# Stories of mistaking Steinhart for a Rolex?



## Raider89 (Apr 18, 2016)

So the general consensus is that if you buy a Steinhart that you should get ready for people mistaking it for an actual Rolex... Fair point, but has this actually even happened to anyone before? 

Not too many will notice your watch, and even fewer will even recognize it as a Rolex homage, but for those of you have you've been in this awkward predicament; how'd it go?

I'd love to read stories about this and to see if it actually is as common as a problem as some make it out to be.


----------



## BostonWatcher (Jun 28, 2012)

Yes, they may mistake it for a Rolex, but no one mistakes the term "general consensus" as being redundant. Consensus means "general opinion".


----------



## charliekilo98 (Jun 7, 2015)

I just had my Halios Tropik SS mistaken for a Rolex the other day... If it weren't for the different case shape, hands, markers, date position, and bracelet, they'd almost look the same. 

Don't stress too much about your Steinhart, just enjoy it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## charliekilo98 (Jun 7, 2015)

I just had my Halios Tropik SS mistaken for a Rolex the other day... If it weren't for the different case shape, hands, markers, date position, and bracelet, they'd almost look the same. 

Don't stress too much about your Steinhart, just enjoy it.

Best,
C.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

It's not a "homage".


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

Watchbreath said:


> It's not a "homage".


Right, it's a cheap, blatant copy.


----------



## engr.pol (Jul 12, 2014)

Well, there was this time that someone mistook my Rolex for a Steinhart..that was embarrassing ..

I kid of course


----------



## 6R15 (Mar 3, 2015)

I'd sooner drink bleach before wearing a Steinhart.

If I wasn't lucky enough to have the money for a Rolex, I would buy an SKX009 and be damn proud I have one of the most durable watches in the horological world. No need to pretend.


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

yes it happens all of the time where I live. Members of the lower class also mistake my beobachtungsuhr for a rolex on a regular basis but that's more likely due to their limited education and inability to appreciate polo. Jolly good show old chap.


----------



## Likestheshiny (Nov 28, 2011)

> but no one mistakes the term "general consensus" as being redundant. Consensus means "general opinion".


Consensus means group opinion. The "general" clarifies that it isn't a specific group, cf. "expert consensus" or "schoolyard consensus." Depending where you live, the general consensus and scientific consensus on global warming might be very different things. "Consensus of opinion" is specifically called out in several style guides for being redundant, but I'm not aware of any major guide that has a problem with "general consensus."

More topically, the WIS consensus on homages is that they are unoriginal copies of superior watches, while the general consensus is to not care.


----------



## DonQuixote (May 13, 2014)

Gotta love the story of Jared (actor from Supernatural TV series) trying on a fellow WIS' Steinhart at a ballgame.


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Watches/comments/331a72


----------



## DonQuixote (May 13, 2014)

I'd be curious also for the other side of the story though- I've had on a MKII and at a major AD in Monterey who came up impressed but then practically ignored me once he saw the MKII logo on the watch (obviously he has no idea of Bill's prowess and appreciation for the art of timepieces).

I'd want to learn about those folks who do get their Steiny's confused but then perhaps snubbed or thought-less-of after people realize it ain't the real deal? Not like it matters, we all know it's in a different ballpark... but it does add another flavor to the whole discussion, that's for sure!


----------



## osamu (Dec 17, 2013)

I had my SKX007 called a "submariner style" watch. Does that count? I think most people will think any diver looks like a Rolex.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

6R15 said:


> I'd sooner drink bleach before wearing a Steinhart.
> 
> If I wasn't lucky enough to have the money for a Rolex, I would buy an SKX009 and be damn proud I have one of the most durable watches in the horological world. No need to pretend.


that's one way for sure . . . after I bought a half dozen rolexi, i sprung for a steinhart and an invicta, pretty good stuff . . .


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

mav said:


> Right, it's a cheap, blatant copy.


might be a blatant copy but it ain't cheap, don't start throwing your money around like it means something


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

Likestheshiny said:


> More topically, the WIS consensus on homages is that they are unoriginal copies of superior watches, while the general consensus is to not care.


Its usually the person who commits the crime who doesnt care.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Raider89 said:


> So the general consensus is that if you buy a Steinhart that you should get ready for people mistaking it for an actual Rolex... Fair point, but has this actually even happened to anyone before?


Not an answer to your question, but speaking purely for myself - I don't care if others notice. *I* would know. That's what matters.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

drhr said:


> might be a blatant copy but it ain't cheap, don't start throwing your money around like it means something


Cheap as in poorly made, has nothing to do with its overpriced price or affordability.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

mav said:


> Cheap as in poorly made, has nothing to do with its overpriced price or affordability.


i get it, u don't like the brand/what it does/what it doesn't, cool you're entitled and i got no problems with that. there's brands/watches out there that i don't like but i wouldn't throw that in someone's face with a bucket of gasoline.

if you state your views like this, it's fine, it's opinion civilly (word?) delivered. get snarky though and i start to want to have fun and get a little frisky with the keyboard (yeah, i'm a shallow person), probably start to irritate mods a bit/a lot, tempt getting banned (at least it'd b worth it) . . .


----------



## wviplinke (Aug 16, 2015)

This is exactly my situation


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

I have no stories to contribute. but....
I do try to observe what people are wearing just in day-to-day interactions. While I never comment on the watch, I do notice it. It is entirely possible that others may notice the watch and not comment.
I have not seen any Steinhart watches in the wild, but ran into a large # of Invicta 8926 SUB knockoffs - and everytime was slightly disappointed to see those wings on the dial. Kind of like "hey, is that a Rolex, cool.... oh, never mind, another Invicta". 

But as mentioned above - wear a watch for yourself, not for others.

PS. I do have a funny story from this morning though - riding a subway train in midtown NYC - saw not one, but two Daniel Wellington watches on NATO. One was worn by a young lady - clearly as a fashion accessory, but also a time-telling device. The other was worn by a young man, very "fashionably" dressed (flowered dress shirt, fancy scarf, etc) - his watch had a dead battery as it showed wrong time when I got on the train, and same wrong time when I got off 20 mins later. So yeah, sometimes people wear watches as pure fashion jewelry. And sometimes, others will laugh at them (although in my case - laughter was on the inside)


----------



## dimman (Feb 10, 2013)

EnderW said:


> I have no stories to contribute. but....
> I do try to observe what people are wearing just in day-to-day interactions. While I never comment on the watch, I do notice it. It is entirely possible that others may notice the watch and not comment.
> I have not seen any Steinhart watches in the wild, but ran into a large # of Invicta 8926 SUB knockoffs - and everytime was slightly disappointed to see those wings on the dial. Kind of like "hey, is that a Rolex, cool.... oh, never mind, another Invicta".
> 
> ...


You can see those wings from across rooms? That's the quality difference range, right?

Heh...

I've had someone seriously ask me if my Pogue was a Rolex. Maybe because I just got it that day and was handling/fondling/clicking the chrono buttons in a rather reverential/inappropriate way that could be similar to someone getting their first big dollar Daytona?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

mav said:


> Cheap as in poorly made, has nothing to do with its overpriced price or affordability.


I think that's quite subjective too. The ones I have and seen/held are just fine for me in terms of what they deliver for what I/was paid. And it's not like I can't compare as I do own a bunch of other watches above and below that price point. At the end of the day, we all do what we feel is in our best interest, or at least I do . . .


----------



## ed21x (Feb 11, 2011)

mav said:


> Cheap as in poorly made, has nothing to do with its overpriced price or affordability.


They're actually pretty well made. I have a steinhart sitting harmoniously next to a rolex sub.

Some people just like the style. Considering the design is 60+ years old now, it's about time we start accepting the design as generic, as it's been adopted so many times around. Yes, Rolex came up with it, but other iconic designs such as the Marine or Pilot watch have their origins with a single brand too and got widespread adoption without being called 'homages.' Bottom line, not everyone cares about company heritage, and using the submarine style does not infringe on any company patents or trademarks. Putting "Rolex" on a counterfeit is deceptive, but the design is pretty much public domain now.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Yep, wearing a 'knockoff' rally must put a lot of swagger in your step.


----------



## sticky (Apr 5, 2013)

If folk do mistake a Steinhart for a Rolex the vast majority will naturally assume that it's a pretend one anyway. There's no reason to make them think otherwise. Quite often I was asked if my Rolex was real "as if I could be wearing a real Rolex" was the answer that a lot of nosey colleagues got.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Watchbreath said:


> Yep, wearing a 'knockoff' rally must put a lot of swagger in your step.


you'd know since you have more than 2 . . .


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

I mistook a DW For a Nomos Tangente. Also mistook a Timex Weekender for a Nomos club.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

And what are they?


drhr said:


> you'd know since you have more than 2 . . .


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Watchbreath said:


> And what are they?


feet


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Grown of the day.


drhr said:


> feet


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Watchbreath said:


> Grown of the day.


and it's just starting out for me and u, u'r in cali right


----------



## BostonWatcher (Jun 28, 2012)

Likestheshiny said:


> Consensus means group opinion. The "general" clarifies that it isn't a specific group, cf. "expert consensus" or "schoolyard consensus." Depending where you live, the general consensus and scientific consensus on global warming might be very different things. "Consensus of opinion" is specifically called out in several style guides for being redundant, but I'm not aware of any major guide that has a problem with "general consensus."
> 
> More topically, the WIS consensus on homages is that they are unoriginal copies of superior watches, while the general consensus is to not care.


My English professor would disagree with you vehemently and hammered this into our brains; consensus does in fact mean general opinion therefore general consensus is redundant...period.

The point regarding identifying a certain group prior to the term; yes, you are correct, however, within the context of verbaige utilizing the word, the group in question is often identified.

I don't see the point in using the word "scientist" when they are commenting in an article about global warming, it's obvious that they are not talking about the general publics comments.


----------



## tecbarrera (Feb 12, 2017)

I've got a Rolex, a Breitling, a few Seikos, and some other watches, but recently decided to order in a Steinhart GMT Pepsi. So excited to get it! The way I see it, it's pointless to pay $40k+ for a watch with such a generic look. At least the Steinharts have a reputation for excellent build quality and a very decent ETA movement. If someone walks up to me thinking it's a Rolex, I'll have no qualms telling them it's a Steinhart and explaining what an homage watch is if they ask. Love the watch and the movement, rather than focus on brand. Dissing people for the watch they wear only shows ignorance and a pompous superiority complex.


----------



## IvanC (Sep 13, 2016)

I really like my Steinhart Military 42 manual wind, but it isn't a homage of anything. Have considered buying a Steinhart Ocean Vintage Military just because they're high-value, well-made watches and I like the sword hands and case style. It sort of looks like a Rolex, but so does a Grand Seiko dive watch.


----------



## Chris23 (Feb 6, 2017)

Worrying about what people will think of you for your choice is one ( rather ridiculous) thing but I wonder about people who get pissed off about what other people choose to wear, I think it says a lot about those people.


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

I think it's the worst thing that could possibly happen if you are on CIA special operations group black ops with clare danes and mandy patinkin in iran and you have to secure passage out of the country ASAP. Suddenly you realise that you have left your rolex at home and worn your steinhart instead. Then you come to the horrific realisation that you are going to have to swallow your cyanide pill. Thanks very much steinhart at least you won't be dying with a seiko on your wrist.


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

Does one mistake a beetle for a 911? Or a 370Z for a GTR?

Me thinks not. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

6R15 said:


> I'd sooner drink bleach before wearing a Steinhart.
> 
> If I wasn't lucky enough to have the money for a Rolex, I would buy an SKX009 and be damn proud I have one of the most durable watches in the horological world. No need to pretend.


100%.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stellite (Aug 3, 2011)

drhr said:


> that's one way for sure . . . after I bought a half dozen rolexi, i sprung for a steinhart and an invicta, pretty good stuff . . .


you sure we didn't have the same mother. I could have written that sentence.


----------



## DarthVedder (Jun 12, 2011)

tecbarrera said:


> I've got a Rolex, a Breitling, a few Seikos, and some other watches, but recently decided to order in a Steinhart GMT Pepsi. So excited to get it! The way I see it, it's pointless to pay $40k+ for a watch with such a generic look. At least the Steinharts have a reputation for excellent build quality and a very decent ETA movement. If someone walks up to me thinking it's a Rolex, I'll have no qualms telling them it's a Steinhart and explaining what an homage watch is if they ask. Love the watch and the movement, rather than focus on brand. Dissing people for the watch they wear only shows ignorance and a pompous superiority complex.


Just enjoy your watch, but don't call the $40K Rolex "pointless". Your Steinhart wouldn't exist without that Rolex.


----------



## heyheyuw (Jan 31, 2015)

I've only had a couple people notice my Ocean One Vintage, and they both knew it was a Steinhart and wanted to see it. Even if I could afford a vintage 6200, I'd probably still wear the Steinhart. I'd be too paranoid to enjoy the real thing, and besides, the larger Steiny fits better. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

tecbarrera said:


> I've got a Rolex, a Breitling, a few Seikos, and some other watches, but recently decided to order in a Steinhart GMT Pepsi. So excited to get it! The way I see it, it's pointless to pay $40k+ for a watch with such a generic look. At least the Steinharts have a reputation for excellent build quality and a very decent ETA movement. If someone walks up to me thinking it's a Rolex, I'll have no qualms telling them it's a Steinhart and explaining what an homage watch is if they ask. Love the watch and the movement, rather than focus on brand. Dissing people for the watch they wear only shows ignorance and a pompous superiority complex.


Which $40K Rolex are you talking about? With the possible exception of one of the gem encrusted monstrosities or the Skydweller, most Rolexes are under that price, unless it is a vintage Rolex with some measure of historical significance. There's something to be said about owning the watch that has so successfully captured our notion of what a dive watch should look like that it has become generic. If you don't care about such things, that's certainly fine, but reverse snobbery isn't cool either.


----------



## trueblueswiss (Mar 17, 2015)

mleok said:


> Which $40K Rolex are you talking about? With the possible exception of one of the gem encrusted monstrosities or the Skydweller, most Rolexes are under that price, unless it is a vintage Rolex with some measure of historical significance. There's something to be said about owning the watch that has so successfully captured our notion of what a dive watch should look like that it has become generic. If you don't care about such things, that's certainly fine, but reverse snobbery isn't cool either.


Maybe the current white gold version? I think here in Australia it is around $45k AUD if my memory is working tonight


----------



## Stellite (Aug 3, 2011)

trueblueswiss said:


> Maybe the current white gold version? I think here in Australia it is around $45k AUD if my memory is working tonight


I think the US retail for the white gold pepsi gmt is about 38k, which with tax will likely put you at 40k. Like all gold watches, you can get gray market for huge discounts. I have seen it as low as $25k. Sometimes Rolex confuses me. If they made the new GMT pepsi in steel, they could not keep it on the shelves. It would be harder to get than the steel black dial daytona.


----------



## bigvatch (Sep 25, 2007)

IvanC said:


> I really like my Steinhart Military 42 manual wind, but it isn't a homage of anything. Have considered buying a Steinhart Ocean Vintage Military just because they're high-value, well-made watches and I like the sword hands and case style.  It sort of looks like a Rolex, but so does a Grand Seiko dive watch.


 It actually sort of is homage to specific WWII military designs with a 6 o'clock sub seconds, and same basic dial font and layout....of vintage Longines, Omega, Hamilton, Waltham etc etc. Pocket watches had the same dial layout too. Nothing against these, I love them all. Had a couple before myself. Ollech Wajs and Glycine to name a couple make similar homages with similar case.


----------



## bigvatch (Sep 25, 2007)

Chris23 said:


> Worrying about what people will think of you for your choice is one ( rather ridiculous) thing but I wonder about people who get pissed off about what other people choose to wear, I think it says a lot about those people.


25 years ago I bought a Casio ana-dig Dive watch from Costco ( I think they still make it). Wearing it one day shopping at department store, some strange guy came up to me, looked angry and asked me " do you even dive"? I was confused as to why he asked me, and I forget what i said, "no something "scratching my head, and he mumbled something and walked away shaking his head still mad.

He may as well should have been wearing this shirt


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

tecbarrera said:


> If someone walks up to me thinking it's a Rolex, I'll have no qualms telling them it's a Steinhart and explaining what an homage watch is if they ask.


That would be a quick discussion.

That a rolex?

Nope. Its a fake rolex.

Ok.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Astropin (Dec 13, 2008)

mleok said:


> If you don't care about such things, that's certainly fine, but reverse snobbery isn't cool either.


Actually it kind of is.....a little. 

I can pretty much buy any watch I would like. Well let's just say under 50k anyway. Now just because I love watches and have some money doesn't mean I would like to spend that kind of coin on watches.....and I don't.

I don't own a single Rolex and don't plan to. I do own a Steinhart OVM and a Ginault Ocean-Rover. Both great watches.

So, even though I love watches and dig the submariner style doesn't mean I want to spend 8k+ for a single watch. One I think is actually overpriced for what you get. But that is just me and others are free to spend and buy whatever they like.

sent from my phone


----------



## 6R15 (Mar 3, 2015)

Astropin said:


> Actually it kind of is.....a little.
> 
> I can pretty much buy any watch I would like. Well let's just say under 50k anyway. Now just because I love watches and have some money doesn't mean I would like to spend that kind of coin on watches.....and I don't.
> 
> ...


What a well thought-out logical justification of why you are cheap. 10/10. Would read again.


----------



## Perseus (Mar 25, 2010)

DonQuixote said:


> Gotta love the story of Jared (actor from Supernatural TV series) trying on a fellow WIS' Steinhart at a ballgame.
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Watches/comments/331a72


I was going to share the same story. He seems like a really cool guy.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Crate410 said:


> That would be a quick discussion.
> 
> That a rolex?
> 
> ...


Ya think? When I show my pals my Invicta sub we spend more time discussing the merits/demerits of the look, price, etc, etc and so forth than any other dumb ass watch I bring along/wear. . . go figure . . .


----------



## DarthVedder (Jun 12, 2011)

Crate410 said:


> That would be a quick discussion.
> 
> That a rolex?
> 
> ...


Wrong. You don't like them, but a Steinhart is not a Fake rolex and you have no right to call them that.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

'Knockoff' is still good.


DarthVedder said:


> Wrong. You don't like them, but a Steinhart is not a Fake rolex and you have no right to call them that.


----------



## DarthVedder (Jun 12, 2011)

6R15 said:


> What a well thought-out logical justification of why you are cheap. 10/10. Would read again.


This thread is going down the drain. So just because someone can't justify spending thousands of bucks on a luxury item, he's "cheap". Why??


----------



## DarthVedder (Jun 12, 2011)

Watchbreath said:


> 'Knockoff' is still good.


Whatever. "Fake" has legal implications, and whatever you think about those Steinharts, there's nothing illegal about them.


----------



## Bleedingblue (Jun 24, 2015)

This thread is heading rapidly to lockdown town.


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

DarthVedder said:


> ...and you have no right to call them that.


But I just did.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

DarthVedder said:


> This thread is going down the drain. So just because someone can't justify spending thousands of bucks on a luxury item, he's "cheap". Why??


I think the member who made that comment was referring to the watch being a cheap watch (build, quality...)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nupicasso (Jan 6, 2016)

DarthVedder said:


> Wrong. You don't like them, but a Steinhart is not a Fake rolex and you have no right to call them that.


Don't waste your breath responding to the empty remarks of the shallow. Who cares.

BTW... love your handle.. Doesn't get Eddie Vedder than that.


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

DarthVedder said:


> Whatever. "Fake" has legal implications, and whatever you think about those Steinharts, there's nothing illegal about them.


Depends on where you are at.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Astropin (Dec 13, 2008)

Crate410 said:


> Depends on where you are at.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Really? In which countries are Steinharts illegal?


----------



## 6R15 (Mar 3, 2015)

I have crippling depression


----------



## Squirrelly (Nov 9, 2011)

There are literally dozens of Rolex clones/homages/fakes/replicas/knockoffs/wannabes (whatever you want to call them!) on the market... Why would just Steinhart be mistaken for the real thing?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Crate410 said:


> I think the member who made that comment was referring to the watch being a cheap watch (build, quality...)
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


uh, the member wrote "you", dunno 'bout u but i don't call a watch that even if u/he will/would. . .

shades of TRF, geez


----------



## ari.seoul (Jan 27, 2011)

a rather touchy subject that needs to be tread carefully 

personally, I have no problem with people buying and wearing (and enjoying) them. 
They liked the design but does not have the mean nor could they justify such spending, then hey, enjoy them by all mean, I'm OK with that

The issue I have is the pretentiousness of calling them a homage. They are what they are, a copy, a knockoff. My apology if that may sounds too harsh, but that's reality ... softening or fancying up the words doesnt change reality.

Reminds me of a George Carlin segment (cautious - language),


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

ari.seoul said:


> a rather touchy subject that needs to be tread carefully
> 
> personally, I have no problem with people buying and wearing (and enjoying) them.
> They liked the design but does not have the mean nor could they justify such spending, then hey, enjoy them by all mean, I'm OK with that
> ...


See, an opinion tactfully/politely stated goes a long way toward acceptance, at least by me, good stuff ari . . .


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

wschofield3 said:


> My English professor would disagree with you vehemently and hammered this into our brains; consensus does in fact mean general opinion therefore general consensus is redundant...period.


"Consensus" is usually the loudest three people on a topic shouting over the two who dissent with the opinion and the remaining five either ignoring them or saying nothing for fear of being shouted down.

As for the Steinhart: Your wallet, your wrist, your choice. Those who bought them should enjoy them regardless of what a bunch of folks on Watchuseek want to think.


----------



## heyheyuw (Jan 31, 2015)

This is a strange hobby. In other collecting hobbies, it's perfectly normal to have a repro to fill a spot where a legit piece is either unobtanium or cost prohibitive. For example militaria. Steinharts do not attempt to deceive. I personally don't like their standard subs, because I'm not a fan of standard subs, but their vintage and unique models definitely fill a spot in the market. I would love a vintage 50's sub, but they're unobtanium. Some of you guys really need to stop feeling personally injured when your own personal ethical standard isn't met by others. It's really tiresome. None of the watches being discussed here are illegal in any way. If you don't like derivative designs, don't buy them. And please try communicating your opinion without insulting those that don't share it. We all love watches. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Crate410 said:


> Depends on where you are at.


Considering that the patents on the Rolex designs that inspire Steinhart's offerings at least six decades old and no longer covered by copyright anywhere (typically, American patent law of that time covered watch designs for up to 10 years), Steinhart and those who wear them are in the clear. That so many other watchmakers, driven both by market acceptance of the submariner-style design as well as the French military and ISO standards for dive watches, have long ago adapted similar (though not same designs), the legal case wouldn't be there anyway.

Certainly you are entitled to not wear a Steinhart and have your own views of its designs. Others are also entitled to those views. Their choice to wear a Steinhart don't impinge on your choice not to.


----------



## Astropin (Dec 13, 2008)

ari.seoul said:


> The issue I have is the pretentiousness of calling them a homage. They are what they are, a copy, a knockoff. My apology if that may sounds too harsh, but that's reality ... softening or fancying up the words doesnt change reality.


See I disagree. Most people associate "copy" & "knockoff" as being synonymous with "fake". Meaning it would say Rolex on the face even though it's not a Rolex. Not to mention that none of the Steinharts are exact 1:1 copies even as far as case size and style of bracelet. So Steinhart's are actually less of a homage than other brands.....like Tisell for instance.


----------



## il Pirati (Dec 7, 2014)

Wow, this old thread just sprang to life contentiously!

To actually comment on the original question: I've had my SKX173 on an "Oyster" bracelet mistaken for a Rolex and an Omega. Strange, I thought, until I realized that to the vast majority of people, a dive watch is a Rolex. The SKX is a much better looking watch than a Michael Koors, or a Fossil, or something, so people figure it must be a Rolex. 
Granted, this only happened twice in the 6 year or so I wore that watch on a bracelet. But if it happens with a Seiko, I can only imagine it also happens with any other dive watch, let alone one designed to look like the Submariner.

Speaking of Oyster Bracelet, isn't it called that because Rolex invented it to go with their Oyster case? Is every three link bracelet an "Homage" or a "Knock-off" of the original? Not trying to prove a point, just asking for historical perspective.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Wearing 'Rose Colored Glasses' and you can call them a "homage".


DarthVedder said:


> Whatever. "Fake" has legal implications, and whatever you think about those Steinharts, there's nothing illegal about them.


----------



## cursto (Sep 14, 2009)

eblackmo said:


> I think it's the worst thing that could possibly happen if you are on CIA special operations group black ops with clare danes and mandy patinkin in iran and you have to secure passage out of the country ASAP. Suddenly you realise that you have left your rolex at home and worn your steinhart instead. Then you come to the horrific realisation that you are going to have to swallow your cyanide pill. Thanks very much steinhart at least you won't be dying with a seiko on your wrist.


That's freaking awesome.


----------



## tecbarrera (Feb 12, 2017)

I know why you guys are mad. You're all frustrated that because of all the well made homage watches, together with the exploding fake / replica market, people now have to second guess if your Rolexes that you spent so much cash on are authentic, because you can't pull it off on your own! Makes sense now. I get it. It's okay. No need to feel so insecure.


----------



## DarthVedder (Jun 12, 2011)

ari.seoul said:


> a rather touchy subject that needs to be tread carefully
> 
> personally, I have no problem with people buying and wearing (and enjoying) them.
> They liked the design but does not have the mean nor could they justify such spending, then hey, enjoy them by all mean, I'm OK with that
> ...


Fine. It's a semantics argument, and I agree, there's no difference whatsoever between calling something a "homage" or a "knockoff". Obviously one of these has a negative connotation, but fine, it's a valid description for these products.

But there is a difference between that, and calling them "fake" (a term used to describe illegal watches), or calling the owners "cheap" just because they can't or simply won't spend on a Rolex.


----------



## Alysandir (Jun 29, 2016)

Chris23 said:


> Worrying about what people will think of you for your choice is one ( rather ridiculous) thing but I wonder about people who get pissed off about what other people choose to wear, I think it says a lot about those people.


Maybe. Maybe not. If I'm soliciting donations for a charitable cause with a clearly expensive watch on my wrist, that might lead the individual to think twice about giving money to my charity, despite one having nothing to do with the other. If it's one thing experience has taught me is that people's perceptions carry a lot more weight than the truth. Sometimes it's on you to manage those perceptions if you want a particular outcome.

Regards,
Alysandir


----------



## yongsoo1982 (Jun 5, 2014)

I don't have a Steinhart but they look like a lot of bang for your buck. They're just not for me, because I get the feeling I would get the itch to get a sub someday anyway. My Pelagos has been mistaken for a Sub though.

Always interesting to see how the copy/fake/homage topic springs up. I will contribute my usual graphic which saves me a bit of explanation


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

cursto said:


> That's freaking awesome.


Well. There was a member in another thread who has been watching too much james bond and he was claiming that if you are in a third world country and you need to get out fast. You can bribe the locals with your rolex to get you out of the country. Just like in the movies. So I have been running with that theme and therefore cannot claim all of the credit. The other member is my muse.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

tecbarrera said:


> I know why you guys are mad. You're all frustrated that because of all the well made homage watches, together with the exploding fake / replica market, people now have to second guess if your Rolexes that you spent so much cash on are authentic, because you can't pull it off on your own! Makes sense now. I get it. It's okay. No need to feel so insecure.


Not to go off on a tangent... but recent discussion here has nothing to do with original topic. Every thread re: homage watches turns into usual - love them\hate them\don't give a damn.
But your comment is kind of silly - that's like saying that everyone who buys original watches is insecure because fakes are readily available.

People who like homages... like homages. Cool for them. They provide good looks at affordable prices.
But that is all they provide. There is no question that if not for Rolex, there would be no Steinhart\Alpha\Parnis\Tisell\etc...
And if someone appreciates manufacture, originality in design, history and heritage, and yes, even brand perception\reputation - homage simply won't satisfy.

Back to original topic...
90% of people don't care whats on your wrist nor will not give it a glance
9% of people won't actively looks but know few mainstream brands. If they encounter someone with a Steinhart sub - they may ask (highly unlikely) and when they hear it is a homage or whatever - likely won't care
of the remaining 1% who know a bit about watches - some may know of Steinhart and like it, some may know of Steinhart and hate it, and some may know of Steinhart and not care

I suspect the real concern is with 1-2% of people (both WIS and not) who know enough about watches to recognize Rolex Sub design and will view anything that looks just like it, but isn't it... as nothing more than a fake (not in a legal sense, but in sense of pretending to be something it is not).

It is kind of like kit car or one of those Chinese homage cars. To someone who knows little about autos, but knows what some popular ones look like - if encountering a homage car they will likely view it as a deceptive styling.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)




----------



## Likestheshiny (Nov 28, 2011)

I really do wonder how many of the posters in this thread are just very defensive about their own choice to spend a lot of money on a watch.


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

Likestheshiny said:


> I really do wonder how many of the posters in this thread are just very *defensive about their own choice to spend a lot of money on a watch.*


I think that goes both ways. Hang out in f71 for a while and you will get a bunch of people justifying homages (some people go to extensive lengths to do this) and firmly believing that if someone spends more than 200$ on a watch they are an idiot. There are also people who don't think there is a difference between a homage and the real deal. Hang out in f2 and you get the exact opposite where people who own homages are worse than terrorists. I find I can fall on either side of the argument depending on what colour shoes I am wearing. What can I say? I am fickle at best.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

EnderW said:


> I suspect the real concern is with 1-2% of people (both WIS and not) who know enough about watches to recognize Rolex Sub design and will view anything that looks just like it, but isn't it... as nothing more than a fake (not in a legal sense, but in sense of pretending to be something it is not).
> 
> It is kind of like kit car or one of those Chinese homage cars. To someone who knows little about autos, but knows what some popular ones look like - if encountering a homage car they will likely view it as a deceptive styling.


I've know a few folks who own Steinharts. Never got annoyed with them for wearing those watches or wearing their submariner versions. But then, I don't get wound up about people wearing that with which they paid with their own hard-earned cash. Because it's not my wallet or wrist.

[It does help that I also don't own a Rolex, I guess.]


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Likestheshiny said:


> I really do wonder how many of the posters in this thread are just very defensive about their own choice to spend a lot of money on a watch.


Seems like an equal number are equally defensive about not spending a whole lot of money on a watch. I've lost track of the number of posts which essentially start with, "I can easily afford a Rolex, but..." Seriously, I couldn't care less how much money you have and how you choose to spend or not spend that money. I just expect to be accorded the same courtesy, and not be told how I should spend my money, and judged by my deeds instead of my possessions.


----------



## Stellite (Aug 3, 2011)

mleok said:


> Seems like an equal number are equally defensive about not spending a whole lot of money on a watch. I've lost track of the number of posts which essentially start with, "I can easily afford a Rolex, but..." Seriously, I couldn't care less how much money you have and how you choose to spend or not spend that money. I just expect to be accorded the same courtesy, and not be told how I should spend my money, and judged by my deeds instead of my possessions.


often times when someone says they can afford something but they choose not to get it, that is usually code for "I cannot afford it but I want to make you think I can." Just be happy with what you got. I have never understood when people have to put others watches down just because they cannot afford them


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

This thread reminds me of a true story of Robin Hood of watches. Another brand that starts w St... Perhaps this answers the OPs question about what happens when luxury watch wearers encounter homage wearers. 
Only the "Robin Hood of Watchmakers" can steal the spotlight from a luxury legendMr. Bigshot rolled up in a roaring high-performance Italian sports car, dropping attitude like his $22,000 watch made it okay for him to be rude. That's when I decided to roll up my sleeves and teach him a lesson.
"Nice watch," I said, pointing to his and holding up mine. He nodded like we belonged to the same club. We did, but he literally paid 100 times more for his membership. Bigshot bragged about his five figure purchase, a luxury heavyweight from the titan of high-priced timepieces. I told him that mine was the *Stauer Corso, a 27-jewel automatic classic.* And just like that, the man was at a loss for words.
*Think of Stauer as the "Robin Hood of Watchmakers."* We believe everyone deserves a watch of uncompromising precision, impressive performance and the most elegant styling. You deserve a watch that can hold its own against the luxury classics for a fraction of the price. You'll feel the quality as soon as you put it on your wrist. This is an expertly- crafted time machine... not a cry for attention.
*Wear a mechanical masterpiece!* We surveyed our customers. As intelligent, high net worth individuals, they have outgrown the need to show off. They have nothing to prove; they already proved it. They want superb quality and astonishing value. And that's exactly what we deliver.
*The Stauer Corso is proof that the worth of a watch doesn't depend on the size of its price tag.* Our factory spent over $40 million on Swiss-made machinery to insure the highest quality parts. Each timepiece takes six months and over 200 individual precision parts to create the complex assembly. Peer through the exhibition back to see the 27-jeweled automatic movement in action and you'll understand why we can only offer the Corso in a limited edition.

*Our specialty is vintage automatic movements.* The Corso is driven by a self-winding design, inspired by a 1923 patent. Your watch will never need batteries. Every second of power is generated by the movement of your body. The blue dial features a trio of date complications including a graphic day/night display. The Corso secures with a two-toned stainless steel bracelet and is water-resistant to 3 ATMs.


----------



## rudykruger (Jul 17, 2013)

I once saw a guy with a Rolex. When I squinted and stared I saw it was a Steinhart. I shrugged and left. The end.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

eblackmo said:


> I think that goes both ways. Hang out in f71 for a while and you will get a bunch of people justifying homages (some people go to extensive lengths to do this) and firmly believing that if someone spends more than 200$ on a watch they are an idiot. There are also people who don't think there is a difference between a homage and the real deal. Hang out in f2 and you get the exact opposite where people who own homages are worse than terrorists. I find I can fall on either side of the argument depending on what colour shoes I am wearing. What can I say? I am fickle at best.


There are folks who get defensive about everything and anything. The F71 folks who proudly wear a Steinhart to show that they don't need to spend lots of cash on a great watch. The F2 folks who sport their Rolex Subs to show that they can afford "the real thing". For me, it is the least-interesting discussion on this site mostly because the folks on both sides are just flossing, one side their anti-materialism ethic (as Rick Denney calls it) and the other, their acquisition ethic.

All of us need to keep this in perspective: If you can drop $100 or more on a watch without feeling any pain in the wallet, you are doing better than 99 percent of the world's population. At the same time, while there are lots of people who can't spend that kind of money, those folks do have enough cash of some kind to buy the things they can enjoy. Basically, _we all want and enjoy nice things_. So let's stop comparing who can get what and just enjoy the nice stuff we have while we have time on earth.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Stellite said:


> often times when someone says they can afford something but they choose not to get it, that is usually code for "I cannot afford it but I want to make you think I can."


In most cases, I do believe the folks who say "I can afford it, but choose not to" do so. The problem is that there are folks who use that statement to bash people for spending the money they want on the watches they enjoy. On the other side, you have folks who "can afford it and choose to buy it" who then bash others for choosing similar watches at a lower price point. Each side could use more chill. A lot more chill.


----------



## IGotId (Feb 14, 2012)

nupicasso said:


> Don't waste your breath responding to the empty remarks of the shallow. Who cares.
> 
> BTW... love your handle.. *Doesn't get Eddie Vedder than that.*


lol...


----------



## heyheyuw (Jan 31, 2015)

Sevenmack said:


> Each side could use more chill. A lot more chill.


Exactly. We're on a watch forum. If I wanted negativity and judgement, I'd take my kids to visit their grandparents, or I'd log into Facebook.

So if you find your Clint Eastwood forehead vein is throbbing because someone is wearing a watch you don't approve of, then... You know...










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> There are folks who get defensive about everything and anything. The F71 folks who proudly wear a Steinhart to show that they don't need to spend lots of cash on a great watch. The F2 folks who sport their Rolex Subs to show that they can afford "the real thing". For me, it is the least-interesting discussion on this site mostly because the folks on both sides are just flossing, one side their anti-materialism ethic (as Rick Denney calls it) and the other, their acquisition ethic.
> 
> All of us need to keep this in perspective: If you can drop $100 or more on a watch without feeling any pain in the wallet, you are doing better than 99 percent of the world's population. At the same time, while there are lots of people who can't spend that kind of money, those folks do have enough cash of some kind to buy the things they can enjoy. Basically, _we all want and enjoy nice things_. So let's stop comparing who can get what and just enjoy the nice stuff we have while we have time on earth.


It's just kind of funny that no matter what. People will split down parochial lines. I also find it funny when people take black and white extreme positions. Where they are right and the rest of the universe is wrong. Or even better there is a small group of people who agree with their position. Therefore it's got to be true. Right? There is a word for that (actually there are several I can think of) but I won't mention it/them. After all we are talking about watches.....watches...watches. I like watches.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Post in the wrong place. A sign that I need to go to bed.


----------



## tecbarrera (Feb 12, 2017)

EnderW said:


> Not to go off on a tangent... but recent discussion here has nothing to do with original topic. Every thread re: homage watches turns into usual - love them\hate them\don't give a damn.
> But your comment is kind of silly - that's like saying that everyone who buys original watches is insecure because fakes are readily available.
> 
> People who like homages... like homages. Cool for them. They provide good looks at affordable prices.
> ...


I can respect this response. Well written, though you may have misinterpreted my previous message which was addressed in the first part of your post. I was alluding to Rolex owners who would be insecure about their ability to convey to others that they could afford real Rolexes, and, based on some of their responses, I can see this being the case.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

tecbarrera said:


> I can respect this response. Well written, though you may have misinterpreted my previous message which was addressed in the first part of your post. I was alluding to Rolex owners who would be insecure about their ability to convey to others that they could afford real Rolexes, and, based on some of their responses, I can see this being the case.





Likestheshiny said:


> I really do wonder how many of the posters in this thread are just very defensive about their own choice to spend a lot of money on a watch.


Alas, I can not see into hearts and minds of men, therefor I am unable to judge if one is insecure re: their high-priced purchases or jealous of others high-priced purchases.
And with an extremely limited sample size of 1, I see it as much more of original vs copy argument, rather than expensive vs affordable (btw, to 99% of people $600 Steinhart is hardly affordable or reasonable).

Ultimately, I do not own a Rolex. And my beef with Steinhart and Invicta and Tisell and Alpha and Parnis and.... is rooted in the copying of designs (essentially legal, but IP borrowing nevertheless) rather than prices. Especially in light of hundreds if not thousands of interesting, original, affordable designs and watches which can be purchased, but lose out on sales to "homages". Similarly, my appreciation for Rolex is rooted in their originality, innovation and overall contribution to the industry, rather than in their status or price (which I believe to be the outcome of their designs\history\quality\reputation, rather than the cause of them).

So again, with extremely small and statistically insignificant sample of 1, my issue with homages is not rooted in insecurity, but simple appreciation of originality. And with some 18 watches in my boxes, just 2 reach into thousands of USD in price, while majority are great affordable watches.


----------



## DarthVedder (Jun 12, 2011)

EnderW said:


> So again, with extremely small and statistically insignificant sample of 1, my issue with homages is not rooted in insecurity, but simple appreciation of originality. And with some 18 watches in my boxes, just 2 reach into thousands of USD in price, while majority are great affordable watches.


Fine post, and frankly I've never seen you calling out other posters or calling them "cheap"' because of their choices (puzzling since Steinhars aren't cheap watches in any way). You don't like a homage, and that's perfectly fine. Frankly I feel the same way about some homages, but that's my opinion, my personal choice, and it's as valid as anybody else's.


----------



## Likestheshiny (Nov 28, 2011)

> I think that goes both ways.


Oh, without a doubt.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

tecbarrera said:


> I was alluding to Rolex owners who would be insecure about their ability to convey to others that they could afford real Rolexes, and, based on some of their responses, I can see this being the case.


What's there to convey? A modern stainless steel Rolex is readily affordable to anyone with a solid professional job who chooses to make owning one a priority. People with similar financial and personal circumstances can have very different opinions about whether something is affordable based on their own set of priorities.


----------



## heyheyuw (Jan 31, 2015)

WIS don't go to a lot of parties, do they?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## oldhawkeye (Dec 20, 2016)

O.K., can't help myself. I own a Steinhart Ocean One Vintage Red with a leather strap. At 41mm it is a bit large one me. Did I know people call this a homage/fake/etc. when I bought it? Nope, I just liked the looks of it. I really like the Tudor Black Bay Bronze, but at 43mm it would look like a dinner plate on a 7 year olds' wrist. So I am looking at other bronze watches in the 40-41mm size. Would they be considered homages/fakes of the BB? They are dive watches and bronze after all. I own a bunch of watches all purchased for either their looks or because they are vintage. The cost to me is irrelevant. Yesterday I wore a 1957 Bulova Selfwinding. Bought at a flea market for $0.50. I also own Mido, Oris, Zodiac, etc. that given their cost of ownership I could buy several thousand Bulovas at flea markets like the one mentioned above or quite a few other watches I am sure would be considered homages. In my mind nice design trumps all. I have never once tried to find out if a particular watch was copied from another brand and don't care. Just my humble $0.02.


----------



## Cobia (Nov 24, 2013)

I have a big mustache hoping women will mistake me for Ron Jeremy.....


----------



## dlim4evah (Jan 22, 2017)

I see the general trend as more and more new watch companies will try to copy the looks of the big luxury watch brands without infringing on patents. Although on further inspection, I couldn't see how one would confuse any of these other watches out there.


----------



## Astropin (Dec 13, 2008)

Cobia said:


> I have a big mustache hoping women will mistake me for Ron Jeremy.....


You actually WANT women to mistake you for and old, fat, hairy disgusting pig?


----------



## BostonWatcher (Jun 28, 2012)

Sevenmack said:


> "Consensus" is usually the loudest three people on a topic shouting over the two who dissent with the opinion and the remaining five either ignoring them or saying nothing for fear of being shouted down.
> 
> As for the Steinhart: Your wallet, your wrist, your choice. Those who bought them should enjoy them regardless of what a bunch of folks on Watchuseek want to think.


Ignoring others or not, the majority is still a consensus. Totally agree on your other point....enjoy what one enjoys.


----------



## Cobia (Nov 24, 2013)

Astropin said:


> You actually WANT women to mistake you for and old, fat, hairy disgusting pig?


Yep they love him, all women secretly desire him, most dont admit it but he has something special.


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

Cobia said:


> Yep they love him, all women secretly desire him, most dont admit it but he has something special.


Yes, I think it's his large Steinhart.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

Holy crap this has been highly entertaining.

If Steinhart makes fake watches, then call me the fakey fakiest that ever faked, because I love mine on an Aaron Bespoke.


















Yes, mine has been briefly mistaken for a Rolex a time or two. I clear it up instantly by talking about Rolex and Steinhart and let them handle my piece which ends up with something to the effect of: "hey, that's a pretty nice watch!".

Homage, fake. Live and let live.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

wschofield3 said:


> Ignoring others or not, the majority is still a consensus. Totally agree on your other point....enjoy what one enjoys.


The problem is that we often assume a "majority" or a "consensus" when it either doesn't exist or can't be proved with any data. As in politics, often it is merely the loudest folks who care the most about something who set a "consensus", either because others are afraid to argue or, more-often, just don't care enough to say anything. After all, in most trivial matters, you can just do what you want without consequence, and the folks who scream the loudest are also often of no consequence.


