. A Rolex Newman Daytona probably?
If it, the fact that there is a venerable original design has no effect on my estimation of this watch one way or another. I just liked the Panda, that's all.










BTW, I have this old cheap Seiko 5 model -- SNZG or SNZH -- which has a similar bezel design to the GS. I recently used it to make 2 mods.
I don't know what these are similar to, but I swear, I saw something similar, with more expensive name on the dials.
Did I just PARTIALLY ripoff GS (and something else), without knowing it? And with Seiko's help? 
So confusing.


----------



## MX793 (Dec 7, 2017)

Chronopolis said:


> What moral judgment should there be, if any, for people who buy a FAKE / HOMAGE / CLONE / COPY with NO idea that it is a RIPOFF of some alleged "original" design?
> 
> I myself have bought watches not knowing that it WAS a COPY of some more "famous" design.
> 
> ...


There is no moral judgement to be made for those who unknowingly buy a lookalike. Nor anyone who knowingly buys a lookalike. Nor the person duped by a convincing fake (that person is a victim).

Only those who knowingly buy (or produce) counterfeits are deserving of judgement.


----------



## mconlonx (Sep 21, 2018)




----------



## mrdoty (Sep 12, 2011)

just ordered one ill update in a few weeks when I get it...looking forward to expanding my san martin collection


----------



## Mido (Jan 26, 2010)

Quite a polarizing thread.

Just received mine. Blown away by the quality. Still not GS though. Wears better than expected. Very comfortable.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nello (Jan 2, 2014)

Mido said:


> Quite a polarizing thread.
> 
> Just received mine. Blown away by the quality. Still not GS though. Wears better than expected. Very comfortable.
> 
> ...


Some more pics of the case would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Mido (Jan 26, 2010)

nello said:


> Some more pics of the case would be greatly appreciated.





























































Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mrdoty (Sep 12, 2011)

I'll chime in here, I got mine about a week and a half ago. the watch is simply stunning in the metal. the hands are gorgeous. I'd say its nicer than any seiko I've held (not GS). the bracelet and case wear VERY comfortable for a lump of a watch. The case finishing is IMO superb. you do notice a little bit of waviness in the polish when you wear it on a strap, but you can kinda see that in the press photos. I have mine on an aliexpress MM strap clone and it wears awesome. the bezel is my only slight gripe as the machining is extremely crisp bordering on sharp, but this seems to be a trait of san martin watches in general. the grip on the bezel is supreme as well, the action is light and crisp. I prefer San Martin bezels to all the Seikos I have handled, not quite as good as a seamaster or tudor, I think the idea that we are even comparing this to the big boys that cost thousands and its basically there as far as quality says it all, FOR UNDER 500 BUCKS.


----------



## TheWraith (Jun 13, 2012)

Anyone taken one apart yet to see what size dial is in it?


----------



## sanmartinwatch (May 25, 2021)

I'm here to inform you that the 828 event is now going on. If you are interested in this very good discount, and celebrate the watchuseek, you will set up a 5 US dollar coupon to enjoy at the same time.


----------



## carlowus (Oct 12, 2008)

I would have preferred, since this is a Seiko Homage, that the movement would have been Seiko.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

carlowus said:


> I would have preferred, since this is a Seiko Homage, that the movement would have been Seiko.


The only readily available Seiko movements for third parties are 21.6kbph movements, and the ETA 2824-2 clones are far superior movements.


----------



## mougino (Jun 12, 2017)

carlowus said:


> I would have preferred, since this is a Seiko Homage, that the movement would have been Seiko.


----------



## carlowus (Oct 12, 2008)

mleok said:


> The only readily available Seiko movements for third parties are 21.6kbph movements, and the ETA 2824-2 clones are far superior movements.


That is entirely a subjective opinion. My experience tells me differently. In 12 years I had one Seiko movement go bad compared to several hundreds I have owned. But I had 3 ETA movements go bad compared to 50 or so. Each one required $150-250 for repair. I can replace a Seiko movement for $50.

I am not saying that one is better then the other, however I do say that I prefer the Seiko movement over most other ones. To me it is reliable, affordable and it works. I can use it for projects and I am happy with it.

