# Difference between fake and replica?



## berg35 (Mar 26, 2007)

Short question:
Is there a difference between a fake and a replica? If so what and why?


----------



## Tiaz (Aug 1, 2006)

No. Same ****.. different names.

Kind regards 
Tiaz


----------



## michiel (Feb 11, 2006)

in terms of watches I would say no difference, because in most cases replicas pretend to be something they are not and are often used to mislead buyers. In general, replicas are sometimes used if the original piece is to valuable or vulnerable to put on display, so in museums you will sometimes see replicas of artefacts in stead of the original pieces.

Cheers,

Michiel


----------



## berg35 (Mar 26, 2007)

Isn't the Sinn 903 a navitimer replica?


----------



## EJC (Feb 13, 2006)

berg35 said:


> Isn't the Sinn 903 a navitimer replica?


I believe Sinn had the license to build the 903 when Breitling broke up in the 80's. I'm a bit hazy on the history.


----------



## SnapIT (Apr 29, 2005)

This will article will crank up the defroster and clear the fog about Breitling & Sinn & Ollech Wajs. Its an interesting read as Ron Engles the author is brilliant when present material like this.

https://www.watchuseek.com/showpost.php?p=25338&postcount=1

As for fakes V replicas v frankenwatches they all devalue the brand whatever the motive. In short, technical watches like breitlings are built to a real performance spec. Unless the unauthorised versions are built to the same specs they can never be trusted to perform as required when the true performance limits are neared. In most cases a fake/replica will fail well before the limits of the performance envelope are approached. Something to consider when taking on real world tasks like flying aeroplanes, or diving to many meters beneath the surface of the ocean.


----------



## jcalka (Feb 11, 2006)

The difference between "fake" and "replica" - none. Now if you want to debate "replica" v. "homage", that could be interesting. Reps, use the trademarks on the gens, "homage" seems to look like the gen, but doesn't use the trademarks.


----------



## tompw (Feb 9, 2006)

*Buying a replica (aka fake) watch...*

Certainly no difference between the two terms whatsoever.

It is a shame that people still make them. But I believe it is just as much the buyer as it is the seller/maker that is at fault. I mean why buy a replica in the first place? Its not real and by buying one you further downgrade the brand altogether! Personally I think it should be a criminal offence to sell AND buy these things. The more replicas out there the cheaper the brand will get. People should just save up and buy the real thing. After all the only person they will be fooling is themselves when they buy a FAKE time piece. Its like faking qualifications for a dream job. The employers may be fooled but will they feel good about it? Deep down they'll know that their a fraud who achieved nothing in life. Same with buying a replica (aka FAKE) watch.


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2007)

*Re: Buying a replica (aka fake) watch...*

To me if it is not real, it doesn't matter what you call it


----------



## bradders (Feb 8, 2006)

Tiaz said:


> No. Same ****.. different names.
> 
> Kind regards
> Tiaz


actually no.

All non Breitling Breitlings made today are fakes, alll of them. They are not replicas but fakes.

Replica is a word often used by people selling fake Breitlings as a way of somehow legitimising what they are doing by using the word replica instead of fake - but what they are doing are selling fake.

"I have a replica Breitling" somehow sounds more appealing than "I have a fake Breitling". the result is the same though - you are still wearing a piece of junk.

However, replicas - where the design is licenced or where certain watches are replicated from originals then these are a legitimate part of the true Breitling story and should be recognised- least we forget the current Chronomatic made by Breitling is a replica of the original 1806.

And as we have already heard Ollech & Wajs are by all intent and purposes a replica - but a very valid and relevent one. Just not a real Breitling that's all.

It easy for the scamsters and con artists of the world to hijack the word in an attempt to legitimise their shoddy worthless activity of producing fakes - lets us not tlet them do this.

A fake is a fake - a replica can and often is something else completely.

Brad


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

:-d If it's not real, then the rest are for wannabes, whatever you want
to call them.


----------



## Tiaz (Aug 1, 2006)

Watchbreath said:


> :-d If it's not real, then the rest are for wannabes, whatever you want
> to call them.


WORD..!!..


----------



## Split Second (Apr 18, 2007)

berg35 said:


> Short question:
> Is there a difference between a fake and a replica? If so what and why?


No. Replica is the "politically correct" way of saying something is a fake.

Mike.


----------



## ethanjohnson (Feb 15, 2013)

berg35 said:


> Short question:
> Is there a difference between a fake and a replica? If so what and why?


Well, I guess they are synonyms. There is no difference between the two. If you found one please tell me.....


----------