----------



## AFG08 (Mar 31, 2010)

I wore a SubC for 2-3 years and can't recall one person ever asking about it. I sold it, still miss it but unwilling to put that much money back into a watch. Steinhart has tempted me. With the exchange rate, it's almost a no brainer but I can't quite hit the buy button although I may soon.


----------



## run23 (Jul 12, 2009)

Ok, I'll jump in. I have no interest in 'homages', but not only do I not care if someone else likes them, I'd actually encourage more homages to copy (within the limits of the law) luxury watches as much as possible.

Competition is good, and I love seeing competitors (legally) copying what people want from other brands. I for one would love it if Rolex et al would feel some heat from lower priced competitors eating into their business. God forbid Rolex is forced to lower prices and focus on customer service. 

So, copy away. More choices and more competition is better for the consumer, and no one has a moral right to any basic design/idea (legal rights are another matter). And I feel no obligation to protect Rolex's profit margin. 

For what it's worth I do own a Rolex Sub and love it. I would love it even more if it were less expensive.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

From personal experience, at least with the OVM, you will be blown away from what you are getting for the money. The model it is "copied, faked...what have you" (as some strongly opinioned folks in this thread will say), is no longer made. The vast majority of us in the hobby will never see one in real life, much less be able to purchase one. I purchased mine before I even saw an image of the "real thing" online or knew where it came from. I thought it was handsome when I saw it and was happy about the price. There is nothing morally wrong with owning one and noone, even the haters in this thread will think anything negative of you. They are just pot stirrers (calling people cheap, or otherwise insinuating immorality for owning a piece), which is in the grand scheme of things here, fun and entertaining to read.

I also keep reading people say that "without, Rolex this watch would never be in existence." Well, maybe, maybe not. I suspect the real reason they are bent out of shape from it is not the white knight defense of a billion dollar empire, but the fact that someone made its likeness so well and with pretty darn good quality materials and a REALLY good price. They will not admit it, and even deny they feel that way. I would probably do that if I tried to make an argument and didn't have a leg to stand on. Ie: It is not a fake, it is not illegal, it is not immoral to own, it is not immoral for Steinhart to produce AND most importantly, it does not say anything negative that is valid about you as an owner of one.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Brey17 said:


> It is not a fake, it is not illegal, it is not immoral to own, it is not immoral for Steinhart to produce AND most importantly, it does not say anything negative that is valid about you as an owner of one.


Some folks, unfortunately, think so because they are driven an over-reliance on the acquisition ethic. They believe in judging people based on _what they own_ and think worldly goods are the best ways to judge character. Of course, that such folks think this, that they think owning a Steinhart makes someone less-worthy of respect or decency, shows _their own_ defects in character.


----------



## G. I. (Feb 28, 2015)

Oh, the butthurt wannabes...


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Brey17 said:


> From personal experience, at least with the OVM, you will be blown away from what you are getting for the money. The model it is "copied, faked...what have you" (as some strongly opinioned folks in this thread will say), is no longer made. The vast majority of us in the hobby will never see one in real life, much less be able to purchase one. I purchased mine before I even saw an image of the "real thing" online or knew where it came from. I thought it was handsome when I saw it and was happy about the price. There is nothing morally wrong with owning one and noone, even the haters in this thread will think anything negative of you. They are just pot stirrers (calling people cheap, or otherwise insinuating immorality for owning a piece), which is in the grand scheme of things here, fun and entertaining to read.
> 
> I also keep reading people say that "without, Rolex this watch would never be in existence." Well, maybe, maybe not. I suspect the real reason they are bent out of shape from it is not the white knight defense of a billion dollar empire, but the fact that someone made its likeness so well and with pretty darn good quality materials and a REALLY good price. They will not admit it, and even deny they feel that way. I would probably do that if I tried to make an argument and didn't have a leg to stand on. Ie: It is not a fake, it is not illegal, it is not immoral to own, it is not immoral for Steinhart to produce AND most importantly, it does not say anything negative that is valid about you as an owner of one.


red - strawman. I looked at 14 pages of this thread - show me a post where anyone calls people cheap for buying a homage, or insinuating anything about ethics or morality of others?

blue - there is no maybe about it. Some brands exist purely by copying other well-know designs. It is just a fact. Steinhart is one of those brands. If Rolex was not the top dog, thet'd copy Omega or Longines or Patek or whoever else. No judgement here, but a simple statement of fact

green - so you are the one attempting to look into minds of others. What's that about? You really can speak with certainty for anyone who does not subscribe to homages?

brown? - agreed, but again a strawman. No-one said steinhart copies are illegal, immoral or judged the owner of one. At least not on this thread.

So the big question is, what's with all the butthurt? Is the fact that others may not have appreciation for "homage" watches somehow taking away from your enjoyment of one?
If nobody cares, why so many defensive posts. The posts defending homages against perceived injustice are outnumbering all others 2 to 1 on this thread. Yet nobody is attacking "homages".But some people, myself included, simply appreciate other things about watches like originality. Nothing in that should be triggering you.

It's kind of like - you like white watches, I like black. Me saying that I like black watches, should not trigger some defense of white watches, or white watches that look like black watches.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

EnderW said:


> red - strawman. I looked at 14 pages of this thread - show me a post where anyone calls people* cheap* for buying a homage, or insinuating anything about ethics or morality of others?
> <cut>
> 
> .


Post #50 Ender, I don't really know what was meant but it sure seems like someone was being called "cheap" . . . you're correct though in that this thread (1 of countless clones, no pun) is more civil than others I've read/participated in.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

drhr said:


> Post #50 Ender, I don't really know what was meant but it sure seems like someone was being called "cheap" . . . you're correct though in that this thread (1 of countless clones, no pun) is more civil than others I've read/participated in.


I stand corrected. There was one comment calling someone cheap. One out of 116. And it was in response to another poster saying that he can afford a $50k watch but finds Rolex overpriced.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

EnderW said:


> I stand corrected. There was one comment calling someone cheap. One out of 116. And it was in response to another poster saying that he can afford a $50k watch but finds Rolex overpriced.


No worries . . . as a Steinhart/Invicta owner I suppose I read the comment less than positively but sheesh, there's the other 115 to entertain and we'll all survive in the grand scheme of things, eh ;-) . . .


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Snore...er...oh...what was that? Seven quoted me?

My stories of Steinharts bring mistaken for Rolexes:

1. "...Then, he died of dysentery, he gave me this watch. I carried this uncomfortable hunk of metal up my a__ for two years. Then, after seven years, I was sent home to my family. And now, Little Man, I give the watch to you." 

"Oooh, a Rolex. Oh, wait... a freaking Steinhart? Are you kidding me?"

2. "My old watch needs to be serviced. What, $300? I only paid that much for it! Not worth servicing; back in the drawer..."

3. "No-no-no. This is Steinhart, the most Rolex-like water-resistant watch in the world. Singularly unique, sculptured in design, hand-crafted in Switzerland and water-resistant to thirty atmospheres. This is the sports watch of the Twenty-Teen's. $695 retail. It tells time simultaneously in Monte Carlo, Beverly Hills, London, Paris, Rome, and Gstaad."

"In Philadelphia, it's not worth a single dime"

Rick "we all know what value means" Denney


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

Oh I'm enjoying all this. I've had enough years of healthy debate that I know how to position myself for maximum comfort of whatever it is that normally causes my butt to hurt.

I do appreciate threads like this that bring attention to a great brand. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

Brey17 said:


> I do appreciate threads like this that bring attention to a great brand.


What a beautifully subtle needle.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Brey17 said:


> I do appreciate threads like this that bring attention to a great brand.


I hardly think Rolex needs any more attention.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

omeglycine said:


> What a beautifully subtle needle.


I always enjoy seeing who goes after the low hanging fruit.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## junta (Oct 7, 2016)

heyheyuw said:


> This is a strange hobby. In other collecting hobbies, it's perfectly normal to have a repro to fill a spot where a legit piece is either unobtanium or cost prohibitive.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not with collectible statues. Recasts (fakes) are universally frowned upon. This does not reflect my opinion of the thread topic.


----------



## heyheyuw (Jan 31, 2015)

junta said:


> Not with collectible statues. Recasts (fakes) are universally frowned upon. This does not reflect my opinion of the thread topic.


Yeah, it's definitely hobby specific. With military firearms collectors, there are fakes and repros. One is universally reviled, and the other is perfectly acceptable if you use your collection. Safe queen collectors are a whole other story with an entirely different ethical reference, except they tend to encourage good, and identifiable as such, reproductions, as they keep original examples out of the hands of people with range memberships.

I have my own rules for the watches I wear, but they're mine. I have no beef with anyone for the watches they love. As long as they're not fakes designed to separate the uninitiated from their money through subterfuge and copyright infringement, e.g. the kind of watches we can't discuss in this forum.

Truthfully, I thought for a while before I bought my O1V, but it ended up being the most inspiring watch I own. It's big enough to fit my large wrists, I think the gold hands look amazing against the grey dial, and the warm dial markings just speak to me. Even if I could afford an actual 6200, it just wouldn't fit me. The Steiny fits a niche, and it's just a killer watch. The fact it's a homage doesn't bother me, particularly because it's a homage of a piece that I'll likely never see in person.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## junta (Oct 7, 2016)

I'm from a place with a lot of fakes and I consider them fakes because they not only copy design, they claim the brand as their own.

A shoe is a shoe until it claims to be a Nike (its not). Then, its a fake Nike shoe.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

junta said:


> I'm from a place with a lot of fakes and I consider them fakes because they not only copy design, they claim the brand as their own.
> 
> A shoe is a shoe until it claims to be a Nike (its not). Then, its a fake Nike shoe.


So as long is it does not say Nike, it's not a fake... it's a homage
Cool offerings from Hike, Knie, Nkie, Nibe, etc...


----------



## heyheyuw (Jan 31, 2015)

junta said:


> I'm from a place with a lot of fakes and I consider them fakes because they not only copy design, they claim the brand as their own.
> 
> A shoe is a shoe until it claims to be a Nike (its not). Then, its a fake Nike shoe.


That's exactly right.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## junta (Oct 7, 2016)

EnderW said:


> So as long is it does not say Nike, it's not a fake... it's a homage
> Cool offerings from Hike, Knie, Nkie, Nibe, etc...
> View attachment 10904145
> View attachment 10904153
> ...


Yes. Unethical? Maybe. Fake? Nope.


----------



## 5 Miler (Dec 30, 2016)

Only in your wildest dreams if you are a Steinhart owner.


----------



## Astropin (Dec 13, 2008)

EnderW said:


> I stand corrected. There was one comment calling someone cheap. One out of 116. And it was in response to another poster saying that he can afford a $50k watch but finds Rolex overpriced.


That was me he was responding to and that's exactly right. I find it funny that so many think it's funny that I find Rolex overpriced just becasue I could easily pick one tomorrow if I wanted to. Not sure why that's so unusual. One of my other hobbies is pinball machines. Now they can run anywhere from few hundred up to 50k for some really rare ones. I've bought and sold over 55k in machines over the last few years but to me no pinball machine is worth over 6k. It's just an arbitrary number I've come to. More than that and I have better things I can spend my money on (not watches). To me certain "things" max out at certain values and above that I would rather put my funds elsewhere.....whether it be a boat or car or property or just an investment. I've never spent more than 6k on a pinball machine and 5k on a single watch.....and I have no plans to do so.

Others are free to spend their money however they like (like I said in post #49 as well).


----------



## tecbarrera (Feb 12, 2017)

Astropin, you bring a very valid point into this interesting discussion. There's a maximum cost someone is willing to spend on a watch, particularly if it's for everyday use. I kinda see where the homage haters are coming from, but I stand by what I like. If I like the watch, I'll buy the watch, provided the opportunity cost is arbitrarily okay with me. What I detest and will not respect are homage haters that look down on people by what they own and pass judgement because of it. To each their own. That, I can respect.


----------



## Stellite (Aug 3, 2011)

I made an homage sandwich the other day, it tasted real good


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Brey17 said:


> I also keep reading people say that "without, Rolex this watch would never be in existence." Well, maybe, maybe not. I suspect the real reason they are bent out of shape from it is not the white knight defense of a billion dollar empire, but the fact that someone made its likeness so well and with pretty darn good quality materials and a REALLY good price. They will not admit it, and even deny they feel that way. I would probably do that if I tried to make an argument and didn't have a leg to stand on. Ie: It is not a fake, it is not illegal, it is not immoral to own, it is not immoral for Steinhart to produce AND most importantly, it does not say anything negative that is valid about you as an owner of one.


If it makes you feel better to think that everyone who decries a blatant design rip-off is doing so because they feel insecure, go right ahead. I mean, who in their right mind would value things like originality?

I refuse to buy or keep watches that are blatant rip-off of other designs. Something about a product that tries really hard to imitate something else sets me off. That's me personally. Obviously, you have no issues wearing a watch from a brand that makes it fortune piggy-backing off the designs of someone else. That's your choice and i have no issues with it.

You may want to reconsider quitting your day job in order to become someone who can divine the motivation of others, however.


----------



## ds760476 (Nov 7, 2011)

Don't think I've ever seen a Steinhart in the wild... Given that, I probably would assume, at quick glance, that it's a Rolex, since I see them daily. 

Any more than a quick glance would be weird.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

ds760476 said:


> Any more than a quick glance would be weird.


We are talking about folks who speculate on which watch Ian Fleming wore in some random photo.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

vkalia said:


> If it makes you feel better to think that everyone who decries a blatant design rip-off is doing so because they feel insecure, go right ahead. I mean, who in their right mind would value things like originality?


Buying an homage or design rip-off (your words) means that someone doesn't value originality?

Maybe we can start our side business of reading people's minds together.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

This is getting good...


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Stellite said:


> I made an homage sandwich the other day, it tasted real good


Whoa, looks delicious! Prefer salads myself . . .


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Brey17 said:


> Buying an homage or design rip-off (your words) means that someone doesn't value originality?


Yes, it is pretty much axiomatic in the context of this discussion.

If you buy a Steinhart design that is a clone of a Rolex Sub in everything except the logo, you are willing to settle for what absolutely and objectively is a design rip-off [making a factual statement here, not being judgemental]. At this point, it is pretty clear that originality isnt high on your list of purchase criteria.

And that is fine. I am not extrapolating from this into your personality, insecurities, etc. You have different purchasing criteria than mine, and that's all good. Buy what makes you happy.

There is no need for you to justify your preferences to me. However [_and this is what got me posting on this train wreck of a thread_] there is also no need for you to tell me that my preferences are based on insecurities (ie, that my personal aversion to homages is because they are almost as good as my Rolex and so make me feel bad, or whatever).


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

vkalia said:


> At this point, it is pretty clear that originality isnt high on your list of purchase criteria.


I mean your whole post is moot when you make this statement.

Have you seen all of the collections from the different posters in this thread? Drhr's salad collection, for example, shows the contradiction in your statements. I'm just using his because it's a simple and easy one to see at the moment.

We are not justifying our purchases. We're adding to the discussion by calling out statements like the one you just made.

We're all on this forum because we like watches and it's a fun an interesting hobby. In the end, a person who adds an homage to their collection, really isn't any different from somebody who won't. Some of these comments read to me like there are categories of people who collect watches. I just don't see it that way.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Would the "homage haters" vent on a great homage like the Longines - Hour Angle?


tecbarrera said:


> Astropin, you bring a very valid point into this interesting discussion. There's a maximum cost someone is willing to spend on a watch, particularly if it's for everyday use. I kinda see where the homage haters are coming from, but I stand by what I like. If I like the watch, I'll buy the watch, provided the opportunity cost is arbitrarily okay with me. What I detest and will not respect are homage haters that look down on people by what they own and pass judgement because of it. To each their own. That, I can respect.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

vkalia said:


> Yes, it is pretty much axiomatic in the context of this discussion.
> 
> If you buy a Steinhart design that is a clone of a Rolex Sub in everything except the logo, you are willing to settle for what absolutely and objectively is a design rip-off [making a factual statement here, not being judgemental]. At this point, it is pretty clear that originality isnt high on your list of purchase criteria.


I would disagree with that. A person can value originality in design and, at the same time, also value design that has managed for many reasons (including objectively-provable evidence of function, regulations such as ISO standards, wide adaptation by industry, and marketing) to remain relevant. In the case of the Steinhart, the original Submariner design, one that is no longer under copyright, is one that may be as highly-prized to the buyer of the watch as the originality in design of a Seiko Cocktail Time.

Certainly you are entitled to your view and folks shouldn't tell you otherwise. At the same time, I do think that this isn't necessarily an either-or. A Steinhart Sub buyer could both value originality of other designs and think the Steinhart represents what he thinks (rightly or not) to be timeless design. [Timeless is, of course, fiction, but I'll use the term to describe what others may feel.] I have no dog in this; I'm not a fan of either the Rolex Submariner or the Steinhart Sub, and I have my own preferences that disdain nearly all divers with external timing bezels. Just offering the view that this need not be seen in binary terms.

Since I don't own either a Rolex or a Steinhart, how about a Bulova?


----------



## Stellite (Aug 3, 2011)

drhr said:


> Whoa, looks delicious! Prefer salads myself . . .


Haha, I need to go make a salad....


----------



## DarthVedder (Jun 12, 2011)

vkalia said:


> If it makes you feel better to think that everyone who decries a blatant design rip-off is doing so because they feel insecure, go right ahead. I mean, who in their right mind would value things like originality?
> 
> I refuse to buy or keep watches that are blatant rip-off of other designs. Something about a product that tries really hard to imitate something else sets me off. That's me personally. Obviously, you have no issues wearing a watch from a brand that makes it fortune piggy-backing off the designs of someone else. That's your choice and i have no issues with it.


Nobody's judging you for your decisions. If you value Rolex and their designs enough to spend your hard earned money on them, that's great and usually your watches will be met with respect and admiration, and I don't think there are many around here who would question Rolex's quality, history and originality (pricing strategy is another matter). I agree with you and I also don't feel right about getting a homage of a watch that's still in production by the original manufacturer, but that's my choice and I never criticize others who feel differently. I did purchase a Steinhart OVM, but that one to me is different enough from regular Subs that I don't feel bad about it.

Personally, if I have nothing nice to say about what other people like and purchase with their money, I prefer to keep my opinions to myself.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

I think the topic veered quite far from original question. To soften the blow to some sensitive types and shift topic away from overpriced rare Rolexes, lets see if anyone else can share any stories...

Has anyone ever had their Norsk mistaken for Seiko Monster?
Anybody ever run into situation where their DeepBlue was confused for Seiko Turtle?
Did anyone go to Germany and get asked if their Rider or Rodina are Nomos?


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Anyone ever have their Skmei S-Shock mistaken for a G-shock? What happened? Also, did anyone try to get it wet (as it only offers 3 ATM WR)?


----------



## E8ArmyDiver (Aug 7, 2009)

EnderW said:


> I think the topic veered quite far from original question. To soften the blow to some sensitive types and shift topic away from overpriced rare Rolexes, lets see if anyone else can share any stories...
> 
> Has anyone ever had their Norsk mistaken for Seiko Monster?
> Anybody ever run into situation where their DeepBlue was confused for Seiko Turtle?
> ...


Well said!
With regard to the story about some Hollywierd star at a ball game I call BS!In this day & age ,a so called star,a 6 figure Rolex,a side by side with a Steinhart & NOT EVEN A 
SINGLE CRAPPY cellphone pic,BS!!!


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Has anyone ever bought their wife\gf\romatic interest a Skmei homage for birthday\valentine's day\christmas? Did she mistake it for Cartier? How long were you deprived of physical relations afterwards? Please share stories.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

E8ArmyDiver said:


> Well said!
> With regard to the story about some Hollywierd star at a ball game I call BS!In this day & age ,a so called star,a 6 figure Rolex,a side by side with a Steinhart & NOT EVEN A
> SINGLE CRAPPY cellphone pic,BS!!!


I think there are pictures by the guy who told the story 

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Watches/comments/331a72
photos here Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

It is perfectly possible to appreciate the real thing and the homage. DRHR is an example of a watch collector who has everything from invicta and Steinhart to JLC and Lange, plus few Rolexes... and can appreciate each watch for its own merits.

Oh crap, wasn't I arguing from the other perspective.... nevermind


----------



## Stellite (Aug 3, 2011)

EnderW said:


> I think the topic veered quite far from original question. To soften the blow to some sensitive types and shift topic away from overpriced rare Rolexes, lets see if anyone else can share any stories...
> 
> Has anyone ever had their Norsk mistaken for Seiko Monster?
> Anybody ever run into situation where their DeepBlue was confused for Seiko Turtle?
> ...


Wow, an homage of a seiko monster. You have to wonder why when you can get a monster for mid 200's


----------



## tecbarrera (Feb 12, 2017)

Drhr, that's a beautiful "salad"!


----------



## G. I. (Feb 28, 2015)

I like this "homage" euphemism for knock-offs, must be some kind of a self-soothing formula for butthurt wannabes, just like using "replica" instead of fake


----------



## heyheyuw (Jan 31, 2015)

Frankly, the lesson here is that 99% of people don't give a rip about what's on your wrist. Make yourself happy. 

Oh, and 83.25% of statistics are made up. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## E8ArmyDiver (Aug 7, 2009)

EnderW said:


> I think there are pictures by the guy who told the story
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Watches/comments/331a72
> ...


I stand corrected.Thanks for the link...


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Brey17 said:


> I mean your whole post is moot when you make this statement.
> 
> Have you seen all of the collections from the different posters in this thread? Drhr's salad collection, for example, shows the contradiction in your statements. I'm just using his because it's a simple and easy one to see at the moment.
> 
> ...


Ok, let me make the point very simply:

*My statement is: If "original design" is an important purchase criteria, that rules out a homage from purchases. *In other words, If you buy a homage, you value other things (looks, price, availability, whatever) more than original design.
Ok, there is an obvious exception, which is for people who have both the original and the homage (like drhr). But leaving that aside, this is pretty obvious and fairly non-controversial statement, so I am surprised at your constant arguing against it.

I have the feeling that you are interpreting this to be some kind of a dig or whatever. It is not. It is a simple statement about preferences, that's all, and there is no "better" or "worse" about it. There is no reason to feel threatened or insecure by this statement - there are plenty of other things to value in watches other than originality. As you said, someone who buys a homage isnt that different from someone who buys something else - we all like watches and i am cool with that.

One of my personal preferences with watches: I prefer not to buy watches that are blatant copies of others. Legal standing aside, that doesnt sit right with me and I would feel like a fake if i wore such a watch. And I only brought this up because someone said that insecurity is the reason for people being against homages.

This is my preference and applies to my purchases only - I do not expect others to have the same set of beliefs and have no issues with what others buy. However, if my asserting my preferences, despite all these qualifiers that they hold only to me and not others, makes others feel that I am being judgemental, that is on them.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> I would disagree with that. A person can value originality in design and, at the same time, also value design that has managed for many reasons (including objectively-provable evidence of function, regulations such as ISO standards, wide adaptation by industry, and marketing) to remain relevant. In the case of the Steinhart, the original Submariner design, one that is no longer under copyright, is one that may be as highly-prized to the buyer of the watch as the originality in design of a Seiko Cocktail Time.


Sure thing, man - no one buys a watch based purely on one criteria and I agree entirely with the above.

My point is simple - if factors X, Y and Z over-ride factor A, then factor A isnt the driving element of your purchase. Even with drhr's most excellent collection, I am pretty sure that when he purchased the Steinhart, "original design" was not a factor in his decision making. It may have been in others, but it wasnt for that particular purchase.

I have never once called out anyone who buys a homage (why should I? I have no issues with it and honestly, I *have* been tempted by a Steinhart myself - were it not for my "original design" preference, I'd have gotten one a while back) - but I get tired when those who dont like homages get called out for being insecure/show-offs/whatever. That just gets tedious.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

I have expressed this opinion before on another thread. I have no issues with watches that copy the designs of other more established brands, and there are many sensible reasons for purchasing one of these design copies instead of the original. I have a quite a few of these watches, including a Steinhart, Helson, and Borealis.

I do however find the term "homage" to be a misnomer when applied to such watches, and I prefer the term "copy." I don't mean anything derogatory by the use of this term, I just think it is a more honest and accurate description of what such watches are. I understand that some people are put off by the term, because the term "copy" and "replica" is used euphemistically to refer to fakes and counterfeit watches.


----------



## E8ArmyDiver (Aug 7, 2009)

mleok said:


> I do however find the term "homage" to be a misnomer when applied to such watches, and I prefer the term "copy." I don't mean anything derogatory by the use of this term, I just think it is a more honest and accurate description of what such watches are. I understand that some people are put off by the term, because the term "copy" and "replica" is used euphemistically to refer to fakes and counterfeit watches.


You can prefer to call it whatever you want but the FACT is without the EXACT case,dial,hands & printing,INCLUDING the brand name it is NOT a copy!!!While calling watches like the Corgeut or Parnis an homage IS a euphemism because they are copies & borderline fakes, watches like the Ocean Vintage Military or the Helson Skindiver are absolutely homages,paying respect to the watches they are "based"on,with subtle design changes,superior materials & manufacturing process setting them apart from the originals.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

oboy . .


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

E8ArmyDiver said:


> You can prefer to call it whatever you want but the FACT is without the EXACT case,dial,hands & printing,INCLUDING the brand name it is NOT a copy!!!


No, if it copied everything, then it would be a fake, not a copy.

There might not be a perfect descriptor of watches like the Steinhart, but to me, "design copy" is a far more accurate description than the term "homage".

I distinguish between functional convergence, such as external timing bezels, and design aspects, like the style of hands, markers, and typography. Let's be honest, don't you think the Steinhart logo is intentionally designed to evoke the Rolex coronet?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

E8ArmyDiver said:


> You can prefer to call it whatever you want but the FACT is without the EXACT case,dial,hands & printing,INCLUDING the brand name it is NOT a copy!!!While calling watches like the Corgeut or Parnis an homage IS a euphemism because they are copies & borderline fakes, watches like the Ocean Vintage Military or the Helson Skindiver are absolutely homages,paying respect to the watches they are "based"on,with subtle design changes,superior materials & manufacturing process setting them apart from the originals.


In retrospect, I had already addressed what you have to say in my earlier post.



mleok said:


> I understand that some people are put off by the term, because the term "copy" and "replica" is used euphemistically to refer to fakes and counterfeit watches.


----------



## Astropin (Dec 13, 2008)

mleok said:


> No, if it copied everything, then it would be a fake, not a copy.
> 
> There might not be a perfect descriptor of watches like the Steinhart, but to me, "design copy" is a far more accurate description than the term "homage".


Then when exactly do you use the term homage? To me that is exactly what a watch like the Steinhart OVM is. A nod to Rolex for a watch that is no longer made.

sent from my phone


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Astropin said:


> Then when exactly do you use the term homage? To me that is exactly what a watch like the Steinhart OVM is. A nod to Rolex for a watch that is no longer made.


The Tudor Black Bay is a perfect example of a true homage, it draws inspiration from a number of historical models, but is not simply a design copy of any specific model. Copying everything but the case size and logo, and using modern materials and manufacturing techniques does not make a watch a homage.

https://monochrome-watches.com/tudor-heritage-vintage-submariners-inspired-tudor-black-bay/


----------



## Astropin (Dec 13, 2008)

mleok said:


> The Tudor Black Bay is a perfect example of a true homage, it draws inspiration from a number of historical models, but is not simply a design copy of any specific model. Copying everything but the case size and logo, and using modern materials and manufacturing techniques does not make a watch a homage.


See....I think that's exactly what does make it a homage. It's not an exact copy.....therfore it's a homage.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

sent from my phone


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Astropin said:


> See....I think that's exactly what does make it a homage. It's not an exact copy.....therfore it's a homage.
> 
> We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.


Even a fake isn't an exact copy if you look hard enough.


----------



## crazyfingers (Jun 3, 2009)

Also, in the case of Tudor, it's a sub-brand of Rolex.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Astropin said:


> See....I think that's exactly what does make it a homage. It's not an exact copy.....therfore it's a homage.
> 
> We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.


By definition a copy does not need to be exact, it can be similar.

A replica is an exact copy.

A homage is something completely different. It doesn't even need to even look similar. The current Milgauss pays homage to the original 1956 Milgauss by use of the lightning bolt seconds hand, but otherwise the watches look nothing alike.

If the word 'copy' offends you, then go ahead and mis-use a nicer sounding word, but I doesn't make it right. You can agree to disagree, but your use of the word is still incorrect.

P.S. I have no problem with copies (or so called homages). However I do wonder if those who refuse to use the word 'copy' might be a little ashamed of them? I know *mleok* has a "homage" but isn't ashamed of it and willingly acknowledges it's a copy.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Brey17 said:


> Have you seen all of the collections from the different posters in this thread? Drhr's salad collection, for example, shows the contradiction in your statements.





vkalia said:


> Ok, there is an obvious exception, which is for people who have both the original and the homage (like drhr).


I don't agree that drhr's collection necessarily contradicts vkalia's statement, nor is it the exception.

More than anything else, drhr values aesthetics. He has told us many times that the look of the watch is by far the most important thing to him.

By him owning both the original and the copy, we cannot simply conclude that he strongly values originality.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Astropin said:


> Then when exactly do you use the term homage? To me that is exactly what a watch like the Steinhart OVM is. A nod to Rolex for a watch that is no longer made.


I could agree that the OVM might be a homage in the true use of the word, but what's wrong with saying that Steinhart paid homage to Rolex by copying the design of their watch. Or in other words the OVM is a Rolex copy that quite possibly is intended to show respect to the original.

I am totally fine with these statements, and don't believe they deride Steinhart in any way, but somehow I think many people will be offended by the correct use of the word copy.


----------



## Astropin (Dec 13, 2008)

cedargrove said:


> I could agree that the OVM might be a homage in the true use of the word, but what's wrong with saying that Steinhart paid homage to Rolex by copying the design of their watch. Or in other words the OVM is a Rolex copy that quite possibly is intended to show respect to the original.


I think saying Steinhart "paid homage to Rolex by copying the design" is exactly right.

I have no issue with that description. That pretty much defines "homage" in the watch world.

sent from my phone


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

So based on a last few pages... another interesting question... which is more of a copy or replica:
- a legal homage that looks just like original article, except for logo\brand
or
- an illegal fake which uses trademarked logo and brand name, but looks nothing like what it is trying to pass for (thinking all those ersatz tourbillon pateks that look like no model ever made by PP)


----------



## DarthVedder (Jun 12, 2011)

Copy, homage, potato, potatoe. It's undeniable that Steinhart just copies a lot of design elements from Rolex, IWC and other brands. They even made some ridiculous design decisions just to have a closer copy, like misstating the OVM's depth rating on the dial. Claiming that Steinhart copies from other brands is just a statement of fact.

I do take exception with the word "fake", because it means that someone is trying to deceive others by selling/purchasing an illegal item.


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

Ultimately, the debate surrounding the correct terminology for what I will call "submariner derived" designs centers on our perception of the makers' motivation. 

Of course a primary goal of nearly all businesses is to make a profit. To what extent we assign that motivation to Steinhart, Invicta, etc in the debated designs likely influences our comfort with the terms "homage", "copy", etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stellite (Aug 3, 2011)

one is a fake, the other is a copy. Big difference. The copy looks like the original but is named different. Like the steinhart ocean one. from 5 feet it looks like a submariner right down to the mercedes hands and cyclops. But it has it's own name. That is a copy or homage. A fake is a fake. Putting the registered trademark of one company on an item you made is called a fake, but I know you know that, lol.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

omeglycine said:


> Ultimately, the debate surrounding the correct terminology for what I will call "submariner derived" designs centers on our perception of the makers' motivation.
> 
> Of course a primary goal of nearly all businesses is to make a profit. To what extent we assign that motivation to Steinhart, Invicta, etc in the debated designs likely influences our comfort with the terms "homage", "copy", etc.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


But it's a question of strategy, not objective. The objective is to be profitable. But the strategy may or may not be to achieve that profitability by appealing to a market established by a higher-priced brand. Motive doesn't matter and we can't know them anyway. But when a watch is clearly trading on the appearance of a much more expensive or marketable watch, then the intent is clear, and intent identifies the strategy.

That says nothing about the motives of the buyer, which we also cannot know. But behavior often identifies intent--those who want people to think their Steinhart is a Rolex are often obvious.

It's true, of course, that the submariner style contains many ubiquitous elements present is a variety of watches that derive from original French military spec, but I think it's not that hard to divine intent, when we mix that with our own motives and intent.

Rick "it's not an homage of the intent is to steal market--it's a competitor" Denney


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

Rdenney said:


> But it's a question of strategy, not objective. The objective is to be profitable. But the strategy may or may not be to achieve that profitability by appealing to a market established by a higher-priced brand. Motive doesn't matter and we can't know them anyway. But when a watch is clearly trading on the appearance of a much more expensive or marketable watch, then the intent is clear, and intent identifies the strategy.
> 
> That says nothing about the motives of the buyer, which we also cannot know. But behavior often identifies intent--those who want people to think their Steinhart is a Rolex are often obvious.
> 
> ...


More or less my take as well, skipping B on the way to C, and leaving D to the reader.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

Rdenney said:


> Rick "it's not an homage of the intent is to steal market--it's a competitor" Denney


You are saying Steinhart might not be an homage watch company because they are actually vying for buyers from Rolex and IWC? They make a watch so close that people are purchasing so they can pass it off for a Rolex or IWC, logo notwithstanding?


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Yep, in the "watch world" that wears Rose Colored Glasses.


Astropin said:


> I think saying Steinhart "paid homage to Rolex by copying the design" is exactly right.
> 
> I have no issue with that description. That pretty much defines "homage" in the watch world.
> 
> sent from my phone


----------



## run23 (Jul 12, 2009)

Rdenney said:


> But it's a question of strategy, not objective. The objective is to be profitable. But the strategy may or may not be to achieve that profitability by appealing to a market established by a higher-priced brand. Motive doesn't matter and we can't know them anyway. But when a watch is clearly trading on the appearance of a much more expensive or marketable watch, then the intent is clear, and intent identifies the strategy.
> 
> That says nothing about the motives of the buyer, which we also cannot know. But behavior often identifies intent--those who want people to think their Steinhart is a Rolex are often obvious.
> 
> ...


Great, this is what companies should be doing. More consumer choice and cheaper pices.


----------



## Astropin (Dec 13, 2008)

Watchbreath said:


> Yep, in the "watch world" that wears Rose Colored Glasses.


Your response makes no sense to me since I was stating a fact, not an opinion.

Clearly "most" WIS are perfectly comfortable with homages......but not fakes.

sent from my phone


----------



## rackness (May 27, 2006)

I just start by saying nice Invicta and go from there.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

I call them for what they are; knockoffs.


Astropin said:


> Your response makes no sense to me since I was stating a fact, not an opinion.
> 
> Clearly "most" WIS are perfectly comfortable with homages......but not fakes.
> 
> sent from my phone


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Brey17 said:


> You are saying Steinhart might not be an homage watch company because they are actually vying for buyers from Rolex and IWC? They make a watch so close that people are purchasing so they can pass it off for a Rolex or IWC, logo notwithstanding?


No, not really. But companies like them are certainly looking for those who want a Rolex but can't afford one. That many of their customers are not doing so doesn't mean that isn't their intent. I have no beef with those who like the Steinhart for its own sake, but I wonder if they could sustain the company's business model.

We notice the differences because we are experts of a sort. But the question is: did they start with a Sub and make enough changes to qualify as different, or did they start with a generic diver and it ended up being close? Or, did they start with parts in a catalog that some wholesale manufacturer modeled on a Sub? I don't really know, but I have a guess.

Rick "who doesn't mind cheaper alternatives, but who isn't deluded about them" Denney


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

Homages, homages everywhere























































Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## rackness (May 27, 2006)

^^^^they truly capture the essence of the originals.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

Rdenney said:


> No, not really. But companies like them are certainly looking for those who want a Rolex but can't afford one. That many of their customers are not doing so doesn't mean that isn't their intent. I have no beef with those who like the Steinhart for its own sake, but I wonder if they could sustain the company's business model.
> 
> We notice the differences because we are experts of a sort. But the question is: did they start with a Sub and make enough changes to qualify as different, or did they start with a generic diver and it ended up being close? Or, did they start with parts in a catalog that some wholesale manufacturer modeled on a Sub? I don't really know, but I have a guess.
> 
> Rick "who doesn't mind cheaper alternatives, but who isn't deluded about them" Denney


Ok, I am tracking you. I agree with your assessment.

I was imagining the plausibility of a potential Rolex buyer who is willing to spend the money, doing a side by side comparison and then choosing a Steinhart simply to save the money. And then, imagining Steinhart thinking 'aha, we are going to try to lure business away from Rolex by creating a cheaper alternative'. It may rarely happen, I am not sure.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Brey17 said:


> I was imagining the plausibility of a potential Rolex buyer who is willing to spend the money, doing a side by side comparison and then choosing a Steinhart simply to save the money. And then, imagining Steinhart thinking 'aha, we are going to try to lure business away from Rolex by creating a cheaper alternative'. It may rarely happen, I am not sure.


Well, it's difficult to do a side by side comparison prior to purchase since Steinhart and Rolex aren't sold in the same retail stores, and Steinhart has a fairly limited retail network.

I suspect that only a small portion of people who are seriously considering purchasing a Rolex would change their minds and buy a Steinhart instead, and that the portion would be smaller still if a side by side comparison could be easily done.

However, there are many people who are attracted to the Rolex Submariner design who aren't willing or able to pay the price for one, and are looking to purchase a visually similar design at a lower price, and that is what Steinhart caters to. Indeed, a cursory look at Steinhart's entire lineup indicates that offering watches that are visually similar to much more iconic watches is the bread and butter of their business.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Put another way, either the Rolex Submariner is the perfect embodiment of "form follows function," and the ubiquity of Submariner "homages" are simply a reflection of functional convergence, or "homage" watches are capitalizing on the popularity of the Submariner. I think it should be fairly obvious which statement is a more accurate reflection of reality.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

mleok said:


> Put another way, either the Rolex Submariner is the perfect embodiment of "form follows function," and the ubiquity of Submariner "homages" are simply a reflection of functional convergence, or "homage" watches are capitalizing on the popularity of the Submariner. I think it should be fairly obvious which statement is a more accurate reflection of reality.


Agreed. Wonder if this gets to the heart of the matter why people get upset that a Steinhart might be mistaken for a Rolex from time to time and in turn hate on brand.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Brey17 said:


> Agreed. Wonder if this gets to the heart of the matter why people get upset that a Steinhart might be mistaken for a Rolex from time to time and in turn hate on brand.


In terms of watches being mistaken for a Submariner, I suspect that Steinhart accounts for a minuscule fraction compared to fakes and Invictas. Perhaps Steinhart suffers from the same problem as Rolex, some owners behave like jerks, and that in turn tarnishes the entire brand image.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

mleok said:


> In terms of watches being mistaken for a Submariner, I suspect that Steinhart accounts for a minuscule fraction compared to fakes and Invictas. Perhaps Steinhart suffers from the same problem as Rolex, some owners behave like jerks, and that in turn tarnishes the entire brand image.


Hehe, sorry... I meant in relation to the conversation in this particular thread. It went from stories about Steinhart being mistaken for Rolex to a debate about the term homage and how it relates to Steinhart.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Brey17 said:


> Hehe, sorry... I meant in relation to the conversation in this particular thread. It went from stories about Steinhart being mistaken for Rolex to a debate about the term homage and how it relates to Steinhart.


Ultimately, I suspect that most people would be happy to live and let live if their motivations, intellect, and moral fiber weren't constantly analyzed by armchair psychologists solely on the basis of their watch purchases. I think this issue applies equally to both owners of the originals and the homages.


----------



## Astropin (Dec 13, 2008)

mleok said:


> Ultimately, I suspect that most people would be happy to live and let live if their motivations, intellect, and moral fiber weren't constantly analyzed by armchair psychologists solely on the basis of their watch purchases. I think this issue applies equally to both owners of the originals and the homages.


Now that I can agree with!

sent from my phone


----------



## WatchMeSpend (Sep 5, 2010)

Wear real watches or wear fake watches. but beware. You are being judged ten times harder on your choice of footwear...


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

WatchMeSpend said:


> Wear real watches or wear fake watches. but beware. You are being judged ten times harder on your choice of footwear...


Pretty much. Chances are just one percent of people may give a watch more than a passing glance -- and it is more-likely that those folks will cream in their proverbial shorts because they just got to see a watch they rarely see in the wild. Be it Rolex or Steinhart.


----------



## Astropin (Dec 13, 2008)

WatchMeSpend said:


> Wear real watches or wear fake watches. but beware. You are being judged ten times harder on your choice of footwear...


Good thing I'm the boss 😉

sent from my phone


----------



## WatchMeSpend (Sep 5, 2010)

Astropin said:


> Good thing I'm the boss 
> 
> sent from my phone


Didn't save my boss. I had to break the bad news to him that black shoes (well boots really) don't really go with his jeans and every other pair of pants he owns.

So far the only guy who is close to getting it is one of the senior directors. He needs to stop wearinng the same shoe almost every day and get some shoe trees.


----------



## tecbarrera (Feb 12, 2017)

Well, this settles it. Proudly showed my Steinhart GMT to my dad. "Hey Dad! Check out my new Steinhart! It's a German microbrand made in Switzerland!" Dad (who owns a couple Rolexs himself) inspects the watch closely for a minute. "Very nice! Solid! Looks like a Rolex!" and walks off.


----------



## RubyRose (Feb 27, 2017)

I was in the dentist chair getting treatment wearing my ocean one vintage red and it wasn't long before I was asked was it a Rolex and commented on how nice it was. 

This is before I knew about watches. Now I would never wear a steinhart as to me they are just a blatant Rolex rip off


----------



## tecbarrera (Feb 12, 2017)

> I was in the dentist chair getting treatment wearing my ocean one vintage red and it wasn't long before I was asked was it a Rolex and commented on how nice it was.
> 
> This is before I knew about watches. Now I would never wear a steinhart as to me they are just a blatant Rolex rip off​


Interested in selling your Ocean One Vintage Red then?


----------



## arogle1stus (May 23, 2013)

Lets just say the great "uniformed" often mistake cheeper'n Rolex as the reel deel.
Even the Victer 8926. A blatant knockoff of Rollies Subs.

Rolex: "Often copied, but never duplicated" (in fact i.e.) My Urologist owns a new
Sub. Mistaking a knockoff for the reel deel is like mistaking a Hopi or Zuni for an
Apache. Meet an Apache and you'll know the difference. Meet a Sub and you'll spot
the difference.

X Traindriver Art


----------



## Minorcollector (Dec 28, 2015)

If Rolex ever made a 42mm Sub I might be interested. I am quite happy with my Ocean One. The larger size really hits the spot for me. I have a couple of friends with Subs and I just don't like the 40mm size.


----------



## kotomichi (May 13, 2017)

My friend has a Steinhart and people at work envy him a lot when he wears it. They cannot recognize a JLC, but a Steinhart makes an impression on them.


----------



## sleepy96 (Feb 24, 2014)

RubyRose said:


> I was in the dentist chair getting treatment wearing my ocean one vintage red and it wasn't long before I was asked was it a Rolex and commented on how nice it was.
> 
> This is before I knew about watches. Now I would never wear a steinhart as to me they are just a blatant Rolex rip off


What about Steinharts that aren't?