I am also not saying that ETA movements are bad, I had many that were very nice and kept excellent time. But for me and for my projects, being a Poor Man, my budget is a priority.

If someone like other movements, it is entirely his/her choice. I won't criticize of argue. To each his/her own.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

carlowus said:


> That is entirely a subjective opinion. My experience tells me differently. In 12 years I had one Seiko movement go bad compared to several hundreds I have owned. But I had 3 ETA movements go bad compared to 50 or so. Each one required $150-250 for repair. I can replace a Seiko movement for $50.
> 
> I am not saying that one is better then the other, however I do say that I prefer the Seiko movement over most other ones. To me it is reliable, affordable and it works. I can use it for projects and I am happy with it.
> 
> ...


Fair enough, but the Grand Seiko homage isn't exactly a budget homage by AliExpress standards, so the PT5000 as opposed to the NH35 is an appropriate choice because of the higher beat rate.

You've had several hundred watches with Seiko movements over 12 years? You're hardly a poor man then.


----------



## carlowus (Oct 12, 2008)

mleok said:


> Fair enough, but the Grand Seiko homage isn't exactly a budget homage by AliExpress standards, so the PT5000 as opposed to the NH35 is an appropriate choice because of the higher beat rate.
> 
> You've had several hundred watches with Seiko movements over 12 years? You're hardly a poor man then.


Totally cool, I am not asking San Martin to change their movement. I simply commented on the fact that to me it would be better if it had a Seiko movement... otherwise it looks like a nice and well made watch, like most San Martin products.

It took me years to have a small collection, as any WIS worth of the name, most of my watches have been recycled, some sold and most traded. So, while I had many watches, quite a few were Seiko 5, SKX or similar which are affordable and through careful trading I have moved many, while building my collection to a good set of affordable Seikos. As can be seen in my posts, I don't have any expensive model. But I am happy with what I have and what I am working with.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

carlowus said:


> Totally cool, I am not asking San Martin to change their movement. I simply commented on the fact that to me it would be better if it had a Seiko movement... otherwise it looks like a nice and well made watch, like most San Martin products.
> 
> It took me years to have a small collection, as any WIS worth of the name, most of my watches have been recycled, some sold and most traded. So, while I had many watches, quite a few were Seiko 5, SKX or similar which are affordable and through careful trading I have moved many, while building my collection to a good set of affordable Seikos. As can be seen in my posts, I don't have any expensive model. But I am happy with what I have and what I am working with.


A couple of hundred cheap watches still adds up to quite a bit of money in your collection.


----------



## carlowus (Oct 12, 2008)

mleok said:


> A couple of hundred cheap watches still adds up to quite a bit of money in your collection.


I don't have 200 watches. I don't have 100 watches. I don't even have 50 watches. I don't have 30 watches... I said I went through that many, mostly traded which was a fast way to get/check/try new watches... but the very large majority were in and out fast...


----------



## GFSEA86 (Oct 28, 2013)

Finally, a GS for the average Wal-Mart greeter.
All jokes aside, a sweatshop manufactured watch could never hope to match the quality of a GS. I own the SBGA231, the titanium version of the GS diver. Forget about the Zaratsu finishing, lets talk about the dial. The indices on the GS are like little pearls. Each lume plot is an exact circular measurement with an equal height of lume applied as well. There isn't any smudging or lumps. Also, each lume plot is precisely outlined in white enamel before the hand finished metal index starts. San Martin would not attempt this level of detail or care. 
I do own a San Martin, its the 41mm Sub knockoff with a sterile dial. I use it as my work beater as my career comes standard with physical altercations semi often. The watch is indeed nice _for a $200 watch_, but isn't anything to write home about. There isn't any hand finishing, all the machining is right off the lathe, there is dust on the dial, and the PT5000 is crunchy.
I found the first post of the thread to be pretty funny with comparing promotional photos. This person has clearly never owned a GS if they base opinions of GS's promos. Everyone knows GS has the _worst _promotional images. They have never conveyed their quality with their promos.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

GFSEA86 said:


> Finally, a GS for the average Wal-Mart greeter.
> All jokes aside, a sweatshop manufactured watch could never hope to match the quality of a GS. I own the SBGA231, the titanium version of the GS diver. Forget about the Zaratsu finishing, lets talk about the dial. The indices on the GS are like little pearls. Each lume plot is an exact circular measurement with an equal height of lume applied as well. There isn't any smudging or lumps. Also, each lume plot is precisely outlined in white enamel before the hand finished metal index starts. San Martin would not attempt this level of detail or care.
> I do own a San Martin, its the 41mm Sub knockoff with a sterile dial. I use it as my work beater as my career comes standard with physical altercations semi often. The watch is indeed nice _for a $200 watch_, but isn't anything to write home about. There isn't any hand finishing, all the machining is right off the lathe, there is dust on the dial, and the PT5000 is crunchy.
> I found the first post of the thread to be pretty funny with comparing promotional photos. This person has clearly never owned a GS if they base opinions of GS's promos. Everyone knows GS has the _worst _promotional images. They have never conveyed their quality with their promos.


I don't think anyone honestly thinks you're getting Grand Seiko quality for under $500, the same way that nobody with any sense thinks they're getting Rolex quality for that price. But, San Martins are exceptional watches for the price, and credit needs to be given where it's due. In particular, the precision of the manufacturing tolerances (of things like endlinks) do put many higher end brands to shame... including Grand Seiko, and Omega. Admittedly, I'm comparing this to the endlinks on the Snowflake, which is made of titanium, and that is harder to machine precisely, but still.


----------



## carlowus (Oct 12, 2008)

mleok said:


> I don't think anyone honestly thinks you're getting Grand Seiko quality for under $500, the same way that nobody with any sense thinks they're getting Rolex quality for that price. But, San Martins are exceptional watches for the price, and credit needs to be given where it's due. In particular, the precision of the manufacturing tolerances (of things like endlinks) do put many higher end brands to shame... including Grand Seiko, and Omega. Admittedly, I'm comparing this to the endlinks on the Snowflake, which is made of titanium, and that is harder to machine precisely, but still.


One could be surprised by what people think... 

But I agree with you, overall San Martin is a one of the better brands coming from the far East, 3 out of 4 models that I had were really good.


----------



## praetor47 (Dec 3, 2018)

what a missed opportunity to downsize it to 40-42mm and show Seiko how much better it works in a smaller package... a shame, really


----------



## Tonysco (Feb 14, 2014)

Anyone expecting GS level quality from a £500-ish watch is dreaming.

What you will get however is a good quality timepiece that has a nice looking design.


----------



## Watch19 (Oct 15, 2016)

Waiting for the Invicta version. . .


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

praetor47 said:


> what a missed opportunity to downsize it to 40-42mm and show Seiko how much better it works in a smaller package... a shame, really


Sounds like a business opportunity for you then.


----------



## Bradley_RTR (Apr 25, 2021)

GFSEA86 said:


> Finally, a GS for the average Wal-Mart greeter. All jokes aside, a sweatshop manufactured watch could never hope to match the quality of a GS.


I'd be interested in seeing the working conditions at Seiko vs. San Martin. I'd wager neither is a sweatshop.


----------



## Chronopolis (Apr 8, 2009)

I'm sure the GS is a good watch, as watches go: well-made, high performance.
But do people really like the design?? Esp those hands?

Or are people automatically reacting positively - only those who do, obviously - do so BECAUSE it's a GS?

Maybe I am in the tiny minority, but those hands look atrocious to me.
The case / bezel are nice, but dial design is nothing to pay thousands for. 

What do I know. 
I guess enough people like it to justify this clone's existence.


----------



## DEMO111 (Apr 27, 2006)

Chronopolis said:


> I'm sure the GS is a good watch, as watches go: well-made, high performance.
> But do people really like the design?? Esp those hands?


I bought one because I like the design.... especially the hands.


----------



## KainX (Dec 7, 2017)

OK since seiko released SBHG289/SBGH291, I'm guessing san martin is making a V2, and maybe in 41mm Orz


----------



## pureb (Sep 11, 2014)

What a shame


----------



## mougino (Jun 12, 2017)

pureb said:


> What a shame


----------



## spoolmakdays (Jul 3, 2015)

U get what you pay for, this is planet earth, not sugar candy mountain. An acquaintance has a collection of San Martins, after examining them, I came to the conclusion that they were about worth what he paid for them, nothing special, and nothing I would want.


----------