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

kotomichi said:


> My friend has a Steinhart and people at work envy him a lot when he wears it. They cannot recognize a JLC, but a Steinhart makes an impression on them.


let me fix that ...

They cannot recognize a JLC, *hence *a Steinhart makes an impression on them.


----------



## Rolo (May 14, 2011)

Just amazed at the level of snobbery in this thread...maybe ive just been away from the forum for too long to remember..


----------



## SamaelStrings (Apr 17, 2017)

I had a Parnis sterile dial deep sea mistaken for a Rolex.

It's not difficult to copy a look and pass it off as similar. It's much more difficult to copy a look and have it easily identifiable as something completely it's own.

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk


----------



## timefleas (Oct 10, 2008)

So much pomp, so little circumstance.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Distaste of a knockoff is not "snobbery".


Rolo said:


> Just amazed at the level of snobbery in this thread...maybe ive just been away from the forum for too long to remember..


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

Homage to a watch Rolex made to fill a Royal Navy military contract which was never officially sold to the public. It wasn't the first 5517 homage and there have been several others since.










Review: Steinhart Ocean Vintage Military - worn&wound

A Submariner-esque Selection - worn&wound

Steinhart Ocean Vintage Military Black DLC

This Celebrity at a baseball game OVM 5517 story has been posted before:


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Watches/comments/331a72

His wife thought the OVM was prettier than her man's 5517, noted in the OPs later comments

"He was extremely humble and was so excited to talk about watches. He asked me about the OVM and how impressed he was with the homage. So for those of you guys on the fence about "homages", the owner of a 5517 approves your future purchase of an OVM "

A newer 5517 homage which does the Steinhart one better is the 40mm Amphion which has a usefull fully lumed 60 minute bezel


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

No matter how long and how many we would like to discuss this topic. We all know...

















It not the same.


----------



## mrhy56 (Jan 4, 2013)

I saw what i thought was a 1655 explorer ll ,turned out to be a steinhart


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

Time for a sophisticated cabaret show.










My Rolex Sub Date is so well executed, most people think I am wearing a Steinhart.


----------



## F.Alexander (Mar 27, 2017)

I think any sub-looking watch could be mistaken for a Rolex given that that it is about the only luxury brand watch most people know of. It has more to do with people's ignorance of watches, than it does with Steinharts being "mistaken" for a Rolex more than any other homage. I'd be more interested in seeing the puzzled, disappointed look on people's faces when you tell them "no, it's a Steinhart".


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Me thinks more eyes would roll and 'snicker' than anything.


F.Alexander said:


> I think any sub-looking watch could be mistaken for a Rolex given that that it is about the only luxury brand watch most people know of. It has more to do with people's ignorance of watches, than it does with Steinharts being "mistaken" for a Rolex more than any other homage. I'd be more interested in seeing the puzzled, disappointed look on people's faces when you tell them "no, it's a Steinhart".


----------



## RotorRonin (Oct 3, 2014)

F.Alexander said:


> I think any sub-looking watch could be mistaken for a Rolex given that that it is about the only luxury brand watch most people know of. It has more to do with people's ignorance of watches, than it does with Steinharts being "mistaken" for a Rolex more than any other homage.


This. I was asked if my Orient Ray was a Rolex _three _times in the maybe two years I owned one. Once by my wife, who I later found out was afraid to ask if I'd gone overboard and spent thousands on a watch.


----------



## F.Alexander (Mar 27, 2017)

StogieNinja said:


> This. I was asked if my Orient Ray was a Rolex _three _times in the maybe two years I owned one. Once by my wife, who I later found out was afraid to ask if I'd gone overboard and spent thousands on a watch.


Personally, i like the Orients better than most of the other homage watches. They look much more expensive than they are, especially at a glance. People have really gone overboard with the Steinhart thing. I get it though. I had one myself and every time I wore it, my cancer would go into remission.


----------



## Stelyos (Jun 23, 2015)

wuyeah said:


> View attachment 11827722


Is that a teenage girl????

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## jfwund (Jan 13, 2016)

Funny. I actually had to google an image of the Rolex Milsub that my OVM is based on this morning to convince my wife that my Steinhart actually does look like a Rolex. She mentioned Rolex first - saying that she didn't like how they looked, and they'd be better if they looked like my watch. When I showed her, she said. "Huh. None of the women's Rolexes I've seen look like that."

Funny.


Actually, on further reflection...

uh oh


----------



## heboil (Jan 14, 2010)

I once had a co-worker state, "that's not a Rolex" when I was wearing my OVM. Until then, I really didn't give it much thought (homage/schmomage). However, that comment struck a chord. That was probably the tipping point for me selling it off.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Stelyos said:


> Is that a teenage girl????
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Yea, a very, very rich 1


----------



## Minorcollector (Dec 28, 2015)

heboil said:


> I once had a co-worker state, "that's not a Rolex" when I was wearing my OVM. Until then, I really didn't give it much thought (homage/schmomage). However, that comment struck a chord. That was probably the tipping point for me selling it off.


So some dick at work tried to call you out on your watch and you decided to cave and sell it? Let that arrogant a-hole buy you a Rolex if he's that offended. Is he/she a Rolex owner or just someone who likes to belittle people (or both)?


----------



## Stelyos (Jun 23, 2015)

drhr said:


> Yea, a very, very rich 1


Does that matter to you?? If it does, I feel sorry for you...






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## heboil (Jan 14, 2010)

Minorcollector said:


> So some dick at work tried to call you out on your watch and you decided to cave and sell it? Let that arrogant a-hole buy you a Rolex if he's that offended. Is he/she a Rolex owner or just someone who likes to belittle people (or both)?


I wouldn't say I caved... I just didn't want to be in that spot again. I buy and sell tons anyway and would likely have sold it at some point, but I will fess up that my sale was accelerated. I couldn't care less that the guy knew it wasn't a Rolex... as I bought it because I liked it and not because it was Rolex-like. I just didn't want to be seen as someone who was 'trying' to wear Rolex. Sounds a little light... and maybe it is.


----------



## Stoshman (Jun 26, 2015)

I was at a salad bar once and a slice of cucumber fell onto my wrist.

The guy next to me asked if I was wearing a Rolex. "Yes", I answered; "A Kermit Sub".


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

Stelyos said:


> Is that a teenage girl????
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


LOL.....yep, you are not dreaming. This is the inspiration actually.


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

Stoshman said:


> I was at a salad bar once and a slice of cucumber fell onto my wrist.
> 
> The guy next to me asked if I was wearing a Rolex. "Yes", I answered; "A Kermit".


This is a good one!


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Stelyos said:


> Does that matter to you?? If it does, I feel sorry for you...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


matters as much to me as your earlier question/point matters to u


----------



## motogt68 (Apr 14, 2017)

Love the Steinhart brand! Great timepieces


----------



## WatchThisKnifeThat (Dec 1, 2010)

I dig what Steinhart has put out. Funny watching others get their panties in a bunch over blatant fan boy-ism or stubborn trains of thought. Despite the deliverance of negative energy a person is allowed their opinion so off the shoulder it rolls! 

If you have an outward problem towards a person for something they like/wear, that's just a reflection of your own personal insecurities. 

Every idea has been produced by copying and collective inspiration.


----------



## Minorcollector (Dec 28, 2015)

WatchThisKnifeThat said:


> I dig what Steinhart has put out. Funny watching others get their panties in a bunch over blatant fan boy-ism or stubborn trains of thought. Despite the deliverance of negative energy a person is allowed their opinion so off the shoulder it rolls!
> 
> If you have an outward problem towards a person for something they like/wear, that's just a reflection of your own personal insecurities.
> 
> Every idea has been produced by copying and collective inspiration.


It's the same with Harley Davidson owners looking down at Japanese "copies".  You talk about heated discussions...


----------



## jsohal (Feb 21, 2014)

Pretty much this.


ed21x said:


> They're actually pretty well made. I have a steinhart sitting harmoniously next to a rolex sub.
> 
> Some people just like the style. Considering the design is 60+ years old now, it's about time we start accepting the design as generic, as it's been adopted so many times around. Yes, Rolex came up with it, but other iconic designs such as the Marine or Pilot watch have their origins with a single brand too and got widespread adoption without being called 'homages.' Bottom line, not everyone cares about company heritage, and using the submarine style does not infringe on any company patents or trademarks. Putting "Rolex" on a counterfeit is deceptive, but the design is pretty much public domain now.


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

WatchThisKnifeThat said:


> If you have an outward problem towards a person for something they like/wear, that's just a reflection of your own personal insecurities.


And what does it say about the person wearing and supports a brand and watches that blatantly copies its design from other brands and watches? Fake, pretender, phony are words that come to mind.

By wearing a fake or a copy watch, it's the truest reflection of that person's own personal insecurities of needing to pretend to be someone they are not.


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

WatchThisKnifeThat said:


> I dig what Steinhart has put out. Funny watching others get their panties in a bunch over blatant fan boy-ism or stubborn trains of thought. Despite the deliverance of negative energy a person is allowed their opinion so off the shoulder it rolls!
> 
> If you have an outward problem towards a person for something they like/wear, that's just a reflection of your own personal insecurities.
> 
> Every idea has been produced by copying and collective inspiration.


Being legal and accepting copying is not the same. No doubt Steinhart is legal but everyone value copyright the same. Many think being legal, that all their concern. Buying at ease. Not being fooled by a fake. Some will think direct copy is not morally right.

It has NOTHING to do with fan boy complain. Accepting copying, is the first step why fake exist in this world in the first place. Copying someone's idea "it's not a big deal" that is the attitude. Consumer weight "value" over copyright. It is understandable but because you are NOT the one who did the hard work, or the thought designing it. If you put yourself in designer's shoe, would you agree the importance of the copyright the same?

To come out with an original design that works, takes money for development. Test several prototype. Going back to the drawing board to deal with new issue. Testing new materials....etc. Development cost lots effort and lots money. Doesn't matter it were done long time ago or just came out last month. Development isn't easy task before the final product introduced.

Then, someone came along, take that idea, without change much, just copying it and provide a fraction of cost. Of course they can, they didn't dedicate as much effort. Life is easy. Well, it's all legal but Is it fair?

Some value the originality highly because that is "the right thing to do". That is not about being fan boys give a baby cry because the watch they own is being copied. It is like environmental issues. Some people care greatly and some just don't care as long consumer gets cheaper of everything. Care for the environment is still important, why? because, again, it is "the right thing to do".

I will not judge people who buy so call homage but do not down play folks who cares about copyright. Copying for profit is simply not right. To stand for what is right, stubborn attitude is needed to guard that value.

Rolex being a rich giant doesn't make it alright to copy. What if that very popular creative design is from a small startup company. Copying can put the small company at survival risk. They might not have a 2nd chance to introduce another successful design unless they are born wealthy. Buying original is like saying "thank you, I've appreciate what you have done. and I will support your future offering".

Submariner design is not a "collective inspiration". Even original Blancpain Fifty Fathoms looks different than the Submariner. Majority did copied Submariner over the Fifty Fathoms. Somehow more consumers prefer the Submariner since 50s.

Yes, it is true. Every idea today has been produces, copied and inspired but most can still be traced back to the origin of the earliest idea. That is why in watches history matters. Loving watches, loving history and craftsmanship all together.

Love watches and not value copyright is a passion without a soul.

I won't attack your choice or believes but do not mock people who value copyright highly.

Respect copyright is a responsibility.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

mav said:


> And what does it say about the person wearing and supports a brand and watches that blatantly copies its design from other brands and watches? Fake, pretender, phony are words that come to mind.
> 
> By wearing a fake or a copy watch, it's the truest reflection of that person's own personal insecurities of needing to pretend to be someone they are not.


oh pleez . . .


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

mav said:


> And what does it say about the person wearing and supports a brand and watches that blatantly copies its design from other brands and watches? Fake, pretender, phony are words that come to mind.
> 
> By wearing a fake or a copy watch, it's the truest reflection of that person's own personal insecurities of needing to pretend to be someone they are not.


I wouldn't go that far. If it is not a fake but a copy homage, people simply love the design and don't want to overspend on the original. In some way, they do not want to support fakes so at least they are doing something right. It has nothing to do with insecurities, they just have different priorities in life. Most them own houses, cars, several kids education, eating fancy...etc. To support the original is not their priority concern. I am sure, most of them can afford the original. Watches may not be their only hobby. They can be happy riding $4000 bicycle or firing a $14,000 50BMG Barrett and be happy that they only spend $400 on a Steinhart.

Life is good, doesn't matter how others enjoy it.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Often I think it's best for me to avoid wearing both original pricey watch and copy watch. YMMV.

There could be some sort of interpretation by others either way.

I'm an average guy, I wear an average watch in front of others, and no one thinks anything of it, or they think I'm an average guy.

Sometimes I wish I could wear what I like, but watches are filled with symbolism that some people, including me, read and interpret. Sometimes not wearing a watch seems alright. No watch, no meaning/message/symbolism. Or ordinary watch, ordinary meaning/message/symbolism.

Wearing a watch just as a watch to me, is that possible? I guess so, but in the end, a particular watch does say something to me, and I assume it says something to some others by extension. If I don't think about it, then all this disappear. But if I don't think about it, then really, any or no watch will do.


----------



## Minorcollector (Dec 28, 2015)

wuyeah said:


> I wouldn't go that far. If it is not a fake but a copy homage, people simply love the design and don't want to overspend on the original. In some way, they do not want to support fakes so at least they are doing something right. It has nothing to do with insecurities, they just have different priorities in life. Most them own houses, cars, several kids education, eating fancy...etc. To support the original is not their priority concern. I am sure, most of them can afford the original. Watches may not be their only hobby. They can be happy riding $4000 bicycle or firing a $14,000 50BMG Barrett and be happy that they only spend $400 on a Steinhart.
> 
> Life is good, doesn't matter how others enjoy it.


This. I don't want a $5,000 watch. In fact, if someone gave me $5,000 to spend on anything I wanted, I would not spend it on a luxury watch. I spend my money on other things. I feel no desire to drop a wad on jewelry. I am perfectly happy with my Steinhart. So many other products in our lives are very similar to other things that it really isn't worth getting upset about.


----------



## Minorcollector (Dec 28, 2015)

rdoder said:


> Often I think it's best for me to avoid wearing both original pricey watch and copy watch. YMMV.
> 
> There could be some sort of interpretation by others either way.
> 
> ...


Your first problem is that you are concerned about what others think. Your second problem is that you think other people care about what watch you are wearing. Literally nobody is trying to interpret your watch. Nobody.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Minorcollector said:


> Your first problem is that you are concerned about what others think. Your second problem is that you think other people care about what watch you are wearing. Literally nobody is trying to interpret your watch. Nobody.


I think being concerned about what others think to some degree is natural for social beings.

If other people don't care about what watch other people are wearing, then there would be no discussion at all in this thread.

Or the appearance of one watch or another on anyone else would make no difference. e.g. There would be the same "congratulations" to anyone, whether they bought a $5 watch or a $10k watch. But that's not true, at least from what I see in myself and others.

So that tells me people do care about what watch others are wearing. Or if people don't care about what others are wearing, then a CEO who wears brand X versus a CEO who wears brand Y should make no difference; or it doesn't matter at all what watch one wears to a date or to an interview; or a diver watch is the same as a dress watch when paired with formal clothes; or it wouldn't matter if one wears an original, a homage/copy, or a fake, at least when it comes to what others think. But from what I read at WUS, people do think certain things about people who wear original, homage/copy, or fake.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

mav said:


> And what does it say about the person wearing and supports a brand and watches that blatantly copies its design from other brands and watches? Fake, pretender, phony are words that come to mind.
> 
> By wearing a fake or a copy watch, it's the truest reflection of that person's own personal insecurities of needing to pretend to be someone they are not.


As a strategic communications guy, reporter, and activist, I have worked with (and interviewed) a lot of fake, terrible, narcissistic and sociopathic people who wear real watches and other genuine goods. I have also worked with kind-hearted, wonderful, giving, talented, successful people who own homage watches and even counterfeit handbags. They also admit it when asked.

The former have done little for society and have greatly harmed it. Yet their wares are real. The latter have done far more good for the world than any of us on this forum -- and sometimes, they just want a Rolex Submariner style of watch without the accompanying price tag.

You, sir, mistaken ownership of worldly goods with quality of character. Perhaps you should read a Bible or a Torah or Plato to work on this particular defect of yours as a human being.


----------



## Minorcollector (Dec 28, 2015)

rdoder said:


> I think being concerned about what others think to some degree is natural for social beings.
> 
> If other people don't care about what watch other people are wearing, then there would be no discussion at all in this thread.
> 
> ...


I think you mistakenly believe that an expensive watch makes people think better of you. 99% of the population couldn't care less and don't even notice...and a significant portion of the remainder actually consider luxury watches as frivolous. No, it doesn't matter watch watch you wear to an interview or with a suit as long as it's appropriate. A $30 dress Pulsar is just as appropriate as any Rolex. If the girl you are dating is judging you by your watch...run away. There is a difference between being socially acceptable and wanting to have a good image...and spending a small fortune on a watch to try to impress people. Personally, I don't want to associate with people who would judge me by my watch.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Minorcollector said:


> I think you mistakenly believe that an expensive watch makes people think better of you. 99% of the population couldn't care less and don't even notice...and a significant portion of the remainder actually consider luxury watches as frivolous. No, it doesn't matter watch watch you wear to an interview or with a suit as long as it's appropriate. A $30 dress Pulsar is just as appropriate as any Rolex. If the girl you are dating is judging you by your watch...run away. There is a difference between being socially acceptable and wanting to have a good image...and spending a small fortune on a watch to try to impress people. Personally, I don't want to associate with people who would judge me by my watch.


It's true, probably most people in the general public don't notice and don't care.

I guess what matters to me is what I think.

I wear a generic, relatively inexpensive watch in front of others. That applies if I go to an interview or go ask for a pay raise, if I were to go to a date, or if I go to any social activity. To each their own.

I think wearing a recognizable expensive watch does make others think this person has wealth, if others care about and notice watches.


----------



## MarkieB (Feb 25, 2017)

Typical responses to a tongue-in-cheek question.

The "fake people wear fake things" is always posted by someone. However Levi Strauss patented Jeans in 1873 so if you're wearing jeans that don't say Levis on them you're a fake person. That's all of us then.

The reason most people wear fakes, replicas or copies is because they can't afford the real thing, doesn't make them fake. 

And there is no such thing as a fake Rolex (or anything else for that matter). It's either fake or a Rolex and can't be both. The correct expression is "a fake of a Rolex."

For there to be a Fake Rolex, Rolex would need to make a model called "Fake" My guess is it'd be a good seller and one in the eye for the covers. In fact I'll suggest it to Rolex now and see what they say....(and yes I do mean it)


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

rdoder said:


> I think being concerned about what others think to some degree is natural for social beings.
> 
> If other people don't care about what watch other people are wearing, then there would be no discussion at all in this thread.
> 
> ...


Yes, and it just shows how stupid we are (and there are those who think like this "out there" too) . . .


----------



## Minorcollector (Dec 28, 2015)

MarkieB said:


> Typical responses to a tongue-in-cheek question.
> 
> The "fake people wear fake things" is always posted by someone. However Levi Strauss patented Jeans in 1873 so if you're wearing jeans that don't say Levis on them you're a fake person. That's all of us then.
> 
> ...


Or sometimes the copy is better in some regard based on consumer preferences (the Steinhart is 42mm...perfect for my taste), or sometimes people choose not to indulge in luxury items and see no value added in the original when a suitable substitute can be had for pennies on the dollar. Some people just don't want to be perceived as the kind of person who would invest that kind of money on watches. The whole "can't afford the real thing" argument is insulting to those who choose a different product. There are plenty of people with high-dollar watches who live in a cheap apartment or drive cheap cars or wear cheap clothes. Then there are others who have really nice cars and nice houses who buy their watches at Walmart. Priorities. You spend your money on things that are important to you.


----------



## uplockjock (Nov 29, 2016)

you have a very busy brain, don't you?


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Minorcollector said:


> There are plenty of people with high-dollar watches who live in a cheap apartment or drive cheap cars or wear cheap clothes. Then there are others who have really nice cars and nice houses who buy their watches at Walmart. Priorities. You spend your money on things that are important to you.


Exactly. My wife and I earn plenty of money. We own two eight year old Mazda6 sedans (bought a year after they were produced) and an 11-year-old Volvo (bought from my mother-in-law for cheap) because we prefer to spend our money on vacations, fine art, and watches as well as donate to charity.

My next door neighbor and his wife earn probably $200,000 a year working for Washington's public transit system. They buy antique cars to fix up because they are car enthusiasts and he likes fixing cars (he has a mechanic's shop complete with the latest diagnostic systems). He owns just one G-Shock, a 10-year-old watch, so that he can stay on time while working the trains.

Another neighbor, who is a pastor at a church, makes a nice income as well. Save for the pickups he and his son use during winter to do snow clearance and other work on the side, his cars are 20 years old. The house is very nice, but he wears jeans and polos when he isn't in church garb. No watch to be found. He prefers to put his money into the church's soup kitchen.

People make choices based on what they like and what concerns them in the world.


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

drhr said:


> Yes, and it just shows how stupid we are (and there are those who think like this "out there" too) . . .


LOL, not stupid....WUS like to force feed their idea/thoughts to others. Agree or nothing. Not very accepting differences. Stubborn bunch of crazies.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

wuyeah said:


> LOL, not stupid....WUS like to force feed their idea/thoughts to others. Agree or nothing. Not very accepting differences. Stubborn bunch of crazies.


I am going to be honest. Maybe it's because I enjoy a good, light drama now and then, or I am simply a bad person deep down, I thoroughly enjoy threads like this.

This is still a new hobby for though. Maybe it gets tedious after a while. Not yet for though!


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

wuyeah said:


> LOL, not stupid....WUS like to force feed their idea/thoughts to others. Agree or nothing. Not very accepting differences. Stubborn bunch of crazies.


Hahaha


----------



## richnyc (Feb 21, 2013)

RubyRose said:


> I was in the dentist chair getting treatment wearing my ocean one vintage red and it wasn't long before I was asked was it a Rolex and commented on how nice it was.
> 
> This is before I knew about watches. Now I would never wear a steinhart as to me they are just a blatant Rolex rip off


Exactly same watch, similar experience, 4 years ago... Was in a pub with my boys and one of the girls sitting at the bar asked me if I was wearing a Rolex. I said it was a Steinhart, an 'homage' to a long out of production model of a real Rolex. I tried to tell her more but she quickly moved on... LOL

I had that watch for about six months before I let it go and started saving for a real Rolex, not necessarily because of this experience... But while I had the Steinhart, I found it pretty funny how some people's demeanor changed when realizing I wasn't wearing Rolex... It's still funny to me


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

wuyeah said:


> LOL, not stupid....WUS like to force feed their idea/thoughts to others. Agree or nothing. Not very accepting differences. Stubborn bunch of crazies.


Very tactful wuyeah, it's why I like you and your posts  . . .


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Over the years it's funny how my own, and other people's perspectives, have changed. I find the longer you're in the watch game, the less you care. 
I've spent a ton on watches and even when I thought I had my dream watch, it just still wasn't right. I'm not sure what I expected, but It didn't make my life any better. If anything, it made me realize that, you, and only you has to really enjoy what you see attached to your wrist everyday. It might sounds ridiculous to some, but I would choose the Ginault on my wrist over any other model of watch because it contains the best of all design cues (ok, I would probably go for a tropic sub, but I don't appreciate having anything that expensive on me). How my watch looks on my wrist is number 1, as it provides the most enjoyment everyday. 
As others have mentioned, trying to impress anyone or trying to pull off a Rolex image is the last thing on my mind. Cheers


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

Sevenmack said:


> As a strategic communications guy, reporter, and activist, I have worked with (and interviewed) a lot of fake, terrible, narcissistic and sociopathic people who wear real watches and other genuine goods. I have also worked with kind-hearted, wonderful, giving, talented, successful people who own homage watches and even counterfeit handbags. They also admit it when asked.
> 
> The former have done little for society and have greatly harmed it. Yet their wares are real. The latter have done far more good for the world than any of us on this forum -- and sometimes, they just want a Rolex Submariner style of watch without the accompanying price tag.
> 
> You, sir, mistaken ownership of worldly goods with quality of character. Perhaps you should read a Bible or a Torah or Plato to work on this particular defect of yours as a human being.


You should really look up the word "sarcasm" and take some oversensitivity pills.

As a reporter, I assume then it's OK with you if someone else plagiarizes your work, and puts their name on it?

Here's a Getat watch, something that this very forum often touts as one of the best Panerai homages:










According to another watch forum, they can also make the same watch with "Panerai" on the dial. Fakes vs homages is often a very fine line that is being crossed over.

For the same money, I would whether have a Seiko diver over any Sub fake/copy. Or save up, and buy a genuine Rolex Submariner 14060, which sells for about $4K, which in the world of luxury watches and Rolex, is a bargain. While most watches are poor investments, the prices on a 14060 will only increase over time, and it's something you can proudly pass down to the next generation. Or there are dozens of other great watch startups, with unique designs, that I would prefer to support.

It's not quality of character or personality so much as it is having respect for other people's original designs, their hard work and their intellectual property. Frankly, it's quite sad that you and others so quickly disregard this and try to justify homages and even counterfeit goods as being OK since "kind-hearted, wonderful, giving, talented, successful people" own them. Channeling former President Obama - "Come on, man."

For me, it's never OK to steal other people's work. This is the premise of why I am so against fakes and homages, like Steinhart. Their entire brand and product lineup is based on other designs.

The OP asked about stories of mistaking Steinhart for a Rolex. Isn't that the point and perhaps the true motivation of why some people who buy Steinhart are seeking? Serious question...


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

mav said:


> You should really look up the word "sarcasm" and take some oversensitivity pills.
> 
> As a reporter, I assume then it's OK with you if someone else plagiarizes your work, and puts their name on it?
> 
> ...


can someone have a different opinion/life view than someone else and be left alone or at least be responded to without insult, serious question . . .


----------



## imranbecks (Oct 3, 2008)

For all you Steinhart or homage haters out there... I'm loving my Pepsi GMT!










Oh and its 42mm, prefer this case size to that other brand which is 40mm. I also like the added silver detail on the inner edge of the bezel near the crystal which the other brand doesn't have. Even the hour hand looks slightly different if compared to that other brand. Blatant copy? Nah. Haters gonna hate. Cheers!


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

I tend to like 'homage' watches, real ones, that is. 


imranbecks said:


> For all you Steinhart or homage haters out there... I'm loving my Pepsi GMT!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

mav said:


> You should really look up the word "sarcasm" and take some oversensitivity pills.
> 
> As a reporter, I assume then it's OK with you if someone else plagiarizes your work, and puts their name on it?
> 
> ...


You used a lot of words to say nothing. Now, let's take a little time to understand the history of watchmaking. Because you don't know much.

Watchmakers have copied, riffed, and homaged each other's designs for more than a century, partly because there are design limits on the aesthetics of watches, and partly because consumers deemed such designs popular.

Consider that this Rolex 6265... 








Which looks a lot like this Omega...








And both look similar to the famed Universal Geneve...








Which is also similar to the Patek Philippe...








We can point to other examples. The Tissot Le Locle, for example, is merely the best-known modern version of waffle-dial watches that have been produced since the 1920s. The first Rolex Oyster was similar in design to watches produced during the 1920s. The Audemars Piguet Royal Oak's octagonal design is similar to the original Zenith Defy (which came out a year or so earlier). The Panerai and Submariner homages produced today are in the same vein as the homages produced by major brands for so long.

Only a few times has there been any litigation over watch designs among watchmakers themselves. The most-famous of that litigation is the one launched by Nathan George Horwitt against Piaget, Longines, and the North American Watch Company (which distributed both brands) over their versions of the Movado Museum Dial. [Oddly enough, North American Watch would eventually buy Movado and become Movado Group.] Horwitt filed the suit in large part because he was an outsider to the industry; in fact, he unsuccessfully sued Movado for not doing enough to defend his patent, while Movado countersued claiming that it had expired long ago. If Horwitt had been in the business, he would have moved on.

[By the way: You mention plagiarism. The funny thing is that literature is replete with copying similar to that in the watch industry. All have been sanctioned so long as actual words (which is at the heart of plagiarism) haven't been copied word for word; this is because ideas (including stories) cannot be protected in this context (the standard is different in academic settings for good reason). Joanna Spyri's Heidi is a version of a German story that was published a few decades before her book went to press. Lucy Maude Montgomerys _Anne of Greene Gables _series is merely the most-famous version of the various Red-Headed Anne books that were published at the turn of the 20th century. A number of Shakespeare's plays, including _King Lear_, are rehashes of old stories and plays that were put on before the Bard took up the pen. If you knew any of this, you would have also approached your statement with greater nuance and thought.]

Based on your response, there are two issues at play here.

The first, which I have already noted, is that you mistaken ownership of worldly goods with quality of character. Prophets, moralists, and philosophers have long ago proven such thinking to be deficient, an example of one's own defects in character, because it doesn't measure people by the things they do to other human beings (which is the ultimate measure of good and bad character).

The second issue is that you don't know enough about the history of watchmaking to make any nuanced argument about the matter of homages. If you did, you would argue instead that so long as the watch isn't a counterfeit (actually putting the Rolex name on a watch not produced and backed by Rolex), homages are fine even if you wouldn't wear one yourself. At the same time, you could say that those who own them should admit that homages are not respectful tributes to brands or watches, but versions of watches produced by businesses to earn profit from demand for them.


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

drhr said:


> can someone have a different opinion/life view than someone else and be left alone or at least be responded to without insult, serious question . . .


What's the purpose of having a forum if users cannot have a good debate? It's just me, but this is better than the usual "can I take my watch to x place", "jomashop sucks" or "is x watch fake" drivel being posted here recently.


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

Brey17 said:


> I am going to be honest. Maybe it's because I enjoy a good, light drama now and then, or I am simply a bad person deep down, I thoroughly enjoy threads like this.
> 
> This is still a new hobby for though. Maybe it gets tedious after a while. Not yet for though!


I do in enjoy the drama but with different topic. Enough dosage of homage threads.


----------



## mfunnell (Jun 8, 2017)

mav said:


> By wearing a fake or a copy watch, it's the truest reflection of that person's own personal insecurities of needing to pretend to be someone they are not.


Or perhaps they're doing it for a bit of a laugh. Most people I know who have bought a copy-watch from a street vendor in Hong Kong or wherever did so for exactly that reason. No insecurities at all, and no intention of passing it off as anything but what it was. Just for the giggles.

...Mike


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

mav said:


> And what does it say about the person wearing and supports a brand and watches that blatantly copies its design from other brands and watches? Fake, pretender, phony are words that come to mind.
> 
> By wearing a fake or a copy watch, it's the truest reflection of that person's own personal insecurities of needing to pretend to be someone they are not.


I'm ok with members who disagree with homages or copies, as they have their reasons. However, I don't think it's fair to paint everyone that wears one with the same "personal insecurities/pretending to be someone they're not" brush.

For example, I know quite a few members that just get something else they really enjoy from a slightly different design than the sub.

Could it be they just enjoy the watch? Don't pretend to be able to prescribe everyone's motives.


----------



## Nikita (Feb 13, 2013)

What a funny thread. I am tired of this stupid "homage" trend as a next guy, but your so beloved Rolex Submariner may easily be a homage to the first military diver - Blancpain Fifty Fathoms 1953. It's hard to tell, but this dial at least seems to had been invented by Blancpain, not Rolex. Anyway, we can't go back to 1953 and find out what clearly happened. I just wanted to show that it all this snobbery may have a very weak background.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

mav said:


> What's the purpose of having a forum if users cannot have a good debate? It's just me, but this is better than the usual "can I take my watch to x place", "jomashop sucks" or "is x watch fake" drivel being posted here recently.


good debate's fine, but if you define that to include thinly veiled insults, well, it's why you and i have had a few "discussions", have u noticed . . .


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

Sevenmack said:


> You used a lot of words to say nothing. Now, let's take a little time to understand the history of watchmaking. Because you don't know much.
> 
> Watchmakers have copied, riffed, and homaged each other's designs for more than a century, partly because there are design limits on the aesthetics of watches, and partly because consumers deemed such designs popular.
> 
> ...


You should really cut the holier/smarter than thou attitude because it's simply not working. It just makes you an online tough guy. You don't need to qualify the start of your replies by telling me/WUS what you do, how much money you make, how great of a person you are, and how smart you are. No one cares, least of all, yours truly.

Thank you for the watchmaking history lesson - unnecessary but thank you nonetheless.

Your prolonged reply incorrectly assumed that I stated counterfeit and homages are one in the same and illegal, which I never did. Well, of course counterfeits are illegal, homages by definition are not. You also incorrectly assumed that my sarcastic remark about one's watches is a measure of one's character. Guess I touched a nerve with you, which begs the question, what is your own defect and why must you keep insulting/attacking? Oh wait, guess you're still mad from the perceived slight from what - 2, 3 years ago? 7mack, water under the bridge, man. Let it go.

Your examples of previous homages aren't relevant to what's being discussed here. So, a lesson from me to you (who would have thought??) - Homage, by definition, is respect or reverence paid or rendered. So by definition, your examples of those vintage Rolex, Omega, Universal Geneve, Patek watches are truly homages of each other. There's no debate on this.

This is the debate:

Copy









Rolex Daytona 6241 with an exotic "Paul Newman" dial









Copy









Rolex MilSub 5517









Wherein your examples, the designs are loosely based on others and in the above examples, Steinhart is ripping off and blatantly copying famous Rolex models, virtually "word for word" or metal for metal and putting their name on it.

Right or wrong? You know where I stand. Certainly not illegal so maybe it comes down to this being a moral/ethics issue.

PS - I mentioned plagiarism, as defined - copying word for word. Again, thank you for the unnecessary lesson. You failed to answer the question - How would you feel if someone else copied an article that you spent 40 hours writing, copied word for word, and put their name on it?


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Nikita said:


> What a funny thread. I am tired of this stupid "homage" trend as a next guy, but your so beloved Rolex Submariner may easily be a homage to the first military diver - Blancpain Fifty Fathoms 1953. It's hard to tell, but this dial at least seems to had been invented by Blancpain, not Rolex. Anyway, we can't go back to 1953 and find out what clearly happened. I just wanted to show that it all this snobbery may have a very weak background.
> View attachment 12190258


The Fifty Fathoms did come out a year before the Submariner. But in this case, the origins differ greatly. The Fifty Fathoms originated from the designs of French military diver Robert Maloubier and are based on French military standards. The Submariner, on the other hand, is a derivative of the Turn-o-Graph, which came out the same year as the Fifty Fathoms. [A third dive watch that debuted in 1953 was the Zodiac Sea Wolf, which also has an external timing bezel.] Rolex had been working on an external timing bezel since the 1930s when it developed the Zerograph, a chronograph that never went into production; instead of sub seconds, the Zerograph used an external timing bezel as a form of stopwatch. While the Zerograph project was ditched, Rolex would find uses for external timing bezels in it later watches. 








Thanks to the military standards, ISO rules, the popularity of diving, the embrace of more-casual and utilitarian clothes by the men who fought World War II, and the popularity of both the Sub and the Fifty Fathoms (as well as the Sea Wolf), other brands began producing divers and adopting the external timing bezel. Rolex's style of bezel became the most-popular and the most-copied.

By the way: The timing bezel itself originates out of aviation. It was Philip Van Horn Weems,, the father of avigation (or air natvigation) who teamed up with Longines to produce a new version of the Second Setting watch he developed in the 1920s. The external timing bezel would be ditched by air forces on both the Allied and Axis sides during World War II for the flieger style. But the external bezel would find its way into dive watches and by 1957, chronographs with the Omega Speedmaster.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

mav said:


> Your examples of previous homages aren't relevant to what's being discussed here. So, a lesson from me to you (who would have thought??) - Homage, by definition, is respect or reverence paid or rendered. So by definition, your examples of those vintage Rolex, Omega, Universal Geneve, Patek watches are truly homages of each other. There's no debate on this...
> 
> Wherein your examples, the designs are loosely based on others and in the above examples, Steinhart is ripping off and blatantly copying famous Rolex models, virtually "word for word" or metal for metal and putting their name on it.


Again, you have written a lot of nothing. You have also exposed your own deficiencies in understanding the history of watchmaking. But the most-interesting thing is that you are attempting to make distinctions without a difference when it comes to the matter of homages.

Watchmakers, regardless of heritage and provenance, are all businesses. They all exist to generate a profit for investors and products for customers who demand them. Given that understanding, there is nothing that any watchmaker does that is reverential or respectful to its competitors. This includes offering their own versions of popular designs produced by the competition.

The triple date homages produced by Rolex, Universal Geneve, Patek Phillipe and Omega produced in the 1950s paid no more tribute or reverence to each other than the Submariner homages produced by Steinhart today. In both cases, all the brands saw a market for a popular style originated by another brand, then produced their own versions with similar cues (if not outright copying each other).

Just because the homages were produced in the past doesn't make them any less copies than the Sub homages produced today. To argue otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest and absolutely sophist. In fact, by engaging in such thinking, I have to wonder if the real problem isn't with the copies, but who is producing them.

Seems that the triple date homages are perfectly fine to you because the brands are old longstanding outfits that, though, just as much businesses as Steinhart, benefit from brand recognition and nostalgia. Steinhart, on the other hand, is a fairly new company without heritage or homage. Perhaps you would be fine with a Sub homage if it was produced by Omega instead of by Steinhart or worse, one of those dreaded Chinese watch firms some collectors get incensed over.

If homages and copies are bad, why does it matter if they were produced by major watchmakers in the 1950s or by an existing brand today?


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

Sevenmack said:


> Again, you have written a lot of nothing. You have also exposed your own deficiencies in understanding the history of watchmaking. But the most-interesting thing is that you are attempting to make distinctions without a difference when it comes to the matter of homages.
> 
> Watchmakers, regardless of heritage and provenance, are all businesses. They all exist to generate a profit for investors and products for customers who demand them. Given that understanding, there is nothing that any watchmaker does that is reverential or respectful to its competitors. This includes offering their own versions of popular designs produced by the competition.
> 
> ...


That's a dangerous argument.

Sure, all watch manufacturers/brands are businesses and at the end of day, need to make revenue and profits. However just because there's a few sales to be made, it doesn't justify them producing exact copies and putting their name on it. Again, it sounds like you're attempting to justify homages and even counterfeit goods by this argument.

And you ignored my question again, which speaks volumes. Guess it's fine, as long it's not you, right?


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

mav said:


> That's a dangerous argument.


The term "dangerous" only applies to situations in which human lives (as well as the lives of animals, if you care about them) are actually endangered. Eating mushrooms growing in the back yard. An earthquake or fire. You know, real life situations. An argument can have flaws (as they all do) or can lead to proverbial slippery slopes or logical conclusions. But an argument is never "dangerous".

Admitting that homaging and copying is common practice within watchmaking does not condone counterfeiting. There is a difference between producing a Sub homage and putting the Rolex (or Omega or Grand Seiko) logo and word mark on a watch not produced by that company. ONe that is clearly defined in law.

Admitting that homaging and copying is a common practice within watchmaking, one that has been done by every company within it (including Rolex) merely means accepting the reality that what you may want to think of as an ethical issue isn't one within the context of the industry being discussed. You may not like it. But life isn't about what you like.

But back to a question that is relevant to the discussion: Why do you think that triple-date homages by Rolex, Omega, and other major brands from the 1950s are more reverential and more tolerable than a Sub homage from Steinhart today?


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> Again, you have written a lot of nothing. You have also exposed your own deficiencies in understanding the history of watchmaking. But the most-interesting thing is that you are attempting to make distinctions without a difference when it comes to the matter of homages.
> 
> Watchmakers, regardless of heritage and provenance, are all businesses. They all exist to generate a profit for investors and products for customers who demand them. Given that understanding, there is nothing that any watchmaker does that is reverential or respectful to its competitors. This includes offering their own versions of popular designs produced by the competition.
> 
> ...


The vintage example is an interesting one, but I do think that there is a difference between watches that are similar as a result of being from the same period/trend versus a watch that is copied from another right down to the smallest of details. There are plenty of current watches that share design elements with their competitors, whether it be size, material, color, etc., but this is simply because they are attempting to meet the demands of the same consumers base. 50 years from now, there will be a WUS debate on which manufacturer originated the blacked out, oversized, ceramic, military inspired pilot chronograph or diver! The Steinharts shown above, however, aren't similar to the vintage Newman Daytona or Mil Sub by accident or as a reflection of current consumer whims. They were produced to look as close as possible to two massively sought after watches with proven commercial success, at least currently, without crossing any legal boundaries. In other words, it was an easy and safe way to make a buck with little sweat equity. I actually don't have any issue with this and actually quite like the mil Sub clone, but I do think it different from the Rolex, Omega and Universal Geneve example.


----------



## run23 (Jul 12, 2009)

Bring on the (legal) copying! If a watchmaker can copy a design without violating IP or other laws, and there is a market for the product, they should absolutely do it, and we (customers) are all better off if they do. The ideal situation would be for luxury brands to feel some heat from lower priced competitors and lower their prices and/or focus on customer service. That's unlikely to happen, but I wouldn't be complaining if it did.


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

Sevenmack said:


> The term "dangerous" only applies to situations in which human lives (as well as the lives of animals, if you care about them) are actually endangered. Eating mushrooms growing in the back yard. An earthquake or fire. You know, real life situations. An argument can have flaws (as they all do) or can lead to proverbial slippery slopes or logical conclusions. But an argument is never "dangerous".


Now that is the MOST hilarious thing I've read on WUS ever. I'll see your dangerous, and raise you a slang. HAHAHAHAHA.



Sevenmack said:


> But back to a question that is relevant to the discussion: Why do you think that triple-date homages by Rolex, Omega, and other major brands from the 1950s are more reverential and more tolerable than a Sub homage from Steinhart today?


Already answered that here. No need to repeat my so-called "written a lot of nothing."


----------



## uplockjock (Nov 29, 2016)

Sevenmack said:


> You used a lot of words to say nothing. Now, let's take a little time to understand the history of watchmaking. Because you don't know much.
> 
> Watchmakers have copied, riffed, and homaged each other's designs for more than a century, partly because there are design limits on the aesthetics of watches, and partly because consumers deemed such designs popular.
> 
> ...


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

uplockjock said:


> God, this is SO much better than Facebook!


Anything is better than fb


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Seaswirl said:


> *The vintage example is an interesting one, but I do think that there is a difference between watches that are similar as a result of being from the same period/trend versus a watch that is copied from another right down to the smallest of details*. There are plenty of current watches that share design elements with their competitors, whether it be size, material, color, etc., but this is simply because they are attempting to meet the demands of the same consumers base. 50 years from now, there will be a WUS debate on which manufacturer originated the blacked out, oversized, ceramic, military inspired pilot chronograph or diver! The Steinharts shown above, however, aren't similar to the vintage Newman Daytona or Mil Sub by accident or as a reflection of current consumer whims. They were produced to look as close as possible to two massively sought after watches with proven commercial success, at least currently, without crossing any legal boundaries.


You just hit on the only real (small) difference between the triple date homages and the Steinhart Sub homage: One set were produced in a period of time while the other has been produced today and homages a watch that is no longer in production (even though the Submariner in its current form is still on the market).

But that difference is really not a distinction at all. This is because in both cases, all the companies involved are meeting consumer demand. It's just that one group were meeting demand in one period of time and the Steinhart is meeting current demand for a watch that hasn't been reissued. In all cases, the companies are serving the market as well as generating revenue and profit; they all also produced the watches "with little sweat equity". If those triple date homages were produced today, there would be not one difference at all between them and the Steinhart.

If you are taking a hard line approach to homages and argue that all homages and copies are unethical, then the triple dates, regardless of when they were produced, are just as unworthy as the Steinhart. But some want to engage in intellectual dishonesty, arguing that some homages are good and others are bad. Not only is this argument nonsense, it doesn't even acknowledge the fact that homaging and copying is a longstanding watch industry practice that even the biggest watchmakers have tolerated.

A problem in the debate over homages is that both sides of the argument tend to engage in some rather interesting mental gymnastics when confronted with some inconvenient facts. In the case of homage fans, it is their attempt to argue that what brands such as Steinhart do is some tribute to their competitors. Oddly enough, in the discussion of past homages versus current ones, some foes of homages echo the same balderdash.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> You just hit on the only real (small) difference between the triple date homages and the Steinhart Sub homage: One set were produced in a period of time while the other has been produced today and homages a watch that is no longer in production (even though the Submariner in its current form is still on the market).
> 
> But that difference is really not a distinction at all. This is because in both cases, all the companies involved are meeting consumer demand. It's just that one group were meeting demand in one period of time and the Steinhart is meeting current demand for a watch that hasn't been reissued. In all cases, the companies are serving the market as well as generating revenue and profit; they all also produced the watches "with little sweat equity". If those triple date homages were produced today, there would be not one difference at all between them and the Steinhart.
> 
> ...


I agree with you in large part, I just see it as less binary and more of an issue of degree. Of course, the level at which an homage becomes a true knock off is subjective and subject of endless debate. In the triple date example, the watches do seem quite different in terms of case shape, bracelet and complications, in the case of the Universal Geneve. Conversely, asides from some text on the dial, the Steinharts are virtually indistinguishable from the original, at least to the lay person. Yes, all four companies were merely meeting customer demand, but only three of them it seems attempted to add their own interpretation to the theme.

I'm personally ambivalent on the issue and take no real issue with homages. As someone who enjoys watches, I really can't blame someone else who wants to wear a good looking watch without shelling out several thousands of dollars. After flipping through the Steinhart website for the first time, there are a few I wouldn't mind owning. What surprised me, however, is that they aren't inexpensive, and I'd rather put the money towards my current watch obsession.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Copy watch is to fake watch as citing with reference is to plagiarism.

Everyone could tell easily a copy watch is a copy watch because the brand and logo are different. It is honest, it is not trying to pass itself off as something that it is not. This matters for the buyer, to not be fooled into paying lots for a fake watch.

As for passing oneself as someone who one is not by wearing a copy watch, that refers to wanting to look like one is wearing an expensive watch without paying for it. I found myself scrutinizing whether someone on the subway was wearing an original watch, copy watch, or fake watch. Why should I care? I tell myself, I shouldn't care. His watch, his business. I don't even know him.

I have seen fake watches on two guys on the subway before. Up close, it was obviously fake. How did I feel about it? It shouldn't matter, I don't even know them.

I've seen two guys on the subway wearing the real thing. How did I feel about it? It shouldn't matter, I don't even know them.

At Halloween, people dress up as ghosts, vampires, etc. Others know they are not real ghosts and vampires. There are no ghosts and vampires, it's all in one's mind. All this business about whether others or I are wearing an expensive watch or not is all in one's mind.


----------



## EsbenOpen (Dec 20, 2014)

drhr said:


> can someone have a different opinion/life view than someone else and be left alone or at least be responded to without insult, serious question . . .


I don't know, ask sevenmack who, in the very post mav was responding to accused someone of having a defect for having a differing opinion. A post you liked no less... I guess you think it's alright to insult someone who has a different view than you, just not the other way around then?


----------



## EsbenOpen (Dec 20, 2014)

rdoder said:


> Copy watch is to fake watch as citing with reference is to plagiarism.
> 
> Everyone could tell easily a copy watch is a copy watch because the brand and logo are different. It is honest, it is not trying to pass itself off as something that it is not. This matters for the buyer, to not be fooled into paying lots for a fake watch.


Your analogy doesn't really work. Posting the work of someone else can be a copyright issue on its own, but it doesn't become plagiarism until you put your name on it and claim it as your own work. So, using your analogy, a watch that was an exact copy 1:1 of another, but with a different brand name would be plagiarism.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

EsbenOpen said:


> Your analogy doesn't really work. Posting the work of someone else can be a copyright issue on its own, but it doesn't become plagiarism until you put your name on it and claim it as your own work. So, using your analogy, a watch that was an exact copy 1:1 of another, but with a different brand name would be plagiarism.


In academics, something is cited in a way similar to this:

"Your analogy doesn't really work. Posting the work of someone else can be a copyright issue on its own, but it doesn't become plagiarism until you put your name on it and claim it as your own work. So, using your analogy, a watch that was an exact copy 1:1 of another, but with a different brand name would be plagiarism."(EsbenOpen, https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/stories-mistaking-steinhart-rolex-3464553-29.html#post43077282)

I went to Steinhart's web pages. They mention nothing about how this or that watch is basically a copy of this or that Rolex. I agree, to completely cite Rolex's designs, Steinhart should mention these are copies of Rolex watches. But I think to those who know about this, the citation is implied, and it works because most people who are interested in watches to WUS/WIS degree know those are copy watches. Those who don't know, and bought a Steinhart copy watch, they either don't know till the day they die, no harm no foul, or they find out some time later, and it's up to them how they feel about it. Those who know, know. They buy it, they like it, that's that.

Or another way to put it is, e.g. Steinhart never mentioned Rolex, maybe they should, but they also never said this is "original design, by Steinhart".

In academics analogy, I could write, "E=mc^2 blows my mind!(rdoder)" But most people looking at the equation know that came from Einstein, not rdoder. To me, it's a bit like that. A lot of people, even in general public, know Rolex Sub, know the look of that bezel, that Mercedes hand, that Cyclops, etc. No one needs to tell a lot of people that Steinhart is a Rolex copy watch.

Also, I guess equating copying watch design to plagiarism in academics is not quite equivalent to begin with. One is jewelry, and the other is more important than jewelry.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

EsbenOpen said:


> I don't know, ask sevenmack who, in the very post mav was responding to accused someone of having a defect for having a differing opinion. A post you liked no less... I guess you think it's alright to insult someone who has a different view than you, just not the other way around then?


I didn't insult anyone, unless you believe it is insulting to point out clearly that someone's arguments show a lack of knowledge that about which they speak and evidence a rather poor understanding of what defines morality. If that is "insult" to you, then that is your problem, not mine.

But based on your likes of comments such as this:


mav said:


> You should really look up the word "sarcasm" and take some oversensitivity pills...


And this...


mav said:


> Guess I touched a nerve with you, which begs the question, what is your own defect and why must you keep insulting/attacking? Oh wait, guess you're still mad from the perceived slight from what - 2, 3 years ago? 7mack, water under the bridge, man. Let it go.


And this...


mav said:


> You should really cut the holier/smarter than thou attitude because it's simply not working. It just makes you an online tough guy.


I suspect that your concern is not with civility, but with the fact that other people disagree with an argument you support, dissent strongly, and actually offer evidence to back those disagreements up. Unlike your ally.

My mother has a phrase for folks like you. But I'll be polite.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

rdoder said:


> As for passing oneself as someone who one is not by wearing a copy watch, that refers to wanting to look like one is wearing an expensive watch without paying for it. I found myself scrutinizing whether someone on the subway was wearing an original watch, copy watch, or fake watch. Why should I care? I tell myself, I shouldn't care. His watch, his business. I don't even know him.
> 
> I have seen fake watches on two guys on the subway before. Up close, it was obviously fake. How did I feel about it? It shouldn't matter, I don't even know them.
> 
> I've seen two guys on the subway wearing the real thing. How did I feel about it? It shouldn't matter, I don't even know them.


This is the issue right here. You have to wonder why so many get incensed about others owning homages when they aren't choosing them, paying for them or wearing them on their own wrist.

Watchmakers don't care. Casual watch buyers don't care, either. Yet there are watch collectors with better things to do who are incensed about others making choices that fit their interests, whatever they may be.

Even worse, these collectors are complaining about people choosing to support this hobby by buying watches, the one thing in which we are most interested. So long as the watches aren't counterfeits, it doesn't matter.

As with so many issues regarding watches, a lot of the problem is personal and driven by preference as well as the other junk that we bring to the table. Sometimes, we should understand that our preferences aren't _the_ thing that matters to everyone else.


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

Sevenmack said:


> I didn't insult anyone, unless you believe it is insulting to point out clearly that someone's arguments show a lack of knowledge that about which they speak and evidence a rather poor understanding of what defines morality. If that is "insult" to you, then that is your problem, not mine.
> 
> But based on your likes of comments such as this:
> 
> ...


Your problem is that you pass your own opinions as fact and whatever the other guy saids is wrong, no matter what. It's part of your holier than thou approach in virtually all of your posts in this thread or elsewhere. Your big words do not impress anyone here, it belittles you and makes you look "intellectually dishonest" as you love to say.



Sevenmack said:


> This is the issue right here. You have to wonder why so many get incensed about others owning homages when they aren't choosing them, paying for them or wearing them on their own wrist.
> 
> Watchmakers don't care. Casual watch buyers don't care, either. Yet there are watch collectors with better things to do who are incensed about others making choices that fit their interests, whatever they may be.
> 
> ...


Don't confuse a debate for/against homages for actually caring what others buy and own. Although a tired one, this topic brings out a good debate, but that's all it is, a debate.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

mav said:


> Your problem is that you pass your own opinions as fact and whatever the other guy saids is wrong, no matter what.


Nearly everything written on a forum, even with citations and links, are opinion. That's reality. But there is a difference between _informed_ opinion and uninformed opinion. One has a greater standing than the other because facts matter.

In my response to your argument about homages, I demonstrated four examples of homages done by major watchmakers in the 1950s to prove my point that homaging has always been done and is accepted in the watch industry. I also cited one of the few cases in which there were lawsuits over watch design: Nathan George Horwitt's lawsuits against Piaget and North American Watch Company over their homages of the Museum Dial. [He lost, by the way.]

While I offered an opinion, I also backed it up with facts, information that I didn't cherry-pick. You, on the other hand, offered nothing.

The problem isn't with me, but with your own unwillingness to reckon with your deficit of knowledge about the very hobby you are passionate about.But this isn't shocking; you don't even understand the meaning of "holier than thou" enough to use it properly in a sentence. [What you should have claimed is that I'm a know-it-all. That statement isn't true, either, but at least it would be an insult that reflects the actual issue.]

In any case, your ignorance is not my problem. Your inability to distinguish between ownership of worldly goods and what makes for good character is also not my issue. Your lack of honestly in admitting you have problems with those who buy homages (even after you claimed without any evidence that owning them is a sign of bad character and a sign of being a "phony") isn't my concern. I do find you to be funny -- and not in the good comedic kind of way.


----------



## uplockjock (Nov 29, 2016)

You really should let this go, Mav. Sevenmack won this debate a long time ago.
Now he's just padding his stats.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

EsbenOpen said:


> I don't know, ask sevenmack who, in the very post mav was responding to accused someone of having a defect for having a differing opinion. A post you liked no less... I guess you think it's alright to insult someone who has a different view than you, just not the other way around then?


no EO it's not alright and you call me out, which is your right, but i happen to have the same right, eh . . . let's face it, it's a forum and the internet, i like some posters and not others for a host of reasons, a subjective thing that comes out loud and clear to me, same as u, some peeps are deep/respectful, others not so much (like me perhaps) and get carried awaay, when i see/read one that says that to me , well, you see my retorts/responses, perhaps that's part of my "rep" here, everybody's got one, whatever i ain't changing now, not at this point in my life, life's a joy ain't it . . .


----------



## Z engineer (Mar 4, 2017)

So to get back to the question, personally I have never had a Steinhart being mistaken for a Rolex.






But then again I don't own a Steinhart (yet), so I guess that figures.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

I too have never had a Steinhart mistaken for Rolex... cause don't own Steinhart. In my pre-WIS days, I has Invicta Daytona knockoff, hasn't graced my wrist in 10+ years.

What I do know, is that everytime I see someone with a Sub on a wrist and I get a closer look and way too often it's not a Rolex (usually either Invicta or fake, but same as Steinhart), my immediate reaction is that of disappointment. Basically - excitement about a fellow watch enthusiast\owner .... followed by disappointment of "looks like, but isn't". At which point I lose all interest and won't talk to that person about anything watch related.

Plus too many things put me off knockoffs (aka homages, aka copies)...

People often make it as a choice between expensive Rolex and affordable but legal homage substitute. But I find that disingenuous, as there is a 3rd choice - affordable original watch that does not pretend to be something else (ie Seiko, Orient, Hamilton, Oris and 100s of micros and big brands)
The argument that big brands don't care is just a false equivalency. AP put SWI Group out of business. And just because Rolex may not be hurt in obvious ways by homages, doesn't mean that we can start copying software since Microsoft won't be hurt be in obvious ways.
The legal vs ethical issue is fine in context of what is permitted on-site (from liability perspective), but a lot of ethical things are illegal, and a lot of legal things are unethical
And while everyone is allowed to have an opinion, just keep in mind - there are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of people who view fakes as nothing wrong - in their mind their choices hurt no-one, so why should it be anyones business...

So yeah, everyone may have a different opinion, but doesn't mean we all have to agree on stuff.

Just remember:
first they copied vintage Rolex, and people didn't complain because PN Daytonas and Milsubs are no longer in production
then they copied modern Rolex and PP, and people didn't complain because those are too expensive and middle class is entitled to the look
then they copied Nomos and Oris, and people didn't complain because everyone deserves an Nomos Tangente look-a-like for <$200 and Chinese Bauhaus is as good
then they copied Seiko, and people didn't complain because they wanted sapphire or Miyota
then they copied G-shock, and people didn't complain because everything is public domain, and others are doing it, and screw corporations they can afford it

and then industry collapsed and there were no innovations or nice watches, and people *****ed and moaned - because that's what people do


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Also, consider your favorite microbrand - one that perhaps is owned and operated by a great individual who came up with own design, marketed the brand, created distribution, etc...
And then consider how you feel about a homage of that microbrand showing up on Ali-poopress showing up shortly after.

And if you think it doesn't happen.... well, look at DW, and 7Friday, and small micros who had CHinese companies manufacture for them, only for design to get stolen (see Seagull thread on F71 about Aevig)
https://www.watchuseek.com/f71/wtf-sea-gull-straight-up-thieves-aevig-content-2196561.html

It was almost entertaining seeing the outrage over IP theft, when every other thread glamorizes it when knocking-off designs by Rolex, Patek, AP, and others.

PS. And as much people declare love of Nomos - where current brand iteration came out of nowhere and brought great watches at great prices - consider how much Nomos sales may be affected by Rodina, Seagull, Parnis, Tisell and dozens of others who brought no improvement, no innovation, and nothing else of value while they jumped on homage bandwagon and sell "Bauhaus" Nomos 1-to-1 replicas (sorry Homages, since not branded as Nomos) for $200.


----------



## Chris Stark (Sep 21, 2015)

I try to mistake my Sub for a fake since I don't want to be jumped coming out of a bar or restaurant.

Local: "Excuse me sir, is that a Rolex, do you have the time."
Me: (Pulling out my phone, and smiling) "This is a Chinese fake from Canal St. and the time is _______.


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

Sevenmack said:


> Nearly everything written on a forum, even with citations and links, are opinion. That's reality. But there is a difference between _informed_ opinion and uninformed opinion. One has a greater standing than the other because facts matter.
> 
> In my response to your argument about homages, I demonstrated four examples of homages done by major watchmakers in the 1950s to prove my point that homaging has always been done and is accepted in the watch industry. I also cited one of the few cases in which there were lawsuits over watch design: Nathan George Horwitt's lawsuits against Piaget and North American Watch Company over their homages of the Museum Dial. [He lost, by the way.]
> 
> ...


Again, I answered you here. Analogous to your 4 examples are these:

The original Gerald Genta designs:










Their modern equivalents aka homages:










And the VC Overseas, which takes obvious design cues from the Genta trio:










Design inspirations vs copying. One is accepted and prevalent in the industry. The other is simply a legalized knockoff.

Cheers 7mack! :-d


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

EnderW said:


> People often make it as a choice between expensive Rolex and affordable but legal homage substitute. But I find that disingenuous, as there is a 3rd choice - affordable original watch that does not pretend to be something else (ie Seiko, Orient, Hamilton, Oris and 100s of micros and big brands)


This.

There are so many real good alternatives out there from microbrands and startups that have been nicely designed and engineered, over just copying another product, that I would prefer to support. Or save up for the real thing - a Sub 14060 is about $4K, which is a bargain in the world of Rolex, and it's something that will go up over time.


----------



## Z engineer (Mar 4, 2017)

Charging >€7.500,- for a watch that probably costs <€1.000,- to manufacture might be considered unethical by some as well. My guess is Rolex couldn't care less, so neither do I.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Z engineer said:


> Charging >€7.500,- for a watch that probably costs <€1.000,- to manufacture might be considered unethical by some as well. My guess is Rolex couldn't care less, so neither do I.


A watch, even one as iconic as a Submariner, is not a necessity, so I hardly view charging what the market can bear on an item as unethical. You always have the option of not buying it, or buying a watch with a different design. This is very different from price gouging on medically necessary items like Epipens, for example.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

EnderW said:


> PS. And as much people declare love of Nomos - where current brand iteration came out of nowhere and brought great watches at great prices - consider how much Nomos sales may be affected by Rodina, Seagull, Parnis, Tisell and dozens of others who brought no improvement, no innovation, and nothing else of value while they jumped on homage bandwagon and sell "Bauhaus" Nomos 1-to-1 replicas (sorry Homages, since not branded as Nomos) for $200.


Given that Nomos' designs are homages to the Bauhaus watches produced by Stowa, Lange, Junghans and other watchmakers of the 1930s (and that many of the aesthetics, including the matchstick indices, are now standard in watches such as those of Seiko and Christopher Ward), you can use your logic to argue that Nomos (as well as minimalist watches offered by other brands) is somehow damaging the sales of Stowa and Junghans.

The evidence out there argues that this isn't true, especially since Nomos is going strong. If anything, any problem for Nomos (as well as with other traditional watchmakers) lie with Apple, Samsung, FitBit and other smartwatch makers competing for casual watch buyer dollars, as well as the crackdown on corruption in China and global declines in watch sales. There's also any self-inflicted wounds that is rampant among the players in the industry. But anything to justify a prejudice, irrational as it may be.

Of course, it is curious that you have to use a brand that bases its business off of homaging (of the historical design kind) to argue your case against the practice.


----------



## Z engineer (Mar 4, 2017)

mleok said:


> A watch, even one as iconic as a Submariner, is not a necessity, so I hardly view charging what the market can bear on an item as unethical. You always have the option of not buying it, or buying a watch with a different design. This is very different from price gouging on medically necessary items like Epipens, for example.


You also have the option of not buying a Steinhart.

So there we have it then, discussion closed I guess.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Z engineer said:


> Charging >€7.500,- for a watch that probably costs <€1.000,- to manufacture might be considered unethical by some as well. My guess is Rolex couldn't care less, so neither do I.


1) can you please share Rolex Financial statements, because after years trying I'm yet to see them. And claim that $1K manufacture costs are based on? and they include R&D, pensions, plant investment, marketing, etc?
2) Most big watch companies- from Seiko to Richemont and LVMH have published financials. Margins tend to run in 10-15% range, maybe even less w current market downturn
3) people who consider profits unethical belong in equality paradises like Venezuela or North Korea
4) So if you view that someone is charging too much - it's ok to steal their designs?
5) why not get Seiko SKX if Rolex is too expensive
6) what about "homages" to $300 Seiko, $150 G-Shock, or $1.5K Nomos. Are those ok or not, because they are knocking-off cheaper watches
7) WTF does luxury goods price have to do with costs. Any economic classes? S&D understanding? Veblen goods? Anything ring a bell?

8) I'll give you credit for being the only one to admit that you just want to stick it to big, successful corp and don't care for ethics


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Z engineer said:


> You also have the option of not buying a Steinhart.
> 
> So there we have it then, discussion closed I guess.


That is the way it should be: Buy what you like and not buy what you don't want to support.

But watch collectors, especially we who are keyboard jockeys, don't work that way. Nothing is ever closed for discussion.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

mav said:


> This.
> 
> There are so many real good alternatives out there from microbrands and startups that have been *nicely designed* and engineered, over just copying another product, that I would prefer to support. Or *save up for the real thing* - a Sub 14060 is about $4K, which is a bargain in the world of Rolex, and it's something that will go up over time.


what happens when i like the look of a specific watch in any form and really don't want to spend money (cause they're not cheap right?) on something that i will probably have to force myself to rationalize loving (ask me how i knows) and/or already have the "real thing", should i just do what others say is the "right thing" or "nicest/better watch"?


----------



## Z engineer (Mar 4, 2017)

Ah, questionnaires... This is going to be so much fun.



EnderW said:


> 1) can you please share Rolex Financial statements, because after years trying I'm yet to see them. And claim that $1K manufacture costs are based on? and they include R&D, pensions, plant investment, marketing, etc?


No proof, but a quick google learns that production costs might well be less than €1000,-. All the rest they do is extra, which doesn't directly benefit me nor do I necessarily want to pay for.



EnderW said:


> 2) Most big watch companies- from Seiko to Richemont and LVMH have published financials. Margins tend to run in 10-15% range, maybe even less w current market downturn


Again, no proof, but a quick google shows that margins for a Rolex might be just a tiny bit above par. Judging by the amount of expensive, sports events they sponsor, this might very well be true. In addition, I don't think I ever saw a Rolex AD salesperson in shorts and flip flops because the margins didn't cut it.



EnderW said:


> 3) people who consider profits unethical belong in equality paradises like Venezuela or North Korea


No thanks.



EnderW said:


> 4) So if you view that someone is charging too much - it's ok to steal their designs?


Stealing implies something illegal, copying doesn't. But essentially yes, because no laws were broken.



EnderW said:


> 5) why not get Seiko SKX if Rolex is too expensive


Because that looks different.



EnderW said:


> 6) what about "homages" to $300 Seiko, $150 G-Shock, or $1.5K Nomos. Are those ok or not, because they are knocking-off cheaper watches


As long as it's within legal limits, then yes, that's also perfectly fine.



EnderW said:


> 7) WTF does luxury goods price have to do with costs. Any economic classes? S&D understanding? Veblen goods? Anything ring a bell?


Probably just as much as copies/hommages/whatever with illegality/unethicality.



EnderW said:


> 8) I'll give you credit for being the only one to admit that you just want to stick it to big, successful corp and don't care for ethics


I don't want to stick it to a big, successful cooperation. I just don't care (which is exactly what I wrote earlier).


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

EnderW said:


> Also, consider your favorite microbrand - one that perhaps is owned and operated by a great individual who came up with own design, marketed the brand, created distribution, etc...
> And then consider how you feel about a homage of that microbrand showing up on Ali-poopress showing up shortly after.


Many of those microbrands homage the offerings of existing brands. Let's not forget docvail, Janus Trading and NTH with their Sub and KonTiki homages. Let's not forget Christopher Ward's Trident, which plays off the Omega Seamaster. Even Aevig's Balaur project shares the same aesthetics of similar watches out there (though that doesn't condone what Sea-Gull did). I can go on and on.

For all the protests about homages, many collectors seem quite willing to support them so long as they are produced by European and American watchmakers (with Steinhart being the exception).

Only when the brand is Chinese or homaging the Crown do some collectors get all up in arms about a practice that even Rolex has engaged in (including the aforementioned triple date and the Daytona, which is a play on the aesthetic that originated with the Omega Speedmaster).


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

EnderW said:


> What I do know, is that everytime I see someone with a Sub on a wrist and I get a closer look and way too often it's not a Rolex (usually either Invicta or fake, but same as Steinhart), my immediate reaction is that of disappointment. Basically - excitement about a fellow watch enthusiast\owner .... followed by disappointment of "looks like, but isn't". At which point I lose all interest and won't talk to that person about anything watch related.


This is an unbelievable statement and viewpoint. Basically, "Initially, I thought you owned a watch that I also appreciate therefore you are a real watch enthusiast, however, you own a Steinhart, I was wrong, you aren't a real watch enthusiast. Your views of watches are worthless."

edit: Clarified statement.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Brey17 said:


> This is an unbelievable statement and viewpoint. Basically, "Initially, I thought you owned a watch that I also appreciate therefore you are a real watch enthusiast, however, you own a Steinhart, I was wrong, you aren't a real watch enthusiast. Your views of watches are worthless."


Agreed. That part of EnderW's statement was particularly grating. Because it fails to understand that "real" watch enthusiasm isn't about owning a Rolex Sub instead of a homage. Watch enthusiasm is about appreciating, enjoying, even getting nutty as all get out about watches as well as the design, history, business, and technology behind them. Basically, Ender deserves a big f..k you for that.

If you are judging a watch collector based on his ownership of particular watches instead of his interest and knowledge about them, then you are doing it wrong.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

Sevenmack said:


> Agreed. That part of EnderW's statement was particularly grating. Because it fails to understand that "real" watch enthusiasm isn't about owning a Rolex Sub instead of a homage. Watch enthusiasm is about appreciating, enjoying, even getting nutty as all get out about watches as well as the design, history, business, and technology behind them. Basically, Ender deserves a big f..k you for that.
> 
> If you are judging a watch collector based on his ownership of particular watches instead of his interest and knowledge about them, then you are doing it wrong.


I don't find a grating, I find it hilarious and surprised that somebody would actually say something like that out loud even if he really did feel like that on the inside.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Brey17 said:


> I don't find a grating, I find it hilarious and surprised that somebody would actually say something like that out loud even if he really did feel like that on the inside.


Unlike in the offline world, the Internet encourages people to talk without those wonderful social filters.

The good news is that we know how he really feels. Which means some arguments he makes can be dismissed for their snobbery and silliness.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Sevenmack said:


> Many of those microbrands homage the offerings of existing brands. Let's not forget docvail, Janus Trading and NTH with their Sub and KonTiki homages. Let's not forget Christopher Ward's Trident, which plays off the Omega Seamaster. Even Aevig's Balaur project shares the same aesthetics of similar watches out there (though that doesn't condone what Sea-Gull did). I can go on and on.
> 
> For all the protests about homages, many collectors seem quite willing to support them so long as they are produced by European and American watchmakers (with Steinhart being the exception).
> 
> Only when the brand is Chinese or homaging the Crown do some collectors get all up in arms about a practice that even Rolex has engaged in (including the aforementioned triple date and the Daytona, which is a play on the aesthetic that originated with the Omega Speedmaster).


It's not that they are Chinese. It's that they are cheap. Their cheapness compared with the original they are knocking off implies intent.

There is a difference between a derivative design, a knock-off, and a fake. We really aren't talking about fakes. All your examples have shown derivative designs (though in a couple of cases they were responding independently to the same market cues and ended up with something similar), and not the knockoffs that are more the domain of Steinhart.

And I don't like Omega, Seiko, and TAG-Heuer knock-offs of the Submariner any more than the Steinhart (or the Parnis).

I also don't much like derivative designs, if I'm aware of the derivation, which I may not be. One of my beefs with Frederique Constant is that their designs are derivative, for example, but that is a matter of preference. Nothing about their watches would be recognized as a Frederique Constant until one is close enough to read the label.

I learned my lesson about knockoffs. Maybe 35 years ago, I bought a Jules Jergensen (after the name was bought by a distributor of Asian knockoffs), which, other than the label, is the spitting image of a Rolex Day-Date two-tone with fluted bezel and jubilee bracelet. The JJ logo is even a crown (through rounded at the top rather than pointed). Several times, I was asked, "Is that a Rolex?" And several times, I admitted that it was not. Truth to tell, I wasn't particularly familiar with Rolex in those days, and didn't recognize it for the obvious cheap knockoff that it was. Thus, it was not my motive to pretend to be a Rolex owner--not even slightly. But I realized that people interpreted that as my intent. Every first-year law student learns the difference between motive and intent.










And when we say we don't care what other people notice, or that the difference between motive and intent is unimportant to us, we are kidding ourselves. Nobody starts a thread wondering what stories people have about confusing their Rolex for a Steinhart.

Nobody thinks a Submariner is a knockoff of a Fifty Fathoms, for example, even if they have the same dial arrangement. Why? Because both are expensive watches, and so there is no obvious intent (no matter what the motive) of pretending to be the owner of the other brand. Likewise, nobody thought the Piaget with the non-black stone dial was a knockoff (and certainly not a patent violation) of the Horwitt Museum Dial, which was black lacquer. The Piaget was more expensive, and nobody would assume a Piaget owner of the intent of seeming like the owner of a Museum watch. The legal determination fell in line with that, but based on separate and legally defined criteria, which is not what I'm talking about.

Back to the derivative thing. You have opined in the past that the Concord Mariner (which I know you admire) is an "homage" to the Royal Oak. At most, it is derivative of the concept of the Royal oak--slab case, integrated bracelet, faceted bezel. But nobody would confuse one with the other, and nobody would suspect one had the intent of (again, no matter what their motive) of pretending to own the other. So, it may be derivative in a few ways, but it is not a knockoff. And the ways in which is is derivative are still uniquely Concord enough so that what it draws from the Royal Oak is more of a display of respect for that successful design--a true homage to a concept. But nobody looking at the watch below, and having anything resembling a clear picture of a Royal Oak in their head, would think that Concord was trying to imitate AP.










I've seen Heuer and Omega watches that seemed to me pushed the boundary between derivative and knockoff, right down to the Mercedes hands. Why didn't they use the slightly different cathedral hands, and avoid any possibility of being labeled a knockoff? While there are many Omega and Heuer watches I do admire, I don't choose those particular examples that seem to push that boundary.

There are so many wonderful and original watch designs at all price points that it seems to me easy to avoid strongly derivative designs, at least for enthusiasts who should have some awareness of what's on the market.

Again (one more time)--I am not accusing anyone of disingenuous motives. I cannot know anyone's motives. But their intent may be assumed by others even if they are unaware of it. When I first wore that Jules Jergensen to visit my parents and they saw me wearing it, my mother's response was, "well, it's a Rolex knockoff, but it looks nice." Of course it looks nice (at least from a distance)--it's a Rolex knockoff. But she was concerned that people would think I was putting on airs. At the next gift holiday, they gave me a nice quartz Seiko, which was better made and more comfortable, which I then wore. I keep the JJ simply as a reminder of the difference between motive and intent, and the realization that I do actually care what other people think, at least a little bit.

Rick "noting that LOTS of watches were knocking off the Rolex fluted bezel in those days" Denney


----------



## usc1 (Jun 25, 2007)

Rolo said:


> Just amazed at the level of snobbery in this thread...maybe ive just been away from the forum for too long to remember..


This is nothing.

It is way worse on TZ.

The snobbery begins with the moderators and trickles its way down to the members.


----------



## EsbenOpen (Dec 20, 2014)

drhr said:


> no EO it's not alright and you call me out, which is your right, but i happen to have the same right, eh . . . let's face it, it's a forum and the internet, i like some posters and not others for a host of reasons, a subjective thing that comes out loud and clear to me, same as u, some peeps are deep/respectful, others not so much (like me perhaps) and get carried awaay, when i see/read one that says that to me , well, you see my retorts/responses, perhaps that's part of my "rep" here, everybody's got one, whatever i ain't changing now, not at this point in my life, life's a joy ain't it . . .


That's fair. And I hope my post didn't come across as too much of an affront (reading it again I can see that I worded it with more hostility than I would like, I clearly took out some of my frustrations with this thread on you which wasn't at all fair and I apologize) because I do generally enjoy your posts.

I just felt that it was a little unfair to single out one side as being insulting when the other has some of the most hostile and arrogant, bloviating posts I've had the misfortune to read on this site. But again, it shouldn't have been directed at you, so my apologies.

And for what it's worth, my comment was never intended to mean that I don't see the benefits of a little trash talk from time to time, I'm not so sensitive that I can't handle it. I try to maintain a level of civil discourse even when what is directed towards me is less than civil, but from time to time a little personal dig here and there isn't the end of the world. My comment was not meant to be taken as saying we should never insult each other ever (though in a perfect world...) but that I thought it was unfair to level the accusation at one side only of a very much two-sided confrontation.


----------



## EsbenOpen (Dec 20, 2014)

rdoder said:


> In academics, something is cited in a way similar to this:
> 
> "Your analogy doesn't really work. Posting the work of someone else can be a copyright issue on its own, but it doesn't become plagiarism until you put your name on it and claim it as your own work. So, using your analogy, a watch that was an exact copy 1:1 of another, but with a different brand name would be plagiarism."(EsbenOpen, https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/stories-mistaking-steinhart-rolex-3464553-29.html#post43077282)
> 
> ...


Interesting comment.

I have a problem with the part in bold, however. I don't think an implied citation is good enough when we're talking about a 1:1 copy.

The following is not directed at you rdoder, but just in general.

I see people have assumed my position and judged me based on words that I didn't type which is interesting, but also kind of annoying so I should probably clarify my position.

I don't have a problem with people owning or wearing homages, full stop, end of story. I don't make a habit of insulting others for their choice of watch, nor do I judge them or their motives in my head.

I myself have a blue dialed, Invicta that is about as close as you can get to an Explorer II (other than the colour, the fact that it's quartz, etc. etc.). I'm not really happy with the fact that I bought it, partly because I take umbrage with the blatant copying of someone else's work, and partly because it's really poor quality and keeps worse time than most of my mechanicals. The fact is, my feelings on the matter have been changing over time as I get more and more into a line of work that is heavily reliant on IP and more and more of my time is spent doing work that relies on the generosity of others to pay for things that everyone knows how to get for free.

When a list of watches that all had similar design cues was posted, what was failed to be said was that those watches, while quite similar, are all individual designs and the designers, though taking similar design cues, created something that was not an exact copy. I'm not sure why some people can't see the difference between similar designs, even copying of similar design cues, and a watch that flat out copies everything except the brand name. Those two scenarios are not the same thing, but some people seem to be equating them.

Everything everywhere is inspired. My work is inspired by those who came before me, those whose work I love and adore, but the fact is, at the end of the day I can say I spent hundreds of hours making my own work and while inspirations can be found if one looks, it is a unique work and a labour of love.

And that's all I ask of the watches I choose to purchase.

Though my position is not 100% fixed in cement, it is generally that I personally choose not to support designs that are blatant copies but I don't insult or judge others who do.


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

drhr said:


> what happens when i like the look of a specific watch in any form and really don't want to spend money (cause they're not cheap right?) on something that i will probably have to force myself to rationalize loving (ask me how i knows) and/or already have the "real thing", should i just do what others say is the "right thing" or "nicest/better watch"?


Fair question, even if it's coming from an owner of several high end brands, like yourself.

I'm not in position to tell you or anyone how to spend their money. I've already stated my dislike for knockoffs and copy watches. There are many other better options out there from microbrands and startups, or look into something more affordable in the same category/family of watches with a similar or inspired design, or go the traditional route with hard work, and save up to buy the real thing.



usc1 said:


> This is nothing.
> 
> It is way worse on TZ.
> 
> The snobbery begins with the moderators and trickles its way down to the members.


Try mentioning Steinhart over at TRF and see how quickly you're laughed out of there.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Rdenney said:


> I learned my lesson about knockoffs. Maybe 35 years ago, I bought a Jules Jergensen (after the name was bought by a distributor of Asian knockoffs), which, other than the label, is the spitting image of a Rolex Datejust two-tone with fluted bezel and jubilee bracelet... Several times, I was asked, "Is that a Rolex?" And several times, I admitted that it was not. Truth to tell, I wasn't particularly familiar with Rolex in those days, and didn't recognize it for the obvious cheap knockoff that it was. Thus, it was not my motive to pretend to be a Rolex owner--not even slightly. *But I realized that people interpreted that as my intent. *Every first-year law student learns the difference between motive and intent.


As with most watch collectors, you think what concerns you about watches is what concerns casual watch buyers. The reality is that in the world, Rolex is the best-known brand of watch on the planet, and it is the number one brand in terms of reputation, according to the Reputation Institute. Only Apple comes close among watchmakers, according to the Reputation Institute -- and it is 19 places behind Rolex; no other watchmaker is on the list.

Even though few people will have ever seen one in the flesh -- after all, the Crown only produces 780,000 of them a year and there are six billion people on the planet -- the brand has so succeeded in building its reputation than every watch that doesn't look like an Apple Watch or a TAG Heuer will be called a Rolex. If you are even modestly successful in your field, people will think you own one because that is the thing successful people are supposed to do.

A month ago, when I was at a conference, one of the few people who noticed my Seiko Cocktail Time asked if it was a Rolex. Note that we aren't talking about a watch with a fluted bezel or even Mercedes hands, but a watch with a rather unique guilloche dial that looks nothing like an Oyster Perpetual. Yet I was asked if it was a Rolex. [A client of mine, who wears Panerais, rather enjoyed the Bulova Precisionist Big Blue I wore the next day, and ended picking up for himself.] It isn't the first time someone asked me if the watch on my wrist was produced in Bienne and it won't be the last.



Rdenney said:


> And *when we say we don't care what other people notice, or that the difference between motive and intent is unimportant to us, we are kidding ourselves.* Nobody starts a thread wondering what stories people have about confusing their Rolex for a Steinhart.


Watch collectors are overly concerned about these matters. This is because we are enthusiasts and we think watches are the most-important things (outside of family and jobs). Of course, someone on Watchuseek will ask about their Steinharts being mistaken for Rolex watches (and may even care, though such generalizations cannot be backed by any evidence). Casual watch buyers, however, could give two flips about the differences between a Rolex or a Steinhart. As I noted

Again, many collectors mistaken their own concerns about watches for those of the general population. Most of the time, when people ask about a watch or comment on it, they are merely doing a version of "how are you doing". No one outside of your family and friends cares about how you are doing. But is impolite not to ask. Watches aren't nearly as important as your existence on earth, so questions from casual buyers about watches aren't asked all that often. However, those questions do get asked on rare occasions, and no one expects an in-depth answer. [By the way: It is quite likely that people are more annoyed that you spend time talking about your watch than disappointed that it isn't a Rolex.]

If collectors would stop being consumed by watches for a minute, we would realize that the arguments we have about watches are trivial, not only in the grand scheme of life, but even among ordinary (and extraordinary) people. Consider this: Even as renowned as Rolex is, the brand ranks only fifth in value among luxury outfits (after Louis Vuitton, Hermes, Gucci, and Chanel), according to BrandZ's 2015 study. Again, no other traditional watchmaker is in the top five. The reality is that people are far more concerned about shoes, handbags, apparel, and even smartphones than they are about watches.

Which makes the arguments about homages more about collectors measuring the number of angels on the heads of pins than about any real matter of character or survival of the watch business.



Rdenney said:


> There are so many wonderful and original watch designs at all price points that it seems to me easy to avoid strongly derivative designs, at least for enthusiasts who should have some awareness of what's on the market.


I would argue that there aren't that many original designs out there, at least from traditional watchmakers; one of the threads that went on F2 earlier this year was a lament by vkalia, Agent Sands and I (among others) about the lack of fresh and original designs among traditional watchmakers. But we can all agree to disagree on that one.

Back to the point: While you and I may value "wonderful and original designs", many people (especially collectors) do not. There is a reason why there are so many dive watches out there with external timing bezels, why so few brands offer fresh designs and produce endless vintage reissues, and why there are so many successful Kickstarter campaigns for minimalist designs: Because people want designs that are familiar and comfortable to them. There is nothing wrong with that. People are entitled to their preferences and choices. If that choice is a Steinhart Sub homage, who are you and I to get all snobbish and sniffy about it?

There are a variety of reasons why people would choose a Steinhart or some other homage instead of buying a Rolex. Many of them have already been cited by drhr and others. Ultimately, those reasons don't matter other than this one: Because they like the aesthetic. Given that so many designs are "derivative" (homage by a nicer name) of one another, those people rightly conclude that it doesn't matter what watch they buy so long as they like it and can buy it with cash or credit. So long as the watches aren't counterfeit, it matters not one bit.

There are many problems with arguments against homages (and even "derivative" designs, as you call it). One of the biggest is one that goes to the heart of watch collecting itself: That people should wear watches that they like, that enthuse them, and delight them on their wrists. Even if you and I prefer not to own homages, that doesn't mean that those folks who do are wrong or even engaged in some supposedly unethical behavior for liking them. As long as those folks don't require either of us to buy the watches they prefer, it is all good.

Sometimes in life, judging others for what they do or like is more of a sign of our own discomfort with our choices than anything wrong with theirs. In this case, this is clearly so.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

EsbenOpen said:


> That's fair. And I hope my post didn't come across as too much of an affront (reading it again I can see that I worded it with more hostility than I would like, I clearly took out some of my frustrations with this thread on you which wasn't at all fair and I apologize) because I do generally enjoy your posts.
> 
> I just felt that it was a little unfair to single out one side as being insulting when the other has some of the most hostile and arrogant, bloviating posts I've had the misfortune to read on this site. But again, it shouldn't have been directed at you, so my apologies.
> 
> And for what it's worth, my comment was never intended to mean that I don't see the benefits of a little trash talk from time to time, I'm not so sensitive that I can't handle it. I try to maintain a level of civil discourse even when what is directed towards me is less than civil, but from time to time a little personal dig here and there isn't the end of the world. My comment was not meant to be taken as saying we should never insult each other ever (though in a perfect world...) but that I thought it was unfair to level the accusation at one side only of a very much two-sided confrontation.


It's cool, much respect for this post . . .


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

I understand the argument that one could buy a watch of original design at the same price as a copy watch, and some people favor doing that over buying a homage/copy watch.

I like Grand Seiko watches, with their glimmering hour markers, as I see them on the Internet. I have thought about getting a Seiko Brightz or Presage, with similar glimmering hour markers. So I understand why some people might like the design of a higher priced watch and think about getting a lower priced, substitute version.

Most people against copy watches seem to be against the fact that some other watch company (other than the original watch company) is profiting from someone else's original designs.

One thought I have about this is that in the case of Rolex and Steinhart, Rolex is really free to sell watches at lower price to capture the lower price segment. They do that, in the form of Tudor. But for some people like me, that price is not low enough. If Rolex does not offer a sub-brand that sells at e.g. $200-500 range, and it's legal for other companies to make copy watches, if Rolex don't/refuse to do it, then some other watch company will do it.

One could think of it this way: it's Rolex's decision not to have a sub-brand that sells at $200-500 range with their designs, and someone else goes in to capture that market segment that Rolex left empty. In a way, it's Rolex's own fault for not capturing that market! 

Whereas Seiko captures a broader price range with GS, and e.g. Brightz, Presage, SARB, etc. Just some thoughts.

Don't get me wrong, to some extent, I prefer to get the original design from the original maker too if they're not so darn expensive. But I don't feel negatively about copy watch companies, because if it's legal, someone is bound to do it. In the grand scheme of things, copy watches are not so bad to me.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Side question, did anybody mistake a Rolex for a Steinhart?

Sent from my LG-H630 using Tapatalk


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

EnderW said:


> ...
> What I do know, is that everytime I see someone with a Sub on a wrist and I get a closer look and way too often it's not a Rolex (usually either Invicta or fake, but same as Steinhart), my immediate reaction is that of disappointment. Basically - excitement about a fellow watch enthusiast\owner .... followed by disappointment of "looks like, but isn't". At which point I lose all interest and won't talk to that person about anything watch related.
> 
> Plus too many things put me off knockoffs (aka homages, aka copies)...





Brey17 said:


> This is an unbelievable statement and viewpoint. Basically, "Initially, I thought you owned a watch that I also appreciate therefore you are a real watch enthusiast, however, you own a Steinhart, I was wrong, you aren't a real watch enthusiast. Your views of watches are worthless."
> 
> edit: Clarified statement.





Brey17 said:


> I don't find a grating, I find it hilarious and surprised that somebody would actually say something like that out loud even if he really did feel like that on the inside.


Oh don't get your panties in a bunch.
If dislike of knock-offs makes me a snob, then so be it.

But clearly my post was not based on some-ones finances. I'd love to see more Seikos or Orients or Hamiltons on peoples wrists. Most of my collection is "affordable" (as in <$500)
My point is not that people with "homages" have worthless views. My point is that when something pretends to be one thing, it is disappointing when it's something else entirely (and in this case a much cheaper imitation) and kills off my excitement.

Pardon me for being honest in my opinions and not virtue signalling all over, like some posters.

And while I'm yet to run into Steinhart in the wild.... I've ran into dozens on Invictas and fakes and in every single instance - the wearer wasn't a watch enthusiast but just wanted either a Rolex knockoff or just a watch (with no interest beyond it). Some were very nice people and coworkers. None were watch enthusiasts.

so to recap... yeah, I get disappointed when things pretend to be one thing and are actually something very different 




PS. And if anyone finds this Family guy offensive... well too bad.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

So many mean snobs on here....

What kind of snobby people aren't ecstatic over my brand new "precision chronometer", "kinetic continuous", "hand built in America" knockoff.... sorry "homage"...

And evil fat-cats at Rolex are making 1,257% profit (I read so on google so it must be true), unlike honest hard-working folk @ Steinhart who are bringing affordable luxury to the common man with all the best intentions at heart

How dare people not drool over my brand new Bagel Sport Patek "homage"

And my Rodina Bauhaus is every bit as interesting as 1-to-1 Nomos it's copying

And my Speedy "homage" has not been to the moon, but it's made by mr Moon in Pyongyang (or wherever Tisell is made)

And some Swiss brand made something similar to another Swiss brand 70 years ago, so anyone should be allowed to copy designs without any stigma

And when I volunteer in soup kitchen and hand-out toys to displaced war orphans, I always wear a homage, so they don't feel bad about seeing anything expensive on my wrist

My mommy told me I'm special, and smartest, and prettiest, and always get to have a last word...

Pay attention to me....

/sarc


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

EnderW said:


> Oh don't get your panties in a bunch.
> If dislike of knock-offs makes me a snob, then so be it.


Methinks you are annoyed that people have called you out on your illogic. Or as the kids say these days, you are butthurt.

As I noted earlier, the problem with your statement is that it fails to understand that "real" watch enthusiasm isn't about owning a Rolex Sub instead of a homage. Watch enthusiasm is about appreciating, enjoying, even getting nutty as all get out about watches as well as the design, history, business, and technology behind them.

Additionally, as with mav, you mistaken ownership of worldly goods with content of character. There are plenty of scoundrels wearing genuine Rolex Submariners and good, moral people wearing homages. The failure to understand that means youand a lot of other people have a lot to learn.

At the end of the day, people choose watches they like. Businesses exist to provide them. So long as they don't force me to wear what I don't want on my wrists, I don't care. Neither should you.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Seven, for a guy who complains others don't listen, you don't listen.

Rick "No, I'm not going to explain why. You're smart enough to figure it out." Denney


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Why does Rolex not have sub-brands that sell in $200-500 range, with watches that at a glance would look like a Rolex? Because that would devalue the Rolex brand. Just as Seiko devalue Grand Seiko.

"Andre J. Heiniger, 78, built Rolex watches into a world-famous brand. A friend of Heiniger once asked him casually, "How's the watch business?" to which Heiniger, the chairman of Rolex, replied, "I have no idea." His friend laughed, but Heiniger was not trying to be funny. "Rolex," he said, "is not in the watch business. We are in the luxury business.""(Andre Heiniger; Architect of Rolex's Status Image - latimes)

Keeping luxury from the common man is the luxury business. Being interested in watches does not have to be about keeping luxury from the common man. Some folks in the Affordable watches sub-forum's "homage" threads understand that. Seiko understand that. Rolex understand that too, and they promote exclusivity. That's the game of their designs. Watch people and people in general don't have to buy into that.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

rdoder said:


> Why does Rolex not have sub-brands that sell in $200-500 range, with watches that at a glance would look like a Rolex? Because that would devalue the Rolex brand. Just as Seiko devalue Grand Seiko.
> 
> "Andre J. Heiniger, 78, built Rolex watches into a world-famous brand. A friend of Heiniger once asked him casually, "How's the watch business?" to which Heiniger, the chairman of Rolex, replied, "I have no idea." His friend laughed, but Heiniger was not trying to be funny. "Rolex," he said, "is not in the watch business. We are in the luxury business.""(Andre Heiniger; Architect of Rolex's Status Image - latimes)
> 
> Keeping luxury from the common man is the luxury business. Being interested in watches does not have to be about keeping luxury from the common man. Some folks in the Affordable watches sub-forum's "homage" threads understand that. Seiko understand that. Rolex understand that too, and they promote exclusivity. That's the game of their designs. Watch people and people in general don't have to buy into that.


Rolex does have an affordable brand: It's called Tudor.

Yes, they are in the luxury business, as are many companies who make all sorts of things. But they make a million watches a year--it's hard to be exclusive when you are consistently at the top of the production heap.

Zenith is exclusive--they make 30,000-50,000 watches a year or thereabouts. You can't buy them in most places. Patek-Philippe is exclusive. ALS is exclusive. But Rolex is not exclusive. Anyone with a few thousand dollars can own a Rolex, and that is not enough money to keep out the teeming masses. There is a jeweler in every small town that carries Rolex. I was in Lufkin, Texas, a couple of years ago, and saw a giant billboard, with the name of the local jeweler on it, advertising Rolex watches. There may be half a dozen truly exclusive people in that town, in the sense that you are describing, but there are lots of people with money.

Does that make some Steinhart owners the same as many Rolex owners? Yes. They are all trying to create the image of exclusivity with such a well-known brand (or appearance of a brand). I did not say all owners--some buy Rolexes because they are excellent watches, and they know the difference. Some buy Steinharts because they likewise fit their quality and price model and they are enthusiastic about the look. But there are more non-enthusiast owners than enthusiast owners. Were it not true, Rolex's production would be more like Zenith's, and Steinhart would be a "micro". I don't know what the motives are of Rolex and knockoff buyers, but their intent can be observed.

What Heiniger should have said is that he was into creating the _impression_ that Rolex is high-end, so that consumers will want them. I really don't think there is any interest by Rolex in keeping their watches only on the wrists of the gentry classes. I suspect their only requirement for their customers is that their checks don't bounce. But I will credit Rolex with this: They maintain exceptional quality over so large a production, and at the price they charge.

No, I don't credit those who buy cheap knockoffs as "knowing" anything as noble as is being described here. I have nothing against affordables, and own many. But to say that people who buy affordable knockoffs are more noble because they don't want to keep luxury from the common man? That's a load of BS. The common man, at least in the USA, can afford a Rolex if he wants one. He won't have to wait in line for two years, or have to travel to a distant city just to look at one in the flesh. All it takes is money. A Rolex is easier to buy in Lufkin, Texas than a Steinhart.

Rick "who does not own a Rolex" Denney


----------



## EsbenOpen (Dec 20, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> Methinks you are annoyed that people have called you out on your illogic. Or as the kids say these days, you are butthurt.
> 
> As I noted earlier, the problem with your statement is that it fails to understand that "real" watch enthusiasm isn't about owning a Rolex Sub instead of a homage. Watch enthusiasm is about appreciating, enjoying, even getting nutty as all get out about watches as well as the design, history, business, and technology behind them.
> 
> ...


It's not up to you to determine what "'real' watch enthusiasm" is.

And if "real" watch enthusiasm were, as you put it, about appreciating the design of watches, then why would you expect someone to get excited about a design they've seen countless times before? The design of the Submariner is interesting, and it speaks to some people's taste and not so much to others, but when so many watches copy the look of it exactly, down to the case, bezel and knurls, hands, crown, crown guards, etc, you can't blame people for not being excited about each copy they see. Variety is the spice of life and tedium is, well, tedious.

If someone likes the look of a Sub and can't afford one (or just doesn't care to spend that much on a watch), then of course it's their right to go and buy a copy, but to imply that if you don't appreciate homages, then you're not a "real" watch enthusiast is patently ridiculous. Especially if your definition of a "real" watch enthusiast includes appreciating design (original design being something that a copy doesn't do).


----------



## Galaga (Jun 22, 2017)

I understand what Steinhart are trying to do and why many people like them but I think their watches lack soul.


----------



## zachste (Nov 13, 2013)

lvt said:


> Side question, did anybody mistake a Rolex for a Steinhart?
> 
> 
> lvt said:
> ...


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Rdenney said:


> Seven, for a guy who complains others don't listen, you don't listen.


I've never said anything of the sort. Nice try, though.

The issue, Rick, is that we disagree on this matter. You want my agreement and I won't give it. I don't care about whether you agree or not. I merely articulate my perspective, offer some facts and evidence, and perhaps, others may be persuaded.

I'm your mind, everything I write has an agenda. It's fine when my opinion dovetails with yours. When it doesn't, it is nefarious. That's a simplistic way of viewing life; I can largely disagree with people and just see it as people being sentient beings. But I'm not you.

I need no clever tag lines to make my point.


----------



## Galaga (Jun 22, 2017)

zachste said:


> lvt said:
> 
> 
> > Side question, did anybody mistake a Rolex for a Steinhart?
> ...


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

EsbenOpen said:


> It's not up to you to determine what "'real' watch enthusiasm" is.
> 
> And if "real" watch enthusiasm were, as you put it, about appreciating the design of watches, then why would you expect someone to get excited about a design they've seen countless times before? The design of the Submariner is interesting, and it speaks to some people's taste and not so much to others, but when so many watches copy the look of it exactly, down to the case, bezel and knurls, hands, crown, crown guards, etc, you can't blame people for not being excited about each copy they see. Variety is the spice of life and tedium is, well, tedious.
> 
> If someone likes the look of a Sub and can't afford one (or just doesn't care to spend that much on a watch), then of course it's their right to go and buy a copy, but to imply that if you don't appreciate homages, then you're not a "real" watch enthusiast is patently ridiculous. Especially if your definition of a "real" watch enthusiast includes appreciating design (original design being something that a copy doesn't do).


The point, which you seem to miss, that outside of being a fan of watches and all that are a part of them, there is no litmus test for being a watch enthusiast or collector. Even owning one watch, regardless of type, qualifies. Which makes efforts by EnderW and others to set such litmus tests rather silly, snobbish, and laced with insecurity.

You don't have to prefer homages. But you can also mind your manners and appreciate that others do like theirs. Because that's what watch enthusiasm is all about.


----------



## mfunnell (Jun 8, 2017)

rdoder said:


> Just as Seiko devalue Grand Seiko.


Or could it be that Grand Seiko elevates Seiko? Or even, perhaps, that Grand Seiko might be trying to do something different from Seiko, but they're not trying to disguise their origins behind some superficially disconnected branding? Or perhaps both? Just some random thoughts...

...Mike


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

rdoder said:


> Why does Rolex not have sub-brands that sell in $200-500 range, with watches that at a glance would look like a Rolex? Because that would devalue the Rolex brand. Just as Seiko devalue Grand Seiko.
> 
> "Andre J. Heiniger, 78, built Rolex watches into a world-famous brand. A friend of Heiniger once asked him casually, "How's the watch business?" to which Heiniger, the chairman of Rolex, replied, "I have no idea." His friend laughed, but Heiniger was not trying to be funny. "Rolex," he said, "is not in the watch business. We are in the luxury business.""(Andre Heiniger; Architect of Rolex's Status Image - latimes)
> 
> Keeping luxury from the common man is the luxury business. Being interested in watches does not have to be about keeping luxury from the common man. Some folks in the Affordable watches sub-forum's "homage" threads understand that. Seiko understand that. Rolex understand that too, and they promote exclusivity. That's the game of their designs. Watch people and people in general don't have to buy into that.


Yeah. What an awesome idea.
Rolex should just start selling $200-500 watches. Cause heck with business reality, or sunk costs, or huge goodwill brand value worth billions that was created over decades, or even basic market segmentation.

But I'm not opposed to it. It will put Steinhart, Parnis, Tisell, Invicta, Alpha and 26,457 other "brands" out of business.

PS. and of course Seiko does not devalue Grand Seiko - they are playing in different markets. Market segmentation allows different quality goods to be priced differently. Or are you arguing that Seiko = Grand Seiko except for brand image and price tag?


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

Sevenmack said:


> *Methinks* you are annoyed that people have called you out on your illogic. Or as the kids say these days, you are butthurt.
> 
> As I noted earlier, the problem with your statement is that it fails to understand that "real" watch enthusiasm isn't about owning a Rolex Sub instead of a homage. Watch enthusiasm is about appreciating, enjoying, even getting nutty as all get out about watches as well as the design, history, business, and technology behind them.
> 
> ...


So Rolex Submariners owners are scoundrels and good, moral people wear homages? Who's judging now S-Mack?


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

I think to ascribe characteristics to a copy watch owner or an original watch owner is equally problematic, in that it could be false. I know because I've been there, and I'm still there.

To me, watch enthusiasm means studying the characteristics of my own watches, regardless of brand, price, or look they are (though of course I have favorites), and studying my own thinking and emotional changes through time about these watches. Since that's the case, a copy watch or an original watch could both be studied, if I own either.

What's wrong with BBW?  Google Images show some pretty amazing BBW.

Would I buy a Steinhart copy watch? Probably not, because I have no interest in many of Rolex's designs and models. If I have interest in those designs, maybe I would buy a Steinhart copy watch. But I don't want people to think I want the look without paying the price, so I would probably just wear/enjoy/study a Steinhart copy watch at home. That is, if the only thing I'm interested in is just the design/look. I think there's nothing wrong if people buy a copy watch just for the look. I think some people might know/understand copy watches lack fit, finish, accuracy, etc., of the original watch.

In general public, if people want Rolex without paying the price, they might buy a fake? Steinhart might actually be a sign of frugal watch guy? I don't know.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

mav said:


> So Rolex Submariners owners are scoundrels and good, moral people wear homages?


You are being deliberately obtuse. The point I made is that you can't judge people on what watch they wear. That's because a watch doesn't represent character. Good people are all kinds of watches. So do bad.

If you argue that a person who wears a homage is a "phony", as you did, then you are engaging in silly, didactic, and immoral thinking. It says more about you than about he who wears the watch.

Check your heart. Because it is lacking.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

EnderW said:


> Yeah. What an awesome idea.
> Rolex should just start selling $200-500 watches. Cause heck with business reality, or sunk costs, or huge goodwill brand value worth billions that was created over decades, or even basic market segmentation.
> 
> But I'm not opposed to it. It will put Steinhart, Parnis, Tisell, Invicta, Alpha and 26,457 other "brands" out of business.
> ...


I'm saying there are people who shun Grand Seiko because of the word "Seiko" in "Grand Seiko". The recent move by Seiko to further separate GS from Seiko is an attempt to win over luxury watch buyers. I don't know, maybe it's not enough. Just as Honda needed the word Acura, maybe Seiko needs another word other than "Grand Seiko" to appeal to some luxury watch buyers.

I'm saying Seiko is (or was?) in the watch business, the business of selling watches to everyone, while Rolex is in the luxury business, of selling luxury/prestige (and a beautiful watch) to those who could afford it.


----------



## CertifiedDeskDiver (Jun 11, 2017)

EnderW said:


> What I do know, is that everytime I see someone with a Sub on a wrist and I get a closer look and way too often it's not a Rolex (usually either Invicta or fake, but same as Steinhart), my immediate reaction is that of disappointment. Basically - excitement about a fellow watch enthusiast\owner .... followed by disappointment of "looks like, but isn't". At which point I lose all interest and won't talk to that person about anything watch related.


Being NYC based I see many _Subs_. Real, Canal St specials, homages, somewhere in between. From my experience the person wearing a Steinhart (or any microbrand that makes a derivative of the Sub) is more likely to be a fellow watch enthusiast than the Sub owner.


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

zachste said:


> lvt said:
> 
> 
> > Side question, did anybody mistake a Rolex for a Steinhart?
> ...


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

mav said:


> BTW this thread needs more photos.
> 
> Fake Invicta Sub 114060:
> 
> ...


I know that we shouldn't discuss fake here but I have to say that your fake Invicta look pretty good.

Sent from my LG-H630 using Tapatalk


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

rdoder said:


> ...
> 
> I'm saying Seiko is (or was?) in the watch business, the business of selling watches to everyone, while Rolex is in the luxury business, of selling luxury/prestige (and a beautiful watch) to those who could afford it.


But that applies to everything. McDonalds is in business of fast food and fine dining sells to those who can afford it. Keyfood vs WholeFoods. Ford vs Audi. Motel 6 vs Hilton.

I guess, I'm not seeing what your point is. Businesses pick a market they want to serve and try to serve it. Seems kind of obvious, No reason for Rolex to sell in $200 range.
The discussion here is not on Rolex pricing, but on all the hanger-ons who basically piggy back off Rolex success and steal their design, marketing and reputation investment spend.

And there is a reason why Steinhart and rest copy Rolex and not Seiko5. Not because Rolex design is so wonderful. But because they want their watches to look like another $10K watch at a glance. Seiko 5 is an extremely popular line, but Steinhart is not copying it....


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

DapperedX said:


> Being NYC based I see many _Subs_. Real, Canal St specials, homages, somewhere in between. From my experience the person wearing a Steinhart (or any microbrand that makes a derivative of the Sub) is more likely to be a fellow watch enthusiast than the Sub owner.


That was my point, but perhaps it got diluted with all the BS in this thread.

Yes, person wearing a Steinhart is more likely a watch enthusiast than a random guy wearing a Rolex.
But I was not speaking to Steinhart specifically, but rather to what Steinhart represents - legal knockoffs.

I'm also in NYC and I also see plenty of Submariner looking watches - and without fail, tons of them are fakes or Invictas. Perhaps I should have specified that Invictas don't generate any excitement for me. But then Invicta brigade would be out in force instead of Steinhart brigade.

My only point was - I see something that I think is X, I discover it is a cheap imitation of X, I walk away disappointed. That's it.


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

Sevenmack said:


> You are being deliberately obtuse. The point I made is that you can't judge people on what watch they wear. That's because a watch doesn't represent character. Good people are all kinds of watches. So do bad.
> 
> If you argue that a person who wears a homage is a "phony", as you did, then you are engaging in silly, didactic, and immoral thinking. It says more about you than about he who wears the watch.
> 
> Check your heart. Because it is lacking.


So when others and I make a sarcastic remark that obviously you didn't get and don't agree with, it's not OK, but when you do it, you get a pass?

Whatever suits your argument. The irony is that I'm not even disagreeing with your point; you've just failed to listen.


----------



## GnarKing (Nov 27, 2015)

DapperedX said:


> Being NYC based I see many _Subs_. Real, Canal St specials, homages, somewhere in between. From my experience the person wearing a Steinhart (or any microbrand that makes a derivative of the Sub) is more likely to be a fellow watch enthusiast than the Sub owner.


I agree. The average sub owner that I've encountered is like "ah yea, such a great watch, it's like kinetic or something, doesn't even require a battery"  The few times I've seen guys wearing a Steinhart in the wild and actually talked with them, it's been very clear that they were true watch enthusiasts.

I sold my Steinhart Ocean One when I was able to afford a Sub but I loved it while I had it. I was impressed with the quality for the cost and it kept great time.

Instagram: @TheColumbiaWatchSociety


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Honestly, the number of people triggered by mere mention of word Rolex is amazing.
We should have some sort of a safe place where people can go and discuss the wonderful merits of their copies without fear of different opinions or others not sharing their views.
Perhaps we can have it as a sub-forum.
Perhaps we can give it a catchy name based on meaningless concept like affordability, and even keep it different from F2, like F71 or something.


----------



## zachste (Nov 13, 2013)

Dream Killer said:


> zachste said:
> 
> 
> > lvt said:
> ...


----------



## CertifiedDeskDiver (Jun 11, 2017)

EnderW said:


> Honestly, the number of people triggered by mere mention of word Rolex is amazing.
> We should have some sort of a safe place where people can go and discuss the wonderful merits of their copies without fear of different opinions or others not sharing their views.
> Perhaps we can have it as a sub-forum.
> Perhaps we can give it a catchy name based on meaningless concept like affordability, and even keep it different from F2, like F71 or something.


The affordable section does have a huge Sub homage thread.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

EnderW said:


> But that applies to everything. McDonalds is in business of fast food and fine dining sells to those who can afford it. Keyfood vs WholeFoods. Ford vs Audi. Motel 6 vs Hilton.
> 
> I guess, I'm not seeing what your point is. Businesses pick a market they want to serve and try to serve it. Seems kind of obvious, No reason for Rolex to sell in $200 range.
> The discussion here is not on Rolex pricing, but on all the hanger-ons who basically piggy back off Rolex success and steal their design, marketing and reputation investment spend.
> ...


Sometimes I think a lot of this is a brand, name, word problem. Strip away the brand/name/word, it's a watch. No name, history, heritage, craftsmanship, etc., nothing to market on. It's a watch.

Watch companies want people to focus on the brand and buy the brand and all that's associated with it. But if I break it down and look at what is happening, what happens is different people, at different locations, making watches, using different methods, under different brand names. Strip away the brand/company/employer, and you're left with different people, at different locations, making watches, using different methods. Technically, there are many differences, of course. But at the base of it, they are just watches, made by people.

If I come up with some design, that people use to their benefit, I see that as a good thing, especially if it's legal.

My understanding is that (patent? copyright?) ran out long ago for Rolex designs. My point is that if it's legal, someone is going to do it (heck, people do things even if it's illegal and/or immoral). Me liking or not liking it won't make a difference. Personally, I'm not bothered by it. I understand others could be bothered by it, and I guess it's everyone's right to feel how one feels.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Sevenmack said:


> I've never said anything of the sort. Nice try, though.
> 
> The issue, Rick, is that we disagree on this matter. You want my agreement and I won't give it. I don't care about whether you agree or not. I merely articulate my perspective, offer some facts and evidence, and perhaps, others may be persuaded.
> 
> ...


No, the real reason is that your response to my post utterly missed the point that I think I made pretty clearly. Take and look and you'll see. I don't care that we disagree, and I didn't even hint about any potential agenda you might have. But it is annoying when you complain about my "reading comprehension" in this very thread and then display so little of it yourself.

Rick "when all the receivers complain of static, you may need to wonder about the transmitter" Denney


----------



## CertifiedDeskDiver (Jun 11, 2017)

EnderW said:


> That was my point, but perhaps it got diluted with all the BS in this thread.
> 
> Yes, person wearing a Steinhart is more likely a watch enthusiast than a random guy wearing a Rolex.
> But I was not speaking to Steinhart specifically, but rather to what Steinhart represents - legal knockoffs.
> ...


Yea I get it. To me a homage was always about borrowing some design cues but introducing your own flairs (not just different colors or simply a different logo). These I were okay with but now I don't where I stand. I bought a Orient Ray I as a beater for days I volunteer in the city but even that gets mistaken for a Sub often enough. It does bother me.

At the same time I didn't like when people would question me about my 114060 either. shrugs


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

rdoder said:


> Sometimes I think a lot of this is a brand, name, word problem. Strip away the brand/name/word, it's a watch. No name, history, heritage, craftsmanship, etc., nothing to market on. It's a watch.
> 
> Watch companies want people to focus on the brand and buy the brand and all that's associated with it. But if I break it down and look at what is happening, what happens is different people, at different locations, making watches, using different methods, under different brand names. Strip away the brand/company/employer, and you're left with different people, at different locations, making watches, using different methods. Technically, there are many differences, of course. But at the base of it, they are just watches, made by people.
> 
> ...


I agree that cheap knockoffs are probably not invading Rolex's market all that much, because people who buy them either can't or won't spend what a Rolex costs. This was true even back when Rolex's prices were much lower relative to the market than they are now, merely because Rolex is famous for making quality, respected watches.

Rolex's standing is not a recent fabrication of marketing as was implied, by the way. I was watching a movie made in 1965 based on the novel by James Clavell, _King Rat._ In that movie, the protagonist was a black-market operator in a Japanese prison camp during WWII. He was negotiating the purchase of an Omega watch from a prisoner to resell to a prison guard, and offered half the price that had been offered for a Rolex. From the language, both recognized the Rolex as a premiere watch, and the Omega as not quite as good. I doubt that was true in the Changi Prison in 1944, but I am sure it was true when Clavell wrote the novel in 1962. Although, it was after Sean Connery donned a Rolex as James Bond, so maybe Clavell was playing off that. On the other hand, it has been suggested that the Rolex James Bond wore was Connery's personal possession, suggesting that even then it was a watch for the gentry.

I'm also not bothered by people wearing knockoffs, but I have reasons for not doing it myself, which I think I explained previously clearly enough. The fact that I won't do it myself, and that I recommend against it, does not mean I judge people for doing so. I think I can transcend my own views a little better than that.

When someone compliments me for buying a fine watch from a highly respected brand, I don't want to have to explain that it is not quite that fine and not that made by that respected brand. Saying that it's almost as fine from a brand that some (even knowledgeable) people respect sounds a little desperate to me, because if it was true (the person who asked is thinking), why copy the design? And keeping it from them would be disingenuous. It has nothing to do with what is legal.

And I think the distinction between derivative designs (in their varying degrees) and knockoffs is relevant to this discussion. One cannot be used justify the other.

Rick "wondering if Rolex is basking in the warmth of the respect being shown to them by Steinhart and other knockoffs" Denney


----------



## CertifiedDeskDiver (Jun 11, 2017)

To go off tangent a bit, where does Squale fit in among this? I know they have history on their side.


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

Rdenney said:


> Zenith is exclusive--they make 30,000-50,000 watches a year or thereabouts. You can't buy them in most places. Patek-Philippe is exclusive. ALS is exclusive. But Rolex is not exclusive.


I think the perception of exclusivity is part of the Rolex DNA and brand strategy. There are many other higher end brands that are truly exclusive.

Sometimes it's annoying. Take the steel Daytona. Waitlists for years. Most AD's won't even put your name on their waitlist, unless you're a high volume client and current Rolex owner. If Rolex really wanted to, they can manufacture enough Daytona's within 90 to 120 days to cover everyone that is waiting for one. Yet they are trickling them out to maintain that perceived exclusivity of one product model that has a vast impact to their entire brand.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

EnderW said:


> But I'm not opposed to it. It will put Steinhart, Parnis, Tisell, Invicta, Alpha and 26,457 other "brands" out of business.


I understand that you would hope this is true, but I am not so sure if it would be at all. Not that it matters. There are many people who choose not to buy Rolex on principle for various reasons.


----------



## Z engineer (Mar 4, 2017)

EnderW said:


> And there is a reason why Steinhart and rest copy Rolex and not Seiko5. Not because Rolex design is so wonderful.


Agreed. Because their production strategy is clearly a big mess. Watches that cost +/- €6375,- (€7500,- minus 15% margin, true fact!) a pop to produce, while Steinhart can make them for less than €500,-. My guess is Rolex produces a lot of scrap, about a tonne per watch, while Steinhart obviously spent more on R&D to perfect their process technologies.

In addition, this thread wouldn't be complete without a true Rolex Submariner copy:








(photo taken from tudorwatch.com)


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

DapperedX said:


> Being NYC based I see many _Subs_. Real, Canal St specials, homages, somewhere in between. From my experience the person wearing a Steinhart (or any microbrand that makes a derivative of the Sub) is more likely to be a fellow watch enthusiast than the Sub owner.


Hmmmm, interesting . . . last I was there was b4 infection and I had no interest, next time will be diff . . .


----------



## SomeAssemblyRequired (Jan 19, 2015)

This thread has taken some head spinning turns and twists -- and I may just be losing it here, failing to get the analogy due to my limited horological knowledge -- but I can't see how the VC is a knockoff of those three Genta designs, or how the modern versions of the watches that Genta designed for those same manufacturers are now homages. Perhaps I need to improve my reading comprehension, get clarification, or kindly pointed in the right direction to understand how this could be the case. Or maybe we've just gone too far down the rabbit hole here in trying to make finer and finer points out of what stared off as a simple question ;-)



mav said:


> ...The original Gerald Genta designs:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Z engineer said:


> Agreed. Because their production strategy is clearly a big mess. Watches that cost +/- €6375,- (€7500,- minus 15% margin, true fact!) a pop to produce, while Steinhart can make them for less than €500,-. My guess is Rolex produces a lot of scrap, about a tonne per watch, while Steinhart obviously spent more on R&D to perfect their process technologies.
> 
> In addition, this thread wouldn't be complete without a true Rolex Submariner copy:


Nice, this is one of the first watches my wife researched and purchased for herself, her favorite of a small clutch of pieces . . .


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Z engineer said:


> Agreed. Because their production strategy is clearly a big mess. Watches that cost +/- €6375,- (€7500,- minus 15% margin, true fact!) a pop to produce, while Steinhart can make them for less than €500,-. My guess is Rolex produces a lot of scrap, about a tonne per watch, while Steinhart obviously spent more on R&D to perfect their process technologies.
> 
> In addition, this thread wouldn't be complete without a true Rolex Submariner copy:
> 
> ...


Interesting post. This points to the artificial divide between the words "Tudor" and "Rolex". Back then, it was the same quality (is that right?) of bracelet, case, dial, crown, etc., but put in a different movement, and write "Rolex" on the dial, and suddenly it's $x more expensive?!

There is an artificial divide between carbon-based molecules in a tube, and in a human. In a tube, it's just stuff. In human form, suddenly stuff has life and soul!

There is an artificial divide between iron and carbon in the ground, and in a watch. In the ground, it's just stuff. In a watch, and put a word on the dial, suddenly stuff has value and soul! Or put another word on the dial, suddenly it's not as "good"!

It's interesting.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

SomeAssemblyRequired said:


> This thread has taken some head spinning turns and twists -- and I may just be losing it here, failing to get the analogy due to my limited horological knowledge -- but I can't see how the VC is a knockoff of those three Genta designs, or how the modern versions of the watches that Genta designed for those same manufacturers are now homages. Perhaps I need to improve my reading comprehension, get clarification, or kindly pointed in the right direction to understand how this could be the case. Or maybe we've just gone too far down the rabbit hole here in trying to make finer and finer points out of what stared off as a simple question ;-)


Just a misunderstanding. Mav was saying that those aren't knockoffs, just designs with same roots and with modern models paying respect to original designs being true homages.

Unlike 99% of what people call "homages", which are basically glorified knockoffs


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Brey17 said:


> I understand that you would hope this is true, but I am not so sure if it would be at all. Not that it matters. There are many people who choose not to buy Rolex on principle for various reasons.


There are many people who choose not to buy Rolex for various reasons....but buy exact copies (sans Rolex name)
Seems like it is just 1 reason ($$$)

And of course, once again everything comes down to Rolex. Or are "homages" of Patek, AP, Zenith, Omega, Tissot, G-Shock, Seiko, Nomos, Stowa, Tag, DW, MKors, etc. also popular because people choose not to buy those brands for various reasons?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

EnderW said:


> Just a misunderstanding. Mav was saying that those aren't knockoffs, just designs with same roots and with modern models paying respect to original designs being true homages.
> 
> Unlike 99% of what people call *"homages"*, which are basically glorified knockoffs


Indeed, "copies" makes more sense, glorified or not obviously . . . and mav has a lot of times caused "misunderstandings" I've noticed, at least for me though I'll take credit/blame for one half of that fact.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Z engineer said:


> Agreed. Because their production strategy is clearly a big mess. Watches that cost +/- €6375,- (€7500,- minus 15% margin, true fact!) a pop to produce, while Steinhart can make them for less than €500,-. My guess is Rolex produces a lot of scrap, about a tonne per watch, while Steinhart obviously spent more on R&D to perfect their process technologies.


I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm or serious. Which speaks volumes to the quality of content on this thread. 
But based on previous posts, I suspect you are serious. Which makes me wonder re: origins of your user-id.


----------



## EsbenOpen (Dec 20, 2014)

I didn't miss that point, you did. And you continue to.



Sevenmack said:


> The point, which you seem to miss, that outside of being a fan of watches and all that are a part of them, there is no litmus test for being a watch enthusiast or collector.





Sevenmack said:


> You don't have to prefer homages. But you can also mind your manners and appreciate that others do like theirs. Because that's what watch enthusiasm is all about.


:roll:

And besides, that's not even what you said...



Sevenmack said:


> "real" watch enthusiasm isn't about owning a Rolex Sub instead of a homage. Watch enthusiasm is about appreciating, enjoying, even getting nutty as all get out about watches as well as the design, history, business, and technology behind them.


Not only are you the inventor and the God Emperor of the Definition, now you're able to alter it at will as well? Neat.

I'm not certain who you think you're fooling with your tactics of deflection and hand-waving.

By the way, I'm curious to see what tomorrow's Definition is. Please add me to the newsletter so I can always stay up to date. I'd hate for my "Legit Watch Enthusiast Membership" TM to be revoked.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

rdoder said:


> Sometimes I think a lot of this is a brand, name, word problem. Strip away the brand/name/word, it's a watch. No name, history, heritage, craftsmanship, etc., nothing to market on. It's a watch.
> 
> Watch companies want people to focus on the brand and buy the brand and all that's associated with it. But if I break it down and look at what is happening, what happens is different people, at different locations, making watches, using different methods, under different brand names. Strip away the brand/company/employer, and you're left with different people, at different locations, making watches, using different methods. Technically, there are many differences, of course. But at the base of it, they are just watches, made by people.
> 
> ...


Technically the question is not of patents, but of trade dress. And legality is a grey area. The lawsuit that AP brought against SWI Group put them out of business.
Patent law only protects functional components (not that it stops any "homage" brands from copying patent-protected features like glidelock clasp and proprietary bezels, crown-guards and more). Fashion industry in general has little legal protections, which is why any designed dress introduced at a fashion show is copied within days and available at local JC Penney or such within weeks. Fighting trade dress lawsuits takes time and money. And it also makes sense when pursuing legal action against big company, not so much against mushroom brands.

But beyond that, I disagree with premise that strip away the brand and you are left with comparable products.

Strip away the brand and you'll still have:

1) a company with multi-million dollars R&D budget, employing designers and engineers that are constantly improving on materials, accuracy, technology, comfort, precision, etc. 
With hundreds of master watchmakers making serious $, with benefits, pension plans.
With schooling and certifications for those watchmakers
With billions of investment in manufacturing capabilities, CNC, and more
With own steel foundries and engineers creating proprietary alloys
With hundreds of innovations and patents
With top-notch accuracy
in-house manufacture movements, proven over decades and durable and tough
With customer service reputation based on decades of consistency
With phenomenal QA perfected over decades
With testing of watches in extreme environments, and using consulting services of professionals (military, etc)
etc

2) company that copied design of #1
Has a vendor who produces all parts\components (incl movements)
Has a few dudes sitting around assembling those components
Has a website for selling their assembled copies

Even without brand name on the dial - the 2 could not be further apart.


----------



## EsbenOpen (Dec 20, 2014)

EnderW said:


> Honestly, the number of people triggered by mere mention of word Rolex is amazing.
> We should have some sort of a safe place where people can go and discuss the wonderful merits of their copies without fear of different opinions or others not sharing their views.
> Perhaps we can have it as a sub-forum.
> Perhaps we can give it a catchy name based on meaningless concept like affordability, and even keep it different from F2, like F71 or something.


I'd be careful about calling it a "sub"-forum. Might give people the wrong idea due to it's connotations to the big "R"


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

mav said:


> I think the perception of exclusivity is part of the Rolex DNA and brand strategy. There are many other higher end brands that are truly exclusive.
> 
> Sometimes it's annoying. Take the steel Daytona. Waitlists for years. Most AD's won't even put your name on their waitlist, unless you're a high volume client and current Rolex owner. If Rolex really wanted to, they can manufacture enough Daytona's within 90 to 120 days to cover everyone that is waiting for one. Yet they are trickling them out to maintain that perceived exclusivity of one product model that has a vast impact to their entire brand.


Maybe, maybe not. The 4130 is a great movement, but it may not be that easy to make, and Rolex may not make that much margin on it compared with Datejusts and Explorers. I own a GMC Motorhome from the middle 70's. Those were always profitable for GM, but eventually it was terminated for two reasons: The GM corporate engine (rather than the original Oldsmobile powertrain) wouldn't fit requiring a redesign, and the plant space they used for the motorhome (which was the Galaxy plant in Lansing) could make 100 pickup trucks for each motorhome. Thus, it was displaced by something that was easier to make, more profitable at higher production levels, and with costs that were not increasing due to external factors. I have no idea to what extent that applies to Rolex and the Daytona, but I would be very surprised if the constraint on Daytona production was entirely a marketing strategy, rather than turning lemons into lemonade. After all, the Daytona is significantly more expensive than any of the Zenith plain chronographs, which certainly fish in the same quality and reputation waters, and Rolex has to drive the price up perhaps to cover higher costs, or at least minimize losses.

Of course, the Steinhart is a knockoff of the Submariner, not the Daytona. The Datejust and Day-Date have been similarly knocked off over the years. This thread really isn't about Daytonas.

My point in mentioning Zenith is that it isn't just higher-end brands that are more exclusive than Rolex. In fact, I don't think a three or four-hand Rolex is as exclusive as _any_ watch priced in the middle four figures and above.

They don't build brand on the watch being exclusive. They build brand on the owner being exclusive enough to own one. But when they are on a billboard in Lufkin, Texas, one has to wonder if people think owning a Rolex makes them special. I rather suspect that instead of exclusivity, Rolex is marketing the appearance of wealth.

Rick "not sure the Daytona scarcity is driving Rolex's image for most Rolex buyers" Denney


----------



## Z engineer (Mar 4, 2017)

EnderW said:


> I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm or serious. Which speaks volumes to the quality of content on this thread.
> But based on previous posts, I suspect you are serious. Which makes me wonder re: origins of your user-id.


You interpret that whatever way you want. I don't care.

Concerning the quality of the content of this thread: pot and kettle.


----------



## usc1 (Jun 25, 2007)

I don't understand why people can't just admit they can't afford the real sub and therefore buy a copy? For me, 8k is a lot to spend on a watch. I've owned a sub and sea dweller in the past but had to sell them because I wanted to eat and make car payments. I then bought a ocean one, skx007, and squale 1545 as they were more within my target range. Anyone with disposable income would rather purchase the real deal than a copy. All this "I can but won't buy it" nonsense is a lie. It's because that money is better spent elsewhere and would be sorely missed. That's not considered disposable. 

I have no issues with copies as it fills a needed space. 

Signed,
A Broke Guy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

drhr said:


> Indeed, "copies" makes more sense, glorified or not obviously . . . and mav has a lot of times caused "misunderstandings" I've noticed, at least for me.


Yes, you're right and I have caused confusion.

So to reset, here's how I would try to categorize different homages:

Manufacturer Re-Makes: The same manufacturer re-making a previous, historic watch in a more modern size, with modern technology and modern movement. Examples include the Longines Legend Diver, Omega Seamaster 300, Tudor Black Bay, Tag Heuer Autavia.





































Same Watch Design from Same Manufacturer Group: Same manufacturer group owning two brands, producing the same watch for both. I'm clearly thinking about the house of Rolex, their Rolex and Tudor brands, and the Submariner watch. Of course, the Rolex version came first in 1953, the Tudor version later in 1954.










Design Inspirations or Derivatives: This is where things may get murky and muddied up. The best way that I define this is a watch from a brand that based their design on another model from a different brand. Admittedly, this can be pretty subjective and lots of grey area exists here. Examples include the tri-calendar date watches that Sevenmack showed, includes the VC Overseas being a derivative of the original Genta trio (AP Royal Oak, Patek Nautilus, IWC Ingenieur).










Copy Watches: Brands, such as Steinhart and Invicta, producing watches that are virtually identical to other popular current or discontinued watches from other brands. Similar case and bracelet designs (note similar but not the exact 1:1 same, as due to movement differences, the cases are thicker), same dial design, same hands. From afar, these watches are visually similar to their real counterparts. Examples are the entire Steinhart Ocean model line, Invicta Pro Divers, Alpha watches and even Heuer/Tag Heuer (in the past).





































I do acknowledge and think where things are confusing and lots of grey area exist between design derivatives vs copy watches. I would attempt to draw the proverbial line in the sand by how much of the design is loosely based on or derived from the original vs how much of the design is a straight copy of the original.

Examples:









While the VC and Piaget are design derivatives of the AP, there are differences in the case, bracelet, dial and hands.










Where as in this example of a Rolex Submariner Date vs the Steinhart copy, you have similar cases/bracelets, same bezels, dials, hands, even down the similar 4 lines of text of the bottom half of the dial, same font for the bezel numerals, same cyclops for the date window. If you remove the Steinhart branding and replace it with Rolex, it would be considered an illegal counterfeit watch.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

EnderW said:


> Technically the question is not of patents, but of trade dress. And legality is a grey area. The lawsuit that AP brought against SWI Group put them out of business.
> Patent law only protects functional components (not that it stops any "homage" brands from copying patent-protected features like glidelock clasp and proprietary bezels, crown-guards and more). Fashion industry in general has little legal protections, which is why any designed dress introduced at a fashion show is copied within days and available at local JC Penney or such within weeks. Fighting trade dress lawsuits takes time and money. And it also makes sense when pursuing legal action against big company, not so much against mushroom brands.
> 
> But beyond that, I disagree with premise that strip away the brand and you are left with comparable products.
> ...


For me, when I look at my watches at home, and compare them, I'm not really seeing everything in #1 and #2 above. Comparing my more expensive versus my less expensive watches, the more expensive watches tend to show:

-Better fit
-Finish I don't think I could differentiate much but that's just me
-The designs of the case, links, and other elements are more flowy and curvy, they look nicer designed, less toy-like, more refined
-Accuracy is better for sure (when comparing mechanical with mechanical)
-Etc.

What I mean is, if I strip away the brand, for me, yes, I could tell there are areas where the more expensive watches are "better" than less expensive watches. For me, stripping away the brand means not paying attention to everything other than the watches I have on-hand. The more expensive watches are "better" in certain ways, but to me, I think that takes nothing away from the good qualities of less expensive and "lesser" watches. By extension, though I don't own a copy watch, I might see a $200 copy watch the same way as I see my $200 watches.

If I look at a brand, and go read up on the history, heritage, etc., about the brand, I could be buying (into) those things. For me, while I enjoyed learning about those things, and those things might help me justify spending whatever amount on a watch, those things are extraneous to the actual watch that I hold in my hand. e.g. If I examine the watch itself, I could tell nothing about the history of the brand; for that, I need to read about it, and it's extraneous to the actual watch.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

mav said:


> Yes, you're right and I have caused confusion.
> 
> So to reset, here's how I would try to categorize different homages:
> 
> ...


pretty good, the addition of this word from you makes it much less confusing for me . . .


----------



## DaveMac66 (Feb 19, 2014)

What was the question?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Rdenney said:


> No, the real reason is that your response to my post utterly missed the point that I think I made pretty clearly. Take and look and you'll see.


The issue, Rick, is that we disagree, and for you, any disagreement, especially from me, is an "agenda" or worse.

In any case, you think that people should choose unique and original watch designs. That is driven by your particular preferences as your signature and past posts show.

From where I sit, people can choose what they want, even if it means homages and derivative designs. I prefer unique and original designs in my watch choices, and that can be seen in my signature. But I also acknowledge that what I want isn't what those folks, through their choices, desire.

Additionally, you make the mistake of thinking that casual watch buyers care about arguments over homages when the debate is limited primarily to some of Watchuseek's 10,000 members and other collectors who concern themselves with this. That Watchuseek doesn't even represent most enthusiasts should further temperatures and humble; the folks at F71 don't share much of the angst expressed in this thread and are even enthusiastic about homages.

Given that there are many who dissent with the anti-ihomage perspective you and others share, the problem isn't the "transmitter". It is with the receivers who lack the willingness to engage the argument on its own terms. But again, Rick, this isn't shocking with you. An argument is only good if it agrees with your worldview.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Sevenmack said:


> The issue, Rick, is that we disagree, and for you, any disagreement, especially from me, is an "agenda" or worse.


We certainly disagree on the statement above, which is absolutely false. But I suggest that when you point a finger, there are three pointing back at you, to use a (nevertheless: true) cliche from AA.

I simply did not say the things you claimed I said in your responses, and you didn't actually respond to what I did say. I didn't ever say that casual watch buyers care, but this is a forum of watch enthusiasts, where I wouldn't expect casual watch buyers to survive for long. And this thread wasn't in F71, it was in F2. If folks in F71 want to praise knockoffs to the moon--that's fine with me. And nothing--nothing--I said had anything to do with the immigrant position you claim I hold. You are the only person in this pas de deux that has used the word "agenda". Nothing I said had any bearing on the aesthetic choices people make, or even impugned any motives on them at all. In fact, I avoided that explicitly, using a legal argument that makes it possible to discuss apparent intentions and how they are perceived without impugning motives. It's not a matter of humility--I own a number of inexpensive watches and enjoy them, and I gracefully lose many arguments here when I'm dealing with people who want to debate rather than beat down with insults. (And that you don't see those as insults--we've discussed this before--is part of the problem.) I just don't own very many knockoffs, for reasons I stated and based on lessons I learned. I make recommendations based on my own experience as you do, but I don't care if people ignore them. I said all that pretty clearly.

If there is anything I do advocate, it's clear terminology and factual recounting of history. I appreciate that you agree with the latter point. I don't agree with the use of derivative designs as proof that blatant imitation is traditional, as you did, and I distinguished between knockoffs made with obvious intent to imitate more expensive watches versus watches that are similar because they are driven by the same market forces or derived from the same style language. Sorry if that distinction undermines your historical examples, but I do think the distinction gets to the heart of the matter.

I fail to see how my world view enters into it, beyond my desire not be seen as putting on airs. That preference does indeed align with my personal code in selecting watches, but it hardly rises to the level of important. I'm sorry I participated in this thread, and sorry that I engaged you in the discussion at all.

Rick "whatever" Denney


----------



## EsbenOpen (Dec 20, 2014)

rdoder said:


> For me, when I look at my watches at home, and compare them, I'm not really seeing everything in #1 and #2 above. Comparing my more expensive versus my less expensive watches, the more expensive watches tend to show:
> 
> -Better fit
> -Finish I don't think I could differentiate much but that's just me
> ...


This makes me curious. They should run a "Pepsi Challenge" on watches. I have a feeling I could, while blindfolded, pick out a Rolex from a copy. It's just a feeling of course, which is why I think a challenge like that would be interesting.

I know for a fact I could tell my Invicta "Explorer II" from my Rolex, if only because the bracelet on the Invicta is so terrible, but I would be curious about running the test on other brands that I haven't yet handled.

Ideally the test would be with no blindfold and the watches would just not have any branding, but that would be much more difficult to set up obviously.


----------



## heyheyuw (Jan 31, 2015)

EnderW said:


> But that applies to everything. McDonalds is in business of fast food and fine dining sells to those who can afford it. Keyfood vs WholeFoods. Ford vs Audi. Motel 6 vs Hilton.
> 
> I guess, I'm not seeing what your point is. Businesses pick a market they want to serve and try to serve it. Seems kind of obvious, No reason for Rolex to sell in $200 range.
> The discussion here is not on Rolex pricing, but on all the hanger-ons who basically piggy back off Rolex success and steal their design, marketing and reputation investment spend.
> ...


Here's the thing. From a marketing perspective, Rolex is an aspirational brand. From their perspective, lower cost homages are free advertising, and provide a targeted, self-selecting advertising audience, that are extremely likely to purchase Rolex in the future.

Indeed, it is in Rolex's best interest to have strong affordable homage market.

I wouldn't be so quick to cry crocodile tears over any "stolen" marketing or product design.

I swear, these are inanimate objects people, they are not imbued with talismanic "soul".

My, admittedly unrequested, take, is that not liking homages is perfectly fine, but let's just try to be more respectful of those who do.

Sure, I own a Steinhart. An O1V. It's a very nice watch for the money, but not a great watch. I'll probably own a Rolex someday, but I'll probably still wear the Steinhart with zero shame.

Wear a watch, and go outside.

Watch collection: Misc. random crap (do we feel better now?)


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

heyheyuw said:


> Here's the thing. From a marketing perspective, Rolex is an aspirational brand. From their perspective, lower cost homages are free advertising, and provide a targeted, self-selecting advertising audience, that are extremely likely to purchase Rolex in the future.
> 
> Indeed, it is in Rolex's best interest to have strong affordable homage market.
> 
> ...


Agreed, fwiw this is really all I ask for, any other agenda is really light reading . . .


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

heyheyuw said:


> I swear, these are inanimate objects people, they are not imbued with talismanic "soul".
> 
> My, admittedly unrequested, take, is that not liking homages is perfectly fine, but let's just try to be more respectful of those who do.


That is the perfectly respectable and respectful thing to do. But that requires a lot of humility and willingness to accept that other people make perfectly fine choices just like you. It also means recognizing that watches are mere jewelry and any one will do.

As seen in this thread, there are many who disagree and think homages are the worst things ever. Compared to what happens in real life, that is not true. But, of course, people can think what they want.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Rdenney said:


> If there is anything I do advocate, it's clear terminology and factual recounting of history. I appreciate that you agree with the latter point. I don't agree with the use of derivative designs as proof that blatant imitation is traditional, as you did, and I distinguished between knockoffs made with obvious intent to imitate more expensive watches versus watches that are similar because they are driven by the same market forces or derived from the same style language. Sorry if that distinction undermines your historical examples, but I do think the distinction gets to the heart of the matter


The problem is that you are making an artificial distinction without any difference. Steinhart and homage watchmakers are producing those watches for the same reasons that major brands produce "derivative" watches: The marketplace and those very market forces you mention. While one group may do a little more to distinguish their Rolex Sub homage from the Crown than either Steinhart or its peers, they are still meeting the demands of people who still want something that looks similar to what they think is appealing to their eye.

As much as you may want to think otherwise, your argument doesn't clarify anything. If anything, it muddies matters because all watchmakers are in the market to meet demand and must deal with the same market forces. A brand offering a triple date similar to the Universal Geneve in 1953 was no less calculating in their decision to do so than Steinhart is in offering a homage to a Rolex Sub today. In both cases, the market is perfectly satisfied and, save for a few watch collectors, everyone is just fine with the situation. Even the watchmakers (who, along with the casual watch buyers, are the only ones who have any tangible reason to care).

The distinction you are trying to make is based more on your preference and not on the history of watchmaking itself. Put simply, there is little if any difference between the "homage", the "knockoff", and the "derivative" other than what each of us thinks in our minds based on preference. Also if you are Nathan George Horwitt or North American Watch Co.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Sevenmack said:


> ...there is little if any difference between the "homage", the "knockoff", and the "derivative" other than what each of us thinks in our minds based on preference.


Reminds me of the joke that one's partner/wife thinks all of one's watches look the same!

I agree, the distinctions made does depend on the mind and what one thinks. In a closeup level, there are tiny distinctions between this or that watch, in design (copy/homage/original), and other minutiae. In a zoomed-out, macroscopic level, from 10m away, they all look the same. e.g. In threads where OP is asking, "What is this person wearing?", with pictures showing the person wearing a watch, but it's not zoomed in enough to tell exactly what watch it is, it is hard to tell. And when a watch is identified, it's either glorious, or garbage, depending on the brand, and depending on the emotions that one's mind associates with that brand, that word.

Even Rolex is hard to tell if one is far enough away (up-and-coming Canadian politician Jagmeet Singh wearing a Datejust):









i.e. At far enough distances, it's just a watch.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Seven, I think the difference is plain between a Piaget with a solid gemstone dial and a museum watch, and so did everyone else at the time. That was not Piaget trying to cash in on Horwitt's design, which at the time wasn't even that popular. Piaget was 8 or 10 times the price, and the solid stone they used depended for its appeal on the patterns in the stone and its semi-preciousness. Nobody at the time thought a markerless dial was unique, or even Horwitt's original design. 

Steinhart, on the other hand, has imitated Rolex closely enough that the intent to cash in on the design is plain to see, given that they are at a fraction of the price. No matter what their motives, the intent is clear. The trade pattern may be unprotectable, so it may be legal, but if the design was still protectable (as it was to some extent in the Horwitt case), you can bet Rolex would be taking legal action. 

Whether buyers are also trying to get the Rolex cachet without spending the money or just exploring the aesthetic beauty is impossible to know in the individual case. But the suspicion is reasonable, based on apparent intent. 

How you translate that into the binary judgmentalism you accuse me of is beyond me. 

Rick "realizing that you are trying to justify part of your collection" Denney


----------



## EsbenOpen (Dec 20, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> That is the perfectly respectable and respectful thing to do. But that requires a lot of humility and willingness to accept that other people make perfectly fine choices just like you. It also means recognizing that watches are mere jewelry and any one will do.
> 
> As seen in this thread, there are many who disagree and think homages are the worst things ever. Compared to what happens in real life, that is not true. But, of course, people can think what they want.


Drop the perpetual victim act, would you? No one in here is impinging on the rights of anyone to spend their own money on what they like. If I can make it through every second thread that has someone bashing Rolex, Hublot, and their owners, and still somehow gather the courage to go out and buy the watches I want, I'm sure the people who like homages and read this thread can do the same.

And the only one who is taking this thread so seriously that they think it is in any way comparable to real life, is you, considering you're the only one pulling in people's views on other topics such as immigration, as if that had any relevancy whatsoever.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

EsbenOpen said:


> And the only one who is taking this thread so seriously that they think it is in any way comparable to real life, is you


It's entertainment for me. Because they are just watches. In fact, my brother (no watch collector) and I are laughing at this entire thread.


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

lvt said:


> Side question, did anybody mistake a Rolex for a Steinhart?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H630 using Tapatalk


For the record, let me get this straight since someone mentioned its name. The current "McDonald" is actually the globally famous successful story of homage. Right!? We all aware of what Ray Kroc did to the original.

I actually NEVER see a Steinhart in the wild. There were several times I misidentified Invicta homage as a sub. Steinhart homage price might be still too high for average Joe. Judging by my experience from Invicta, I would misjudge Steinhart Ocean 1 as a Submariner until I see the dial closer. Trying to get back on track with original question.

Just so you know, I pay my respect to you all who participated by reading from page 24 where I left my comments off, to the page 39. Like I said, passion for watches, you gotta love the history together. Doesn't matter which side you are on.

Our ancestors, not that they don't respect intellectual property, they simply didn't even aware of there are such a thing as intellectual property. They took longer time to travel, longer time to communicate, sources isn't as fruitful as today. They don't shop the same way we do. Most won't have multiple watches. The successful design got homaged because that design sells. Every business man want to have a safe bet on the best seller. Just like how Sketchers, Wal-mart, Target, Primart, Aldi up to famous Zara...homage best products for a great value. Then we got Adidas trying to protect their brands' iconic three stripes (sometimes to a ridiculous degree), Jordan trying to protect his jump man, Nike is trying to protect their swoosh, Converse is trying to protect their toe and outsole design....etc.

As we progress till today. We communicate differently than our previous generations. We now chatting online globally discuss about homage when back then, writing a letter to home takes several months with a mailman on horseback to deliver. Time progress, our awareness need to be progress as well. Originality isn't all that worthless to protect or shouldn't be protected.

If originality don't matter, why people only give cr.p and mock Chinese for all these infamous homage branding? They should all be allowed, be accepted. The world only prejudice against Chinese? Are they doing so much different than Germany homage? I truly believe People disrespect because the action not only prejudice against a single nation. Otherwise Chinese is very good and very creative making all kinds of homage. Why should these be "controlled"? Let Chinese homage go crazy, they can make all kinda homage legal cater & satisfy full range of customers, including high-end.

Homage isn't just about Rolex and Steinhart only. I understand consumers' need but all I can do is not being overly judgmental. Hope I touch some points that are not already addressed.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

wuyeah said:


> View attachment 12216562


mmmmm... dulce leche banana icecream.... sounds awesome
But Chinese homage will probably use asbestos paste instead of milk, and melamine instead of sugar. But it may look and sound good.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Off topic, but I think an interesting contribution (for some)....

Had dinner yesterday with a friend who works at a major fashion house (not watches, just luxury clothing and fashion brand, well some watches I guess). Not sure how, but conversation turned to hobbies and I asked how they deal with counterfeit and imitation of their designs. Got some really interesting insights from industry insider (he is a very senior finance exec, on business side, not on fashion design side).

Lots of vodka involved, so I'm putting together bits and pieces of what I recall. Here are key points:
- copying is a huge issue in fashion. Companies lose billions to counterfeits and imitators. When their finance does projections, they account for it in future earnings and revenue stream
- there are few (virtually none) legal protections to prevent it. While patents may apply to functional components (new dress clasp, or advanced non-wrinkle treatment), the actual looks are a free for all. Although trade dress may apply (see Burberry checks and stripes, or ......... red soles), there are virtually no way to enforce that legally as trade dress is very much subject to interpretation by judiciary. The only true legal protection they have is via trademarks (actual names and brand marks [logos]). That is much easier to enforce as using company name or logo is automatically fake and industry associations partner with customs agencies and local police departments to confiscate and destroy those.
- even when trademarked material is faked, law enforcement involvement is not always easy. Most commonly it's done as part of larger anti-criminal enterprise campaigns (pursuing organized crime), rather than actively seeking out fake\counterfeit goods.
- it is the brands with greatest name recognition that have it the worst. One of the things that I found interesting though - many luxury fashion houses are either removing branding\logos altogether or hiding them out of sight (ex: tag w brand name in inner jacket pocket, not visible externally) as a way to discourage copying. They then cater to those "in-the-know" who want to own quality clothes without immediate external brand recognition (or recognized by others "in-the-know"). This strategy is being adopted by many brands (and product lines within brands), especially as they move upmarket - smaller volume, smaller general recognition, higher prices, recognition by niche crowd only.
- At the same time, some brands (and product lines within brands) are leveraging the few protections afforded by brand name\logo trademark protections. Hence more common, but well known brands, are actually very incentivized to paste their logo all over their merchandise - from Nike\Reebok\Puma to LV making sure their logos are all over, so very close copies violate trademarks. 
- the interesting dynamic - it's the latter who are most faked\copied\homaged as imitators are incentivized to copy things that are recognizable, more so than those that cater to niche segments

Anyway, this is not exactly related to watches, but it does explain some of the challenges involved with legal protections and how copying is a pervasive issue in all industries with image\luxury and IP based goods.

PS. The guys is not into watches, but was wearing a "fashion" watch with JLC movement inside and chronometer certification. It was of outstanding quality.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Rdenney said:


> Seven, I think the difference is plain between a Piaget with a solid gemstone dial and a museum watch, and so did everyone else at the time... *Nobody at the time thought a markerless dial was unique, or even Horwitt's original design*


As the U.S. Court of Appeals noted in its ruling in one part of the Horwitt v. North American Watch case, Horwitt's design was considered unique by the Patent Office because such dials were unique, especially when you add an additional design element. While markerless dials and single dot watches had been produced by other brands in the past, the appeal board that awarded Horwitt his patent pointed out that Horwitt's design was "a concept directly contrary to the teachings of the prior art and thus would not occur to a routine designer in the exercise of his trade".

Essentially, markerless dials were substantially rare enough that one could be considered unique. This didn't help Horwitt's cause because having a unique dial alone didn't constitute infringement by others. In fact, the distinct differences between the Museum Dial and the Piaget were enough for the court to rule that there was no infringement, even though Piaget was taking advantage of market forces and market demand.

Which leads to the Steinhart: Certainly its Sub homage takes cues from the original Submariner. That is not to be denied. But as in the case of the Museum Dial and the Piaget, the differences are substantial enough on closer inspection to be distinct. The causal watch buyer still doesn't care, even if the differences are substantial. What they want is a Sub-style diver they like at whatever price they want to pay. Steinhart is taking advantage of consumer demand -- like other watchmakers.

No one is being harmed in any case. Watchmakers generate money. Watch buyers get what they want. And someone will ask if a watch, even a Piaget Polo, is a Rolex because one brand has more mindshare by several magnitudes than any other.

Which raises the question: Why do you care about homages or "knockoffs" or "derivatives" when they're not on your wrist? Of course, based on your latest tagline...



Rdenney said:


> realizing that you are trying to justify part of your collection


The issue may be your own insecurity about your collection of depreciating luxury goods with name brands that carry little cachet among many collectors today.


----------



## Z engineer (Mar 4, 2017)

Since we're completely offtopic anyway (I'll take partial responsibility for that), I thought I'd add some lightness, humour and irony to this topic:









EnderW, I love you man! Your my new internet hero :-!!*



*No sarcasm, just to be clear on this one.


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

EnderW said:


> Off topic, but I think an interesting contribution (for some)....
> 
> Had dinner yesterday with a friend who works at a major fashion house (not watches, just luxury clothing and fashion brand, well some watches I guess). Not sure how, but conversation turned to hobbies and I asked how they deal with counterfeit and imitation of their designs. Got some really interesting insights from industry insider (he is a very senior finance exec, on business side, not on fashion design side).
> 
> ...


The industry is dominated by "fast fashion" today. Which is mainly homage products. Fashion comes and go not lasting for 2 seasons. Consumers don't feel the need buy original. Severe competition on price. Quality suffered but don't matter. Material is bad, don't care. Fashion is meant to be disposable. Very wasteful, very disruptive, very dangerous game homage fashion brands play. It is a major problem.


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

Z engineer said:


> Since we're completely offtopic anyway (I'll take partial responsibility for that), I thought I'd add some lightness, humour and irony to this topic:
> 
> View attachment 12217338
> 
> ...


How come I can't give your post a "Like"?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Sevenmack said:


> It's entertainment for me. Because they are just watches. In fact, my brother (no watch collector) and I are *laughing at this entire thread.*


Just started myself thankfully, becoming nice to step back and laugh at myself, it's good my fascination with watches is waning, slowly coming to and end ;-)


----------



## F.Alexander (Mar 27, 2017)

I guess we settled that, eh?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

F.Alexander said:


> I guess we settled that, eh?


oh no, it's gonna go on and if/when it does "get settled", it'll come back again


----------



## F.Alexander (Mar 27, 2017)

drhr said:


> oh no, it's gonna go on and if/when it does "get settled", it'll come back again


Surely, you jest!


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

F.Alexander said:


> Surely, you jest!


yes


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

F.Alexander said:


> Surely, you jest!


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

So when will this thread hit 100 pages? TGIF!


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Citing examples of watches that use the same, almost standard form/layout for a particular set of complications i.e day-date moonphase as examples of "homage" is just plain stupid.


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

To a conclusion we can all agree on. OP were asking about stories, we all suck at story telling.....


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

This thread makes me think of the National Hockey League (NHL) and Toronto Maple Leafs.

Apparently, the Leafs suck (haven't won the Stanley Cup since 1967), but there are tons of die-hard fans. The Leafs is one of the most profitable teams in NHL. The hockey players come and go. The fans are nuts for the team, not necessarily for the players, and not necessarily because the team wins.

I think a similar thing happens with watches. Some people in the general public are nuts for the brand name, not necessarily for the beauty of the designs, and not necessarily for the degree of excellence of the watch. If that's the case, then it makes total sense if some buy homage/copy/<unmentionable type>. I think this is especially true for Rolex, where many people want the brand, the look, the cachet/prestige. It's interesting too that copies are made of the most recognizable or most expensive/coveted models, and not of the less recognizable or less expensive/coveted models. Not saying that everyone who buy copy watches buy for that same reason, just saying that probably some people in the general public buy homage/copy/<unmentionable type> for cachet/prestige.

I also wonder if there are no homage/copy/<unmentionable type> watches at all, if people would really go for the original pricey watch. I suspect some would, but not everyone. In that sense, the loss by original watch companies due to homage/copy/<unmentionable type> watches is not a total loss. Some just won't/can't buy at those high prices.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

In terms of story telling, I could tell a story of my Dad and his Tudor Sub copy watch. From what he told me, I'm not sure if he knows or not that the movement inside is different between Tudor and Rolex. He wouldn't get the watch serviced because he's afraid that the watchmaker would swap out the movement and put in a fake movement. Knowing what I know now, that's swapping out an ETA 2824-2 (maybe worth $300) and putting in something I guess cheaper. My Dad said something like, if one wants prestige (要威), this would do. I guess he's right. From further away, it looks like a Rolex Sub.


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

drhr said:


> oh no, it's gonna go on and if/when it does "get settled", it'll come back again


You're not kidding.










I also must own up to a bit of hypocrisy. I am always annoyed by rubber-neckers in traffic, but here I am gawking at that scene of this accident. Of course I suppose I haven't held up anyone's day but my own in doing so.


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

Sevenmack said:


> It's entertainment for me. Because they are just watches. In fact, my brother (no watch collector) and I are laughing at this entire thread.


Oh come now. Ignoring my own admission in my previous post, you must have better things to enjoy and do. Unless of course this was your intent from the start...Regardless, there is an unmissable pattern emerging.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

omeglycine said:


> Oh come now. Ignoring my own admission in my previous post, you must have better things to enjoy and do. Unless of course this was your intent from the start...Regardless, there is an unmissable pattern emerging.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

omeglycine said:


> Oh come now. Ignoring my own admission in my previous post, you must have better things to enjoy and do. Unless of course this was your intent from the start...Regardless, there is an unmissable pattern emerging.


I enjoy watches. I enjoy conversations about them. I also do other things like, as seen by the number of hours between posts.

The issue is that some want orthodoxy instead of people actually thinking for themselves. Groupthink is always more comforting for certain kinds of people. I think those folks a tad funny.


----------



## vistar (Aug 2, 2016)

My Orient got confused for a Tag the other day. By someone who probably only knew Tag and Rolex. All good. I try not to WIS too much with non-watch people. I just said it was a small japanese watchmaker and left it at that.


----------



## jsohal (Feb 21, 2014)

Saw this guy wearing a Rolex the other day. Asked if it was a squale and he asked what that was. Showed him a picture on my phone and he slapped his head and said if only I knew about that brand I wouldn't have paid 10x for a watch that I only like the looks of! /troll 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## OllieVR (Aug 27, 2013)

I was wearing my Parnis Batman the other day and a guy asks, "Wow, is that an Invicta?" I said "No, actually.." and proceeded to tell him what I had read on WUS, and that I saw it for sale on Amazon for a crazy low price and a two year warranty included, and it arrived in three days.

We've heard about economy, ethics, morals, intentions, intellectual property, and the integrity of horology, in what, 41 pages? I love watches, and to coin a phrase I heard in the movie "Pitch Perfect"...

"I love you awesome nerds!" Passion in what you love, is there anything better?








(photo by bluesky537)


----------



## Vig2000 (Jul 5, 2012)

Dear Lord, why oh why, OP?


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

The issue of copy watch reminds me of this story: Chinese man sues his wife for being ugly, and the court AGREES... awarding him $120,000 | Daily Mail Online

If the woman got plastic surgery solely for her to make herself feel good, I see no problem with that. But yeah, if she got plastic surgery, and in the process duped a man to marry her and have an ugly kid together, then that's a problem for the man. To truly just enjoy the plastic surgery for herself, she needs to either have no kids, or needed to tell the man upfront that she's borne ugly before they started dating. A man who truly loves her for her person instead of her beauty would not sue her in this case. If you were that man, what would you do? I'd think any man would be shocked and saddened in that scenario, but that's his kid, and the mother of his child.

If a person bought a copy watch solely for him or herself to enjoy, I see no problem with that. But yeah, if he got a copy watch, and in the process duped a watch guy to talk with him and have an awkward watch guys conversation, then that's a problem for the watch guy. To truly just enjoy the copy watch for himself, copy watch owner needs to either not wear the watch in front of others, or needed to tell watch guys upfront that this is a copy watch before they start a conversation. A watch guy who truly loves a watch for a watch instead of the watch's beauty/brand/design/quality aka degree of excellence/history/heritage/craftsmanship/luxury/cachet/prestige/etc. would not mind in this case. If you were that watch guy, what would you do? I'd think any man would be shocked and saddened in that scenario, but that's a watch, and the owner of a watch.



Actually, the story above might be urban legend: http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/uglybaby.asp

But the story about how that model's life and career (in the snopes.com link above) was ruined by a plastic surgery ad is real: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34568674

To me, moral of that story, and this thread, is that appearance and what others think matter a lot to some people, including myself.

One thought I've had is, if I could get over my own notions of beauty or prestige and what a watch should be, then I could be happy with any of my watches.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

To me, it breaks down like this:

A copy watch has: beauty/design.

An original pricey watch has: beauty/design/brand/quality aka degree of excellence/accuracy-in-a-mechanical-watch/fit/finishing/any-other-technical-detail/craftsmanship/magical-Swiss-elves-watchmakers (sometimes aka CNC machines)/association-with-historical-figures-and-events/history/heritage/luxury/cachet/prestige/bragging-rights/wealth-status/watch-guy-status/superior-morality-of-original-design-as-inherited-over-time-under-a-brand-name-while-the-founder-is-long-dead-and-the-employess-benefit/any-other-marketing-angle/etc.

If one does not need all of that, then a copy watch, or any watch, is just as good as any other watch.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

rdoder said:


> To me, it breaks down like this:
> 
> A copy watch has: beauty/design.
> 
> ...


Pretty much. The conceit of many collectors is they think their concerns should be the ones everyone else should share. That sounds nice. But that is unrealistic ; even many collectors don't share these concerns and interests.

For most people, a watch is just jewelry with the objectively provable basic function of telling time. Branding can make some brands more interesting than others. But they all do the same thing and therefore, any watch will do.


----------



## Minorcollector (Dec 28, 2015)

I assume all these anti-hommage people never buy store brand products at the grocery store or clothing store.


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

Minorcollector said:


> I assume all these anti-hommage people never buy store brand products at the grocery store or clothing store.


Your assumption about me is correct. 99% I don't. I leave 1% uncertainty that I might bought some by accident. Maybe it's my loss.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

wuyeah said:


> Your assumption about me is correct. 99% I don't. I leave 1% uncertainty that I might bought some by accident. Maybe it's my loss.


:-! This for me too, though I'm in the "other camp", you're the coolest wuyeah, love your attitude/perspective and posts!!!!


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

drhr said:


> :-! This for me too, though I'm in the "other camp", you're the coolest wuyeah, love your attitude/perspective and posts!!!!


drhr, that is some high regard not sure if I deserve it LOL but thank you!


----------



## Mirabello1 (Sep 1, 2011)

OllieVR said:


> I was wearing my Parnis Batman the other day and a guy asks, "Wow, is that an Invicta?" I said "No, actually.." and proceeded to tell him what I had read on WUS, and that I saw it for sale on Amazon for a crazy low price and a two year warranty included, and it arrived in three days.
> 
> We've heard about economy, ethics, morals, intentions, intellectual property, and the integrity of horology, in what, 41 pages? I love watches, and to coin a phrase I heard in the movie "Pitch Perfect"...
> 
> ...


Parnis watches are an incredible value. I have one just like yours and i put it next my Rolex Explorer all the time and think bad thoughts.. Like " damn this Rolex was expensive" HAHA

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Cobia (Nov 24, 2013)




----------



## skkali168 (Apr 15, 2017)

Enjoying my steinhart

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Jdreg (Sep 23, 2015)

I wear a sub. Nobody’s gives a sh?t


----------



## Jdreg (Sep 23, 2015)

I wear a sub. Nobody’s gives a sh?t


----------



## usc1 (Jun 25, 2007)

Wear your knock off with pride. I’ve gone through three Steinharts. Not bad for the price. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Silent (Oct 19, 2017)

This is a very entertaining thread! Seems as though people have more emotion/passion when talking about Steinhart than Rolex, haha.


----------



## utzelu (Aug 17, 2015)

My story is quite funny. My Steinhart Ocean 1 was mistaken for a Rolex at a local AD, by the seller  Not a very knowledgeable one it seems.

About two-three years ago, when I was a newbie in watches and first saw a Steinhart, I didn't even know what a Submariner was or that it is a Rolex homage. But I was immediately in love with the design. As I was looking for reviews on the Steinhart, I did learn about the original watch being based on. So I bought the watch for the design and not for the heritage, prestige or whatever. I do appreciate Rolex now but I cannot afford spending that much money on a watch - other things have priority at this stage in my life.


----------



## pickle puss (Feb 13, 2006)

No big deal. 99% of the non-WIS public think that _any_ watch with a black dial and numbered bezel is a Rolex.


----------



## FordHammie (Nov 24, 2017)

I have to admit, Steinhart is appealing on a few levels just like a Certina DS Action that I had; it got mistaken for a Sub while out on a fishing boat trip! One of the deck hands grabbed my wrist to look at it and he almost got popped right in the eye! I'll never get a homage because of this. It got traded to a happy homage owner! 


A watch can take you "BACKTOTHEFUTURE" in time!


----------



## utzelu (Aug 17, 2015)

pickle puss said:


> No big deal. 99% of the non-WIS public think that _any_ watch with a black dial and numbered bezel is a Rolex.


In my case, it was not like that at all. I didn't even know about Rolex (other that it makes watches) nor that the Ocean 1 was a copy of the Submariner. So I not confusing the watch as being a Rolex. For me it looked like a very cool design and it motivated me to investigate more about it.


----------



## Hands90 (Jun 8, 2015)

It is sad though when you think about it. Everyone LOVES the design but you guys are buying a copy...
It's like loving a piece of art and going out of your way to buy a fake. I just don't get it.


----------



## columela (Jan 5, 2015)

I would not buy a Steinhart Ocean One if it was a direct illegal copy. I do not think that it pretends to be a copy, it is just an hommage. Having seen both in the hand I find difficult to justify the price of the Sub given the excellent quality of the Steinhart.In a sense all watches have a reference to compare to, so it is quite a thin thread. But I understand those that prefer the Rolex, of course. It is just that the feeling and the pride in of the Steinhart in my wrist is not tainted by the worry about the possible economic loss or damage to my investment. Just a purely simple, well done swiss watch.


----------



## thekush (Dec 30, 2014)

Closest I've ever had to a person mistaking was my Steinhart Ocean One GMT with the pepsi bezel insert.


----------



## Minorcollector (Dec 28, 2015)

Hands90 said:


> It is sad though when you think about it. Everyone LOVES the design but you guys are buying a copy...
> It's like loving a piece of art and going out of your way to buy a fake. I just don't get it.


People buy prints of their favorite works of art all the time. Is that wrong?


----------



## Hands90 (Jun 8, 2015)

Minorcollector said:


> People buy prints of their favorite works of art all the time. Is that wrong?


Take the example of an Iphone/Android. You can buy the X for 1K or an Android for 500-600 same if not better quality 
or the Chinese Iphone copy for $200. That's what the Steinhart is... It's not an Iphone. It's not an Android. 
It's a cheap copy.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Hands90 said:


> It is sad though when you think about it. Everyone LOVES the design but you guys are buying a copy...
> It's like loving a piece of art and going out of your way to buy a fake. I just don't get it.


yep copy, not fake, i don't get why/that u don't get it . . .


----------



## Hands90 (Jun 8, 2015)

drhr said:


> yep copy, not fake, i don't get why/that u don't get it . . .


If you like the design so much then buy the REAL thing not a cheap copy. 
I don't understand it.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Hands90 said:


> If you like the design so much then buy the REAL thing not a cheap copy.
> I don't understand it.


I need a GMT movement with a jumping GMT hand, not the hour hand. Rolex can't make it because it's too complicated


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Hands90 said:


> If you like the design so much then buy the *REAL thing* not a cheap copy.
> I don't understand it.


i have . . . they're all real and you'll probably never get it so meh


----------



## Ard (Jul 21, 2014)

//////////////////////////////

feel like I was stalked


----------



## soaking.fused (May 3, 2012)

drhr said:


>


Outstanding.


----------



## Ard (Jul 21, 2014)

/////////////////


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

drhr said:


> i have . . . they're all real and you'll probably never get it so meh


Um, that was a fun exchange to read. I don't think he considered that was a possibility. Hopefully, it at least made him rethink his worldview.


----------



## osamu (Dec 17, 2013)

pickle puss said:


> No big deal. 99% of the non-WIS public think that _any_ watch with a black dial and numbered bezel is a Rolex.


My SKX007 once got called a "nice Submariner style" watch. I didn't really know what to make of that. I just said thank you...


----------



## utzelu (Aug 17, 2015)

There is nothing to "get it", really. It is just another product and since it is not illegal/fake, it is not wrong to buy it. Not everyone really cares about the "heritage" thing. Think about generics drugs - you can buy an aspirin made by different companies. Does it matter that one is a clone of the original aspirin? Do you buy the aspirin for the "heritage" or because you need it?



Hands90 said:


> It is sad though when you think about it. Everyone LOVES the design but you guys are buying a copy...
> It's like loving a piece of art and going out of your way to buy a fake. I just don't get it.


----------



## pickle puss (Feb 13, 2006)

Hands90 said:


> It is sad though when you think about it. Everyone LOVES the design but you guys are buying a copy...
> It's like loving a piece of art and going out of your way to buy a fake. I just don't get it.


Do you get that some don't have a few grand to buy what they can get for far less and enjoy just as much?
And please refrain from the "Then save up for the real thing" arguement. Not everyone sees value in a 6,000 dollar watch.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

utzelu said:


> There is nothing to "get it", really. It is just another product and since it is not illegal/fake, it is not wrong to buy it. Not everyone really cares about the "heritage" thing. Think about generics drugs - you can buy an aspirin made by different companies. Does it matter that one is a clone of the original aspirin? *Do you buy the aspirin for the "heritage" or because you need it?*


I get the "I like it. I want it. I got it" argument when it comes to "homages".

But the drugs comparison.... seriously?
It's not like Tiny Tim is going to die on Christmas if he does not get his life-saving Rolex copy. There is a big difference between necessities like medicine and luxuries like watches.
Do you buy Rolex copy because *you need it*?

Plus even with medicines - generic drugs are a very different animal from "homages". Just like watch innovations that are technical in nature - they are protected by patents. So once Rolex invents something and patent expires - others can benefit from that invention. Same with Aspirin or other drugs - once patent on formula expires - others can copy chemical composition.

This is a different case altogether - "homages" copy not just functionality, but actual look - aiming to benefit from the marketing and popularity (rather than functionality) of the original.

So to use your example (puting aside that nobody "needs" luxury jewelry):
- a generic drug that uses acetaminophen, same as Tylenol - is no different from a watch that uses GMT function or quickset date change
- a generic drug that tries to look like Tylenol packaging to fool a casual consumer - getting closer to "homages"

Perfectly legal and sensible generic drug - substitute good








Hmmm.... Homage? Definitely pushing boundaries on the look and trade dress


----------



## Hands90 (Jun 8, 2015)

drhr said:


> i have . . . they're all real and you'll probably never get it so meh


Wait all these watches are copies?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Hands90 said:


> Wait all these watches are copies?


yep, here's some of the others, and all real again . . .


----------



## utzelu (Aug 17, 2015)

BTW, "wanting" something is a need. But of course, my analogy to generic drugs was extreme. I wanted to say that watches are in essence just another kind of product. We can attribute all kind of "metaphysical" characteristics to it but it remains in essence an object. This is the reason why there is no right nor wrong when choosing an original design vs an homage. Depending on what characteristics we add on top of the object, we set a value on it.



EnderW said:


> I get the "I like it. I want it. I got it" argument when it comes to "homages".
> 
> But the drugs comparison.... seriously?
> It's not like Tiny Tim is going to die on Christmas if he does not get his life-saving Rolex copy. There is a big difference between necessities like medicine and luxuries like watches.
> ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

lvt said:


> I need a GMT movement with a jumping GMT hand, not the hour hand. Rolex can't make it because it's too complicated


Rick "Uh, yeah." Denney


----------



## JohnnyKarate (Oct 8, 2016)

utzelu said:


> Think about generics drugs - you can buy an aspirin made by different companies. Does it matter that one is a clone of the original aspirin? Do you buy the aspirin for the "heritage" or because you need it?


Terrible analogy.


----------



## utzelu (Aug 17, 2015)

Not if you think that the analogy refers to how intellectual property applies to products. Both, drugs and watches are subjected to IP. As long as the IP on a product expires and the design enters the public domain, any company can use it to make their own copy or version. So long as it is legal, there is no issue with homage watches.



JohnnyKarate said:


> Terrible analogy.


----------



## RotorRonin (Oct 3, 2014)

Hands90 said:


> It is sad though when you think about it. Everyone LOVES the design but you guys are buying a copy...
> It's like loving a piece of art and going out of your way to buy a fake. I just don't get it.


Well, I can't just purchase a Van Gogh, so a reproduction print is as close as I'm ever going to get.


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

RotorRonin said:


> Well, I can't just purchase a Van Gogh, so a reproduction print is as close as I'm ever going to get.


Good that as with aspirin, the IP has expired on Van Goghs


----------



## bipyjamas (May 20, 2016)

utzelu said:


> Not if you think that the analogy refers to how intellectual property applies to products. Both, drugs and watches are subjected to IP. As long as the IP on a product expires and the design enters the public domain, any company can use it to make their own copy or version. So long as it is legal, there is no issue with homage watches.


Except watch designs typically do not get afforded IP protection outside of technology patents and trademarks, clothing suffers from a similar problem. Thus, it may be presently legal to copy a watch design 1:1 sans trademarks, it doesn't automatically make it right.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

utzelu said:


> Not if you think that the analogy refers to how intellectual property applies to products. Both, drugs and watches are subjected to IP. As long as the IP on a product expires and the design enters the public domain, any company can use it to make their own copy or version. So long as it is legal, there is no issue with homage watches.


Still bad analogy...on several levels...

1) Legal - there is more to IP then patent (which is functional and expires). Drugs are protected by patents. Those expire. Hence nobody complains about others using rotating bezel or winding rotor or quickset date functionality. Beyond patents, there are things like trademarks and trade dress. These don't expire. Hence, generic drugs can't use packaging identical to that of brand names, or call themselves Voyagra when selling light blue pills for certain disorders 

Hence, Swiss Group Intl is no longer in business...
https://blog.perpetuelle.com/specia...s-9-8-million-in-trademark-infringement-case/

2) Ethical. Granted this is relative, so not preaching right vs wrong. Just saying that medicine is a poor analogy for watches. They are polar opposites - necessity vs luxury.
Hence the perception may be different when a guy robs a pharmacy to get some antibiotics or medicine (or food) for his sick (or starving) family vs when a guy robs a luxury watch store to get some bling.
Heinz dilemma does not apply here:
Armed Robber Targets A. Lange & Sohne Watch Shop On Madison Avenue « CBS New York
I'm not equating homages with theft here, but I am pointing out that bringing medicine into conversation about luxury goods is nonsense.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Uniquely designed watches can receive design patents. These are not functional, but they are limited to the same term. Here's an example of a design patent for a watch:










Design elements can be trademarked as "trade dress", which last as long as they are used.

Paintings are protected by copyright, which lasts vastly longer than patent protection.

But legal, schmegal. We all know why most people buy Rolex knockoffs.

Rick "let's quit kidding ourselves" Denney


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

Rdenney said:


> But legal, schmegal. We all know why most people buy Rolex knockoffs.
> 
> Rick "let's quit kidding ourselves" Denney


Not sure if you are lumping Steinhart in with knockoffs or not, but it's clear folks who wear Steinhart homage/copy (or whatever euphemism you want to use) like wearing great looking watches. Why else would they wear a watch?

If we are going to wildly generalize... It certainly wouldn't be for any other reason than why most people wear a Rolex.


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

Rdenney said:


> But legal, schmegal. We all know why most people buy Rolex knockoffs.
> 
> Rick "let's quit kidding ourselves" Denney


Yeah, because rolex are vastly overpriced and some buyers just want to pay for the watch and do not wish to subsidize the sponsorship of Wimbleton, Kentucky Derby, F1, Fastnet Race and the US Open with their watch payment.


----------



## T1meout (Sep 27, 2013)

46 pages full of posers.

Flame on!


----------



## MarkieB (Feb 25, 2017)

Brey17 said:


> Not sure if you are lumping Steinhart in with knockoffs or not, but it's clear folks who wear Steinhart homage/copy (or whatever euphemism you want to use) like wearing great looking watches. Why else would they wear a watch?
> 
> If we are going to wildly generalize... It certainly wouldn't be for any other reason than why most people wear a Rolex.


Exactly...and when anyone notices or comments of another's Rolex, I bet the conversation always goes along the lines of:

_"Wow, a Rolex, always wanted one as Rolex makes everything in-house"

"Yes, and that's one of the reasons why I bought it, I really admire their attention to detail and skills required to produce a watch like this.

"I agree, Rolex are so proud of their work that they guarantee all watches to be accurate to 2 seconds a day, even *after *casing, lucky you"

"Thank you, and can I ask you one question?"

"Of course"

"Does it make me look a bit like James Bond"

"Nah...you should have bought an Omega....."

_


----------



## Jdreg (Sep 23, 2015)

I understand people will buy what they want for whatever reason they have, and it non of my business. I worked a good part of my life for a heavy truck Oem, and intellectual property, be it technical or design, was always at risk. The amount of time effort and money that goes into developing a product and the brand is staggering. When someone else took advantage of this, it felt 
like they where parasites. 

I personally can’t wear a homage. I don’t feel I can support, what I perceive as one company rideing on another’s investment.
More importantly though, if I can’t afford the real thing, I can’t fool myself.


----------



## MarkieB (Feb 25, 2017)

Jdreg said:


> I understand people will buy what they want for whatever reason they have, and it non of my business. I worked a good part of my life for a heavy truck Oem, and intellectual property, be it technical or design, was always at risk. The amount of time effort and money that goes into developing a product and the brand is staggering. When someone else took advantage of this, it felt
> like they where parasites.
> 
> I personally can't wear a homage. I don't feel I can support, what I perceive as one company rideing on another's investment.
> More importantly though, if I can't afford the real thing, I can't fool myself.


Homages are riding on other companies success with marketing and nothing more. I suspect if, say, Steinhart had sponsored 95% of Everest Expeditions and Cubby Broccoli had chosen Steinhart for Bond then the perception of Steinhart may be different.

Remember, the first Rolex Sub was a direct copy of the Tudor Sub (Rolex 1953 and Tudor 1952) but that seems to have been forgotten and Rolex has never, ever marketed the Explorer 1 as the watch that went up Everest. Its association has grown out of folklore. Hillary (and Tenzing) watch was the forerunner to the OP (yes I know the Explorer is an OP but the dress one)

Smiths however did market and sell an Everest version of the De Luxe as that was the other watch that accompanied Hillary to the summit. The only difference with the Smiths Everest version was the addition of the word Everest on the dial. In all other respects the watch was identical.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Out there in the real world, it's more like, "that Rolex looks nice--you must have had a great year!"

Or, "a Rolex, dude, what's next? A Mercedes?"

Or, "Son, I hate to see you waste money on a Rolex when you can't even afford a house."

You can think of your own examples.

As I walked down the B terminal at Denver Airport yesterday, I saw two banner-size ads for Rolex BLNRs stretched across the terminal walkways. I've seen billboards showing various Rolex watches in nearly every city or town big enough to have a jewelry store that carries it, which is nearly every one of them. In news reports about the expensive things corrupt politicians bought with bribe money after they got caught, only the Rolex watches are mentioned by name.

To Americans, at least, there are few if any more _recognizable_ symbols of financial success a man can wear than a Rolex watch. The bespoke suits and shoes will only be noticed by others who wear them, but the watch is identifiable by everyone.

Enthusiasts have their own reasons for buying things, but I think we are fooling ourselves if buying a Rolex knockoff doesn't show some intent (as distinct from motive) of displaying financial success. Americans (and not just Americans) are always willing to signal success, whether it's the car, house, private school for the kids, personal adornments, trophy wife, or whatever. And that's true even if they couple it to signaling virtue. I may hate it, or say I hate it, but I'd be lying if the appearance of owning nice things plays no part in my buying decisions.

And if it's a cheap knockoff, then the financial success it displays is assumed (incorrectly or not) to be a sham.

If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, don't. But let's not kid ourselves about it with the myth that people "out there" don't notice.

Rick "seeing a lot of transparent rationalization" Denney


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Rdenney said:


> Out there in the real world, it's more like, "that Rolex looks nice--you must have had a great year!"
> 
> Or, "a Rolex, dude, what's next? A Mercedes?"
> 
> ...


Yep, at the end of the day, it's always what others think of us that drives existence, whether we're for or against "stuff", this thread is a perfect example . . .


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

One thing I find interesting is that sometimes people write, "No one else notices", and sometimes people write, "Other people notice", depending on what one is trying to say. It could be, "I wear this expensive watch for my own enjoyment, I'm not showing off, no one else notices", or "Those homage/copy watch wearers are obviously being pretentious, trying to show off wealth that they don't have, other people notice".

So which one is it? I think or assume "Other people notice". That's why I would not wear a recognizably expensive watch or homage watch in front of others, to prevent being pretentious in others' minds.

But apparently, some people write, "I couldn't care less", as in "I couldn't care less about what others think about my watch". I guess that could apply for both expensive watch wearer and copy watch wearer.

https://www.16personalities.com/articles/identity-assertive-vs-turbulent : In Myer-Briggs personality indicator, there is a "turbulent" type that is "self-conscious", sensitive to stress, experience wide range of emotions, tend to be success-driven, perfectionistic, and eager to improve. There is an "assertive" type that is "self-assured", even-tempered, resistant to stress, refuse to worry too much, do not push themselves too hard to achieve goals, and report more satisfaction with their lives and feel more confident in their abilities to handle challenging and unexpected situations. I could see how some people could be very sensitive about expensive or copy watches, and some people couldn't care less about expensive or copy watches.

I am the "turbulent" type, I care about what others think, and am very sensitive about expensive or copy watches.

In the past, I made generalization that Rolex owners are showing off, and so many people got upset about that. Now, it seems the generalization is that copy watch owners are showing off, and some people think that's about right.



Brey17 said:


> Not sure if you are lumping Steinhart in with knockoffs or not, but it's clear folks who wear Steinhart homage/copy (or whatever euphemism you want to use) like wearing great looking watches. Why else would they wear a watch?
> 
> *If we are going to wildly generalize... It certainly wouldn't be for any other reason than why most people wear a Rolex.*


+1 If we say copy watch owners are showing off, then expensive watch owners are also showing off.

One could say copy watch owners are showing off wealth that they don't have (being pretentious), while expensive watch owners are showing off wealth that they have. Well, as alluded to before, some expensive watch owners could be over spending on what they could not afford, so still being pretentious, but in a dumb way (versus smart way of being pretentious, of buying affordable copy watches).

If people wearing Rolex are not showing off, then people wearing copy watches are not showing off either.

I think what happens is, when I put on an expensive watch myself, I could see, yeah, expensive watch owners are not showing off, I just wear this for my own enjoyment, especially when I only wear this at home. When I put on a homage watch myself, I could see, yeah, homage watch owners are not showing off, I just wear this for my own enjoyment, especially when I only wear this at home. It seems what I see depends on what watch I bought and wear.


----------



## Jdreg (Sep 23, 2015)

MarkieB said:


> Homages are riding on other companies success with marketing and nothing more. I suspect if, say, Steinhart had sponsored 95% of Everest Expeditions and Cubby Broccoli had chosen Steinhart for Bond then the perception of Steinhart may be different.
> 
> Remember, the first Rolex Sub was a direct copy of the Tudor Sub (Rolex 1953 and Tudor 1952) but that seems to have been forgotten and Rolex has never, ever marketed the Explorer 1 as the watch that went up Everest. Its association has grown out of folklore. Hillary (and Tenzing) watch was the forerunner to the OP (yes I know the Explorer is an OP but the dress one)
> 
> Smiths however did market and sell an Everest version of the De Luxe as that was the other watch that accompanied Hillary to the summit. The only difference with the Smiths Everest version was the addition of the word Everest on the dial. In all other respects the watch was identical.


According to this article both subs were developed at the same time. Rolex was released before Tudor as it was the top brand.
This would make sense as the r&d cost was spread over as much volume as possible. Rolex can choose do do as it pleases at it paid for the development. My point is stienhart is making money off the design,having shouldered none of the cost of development. Yes it's legal and people can buy what they want. I just can't. I would rather wear a real timex, and I do, than a homage.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

Jdreg said:


> I just can't. I would rather wear a real timex, and I do, than a homage.


Who thinks you shouldn't wear what you want to wear? Any stories of you mistaking a Steinhart for a Rolex that would be germane to the thread?


----------



## MarkieB (Feb 25, 2017)

Jdreg said:


> According to this article both subs were developed at the same time. Rolex was released before Tudor as it was the top brand.
> This would make sense as the r&d cost was spread over as much volume as possible. Rolex can choose do do as it pleases at it paid for the development. My point is stienhart is making money off the design,having shouldered none of the cost of development. Yes it's legal and people can buy what they want. I just can't. I would rather wear a real timex, and I do, than a homage.


Yes, the Rolex Sub was released first but it had no bezel pip and sword hands. The Tudor had the Mercedes hands and the luminous pip and the Tudor proved the most popular so Rolex simply adapted the Tudor model to suit. Whilst not technically a copy as both companies are owned by the same entity,the Tudor was designed by Tudor and not Rolex so I would imagine at the time there was a some disquiet.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Please read it all before reacting. 

Don't take my comments too far. Our motivations are not binary, but represent a spectrum of influences. 

I wear watches that are obviously expensive, but not necessarily recognized as status symbols. If I owned a Rolex I would wear it without concern, simply because at my station in life, a Rolex isn't that extravagant, or likely to be interpreted as such. It took me a while to come to that conclusion, and then to come to terms with it. In fact, for someone my age, such displays of success can even add gravitas. 

I do think those who wear expensive watches in the belief that nobody notices are far more rare than we think, simply because all of us fool ourselves to some extent about our motives, even if our motives are opposed to buying expensive watches. The image portrayed by a watch is rarely the sole motivation, although even that happens pretty frequently. But neither does it play no role in the decisions most of us make, despite what we say. I'm sure there are those utterly unmoved by brand prestige, but I've never met one. Those I know who are closest to that ideal usually own expensive watches, to be honest.

People notice our watches when our watches make an impression. Most watches don't make any impression at all. Some do simply because of their unique look, and some do because of their size. Some are impressive in their display of precious metals, and some for the way they are decorated. Some make an impression because of how they are worn, and by whom. On a respected government official or business leader, a gaudy and huge Invicta or G-Shock might make an impression simply because of the preposterousness of the pairing (and I have NO issue with that, if we are doing it on purpose).

But Rolex makes an impression because Rolex has spent decades building a high-visibility and high-prestige sales apparatus, and aggressively developed and supported (and earned) their price point. The Rolex look in a watch is probably the most recognizable in existence. People pay for that brand value for a reason. 

(I recall from many years ago one large donor to a politician's campaign who was asked if he expected his donation to give him influence over the politician. His response was refreshingly honest, despite the trouble it caused: "I sure hope so.")

Why do we think the Rolex look is beautiful? Is the design hardwired into established aesthetic design principles? Not really. We think it's beautiful because of what it has come to represent to us. What it represents may be accuracy, quality or durability, but that certainly isn't all it represents. 

Certainly not everyone who buys a Steinhart or other knockoff is intentionally trying to deceive those around them. That is a tendentious extrapolation of what I've been saying. Of course, few among us would want people to think we are doing so, no matter what our motives. My point is that wearing a watch that inexpensively knocks off such a recognizably expensive and prestigious watch exposes us to the appearance of that intent with the few who might notice or care. We will likely never get a chance to explain it, and having justified it endlessly on WUS won't matter. 

Maybe we don't care, and that's fine with me if we don't. But not caring about something doesn't persuasively deny its existence. 

Rick "it's not black and white" Denney


----------



## Jdreg (Sep 23, 2015)

MarkieB said:


> Yes, the Rolex Sub was released first but it had no bezel pip and sword hands. The Tudor had the Mercedes hands and the luminous pip and the Tudor proved the most popular so Rolex simply adapted the Tudor model to suit. Whilst not technically a copy as both companies are owned by the same entity,the Tudor was designed by Tudor and not Rolex so I would imagine at the time there was a some disquiet.


Cool.
is there a source for this type of stuff?
Sounds like an interesting read


----------



## Gary123 (Oct 12, 2009)

Steinhart looks just like a Rolex, and that is clearly their intention. I'm not interested in splitting hairs about it. I believe most people who buy a Steinhart are aware its a copy, and are pleased to wear a look-alike. But out of respect for what Rolex has made, I won't wear a copy. I either buy it, make it a grail, or forget about it. A copy is only fooling others. 

If its a grail, maybe one day I'll have one and take great pride. Until then, look from afar.


----------



## pickle puss (Feb 13, 2006)

Some people sure know how to buzzkill a perfectly enjoyable hobby.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Do some people dislike Steinhart so vehemently because they realise that instead of buying a Rolex they could have bought a Steinhart and got just as good a watch and saved a bucket of money? :think:





















I'll leave the petrol and matches and get my coat (flame proof suit) :-!


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

pickle puss said:


> Some people sure know how to buzzkill a perfectly enjoyable hobby.


You mean by undermining the value of owning a premium brand by making and defending cheap imitations?

Rick "I agree" Denney


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Hornet99 said:


> Do some people dislike Steinhart so vehemently because they realise that instead of buying a Rolex they could have bought a Steinhart and got just as good a watch and saved a bucket of money? :think:


One (of several) reasons I don't own a Rolex is that they never present the sorts of unique buying opportunities I'm used to. But if I bought a Rolex, it would be for a range of reasons that a Steinhart would not satisfy.

But do I dislike Steinhart vehemently? I don't believe I've presented evidence of that. An absence of respect is not equal to vehement dislike. We keep extrapolating statements, and that's what leads to flames.

I do vehemently dislike it when people try to deny apparent intent based on what they present as their motives. (Again, recognizing the difference between motive and intent.) That is intellectually lazy.

Rick "kidding yourself and fooling nobody" Denney


----------



## pickle puss (Feb 13, 2006)

100% bingo correct no doubt about it nail on the head sure thing absolutely.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

I don't think it takes copy watch brands to undermine the value of premium brands. Any affordable brand undermines the value of luxury brands.

In my experience, my 10 affordable watches could be just as if not more fun or interesting than my two expensive watches.

e.g. My affordable watches could have very clear look of the dial, whereas my expensive watches don't. My affordable watches could have dial color that changes depending on lighting, whereas my expensive watches don't or not as much. One affordable watch has a look that I love, even though it's affordable. Another one is so light and thin, a joy to put on sometimes.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Rdenney said:


> One (of several) reasons I don't own a Rolex is that they never present the sorts of unique buying opportunities I'm used to. But if I bought a Rolex, it would be for a range of reasons that a Steinhart would not satisfy.
> 
> But do I dislike Steinhart vehemently? I don't believe I've presented evidence of that. An absence of respect is not equal to vehement dislike. We keep extrapolating statements, and that's what leads to flames.
> 
> ...


Did I say it was you that disliked Steinhart with vehemence?


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

I will add my perspective.

I am a person of means who could easily afford to purchase multiple high-end watches.

But I choose not to do so because, to me, they are not worth their asking prices. (This is a big reason why I am a person of means: I am very conservative in my spending. And if I do ever buy an expensive watch, it will be something interesting to look at like the Glashutte Original Panomaticlunar, not a plain dive watch ... but I digress.)

I am a fan of the no-date Rolex Submariner design, with the exception of the Mercedes hour hand, which I do not like at all. (Historical note: the original hands on the Rolex Submariner were straight pencil hands, not sword hands as incorrectly claimed above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolex_Submariner#Early_models ) So I like watches with this design (as well as watches of many other designs).

In my opinion, the beneficiaries of the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation (the family private trust that owns Rolex) have already been amply rewarded for the nice design that their employees came up with some 60 years ago. I do not feel that I need to show them "respect" by buying their products today. I also don't feel that their "brand ambassadors" like Tiger Woods need to be rewarded with some of my money for saying that they like the watches that they are paid to say they like.

The two watches I currently have that could possibly be mistaken for a Rolex Submariner are my Kadloo Scubamarine and my Ginault Ocean Rover. Both have sword hour hands. So no one with any serious knowledge of Rolex watches could possibly mistake either of them for a Submariner. (Except for the British military version of the Submariner made in the 70s, but all examples that I have ever seen pictures of are badly beat up, and impossible to mistake for a modern production watch.)

So when someone with this disappointing lack of knowledge about Rolex comments on my "Submariner", this is what I say: "Oh, it's not a Rolex, it's a Ginault (or Kadloo) --- about a factor of ten (or twenty) less expensive."

If the commenter continues to show interest, then he is a person who likes watches per se, and I am most happy to have a discussion. If not, not.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

Avo said:


> I will add my perspective.
> 
> I am a person of means who could easily afford to purchase multiple high-end watches.
> 
> ...


Are you me?


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Brey17 said:


> Are you me?


He is a homage to you


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

rdoder said:


> I don't think it takes copy watch brands to undermine the value of premium brands. Any affordable brand undermines the value of luxury brands.
> 
> In my experience, my 10 affordable watches could be just as if not more fun or interesting than my two expensive watches.
> 
> e.g. My affordable watches could have very clear look of the dial, whereas my expensive watches don't. My affordable watches could have dial color that changes depending on lighting, whereas my expensive watches don't or not as much. One affordable watch has a look that I love, even though it's affordable. Another one is so light and thin, a joy to put on sometimes.


You describe how you enjoy your affordable watches because they are _different_ than your expensive watches, whereas Steinhart is trying to be the _same_ as a more expensive brand.

I have affordable watches, too, and I enjoy them for what their designers did, instead of what they did not do.

(By the way, I did not say that cheap knockoffs undermine the value of expensive brands, though I certainly see no evidence that they don't. I said it undermines the value of _owning_ an expensive brand. The notion that any cheap watch undermines the value of all expensive watches may be true in some ways and false in others. Sure, it's an alternative to paying more, but it also highlights the more one gets with an expensive watch. I'm sure Steinharts are completely competent, but I rather doubt they are as durable and sustainable across the generations as a Rolex. Will Steinhart owners be servicing their watches 30 years from now? It may not matter to many, but that doesn't mean it isn't relevant.)

Rick "this isn't about affordability" Denney


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

So to summarize... Rolex is a bunch of fat cats, who should not profit from their work, because it belongs to the people... or something like that?
And Rolex Sub is cool to copy because it does not hurt them....

Hmmm.... I guess part of the issue I have with homages is the whole entitlement mentality.

And BTW, I disagree that they don't hurt Rolex sales. I am a target consumer for Rolex - interested in watches, appreciate good quality, value the history\heritage and have the $ to afford one. But I will not buy a Rolex, because as great as their design is - it has become all too common and ubiquitous. I see it so often - either actual Rolex, or Invicta, or one of hundreds of homages, or one of fakes... that I lost any interest in actually having one. 
So it would not surprise me that there are some Rolex sales lost because potential customers elect to go with Zenith, or GO, or GP, or Benzinger, or GS, or other brands that have less copying going on.

The really sad thing though is... I've been advocating that there are a ton of beautiful, well-designed, well-made and completely original affordable watches. But as acceptance of copying becomes mainstream (driven by Rolex is too expensive mentality), the copying spills over into affordable space.

So perhaps in comings months and years, we'll see threads like 
"stories mistaking Rodina for Nomos"
"Stories mistaking Reef Tiger for Seiko Cocktail"
"Stories mistaking Deep Blue for Seiko Turtle"

I've been extolling how great Seiko Cocktail Time is. An affordable watch - can be had for $350. Beautiful design. Unique. Stunning. Affordable.
Stuff like these 2 is disgusting to me


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Avo said:


> I will add my perspective.
> 
> I am a person of means who could easily afford to purchase multiple high-end watches.
> 
> But I choose not to do so because, to me, they are not worth their asking prices. (This is a big reason why I am a person of means: I am very conservative in my spending. And if I do ever buy an expensive watch, it will be something interesting to look at like the Glashutte Original Panomaticlunar, not a plain dive watch ... but I digress.)


I think thou doth protest too much. While I think there is value in delaying gratification, and a young adult who hasn't finished college, obtained a job, and bought a home probably should forgo getting an expensive watch. But, for a middle aged professional, I seriously doubt that one expensive watch is going to fundamentally change your financial well being. I suspect that if you added up the amount you spent on your watches, it would easily exceed the price of the no date Submariner, so I'm not sure how that is more fiscally responsible.


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

Buying something that I don't feel is good value does not bring me gratification. Quite the contrary.

I'm very happy with my affordables. And unless and until Rolex makes a modern-production Sub with a sword hour hand, I don't want one, even if I thought it was good value. Which I don't.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Avo said:


> Buying something that I don't feel is good value does not bring me gratification. Quite the contrary.
> 
> I'm very happy with my affordables. And unless and until Rolex makes a modern-production Sub with a sword hour hand, I don't want one, even if I thought it was good value. Which I don't.


So issue w Rolex is no modern models w sword hour hand.
What's the improvement of Rodina over Nomos (couln't help to notice it in your collection). I believe that one copies Nomos Tangente pretty closely....


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Avo said:


> Buying something that I don't feel is good value does not bring me gratification. Quite the contrary.
> 
> I'm very happy with my affordables. And unless and until Rolex makes a modern-production Sub with a sword hour hand, I don't want one, even if I thought it was good value. Which I don't.


Fair enough, but the point I was making is that I doubt that you choosing to forgo buying a Rolex is responsible for your financial success.


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

mleok said:


> Fair enough, but the point I was making is that I doubt that you choosing to forgo buying a Rolex is responsible for your financial success.


It certainly hasn't hurt...


----------



## skunkworks (Apr 5, 2017)

Hands90 said:


> It is sad though when you think about it. Everyone LOVES the design but you guys are buying a copy...
> It's like loving a piece of art and going out of your way to buy a fake. I just don't get it.


Its not buying a copy, it's buying the design, without being concerned with the words printed on the dial. If what you want is the history or name recognition, then you need the Rolex, but if its just the design you are after, you have other options, they all tell time the same.

So in art, it's like buying a print, not the original, something again many people do.

If you simply enjoy the appearance of something, and you have an avenue to enjoy it on a regular basis, then go for it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

EnderW said:


> So issue w Rolex is no modern models w sword hour hand..


Well that, and the 6-digit case is hideous. They'd have to go back to the 5-digit case. But keep the glidelock bracelet!



EnderW said:


> What's the improvement of Rodina over Nomos (couln't help to notice it in your collection). I believe that one copies Nomos Tangente pretty closely....


No improvement. I dithered endlessly about getting a Nomos Tangomat Datum with the Zeta movement. (For reasons too complicated to explain, the Greek letter zeta has emotional significance to me.) But the Zeta does not have a quick-date mechanism, and I alternate watches so I would be spending lots of time setting the date when I did wear it, and despite trying one on a couple of times at an AD, I wasn't sure how much I really liked it ... so I bought the Rodina to try out the style on a more regular basis. Result: I don't like it enough to buy the Nomos. And I almost never wear the Rodina.


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

EnderW said:


> So issue w Rolex is no modern models w sword hour hand.
> What's the improvement of Rodina over Nomos (couln't help to notice it in your collection). I believe that one copies Nomos Tangente pretty closely....











Nomos is a cheaper homage


----------



## skunkworks (Apr 5, 2017)

MarkieB said:


> Yes, the Rolex Sub was released first but it had no bezel pip and sword hands. The Tudor had the Mercedes hands and the luminous pip and the Tudor proved the most popular so Rolex simply adapted the Tudor model to suit. Whilst not technically a copy as both companies are owned by the same entity,the Tudor was designed by Tudor and not Rolex so I would imagine at the time there was a some disquiet.


"Tudor proved the most popular so Rolex simply adapted the Tudor model to suit. "

"Rolex proved the most popular so Steinhart simply adapted the Rolex model to suit. "

Lol

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

Why do people need to justify their buying decision on the internet to complete strangers??

Homage is either:

A - design that is now out of production
B - cheaper offer for a design that is available today

and why shouldn't people buy a Rodina or Steinhart??

I never owned any homage watches because I prefer (if I like it enough) to wait and get the original brand behind it. But if others prefer homages, due to different reasons, why not? Certainly nobody here is paid to play the financial advisor of anyone or spread hate around. 

The only brands I truly hate are ones that try super hard to sell a fake story. "OOOh, God sent us to create the one mechanical watch you will ever need on kickstarter..."

Steinhart as a watch brand seems very down to earth with no noticeable b******t-marketing.


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

mleok said:


> Fair enough, but the point I was making is that I doubt that you choosing to forgo buying a Rolex is responsible for your financial success.


Absolutely. In fact I should have bought a Rolex when I was living in Geneva in 1983! Instead I bought a cheapie skeleton pocket watch ...

But my general frugality has been a big part of why I live comfortably today.


----------



## run23 (Jul 12, 2009)

Why should I care if homage watches hurt Rolex sales?!! If anything that’s good— more competition in the market benefits the consumer. I said this earlier, but I’d love it if ‘luxury’ watch manufacturers felt some heat from homage brands and were forced to lower prices or become more customer focused. I don’t think that’s going to happen as I’m not convinced that there is or will be a significant number of people specifically choosing Steinhart/Ginault or whatever over Rolex to make a difference in the market. 

For what it’s worth I’ve owned one ‘homage’ style watch for a very brief period- an MKii homage (Stingray maybe? Can’t remember the name) to the original Blancpain 50 Fathoms. I bought it because I loved the old 50 Fathoms look but didn’t want to shell out the money to buy a vintage piece. I quickly sold it though as I’d rather either have the real thing or just get a watch in the same price range as the MKii that had its own look (ended up with a Bathys 100 Fathoms with a ruthenium dial, which I loved and regret selling to this day— had a case of ‘flipitis’ for a while). Nothing against others that would make the opposite choice with homages; it just wasn’t for me.


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

EnderW said:


> So to summarize... *lots of good stuff*
> 
> I've been extolling how great Seiko Cocktail Time is. An affordable watch - can be had for $350. Beautiful design. Unique. Stunning. Affordable.
> Stuff like these 2 is disgusting to me
> ...


As noted, I enjoyed and agreed with most of your post. But what I enjoyed the most were the names of the pictures you posted. I can see it next week on f2: What other watches should I consider besides The Crap7?


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

It's both laughable and admirable that they finished the shaft cap on this.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

In my experience, presence of homage/copy watches is more of an online phenomenon. All these copy watch brands I've only seen online. In real life, when I go to brick-and-mortar watch stores, all I see are the "original" watch brands. Have never seen Steinhart, Ginault, Sea-Gull, etc. in real life, either on a person, or in a store. Have seen Invicta once on a person, and it was not a copy watch. Compared to the sea of Seiko, Rolex, etc. that I see in real life, on people and in stores, I think copy watch brands are more like online boogeymen that scare folks at watch forum? If any of them become successful enough to show up in brick-and-mortar stores, then I guess it is what it is. If they become successful, then maybe they become "original" watch brands in their own right, with their own designs, and then there will be other new companies that copy them. It never ends.

Reminds me of kids. That's what happens as kids grow up. They copy what the adults do. It's part of growing up.

How about Daniel Wellington? I see them in brick-and-mortar stores. I'm guessing they are homage to some other brand? Or are they too simple in design to be considered copying someone else? Haha, guess someone else is ripping off DW, the original:










Sometimes I think, what if I have never seen the "original" watch? Then a copy watch is just a watch, without any moral judgment on it. Or if I never knew what is a "luxury" watch and what is an "affordable" watch, then I could enjoy watches as they are, without any financial or status considerations or worries. But that's not how it works for me. I see red and get triggered with certain brands or topics. It's interesting how the mind works.

I've been to Las Vegas before. Pics from online:




























I could either judge the architecture as rip-off, knockoff garbage, or just enjoy the sights and sounds while I was there as a tourist. I did love the sights and sounds while I was there.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

yankeexpress said:


> It certainly hasn't hurt...


In your case, I think you would definitely have saved money buying the real deal, instead of the countless homages that you have.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Nobody who goes to Vegas is under any illusion that they've had an original experience of Rome, London, Paris, or Egypt, nor does anyone who learns of their trip. But in this very thread we've seen people defend knockoffs of Rolex as being just as good for a fraction of the price. 

It's kind of a funny analogy. Vegas is even more artificial that Cinderella's Castle at Disneyland.

These aren't knockoffs in any case. They are amusement-park parodies. 

Rick "who was designing the traffic system in Vegas when the Luxor was being built" Denney


----------



## RotorRonin (Oct 3, 2014)

Rdenney said:


> Enthusiasts have their own reasons for buying things, but I think we are fooling ourselves if buying a Rolex knockoff doesn't show some intent (as distinct from motive) of displaying financial success.


I have an Invicta 8926 which i have customized but which originally looked like a Rolex, and a Casio EF503, which is obviously a Speedmaster homage, but with its own appeal. I like these two because they incorporate parts of the design I love about the watches they pay homage to, but will never be confused for them.

I like my watches, homages and non, because I like the watches. It has literally nothing to do with displaying financial success, of which I frankly have very little, and what little I have I do not wish to display.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

mleok said:


> In your case, I think you would definitely have saved money buying the real deal, instead of the countless homages that you have.


Don't you think he would have purchased it IF he wanted it? Not everyone who purchases homage watches are poor people who wish they looked like they have money. Not everyone who has a lot of affordable watches have run out of money.

And before you say they are just cheap. A lot of people who love watches are blowing wads of cash on other stuff, but just not the watch brands y'all feel are being disrespected with money to spare.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

RotorRonin said:


> I have an Invicta 8926 which i have customized but which originally looked like a Rolex, and a Casio EF503, which is obviously a Speedmaster homage, but with its own appeal. I like these two because they incorporate parts of the design I love about the watches they pay homage to, but will never be confused for them.
> 
> I like my watches, homages and non, because I like the watches. It has literally nothing to do with displaying financial success, of which I frankly have very little, and what little I have I do not wish to display.


Please do not confuse motive with intent. I'm glad you are happy with your watches; you deserve to be. As I said, enthusiasts have their own reasons. But others may read apparent intent without comment and your actual motives will never be revealed. You are not, of course, obligated to care what they think.

If they can't be confused with what they replicate, then they aren't knockoffs.

Rick "who has only owned one knockoff and learned how embarrassing it is to have to explain what it _isn't_" Denney


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

Rdenney said:


> Rick "who has only owned one knockoff and learned how embarrassing it is to have to explain what it _isn't_" Denney


*facepalms


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Brey17 said:


> Don't you think he would have purchased it IF he wanted it? Not everyone who purchases homage watches are poor people who wish they looked like they have money. Not everyone who has a lot of affordable watches have run out of money.
> 
> And before you say they are just cheap. A lot of people who love watches are blowing wads of cash on other stuff, but just not the watch brands y'all feel are being disrespected with money to spare.


Well, you missed not only Mleok's point, but the point to which he was responding.

Rick "suggesting a more careful reading" Denney


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

Rdenney said:


> Well, you missed not only Mleok's point, but the point to which he was responding.
> 
> Rick "suggesting a more careful reading" Denney


Cmon Rick... a simple *facepalm would have sufficed.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Seikogi said:


> View attachment 12737295
> 
> 
> Nomos is a cheaper homage


Oh wow, nothing new under the sun I suppose. . . though I'm not familiar with (and don't much care) about succession or whatever, interesting to say the least especially since I won't boycott either brand


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Hands90 said:


> Wait all these watches are copies?


Word of friendly advice - @drhr is not the guy you want to be getting into a "buy the real thing" argument with.

Whatever argument you think you are making - you may wanna drop it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

drhr said:


> Oh wow, nothing new under the sun I suppose. . . though I'm not familiar with (and don't much care) about succession or whatever, interesting to say the least especially since I won't boycott either brand


I won't either and plan to try both out at one point. Was intending to make a point that things are not always what we (some) think they are. The Nomos isn't going to be any better or worse just because it pays homage to another one and there is nothing wrong about it. And I also think its fine if someone wears a Rodina.


----------



## sinner777 (Jan 13, 2013)

I think you guys are taking your watches too seriously...my friend owns 4 modern RLX , some really nice classic collectors RLX..... aaaaaaand Steinhart Vintage Military in all of its faux lume sword hands glory.

why? he cant buy the real thing, simple as that. even if he found one ,it would be priced beyond insanity and doubtfully original...




I dont like the homage watches. Owned a few, but just not my thing. But I dont blame anybody for wearing Rolex homage (not knock off, but homage) for any reason. your wrist your choice.


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Was offered £9k by watchfinder for my hulk. But the bubble will never burst. I'm not greedy though - I'll cash in when it reaches £15k









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

RustyBin5 said:


> Was offered £9k by watchfinder for my hulk. But the bubble will never burst. I'm not greedy though - I'll cash in when it reaches £15k
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice Rolex :-!


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

I love my Squale pan am, a true homage; bigger than any sub and copying the semi mythical white dialed pan am GMT Rolex.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Brands are artificial, mental constructs created by companies, and companies promote love/hate, good/bad for different brands, so people would buy from whichever brand, benefiting owners/employees of certain companies.

Consumers are trapped in this structure. People don't see that these are artificial separations in the mind. Having written that, I jump back into that structure:

I don't buy that expensive watches are any better than ordinary watches. e.g. Rolex has recommended service interval of 5 years, 10 years? Any mechanical watch that gets banged about 24/7 is going to break at some point without maintenance, regardless of what brand is on the dial or how well-made they tell you it is, because of the self-wearing-out nature of mechanical parts. The irony is, with expensive watches, they are expensive to buy, and expensive to fix (e.g. at least $600 where I am at Rolex Service Centre). You'd think that if you spend $$$$$, they'd fix it for you for life for free. That's not how it works. An ordinary mechanical watch, I could bang about 24/7, let's say it breaks within a few years (there is a story of inexpensive watch that runs for ~50 years without service: 



), at most it costs ~$140 to fix where I am. The argument that expensive watch is "better" does not work for me, in terms of saving money anyway and having a watch that I love the look of.

For copy watches, I don't own any, for the same reasons that some don't own any. But when I went to Ginault's website, I saw beautiful pictures of their watches. Normally, I don't find Rolex Submariner beautiful, I don't know why (there are probably multiple reasons, two of which I mentioned above), but Ginault Submariners actually look good to me in those pictures. Wow, Ginault Submariner is not cheap either. I'd rather spend less and bought what I love. If some people love Ginault (or Steinhart or whichever copy watch) Submariner for their own reasons, I doubt anything anyone else says is going to change their minds.

I think you can't blame some watch companies for copying. It pays when they copy. e.g. Ginault Submariner could sell for ~$1k+ each. Some other obscure brand with their own design maybe could only sell for ~$50 each: https://artemiswristwear.com/ Or in tribute band analogy: "A cover band makes, musicians said, an average of $400 a night. But a tribute band can make $3,000-$5,000, up to $10,000 or more for a single night's work."(Tribute bands portray their heroes, see a bigger payday | The Kansas City Star) It literally pays to copy.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Seikogi said:


> View attachment 12737295
> 
> 
> Nomos is a cheaper homage


I think this is disingenuous. Akin to people claiming that Rolex Sub is a "homage" of BP FF (it's not)...

A little historical perspective is warranted.
But first... a little commentary on intent...

One can argue that Nomos is Homage to historical bauhaus dial designs of 1930's and one would be right. Nomos (and modern Stowa and Junghans) make homages to Bauhaus movement style watches in a traditional sense of the word - paying respect to the movement that was originated and developed locally and building on those ideas.
Indeed, these designs have been out of circulation for almost a century before being brought back as part of German watchmaking rebirth and a boom to Glashutte manufacturing industry. The Bauhaus dial design wasn't owned by Lange or Stowa, but was used by them and few others as a design available in local dial catalog. Nomos bringing it back is not knocking off Lange (or Stowa)

Intent for Nomos Tangente - bring back German style watch manufacture, paying homage to historical designs of the region and raising awareness of Bauhaus (at the time, neither Lange nor anyone else using the design)
Intent for Rodina\Rider\Seagull\etc - see Nomos be popular, see Nomos invest in marketing, ride coat-tails by knocking off the design.

German homage to Bauhaus movt - makes sense. Chinese .... not so much








 = homage to 
















 = ripoff\copy of 









Now for some historical content...

The Stowa pictured was from Stowa museum - early example of Bauhaus inspired design from 1930's. I believe a very similar Kano Bauhaus dial preceded Stowa by a few years.

That dial layout was not specific to Stowa though - goes back to 1920s-30s when watchmakers in Glashutte were purchasing dials from the same factory. These included Stowa, Kano, Lange, Glashutte original,Union and others. Glashutte watchmaking history and Bauhaus movement popularity (design not just limited to watches - combining crafts w fine arts) makes current iterations of Nomos and Stowa true homages. They are located in a center of Glashutte watchmaking and drew inspiration for their modern designs from historical ones. Modern watches from both Nomos and Stowa use dial design from the original factory design book.

Rodina (and a new Seagull iteration) - have same exact dial layout and other elements copied from Nomos. But Seagull\Rodina and Chinese watch makers have no connection to Glashutte or Germany or Bauhaus. There is no attempt to pay respect or reverence. The intent is clearly to capitalize on someone else's design as it is popular. They did not even bother with any enhancements to layout or design - just straight up copy.
By definition, this is not homage, but copying.

It's not illegal. I would not even go quite as far as saying it's unethical, although borderline. But words do have meaning and homage <> copy.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

EnderW said:


> I think this is disingenuous. Akin to people claiming that Rolex Sub is a "homage" of BP FF (it's not)...
> 
> A little historical perspective is warranted.
> But first... a little commentary on intent...
> ...


So Nomos copying an old design, that wasn't theirs is OK. But Steinhart copying a Rolex design (and changing the size and case shape) isn't? Feels like your splitting hairs here.....


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

Hornet99 said:


> So Nomos copying an old design, that wasn't theirs is OK. But Steinhart copying a Rolex design (and changing the size and case shape) isn't? Feels like your splitting hairs here.....


To be fair, as Ender pointed out, NOMOS decision to copy was and continues to be benevolent and respectful piety toward the lost Bauhaus way of life. Profit in this case is secondary and a simple by-product of their pure intent to copy a design they didn't come up with.

Edit: I have nothing against NOMOS or any other Bauhaus copy brand. They are all derivative. I do credit them for their in-house movement.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Hornet99 said:


> So Nomos copying an old design, that wasn't theirs is OK. But Steinhart copying a Rolex design (and changing the size and case shape) isn't? Feels like your splitting hairs here.....


And your message feels like rationalization.

Nobody sees a Nomos on somebody's arm and thinks "Lange wannabe". If they think anything at all, they think "Bauhaus" or "German".

So, you are missing the point. The point is that Steinhart, with some of its models, clearly intends to trade on a design that was undoubtedly made famous by Rolex. And I think it's obvious that sales of those models are driven by those who want the Rolex look without paying for a Rolex, no matter what motivated you.

Whatever their motives, the natural assumption based on apparent intent is that wearers want people to think they can afford a Rolex. That is the natural assumption when anyone sports an obvious knockoff. The Rolex look has been knocked off by just about every producer of inexpensive watches at one time or another, and Steinhart is but one in a long line.

Maybe the reason Rolex doesn't bring back their historical hand shapes that have been admired in the last few posts is because the market is already polluted with knockoffs. Whatever.

If you don't care, that's fine. So why deny the very existence of that assumption of intent so vigorously? I don't own a Rolex, and prefer watches with a more unique look. I own only one cheap Rolex lookalike that I bought in ignorance about 35 years ago, and didn't like having to explain it--I learned the lesson then. Accusing me of being fragile on the topic is a waste of time.

Story: met a guy recently who was wearing what looked like a Breitling Navitimer. I complimented him on it, and he had to admit that it was a Hong Kong ripoff he bought back in his younger military days. I absolutely did not say or even imply one single negative thing. But I've never seen him wear it since then. Instead, these days he's wearing a (real) vintage Rolex.

I don't really hold this against Steinhart, but I would think watch enthusiasts would have a more rounded understanding of perceptions rather than the shibboleth that nobody notices.

Rick "not much of a fan of the severe German look, either" Denney


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

EnderW said:


> I think this is disingenuous. Akin to people claiming that Rolex Sub is a "homage" of BP FF (it's not)...
> 
> A little historical perspective is warranted.
> But first... a little commentary on intent...
> ...


Dude, you are completely missing my point. I did not intend to speak badly about Nomos... just pointed out the obvious that they pay homage to well Stowa, ALS. (One guy here was acting very rude to Steinhart owners, that's why)
You wrote a detailed answer and I understand your arguments. However, you are missing the "other side" of the truth and reality.

First of all, nobody works for free! Everyone on this planet who sells commodities (watches) wants to make a profit/feed his family. This is always top priority and there are no noble intentions above this.

Discovering the "roots" of a design is interesting, however should not be taken that seriously. This is not scientific research were someone gets his historical inventions stolen.

Apart from that you have to realize, this is an international forum were people from all over the world contribute. While affording a Nomos, Rolex, etc. is not a big deal in the US & Europe, its unimaginable for some people in Africa, Asia with GDP per capita average incomes. 
Isn't it great that Rodina then provides a "copy" design for them with arguably "okay" quality for a lower price?

Also consider younger people (students, etc.) who are interested in watches with lower budgets and people who simply choose not to spend that much on a watch.

Now, I don't support people who think Rolex is overpriced either. If someone feels something is overpriced buy something different, if you like a watch get it.. no matter what others might say.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

With all the superb inexpensive watches that are available these days, the argument that society _needs_ inexpensive knockoffs of expensive watches seems particularly weak.

Rick "suspecting the impecunious are more than adequately served by the market" Denney


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

Rdenney said:


> And your message feels like rationalization.
> 
> Nobody sees a Nomos on somebody's arm and thinks "Lange wannabe". If they think anything at all, they think "Bauhaus" or "German".


Pointing out why someone justifies a double standard when it comes to copy watches is not rationalizing.

NOMOS and Steinhart have figured out how to effectively sells watch designs they didn't come up with. Intent... their only intent is to make money. But one is looked at with higher regard. Why? Double standards.


----------



## zimv20ca (Oct 21, 2017)

i am relatively new to this site and new to collecting. one thing i noticed quickly is that Steinhart has a lot of fans, and a lot of people beat up on Steinhart. i wondered why that was.

i found this comment enlightening:


Seikogi said:


> Homage is either:
> 
> A - design that is now out of production
> B - cheaper offer for a design that is available today


on my initial inspection of the Steinhart site, i thought they had some pretty cool looking watches. e.g. (from web):















disclosure: i bought the Steinhart OVM Mk 2 (the first one), because i thought it looked unique. it wasn't until i read reviews that i realized it was an homage of a rare Rolex, 5517.

after all the discussion in this thread, i went and looked at some of the other Steinharts, side by side w/ current Rolexes. e.g.















i have to say, i'm pretty disappointed. though i love my OVM, i would neither buy nor wear the Steinhart shown above.

and the difference in my mind is what Seikogi said above, about in production and out of production.

so there are some who *will* buy the Steinharts that look like current model Rolexes, and are defending that, while others indicate that's wrong. but is there also a group saying that wearing the Steinhart OVM (homaging the very defunct and unobtainable 5517) is also wrong? if so, is it because the in/out-of production status doesn't matter? because Steinhart is tainted by also doing in-production? or something else?

just trying to understand...


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Brey17 said:


> Pointing out why someone justifies a double standard when it comes to copy watches is not rationalizing.
> 
> NOMOS and Steinhart have figured out how to effectively sells watch designs they didn't come up with. Intent... their only intent is to make money. But one is looked at with higher regard. Why? Double standards.


Believe what you want.

Rick "sigh." Denney


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Brey17 said:


> To be fair, as Ender pointed out, NOMOS decision to copy was and continues to be benevolent and respectful piety toward the lost Bauhaus way of life. Profit in this case is secondary and a simple by-product of their pure intent to copy a design they didn't come up with.


I'm sure that Nomos donate all their profits to the home for retired Bauhaus designers fallen on hard times. And of course their decision to copy someone else's design was not motivated by seeing a gap in the market that could be plugged to make money.......



Rdenney said:


> And your message feels like rationalization.
> 
> Nobody sees a Nomos on somebody's arm and thinks "Lange wannabe". If they think anything at all, they think "Bauhaus" or "German".
> 
> ...


Nope, I'm not missing the point at all. I see now that the principle of Steinhart copying is not OK, but Nomos copying is OK. :-!

I think that you're making a big mistake in your assumptions here; your thinking that anyone who buys a Steinhart wants everyone to think they have a Rolex is ridiculous. Outside of the WUS unreality bubble NO one cares about the watch on your wrist, no one. No one who I work with knows that the watch I wear is a modern interpretation of a famous Seiko dive watch (SBDC051), they simply see a watch. Who knows whether they actually notice I've got a watch on. They've had no idea that the Steinhart's, Tissel, Parnis, Squale's I've worn are homages/copies of Rolex watches. I don't wear them for other people, purely for my own pleasure at having a nice watch on my wrist.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Folks, it isn't a matter of right and wrong. It's a matter of understanding the consequences of the choices we make. Not caring about those consequences is fine, but denying their existence is exasperating. 

Rick "thinking it's the defenders who are conflating this with morals" Denney


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Rdenney said:


> Folks, it isn't a matter of right and wrong. It's a matter of understanding the consequences of the choices we make. Not caring about those consequences is fine, but denying their existence is exasperating.
> 
> Rick "thinking it's the defenders who are conflating this with morals" Denney


Can you explain what the consequences are? If I go and buy a Steinhart right now (believe me this thread is making me want to!) what happens?


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

Consequences... this is getting ridiculous. I'm out


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Hornet99 said:


> Can you explain what the consequences are? If I go and buy a Steinhart right now (believe me this thread is making me want to!) what happens?


People may think you are trying to look like you can afford a Rolex.

That may not bother you at all. And maybe you can afford a Rolex anyway. But that doesn't mean they won't be thinking it.

Rick "up to you" Denney


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

You guys that defend wealth and status-signaling knockoffs have a nice day. 

Rick "done here" Denney


----------



## pickle puss (Feb 13, 2006)

Hornet99 said:


> Can you explain what the consequences are? If I go and buy a Steinhart right now (believe me this thread is making me want to!) what happens?


What happens is that you will get a great watch that will serve you well for years but, as a consequence of having the audacity to purchase a watch which resembles a watch worn by many posers who don't know a balance cock from a shuttlecock, you shall never be taken seriously outside of the affordable forum forever.

Pickle "it's not my fault if I like watches for my own pleasure and not what someone else thinks" Puss


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

Rdenney said:


> You guys that defend wealth and status-signaling knockoffs have a nice day.
> 
> Rick "done here" Denney


Don't done here yet. You just made a provocative statement and are walking away.

Do you honestly believe that most of us on this forum that are wearing Steinhart watches are wearing them for the express purpose of hoping that people get close enough to see that we're wearing something that looks like a Rolex, but hoping they don't get close enough to see that it's not?

If not that, that it would matter one way or the other if somebody else made a false assumption because they value status symbols?


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

Alright gentlemen lets turn the heat down in some of these posts. Back to Rolex and Steinhart please.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

In looking over my collection of watches, I see that I have design copies of watches that are no longer in production, like the vintage Omega Seamaster 300 (Borealis Estoril), Rolex Milsub (Steinhart Ocean Vintage Military), vintage Blancpain Fifty Fathoms (Helson Skindiver and Borealis Sea Storm), and Rolex Paul Newman Daytona (Alpha).

Indeed, I have copies of the vintage Seamaster 300, even though I also have the Watchco Seamaster 300, which is assembled from OEM Omega service components and a restored Omega 552 movement, because there's something to be said about the niceties of a modern watch, like reliable water resistance, sapphire crystals, and overall robustness and reliability.

For me, there is a distinction between copying a well-recognized contemporary watch, as opposed to an obscure, no longer in production watch. The Rolex Submariner, for better or worse, is the most readily recognized watch in existence, and the "real deal" is readily available in good shape and a reasonably attainable price, and with all the robustness and reliability of a modern watch.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Brey17 said:


> Don't done here yet. You just made a provocative statement and are walking away.
> 
> Do you honestly believe that most of us on this forum that are wearing Steinhart watches are wearing them for the express purpose of hoping that people get close enough to see that we're wearing something that looks like a Rolex, but hoping they don't get close enough to see that it's not?
> 
> If not that, that it would matter one way or the other if somebody else made a false assumption because they value status symbols?


I think I've defended that statement repeatedly, and answered all your questions at least several times each. I'm not sure there is any more to be said.

Rick "still insisting on the distinction between motive and intent" Denney


----------



## MarkieB (Feb 25, 2017)

Wow, you'll never believe this. Christmas shopping in Chester today and decided to take my wife to the Rolex AD in case she decided I needed a Rolex for Christmas. I was wearing my Ocean 1 Black Ceramic and was sooo surprised when the assistant commented on it with a "nice watch sir"

I must admit I was a little surprised and thought he was being sarcastic, but no. He asked to look at it (loupe and all), I was even more surprised when he then commented on the quality (good).

He then called the manager to examine the Steinhart who was equally impressed. What is happening here?

The conversation then reverted to the reason we had gone to the shop in the first place - a Sub reccy - after looking at several, all of us agreed that the quality of the Steinhart was such that there was absolutely no reason to buy a Rolex as, in the manager's word, "I can't see any real difference apart from the name"

Suffice to say, I left the shop completely shocked and disbelieving what had just happened.

I asked my wife, Demi Moore, to pinch me to make sure I wasn't dreaming.......


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

Rdenney said:


> People may think you are trying to look like you can afford a Rolex.
> 
> That may not bother you at all. And maybe you can afford a Rolex anyway. But that doesn't mean they won't be thinking it.
> 
> Rick "up to you" Denney


This really depends on the circles in which one moves.

The people I work with (most of whom could easily afford to spend $10K on a watch) typically think it's crazy to spend money on a mass-produced, factory-made measuring device that costs 100 times more than the one they own, and is also _much less accurate_. These people own Teslas (because here the technology is _actually superior _ instead of merely nostalgic) and Casios.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

Rdenney said:


> I think I've defended that statement repeatedly, and answered all your questions at least several times each. I'm not sure there is any more to be said.
> 
> Rick "still insisting on the distinction between motive and intent" Denney


I see that you are trying to make a distinction, I just don't think you are making it. You are insisting what happened to you happens all the time. I am positive when it comes to watches it isn't common at all. And further, even if it should happen one time in anyone's watch wearing career, doesn't make the outcome necessarily right or wrong.

Personal experiences can shape our worldview. It sucks that you were made to feel embarrassed about an homage watch. I get the feeling you are sharing your views so that some may not repeat what you feel are mistakes you made.

Just like you said earlier this is an about right and wrong.


----------



## Jackson Filth (Jan 7, 2012)

you're not dreaming, but your story telling is putting us to bed 

he brought out the loupe and talked you out of a sale. seriously lol come on



MarkieB said:


> Wow, you'll never believe this. Christmas shopping in Chester today and decided to take my wife to the Rolex AD in case she decided I needed a Rolex for Christmas. I was wearing my Ocean 1 Black Ceramic and was sooo surprised when the assistant commented on it with a "nice watch sir"
> 
> I must admit I was a little surprised and thought he was being sarcastic, but no. He asked to look at it (loupe and all), I was even more surprised when he then commented on the quality (good).
> 
> ...


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

I could understand that it's embarassing if I wear a copy watch that I didn't know is a copy of an expensive watch, and possibly someone else thinks that I want to look rich when I had no such intention. Because of that reason, I too would not wear a copy (or homage) watch in front of others. I would not wear an expensive watch in front of others either, because I could look pretentious there as well in some people's minds, me being an average guy.

But I bought an expensive watch to experience it because people here rave about it, and it was pretty amazing during honeymoon period. Now, it's more of just one of my watches. I'm honeymooning with an affordable watch right now.

I guess if a copy watch owner or expensive watch owner could wear whatever watch in front of others without being self-conscious about it, for whatever reasons, then good for other people.

I could kind of see how "No one else notices". e.g. I totally don't notice people's shoes, or clothes, for that matter. I mostly notice other people's faces. But if it's women, I notice more the clothes they are wearing, as a side effect of taking in the whole view. (So hot, those legs! That butt! Thank gosh for yoga pants!!!) But on men, I really don't notice shoes and clothes, for the most part.

But since I'm interested in watches, I project my hyper watch awareness onto all other people, rightly or wrongly. So I will continue to only wear appropriately sized, bland, generic affordable watches when I go out, and save the big, expensive, colorful, and/or homage watch for home wearing, for my own enjoyment only.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Jackson Filth said:


> you're not dreaming, but your story telling is putting us to bed
> 
> he brought out the loupe and talked you out of a sale. seriously lol come on


Somehow, I think you're missing the point.


----------



## Jackson Filth (Jan 7, 2012)

that he's married to demi moore?



mleok said:


> Somehow, I think you're missing the point.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Rdenney said:


> People may think you are trying to look like you can afford a Rolex.
> 
> That may not bother you at all. And maybe you can afford a Rolex anyway. But that doesn't mean they won't be thinking it.
> 
> Rick "up to you" Denney


As I'd said previously, outside of the WUS / WIS unreality bubble no one would notice or even know it's a Rolex homage. If someone noticed my Squale and said "nice Rolex" I'd quite happily talk about what it is and what it isn't.

......and yes I could afford a Rolex, but I just baulk at spending that much money on a watch.



Rdenney said:


> You guys that defend wealth and status-signaling knockoffs have a nice day.
> 
> Rick "done here" Denney


Oh don't give up, I thought we were having a productive debate?


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> In looking over my collection of watches, I see that I have design copies of watches that are no longer in production, like the vintage Omega Seamaster 300 (Borealis Estoril), Rolex Milsub (Steinhart Ocean Vintage Military), vintage Blancpain Fifty Fathoms (Helson Skindiver and Borealis Sea Storm), and Rolex Paul Newman Daytona (Alpha).
> 
> Indeed, I have copies of the vintage Seamaster 300, even though I also have the Watchco Seamaster 300, which is assembled from OEM Omega service components and a restored Omega 552 movement, because there's something to be said about the niceties of a modern watch, like reliable water resistance, sapphire crystals, and overall robustness and reliability.
> 
> For me, there is a distinction between copying a well-recognized contemporary watch, as opposed to an obscure, no longer in production watch. The Rolex Submariner, for better or worse, is the most readily recognized watch in existence, and the "real deal" is readily available in good shape and a reasonably attainable price, and with all the robustness and reliability of a modern watch.


I've seen the argument made before that it's OK to copy designs that are rare, unobtainable or not longer in production (probably all 3 at the same time then), but that it's not to copy current designs. I still don't get this, aren't you still crossing the boundary (some have suggested ethical) of taking IP either way?

By the way a Rolex is not reasonably obtainable in most people's definition. Hence why they are known as luxury watches.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> I've seen the argument made before that it's OK to copy designs that are rare, unobtainable or not longer in production (probably all 3 at the same time then), but that it's not to copy current designs. I still don't get this, aren't you still crossing the boundary (some have suggested ethical) of taking IP either way?
> 
> By the way a Rolex is not reasonably obtainable in most people's definition. Hence why they are known as luxury watches.


Ethical issues are rarely black and white, one has to draw the line somewhere. If the IP owner is no longer offering the product for sale, then one can reasonably say that copies are not depriving the IP owner from reaping the rewards of their labor, and for me that make a difference.

Let's be honest, whatever the motivations of the people on the forum who own Submariner homages, the fact that they exist and in such abundance is because of the singular reputation of Rolex, and the fact that it is an iconic and instantly recognizable watch. All that is fine with me, but I find the pervasive use of the term "homage" as opposed to "blatant copy that capitalizes on the desirability of a more established brand" to be intellectually dishonest, and speaks to an unwillingness to acknowledge the less savory aspect of what these watches represent.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

I wonder why "copy" is frowned upon as a way of describing watches that are essentially visually identical to another watch, except for the branding. Growing up in Singapore, "copy watch" was the euphemism of choice for a fake or counterfeit watch, the same way that "replica watch" is the currently favored term, so perhaps "copy" has negative connotations that are too close to home?


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

mleok said:


> In looking over my collection of watches, I see that I have design copies of watches that are no longer in production, like ...and Rolex Paul Newman Daytona (Alpha)...


C'mon, you can do better than an imitation Steinhart. Go for the real deal.










I'm sure this has been covered in the 500 plus posts, but for me, intent is also signaled when a (vast) majority of a brand's catalog is filled with the designs of others.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

mleok said:


> I wonder why "copy" is frowned upon as a way of describing watches that are essentially visually identical to another watch, except for the branding. Growing up in Singapore, "copy watch" was the euphemism of choice for a fake or counterfeit watch, the same way that "replica watch" is the currently favored term, so perhaps "copy" has negative connotations that are too close to home?


If it is frowned upon, I too don't know why though I do make further distinctions. I refer to my Steinhart and other watches as copies, not homages. Replica I use for anything that is fake, which would include the branding of course. But then I haven't given this stuff much thought except when it appears in this forum . . . .


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> Ethical issues are rarely black and white, one has to draw the line somewhere. If the IP owner is no longer offering the product for sale, then one can reasonably say that copies are not depriving the IP owner from reaping the rewards of their labor, and for me that make a difference.
> 
> Let's be honest, whatever the motivations of the people on the forum who own Submariner homages, the fact that they exist and in such abundance is because of the singular reputation of Rolex, and the fact that it is an iconic and instantly recognizable watch. All that is fine with me, but I find the pervasive use of the term "homage" as opposed to "blatant copy that capitalizes on the desirability of a more established brand" to be intellectually dishonest, and speaks to an unwillingness to acknowledge the less savory aspect of what these watches represent.


I agree ethical issues are rarely black and white and where you and I draw the line is obviously different. I'd suggest that me buying a Steinhart is not depriving Rolex of a potential sale, as I'm highly unlikely to buy one. I'd also suggest that this is the case for the majority of Steinharts customers. I'd also go as far as arguing that all the Submariner design copies (alternatives to Steinhart are available) probably encourage some people to aspire to Rolex ownership. I've seen people slowly saving away and then announcing the purchase of their "grail" submariner many times before. So in a way Steinhart are helping Rolex sales......

What is the "less savory aspect" you're referring to?


----------



## MarkieB (Feb 25, 2017)

Jackson Filth said:


> you're not dreaming, but your story telling is putting us to bed
> 
> he brought out the loupe and talked you out of a sale. seriously lol come on


But it's true....


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

omeglycine said:


> C'mon, you can do better than an imitation Steinhart. Go for the real deal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know for a fact that the Alpha predates the Steinhart One Vintage Chronograph.

It's 42mm and 18mm thick, which just demonstrates that it is "good and original, but what is original is not good; what is good is not original." In any case, there's no reason why a watch with those specifications should cost almost $1000.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> I agree ethical issues are rarely black and white and where you and I draw the line is obviously different. I'd suggest that me buying a Steinhart is not depriving Rolex of a potential sale, as I'm highly unlikely to buy one. I'd also suggest that this is the case for the majority of Steinharts customers. I'd also go as far as arguing that all the Submariner design copies (alternatives to Steinhart are available) probably encourage some people to aspire to Rolex ownership. I've seen people slowly saving away and then announcing the purchase of their "grail" submariner many times before. So in a way Steinhart are helping Rolex sales......
> 
> What is the "less savory aspect" you're referring to?


Do you refer to your Steinhart as a Rolex copy, or a "homage"?

This just sounds like post hoc rationalization to me. I see way more people who like and can afford a Submariner say that they aren't getting one because of all the copies and fakes floating around than people who say that a copy of a Submariner increases their desire to own the real deal.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

A Steinhart is not a promise ring to Rolex.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Jackson Filth said:


> that he's married to demi moore?


Still missing the point.


----------



## unpleasantness (Jun 13, 2014)

I never notice what people are wearing. I don't care. I do think WIS types are full of it, though, when they say a person was wearing a (name watch here). Unless you're right on top of it, you don't know for sure. A huge number of watches sold around the world are just stylistic copies of well-known (and popular) timepieces. This goes double for watches in movies, as I used to work on feature films. Unless there's a huge product placement deal going on, they are prop watches. They often don't even work. Great prop people will set the watch to what time it's supposed to be in the scene, too, just for accuracy.


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Hornet99 said:


> I've seen the argument made before that it's OK to copy designs that are rare, unobtainable or not longer in production (probably all 3 at the same time then), but that it's not to copy current designs. I still don't get this, aren't you still crossing the boundary (some have suggested ethical) of taking IP either way?
> 
> By the way a Rolex is not reasonably obtainable in most people's definition. Hence why they are known as luxury watches.


If a milsub at £150k means buying the homage is ok because it's "totally unattainable" then surely for many a £6k sub is equally unattainable.

The irony of course is that Rolex to REAL watch snobs are just entry level luxury. If someone was rocking an A. Lange Sohne then I doubt they would gush over a batman

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

RustyBin5 said:


> If a milsub at £150k means buying the homage is ok because it's "totally unattainable" then surely for many a £6k sub is equally unattainable.
> 
> The irony of course is that Rolex to REAL watch snobs are just entry level luxury. If someone was rocking an A. Lange Sohne then I doubt they would gush over a batman


That is a false equivalence. In any case, as I said earlier, it's not merely a question of price, but that it's no longer in production. Is there a price point where a copy is no longer acceptable to you? Does that occur with a $2K Nomos, a $400 Seiko Cocktail Time, or a $80 Casio G-Shock?


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

mleok said:


> That is a false equivalence. In any case, as I said earlier, it's not merely a question of price, but that it's no longer in production. Is there a price point where a copy is no longer acceptable to you? Does that occur with a $2K Nomos, a $400 Seiko Cocktail Time, or a $80 Casio G-Shock?


Nope - I'm happy with the homages just fine ta. Owned Rolex. Prob will again but it's one thing shelling out 6 grand on a watch - quite another thing to use it as a genuine beater in my eyes. I think I'd be perfectly ok with owning a genuine AND a homage of the same watch - at the same time

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

RustyBin5 said:


> Nope - I'm happy with the homages just fine ta. Owned Rolex. Prob will again but it's one thing shelling out 6 grand on a watch - quite another thing to use it as a genuine beater in my eyes. I think I'd be perfectly ok with owning a genuine AND a homage of the same watch - at the same time


Way to avoid answering the question. As you can see above, I do have a copy and real Seamaster 300, and find no need to sugar coat it by referring to a copy as a homage. Honestly, the use of the term "homage" bothers me more than the existence of such copies (even of current production models). I perfectly understand not wanting to use a Rolex as a beater, and those who are unable to afford one, or unwilling to pay for one. But at the same time I have no illusions that an Invicta or a Steinhart is paying tribute to a Rolex, it's simply capitalizing on its success. As someone mentioned above, you just have to look at Steinhart's lineup to understand their business model and their appeal. Even Invicta's lineup exhibits a greater degree of design diversification and originality.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

If the idea is that copy watch companies provide competition against original watch companies, then I'd like to see more copy watch companies compete against luxury watch companies. Luxury watch companies are not suffering business-wise enough to lower prices, they keep increasing prices regularly. As a person who might like to buy some watches, in a fantasy scenario, I'd like to see more copy watches, enough to make luxury watch companies lower prices. e.g. The ice-blue Rolex Day-Date looks nice, or Omega DSOTM (without the finicky-to-oil co-axial) would be watches that I'd like to buy maybe if each is ~$500-1,000, after copy watch companies provide enough competition for them to decrease prices to that level. I have no self-interest in luxury watches as status symbols. I'd actually like it if all watches are (more) affordable, before prices raised, due to quartz forcing Swiss to become status symbols.

I don't want to see a company like Seiko face too much copy watch competition though, because they are affordable already (to me).

But if copy watch companies kill off any original watch company, it's probably for the best. If a watch company is not strong enough to compete, then that means most people actually prefer e.g. Steinhart or Invicta. Let people's wallets speak for themselves.

I suspect watch forum is a small population, compared to watch-buying people in general public. None of what is said at watch forum affect them. People would probably mostly buy "original" watches, because those are the ones that people see in brick-and-mortar stores, and either buy in-store, or online. I'd guess brand history of making good functioning watches still matter to many watch buyers.

Lack of copy watch brands in brick-and-mortar stores suggests to me that copy watch brands are not big enough with general public to sell and maintain brick-and-mortar businesses. Which means, most people in general public buy "original" brands.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

rdoder said:


> I don't want to see a company like Seiko face too much copy watch competition though, because they are affordable already (to me).
> 
> But if copy watch companies kill off any original watch company, it's probably for the best. If a watch company is not strong enough to compete, then that means most people actually prefer e.g. Steinhart or Invicta. Let people's wallets speak for themselves.


The Rolex Submariner is perfectly affordable relative to their production numbers, as evidenced by the fact that the price considerations are typically small or nonexistent, and there are rarely more than one in stock at any AD. I doubt anyone actually prefers a Steinhart or Invicta, except in terms of price. But, it should be clear to anyone that their business practices are parasitic. Ultimately, copy watches stifle innovation, as they reduce the incentive for companies to invest in research and design.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

mleok said:


> Ultimately, copy watches stifle innovation, as they reduce the incentive for companies to invest in research and design.


I disagree. There is no end to creative watch brands popping up.

Copy brands demonstrate that there is a market for the affordable, ubiquitous and clean submariner design.

That submariner design is practically public domain at this point. It may very well be if copy watches are ever challenged. Deep down I am curious if Rolex wonders this too.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Brey17 said:


> Nonsense. There is no end to creative watch brands popping up.
> 
> Copy brands demonstrate that there is a market for the affordable, ubiquitous and clean submariner design.
> 
> That submariner design is practically public domain at this point. It may very well be if copy watches are ever challenged. Deep down I am curious if Rolex wonders this too.


I refer you to this unfortunate example of Seagull copying a small microbrand.

https://www.watchuseek.com/f71/wtf-sea-gull-straight-up-thieves-aevig-content-2196561-2.html

As for the Submariner design practically being in the public domain, it has more to do with Rolex not defending their trade dress as opposed to any intrinsic legal merit in that argument.


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

The Hans Wilsdorf Foundation does not seem to make any effort to stop companies from making watches that copy the Rolex Submariner's style, such as the Davosa Ternos. You would have to ask the Foundation what their reasoning is, though I doubt you will get an answer.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Brey17 said:


> I disagree. There is no end to creative watch brands popping up.


Off the top of your head, can you name a few?


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

mleok said:


> I refer you to this unfortunate example of Seagull copying a small microbrand.
> 
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f71/wtf-sea-gull-straight-up-thieves-aevig-content-2196561-2.html
> 
> As for the Submariner design practically being in the public domain, it has more to do with Rolex not defending their trade dress as opposed to any intrinsic legal merit in that argument.


Ya that is straight up corporate espionage that went on there against Aevig.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

mleok said:


> Off the top of your head, can you name a few?


Vapaus, Halios, NTH. I can name several more.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Brey17 said:


> Vapaus, Halios, NTH. I can name several more.


You seem to have a low bar for innovation. Many of NTH's watch designs seem pretty derivative to me, and Vapaus just seems to be tapping into a vintage vibe. Honestly, none of these brands are what I would consider to be truly innovating in terms of watch design.

For me, truly creative watch designs include the Eone Bradley,










or Klockers,










Heck, the Apple watch's bracelet attachment system and the tool-free resizing of the Link bracelet is far more innovative than any of the examples you've listed.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

RustyBin5 said:


> If a milsub at £150k means buying the homage is ok because it's "totally unattainable" then surely for many a £6k sub is equally unattainable.
> 
> The irony of course is that Rolex to REAL watch snobs are just entry level luxury. *If someone was rocking an A. Lange Sohne then I doubt they would gush over a batman*
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Eh? :think: . . .


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

mleok said:


> You seem to have a low bar for innovation. Many of NTH's watch designs seem pretty derivative to me, and Vapaus just seems to be tapping into a vintage vibe. Honestly, none of these brands are what I would consider to be truly innovating in terms of watch design.
> 
> For me, truly creative watch designs include the Eone Bradley,
> 
> ...


I am not talking about brands that are innovating for the sake innovation. I have to want to actually wear the piece.


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

Can't deny, People love to talk homage! The fact, lots member how come on this forum looking for homage and "value".

So, is this a copy or homage?









Katy Perry Might Copy Lady Gaga With One of Her 'Witness' Tour Looks | Footwear News


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

Can't deny, People love to talk homage! The fact, lots member how come on this forum looking for homage and "value".

So, is this a copy or homage?

View attachment 12739745


Katy Perry Might Copy Lady Gaga With One of Her 'Witness' Tour Looks | Footwear News


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Brey17 said:


> I am not talking about brands that are innovating for the sake innovation. I have to want to actually wear the piece.


I'm just shaking my head at the thought of NTH being heralded as an example of design innovation. NTH stands for "Nod To History," which means that its entire identity is centered around homage watches.

Perhaps that's why you don't think that "homages" are compromising innovation in the watch industry.

NTH Watches: Submariner Homage - Watchisthis


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

mleok said:


> The Rolex Submariner is perfectly affordable relative to their production numbers, as evidenced by the fact that the price considerations are typically small or nonexistent, and there are rarely more than one in stock at any AD. I doubt anyone actually prefers a Steinhart or Invicta, except in terms of price. But, it should be clear to anyone that their business practices are parasitic. Ultimately, copy watches stifle innovation, as they reduce the incentive for companies to invest in research and design.


I brought up the idea before that the presence of copy watch companies means that e.g. Rolex need to keep innovating in order to differentiate themselves from copy watches. Copy watches encourage innovation from original watch companies. Rolex cannot sue for trade dress because many of their designs have functional elements. They can't change their look to differentiate from copy watches because iconic/sameness is one of their selling points. So they are forced to innovate in materials and movement features.

Well, one could argue Rolex innovate anyway if there are no copy watches, to compete against e.g. Omega or GS. I guess so.

Maybe the presence of copy watches does not stifle innovation, because the watch companies that innovate do so anyway against other innovative watch companies. Copy watches do not really affect drive for innovation between Rolex (with improvements to traditional balance-wheel movement features) versus e.g. Seiko's Spring Drive or Zenith Oscillator.

Whether some watch companies copy or not, maybe they don't have the resources, know-how (people), or drive to innovate, whereas the "top" or big brands do.

I think the very nature of competition between companies, with or without copy watches, will continue to drive innovation?

I think there were, are, and always will be copy watches, and innovation. It's like musicians. There were, are, and always will be cover artists, tribute bands, and "original" artists.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

mleok said:


> I'm just shaking my head at the thought of NTH being heralded as an example of design innovation. NTH stands for "Nod To History," which means that its entire identity is centered around homage watches.
> 
> Perhaps that's why you don't think that "homages" are compromising innovation in the watch industry.
> 
> NTH Watches: Submariner Homage - Watchisthis


Well I wasn't sure if you were being serious. I realize you are now. This is an argument of the anti-homage I haven't heard yet.

Homage purchasers are contributing to the decline of innovation in the watch industry.

Tell me more please.

And for love of all that is holy... show me innovative watches I can tell time with!!


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Brey17 said:


> Well I wasn't sure if you were being serious. I realize you are now. This is an argument of the anti-homage I haven't heard yet.
> 
> Homage purchasers are contributing to the decline of innovation in the watch industry.
> 
> Tell me more please.


By making it acceptable to shameless copy the design of a more successful brand, it reduces the incentive to innovate in terms of design, particularly for a small company, since it becomes a high-risk low-reward venture. Even lower priced brands like Nomos, Seiko, and Casio are having their designs copied. There is a reason why most of the microbrands and Kickstarter campaigns feature nothing more than rehashed designs.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

mleok said:


> By making it acceptable to shameless copy the design of a more successful brand, it reduces the incentive to innovate in terms of design, particularly for a small company, since it becomes a high-risk low-reward venture. Even lower priced brands like Nomos, Seiko, and Casio are having their designs copied. There is a reason why most of the microbrands and Kickstarter campaigns feature nothing more than rehashed designs.


Watch producers cater to the market. The market will determine when innovation is necessary.

The watch industry is in decline, but to lay blame on homage watch companies is silly.

The watch industry has large problems looming, your perception of what boring design is notwithstanding.


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

mleok said:


> By making it acceptable to shameless copy the design of a more successful brand, it reduces the incentive to innovate in terms of design, particularly for a small company, since it becomes a high-risk low-reward venture. Even lower priced brands like Nomos, Seiko, and Casio are having their designs copied. There is a reason why most of the microbrands and Kickstarter campaigns feature nothing more than rehashed designs.


^^^^ the most convoluted, baloney post I have ever read on WUS


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Brey17 said:


> Watch producers cater to the market. The market will determine when innovation is necessary.
> 
> The watch industry is in decline, but to lay blame on homage watch companies is silly.
> 
> The watch industry has large problems looming, your perception of what boring design is notwithstanding.


To ignore the effect of homage watches on stifling innovation is silly. Simply put, Rolex's iconic designs cast a wide shadow, and homages rob the affordable watch segment of incentives to innovate in terms of design.

When IP protections fail to incentivize investment in research and development, innovation will falter. The resulting stagnation only serves to further accelerate the decline of the watch industry.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

yankeexpress said:


> ^^^^ the most convoluted, baloney post I have ever read on WUS


I'm still waiting to see examples of the wonderfully innovative micro brands that I am apparently unaware of. You have an extensive collection, perhaps you can point out some of them.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

mleok said:


> To ignore the effect of homage watches on stifling innovation is silly. Simply put, Rolex's iconic designs cast a wide shadow, and homages rob the affordable watch segment of incentives to innovate in terms of design.
> 
> When IP protections fail to incentivize investment in research and development, innovation will falter. The resulting stagnation only serves to further accelerate the decline of the watch industry.


Lol. Tell Rolex to lower their prices so the watch industry can come out the great watch design recession.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

mleok said:


> I'm still waiting to see examples of the wonderfully innovative micro brands that I am apparently unaware of. You have an extensive collection, perhaps you can point out some of them.


There is only so much you can innovate on a watch before you end up with Haute Horology or the absurd.

FYI... you cited the absurd. I am not going to cite the absurd.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Brey17 said:


> There is only so much you can innovate on a watch before you end up with Haute Horology or the absurd.
> 
> FYI... you cited the absurd. I am not going to cite the absurd.


I'm not sure why any of the watches I cited were absurd, the Eone Bradley in particular it is very wearable, and the only thing I disliked about it was the ease with which the titanium case scratched. A Seiko Cocktail Time would be an example of a watch with a distinctive and original design without being overboard and I would have happily bought one from a microbrand if they had come up with the design first.

Again, I'm simply asking you to cite what you consider to be innovative and wearable. Or do you seriously think that any wearable design was designed before the turn of the century, and nothing truly original remains?


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

I think it might be unrealistic to ask new brands or watch companies to innovate, because they are like babies, just borne, can't walk and talk yet? One step at a time.

I think IP protections are the way they are, because they protect consumers from monopolies: How much is too much ("homage," that is)? - Page 19

The big brands (with resources, people, experience) innovate just fine.

Let's say Steinhart and Invicta copy watches kill original watch companies dead. What would happen is, Steinhart and/or Invicta could buy the equipment and hire personnel from dead original watch companies, and go on to innovate themselves. Different names, but the same innovation could occur.

Even if there are no more innovations from this point forward, watches are still awesome. I could be happy with a watch with an old-design workhorse movement, and whatever look I happen to like.

I think it's not in human nature to stay the same. People like to tinker, try new things. I think maybe once the phenomenon of status symbol watches die (if/when that ever happens), watch companies might stop copying and make their own designs, if people no longer value certain high-status look.

Copy watch companies probably would never collectively kill off any original watch company. Like Brey17 alluded to, history shows brand killing comes from new technologies, not copied looks. It's like tribute bands collectively killing desire/demand for Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, or Adele. It doesn't happen that way.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Brey17 said:


> Well I wasn't sure if you were being serious. I realize you are now. This is an argument of the anti-homage I haven't heard yet.
> 
> Homage purchasers are contributing to the decline of innovation in the watch industry.
> 
> Tell me more please.


I don't think it's only copy makers and buyers. I think there's some herd mentality endemic to human nature that especially infects new watch nuts. There are surprisingly few original designs that get general approval, and most of those are based on ancient designs. If one buys a Nomos, a Speedmaster, a Submariner, a JLC, or a Grand Seiko, there can be nothing said against them. A few other brands have fans, but not general approval. But buy a Chopard, or a Concord, or a Hublot, or a Cartier, or a Ulysse Nardin, (to say nothing of Ebel), many of which are rather out of the ordinary, and one gets often rather lukewarm responses. This becomes self-perpetuating, as new watch nuts calibrate their taste based on what it takes to fit in with last year's new watch nuts, instead of being willing to take some risks in the pursuit of a personal style.

One doesn't see this nearly as much with high-end collectors, or collectors of deep experience, who seem to me to be much more adventurous in their tastes.

That adventurousness in the market of buyers is what drives innovation in design, not the presence or absence of copy watches. Copy watches are just a symptom of the disease.

I also don't sympathize with Rolex, who has shown very little interest in aiming anywhere but the center of style tastes. To some extent, they deserve what they get, and for them, the copy watches just reinforce the value of the real watches.

In the meantime, even traditional watch companies that push the style envelope are labeled as fashion brands or as gaudy and hideous (two words I see pretty often) by those whose sense of style still seems rather undeveloped.

Yes, I realize I'm sweeping up a lot of people in my pronouncements, in ways I don't really intend. I'm certainly not always in the mood to make that kind of statement with what I wear. But quite simply, if innovation is to be rewarded, people must buy innovative watches.

Rick "sorry for the cynical rant" Denney


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

rdoder said:


> I think it's not in human nature to stay the same. People like to tinker, try new things. I think maybe once the phenomenon of status symbol watches die (if/when that ever happens), watch companies might stop copying and make their own designs, if people no longer value certain high-status look.


But, that's exactly what I was alluding to, because people hanker for watches that look like more expensive watches, as opposed to giving nice and original designs at the affordable price range a chance, the market does not reward innovation, and as a direct consequence, nobody attempts to innovate.

This might have made sense when trying out a distinctive design required you to commit serious financial resources to it, but with the advent of crowd sourcing like Kickstarter, all you really need is a good idea, and yet we see far less innovation than we should. So, blame it either on homage watch makers or homage watch buyers, we don't reward innovative design.

In the interest of full disclosure, I backed both of those absurd designs I mentioned on Kickstarter.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Rdenney said:


> I don't think it's only copy makers and buyers. I think there's some herd mentality endemic to human nature that especially infects new watch nuts. There are surprisingly few original designs that get general approval, and most of those are based on ancient designs. If one buys a Nomos, a Speedmaster, a Submariner, or a Grand Seiko, there can be nothing said against them. A few other brands have fans, but not general approval. This becomes self-perpetuating, as new watch nuts calibrate their taste based on what it takes to fit in with last year's new watch nuts.
> 
> One doesn't see this nearly as much with high-end collectors, or collectors of deep experience, who seem to me to be much more adventurous in their tastes.
> 
> That adventurousness in the market of buyers is what drives innovation in design, not the presence or absence of copy watches. Copy watches are just a symptom of the disease.


I agree that copy watches are a symptom of the herd mentality, and would not exist in such quantities were it not for the strong demand for such watches. Nevertheless in an alternative reality where brands more aggressively protected their trade dress, perhaps we would see a greater level of design innovation if iconic designs were beyond the reach of the entry level watch buyer.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

mleok said:


> But, that's exactly what I was alluding to, because people hanker for watches that look like more expensive watches, as opposed to giving nice and original designs at the affordable price range a chance, the market does not reward innovation, and as a direct consequence, nobody attempts to innovate.
> 
> This might have made sense when trying out a distinctive design required you to commit serious financial resources to it, but with the advent of crowd sourcing like Kickstarter, all you really need is a good idea, and yet we see far less innovation than we should. So, blame it either on homage watch makers or homage watch buyers, we don't reward innovative design.
> 
> In the interest of full disclosure, I backed both of those absurd designs I mentioned on Kickstarter.


I think there could be some people who buy copy watches because they want the look but don't want to pay the price. But maybe the same people don't only buy copy watches?

I don't know much about new or micro brands or what they do. I like to buy from brands that I see in-store, and buy different looks. Maybe copy watch owners might do the same too sometimes.

It would suck if all watches become copy/homage watches. I don't see that happening though, in-store.


----------



## mfunnell (Jun 8, 2017)

mleok said:


> I agree that copy watches are a symptom of the herd mentality, and would not exist in such quantities were it not for the strong demand for such watches. Nevertheless in an alternative reality where brands more aggressively protected their trade dress, *perhaps we would see a greater level of design innovation if iconic designs were beyond the reach of the entry level watch buyer.*[my emphasis]


You say that like it's a good thing. I'm not sure you genuinely intend it as it comes across (at least to me). For example, are you really wishing for an alternative reality where an entry-level watch buyer were unable to afford, say, a Seiko SKX? Really??

...Mike


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

mfunnell said:


> You say that like it's a good thing. I'm not sure you genuinely intend it as it comes across (at least to me). For example, are you really wishing for an alternative reality where an entry-level watch buyer were unable to afford, say, a Seiko SKX? Really??
> 
> ...Mike


I simply wish that no single design so overwhelmingly dominated the watch industry, and newcomers had the opportunity to develop an independent sense of taste.

While the SKX is certainly popular amongst watch enthusiasts, I don't think it has such an undue influence that it crowds out the field.


----------



## sinner777 (Jan 13, 2013)

Rdenney said:


> You guys that defend wealth and status-signaling knockoffs have a nice day.
> 
> Rick "done here" Denney


I see your point.

Seriously, I see a lot of fake of Rolex watches localy. I live in small country on Balkan where expensive watches are still a sign of wealth. Often not so legally obtained also..

Only thing is that I also see Steinhart or Alpha that belong to local WIS.

No other person would buy Rolex lookalike homage or cover or what ever..

They would go and buy a fake. Why? Lord knows why. Perhaps they like the watch but dont have money for it, perhaps they want to show off or they just dont care..

. Steinhart is not even a direct homage of Rolex, it is bigger, case proportions are different..

And if we go on and generalise all watches with black dial and rotating bezel look like Rolex to regular Joe.


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

mleok said:


> the market does not reward innovation, and as a direct consequence, nobody attempts to innovate.


That's ridiculous. The affordable range is jam-packed with innovating microbrands. There's never been a broader range of watch designs available for purchase than there is today.

For a small sampling of what's available, you can peruse the Time Bum's blog:
The Time Bum


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> Do you refer to your Steinhart as a Rolex copy, or a "homage"?
> 
> This just sounds like post hoc rationalization to me. I see way more people who like and can afford a Submariner say that they aren't getting one because of all the copies and fakes floating around than people who say that a copy of a Submariner increases their desire to own the real deal.


I don't have a steinhart at the moment, generally the lug to lug measurement is too big for my wrist (unlike the sub which fits like a glove). But I do have two Squales. I refer to those as Squales. I'll refer to them, if asked as homages or design copies....

We can argue anecdotal evidence all day long on Rolex purchases and how Steinhart affects those, but is there any evidence that Rolex sales are affected?


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> A Steinhart is not a promise ring to Rolex.


Stepping stone then.......


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Avo said:


> That's ridiculous. The affordable range is jam-packed with innovating microbrands. There's never been a broader range of watch designs available for purchase than there is today.
> 
> For a small sampling of what's available, you can peruse the Time Bum's blog:
> The Time Bum


Anything in your collection you would like to point out specifically for being original and innovative in design?


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> The Rolex Submariner is perfectly affordable relative to their production numbers, as evidenced by the fact that the price considerations are typically small or nonexistent, and there are rarely more than one in stock at any AD. I doubt anyone actually prefers a Steinhart or Invicta, except in terms of price. But, it should be clear to anyone that their business practices are parasitic. Ultimately, copy watches stifle innovation, as they reduce the incentive for companies to invest in research and design.


So you're saying that Steinhart and others are stifling innovation in luxury watch brands? Oh c'mon. Rolex has ADs all over the place and Steinhart has very few ADs in the world. The disparity in volumes between the two suggest that this is rubbish. Read up on Rolex, they don't have any issues with investing in R&D. They do have a problem with going too far away from a 65 year old design, but it's so good why would they.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> By making it acceptable to shameless copy the design of a more successful brand, it reduces the incentive to innovate in terms of design, particularly for a small company, since it becomes a high-risk low-reward venture. Even lower priced brands like Nomos, Seiko, and Casio are having their designs copied. There is a reason why most of the microbrands and Kickstarter campaigns feature nothing more than rehashed designs.


Gotta stop using Nomos as an example here really, seeing as they are doing a Steinhart. It's just undermining your argument.......


----------



## sinner777 (Jan 13, 2013)

Avo said:


> That's ridiculous. The affordable range is jam-packed with innovating microbrands. There's never been a broader range of watch designs available for purchase than there is today.
> 
> For a small sampling of what's available, you can peruse the Time Bum's blog:
> The Time Bum


I agree.

But... Its easier to make Sub clone...

Too much snug and snob opinions in this thread. Someone mentioned there should be different place for "those people" like F71.. You actually have Sub homage thread in F71,that actually became a great thread with lot of great people posting. Actually there is a Steinhart thread... And Rolex thread. Perhaps we should all be put in our places.. And build some walls ...


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> Gotta stop using Nomos as an example here really, seeing as they are doing a Steinhart. It's just undermining your argument.......


The Rodina isn't a homage, it's actually a rebranded fake Nomos.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> We can argue anecdotal evidence all day long on Rolex purchases and how Steinhart affects those, but is there any evidence that Rolex sales are affected?


You know that there is simply no way to have a controlled experiment, that same way that we cannot definitively prove if homages stifle innovation, unless homages were suddenly banned, and we measured the industry and consumer response. But, in any case, anecdotal evidence in sufficient quantity is data.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> The Rodina isn't a homage, it's actually a rebranded fake Nomos.


I wasn't talking about Rodina. I was talking about Nomos copying the design from others.....


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> You know that there is simply no way to have a controlled experiment, that same way that we cannot definitively prove if homages stifle innovation, unless homages were suddenly banned, and we measured the industry and consumer response. But, in any case, anecdotal evidence in sufficient quantity is data.


Yep and both of our anecdotal sets of evidence contradict each other......


----------



## mfunnell (Jun 8, 2017)

mleok said:


> mfunnell said:
> 
> 
> > mleok said:
> ...


Then colour me confused! You want some sort of barrier to entry, but I can't work out whether that's a restriction (by way of price) on what "newcomers" are allowed to buy, or a restriction on what new watch brands, which you find insufficiently innovative, are allowed to produce. Or something. Though I can't work out quite what.

Unless you're trying to dream up a general-sounding and abstract-seeming rule which has the "unintended" side-effect of preventing what you really want to stop: which seems to be people buying watches you think look too much like Rolex. But if that's it, why not just say so? And skip the pretence of a general rule.

But maybe I'm wrong about that, too :-s:-s:-s

...Mike


----------



## sinner777 (Jan 13, 2013)

mfunnell said:


> Then colour me confused! You want some sort of barrier to entry, but I can't work out whether that's a restriction (by way of price) on what "newcomers" are allowed to buy, or a restriction on what new watch brands, which you find insufficiently innovative, are allowed to produce. Or something. Though I can't work out quite what.
> 
> Unless you're trying to dream up a general-sounding and abstract-seeming rule which has the "unintended" side-effect of preventing what you really want to stop: which seems to be people buying watches you think look too much like Rolex. But if that's it, why not just say so? And skip the pretence of a general rule.
> 
> ...


actually SKX homage DOES exist. Deep Blue made it in 44 mm... and also Shark made cheapo quartz SKX, Monster, Ecozilla....among others


----------



## sinner777 (Jan 13, 2013)

mleok said:


> The Rodina isn't a homage, it's actually a rebranded fake Nomos.


erm ..it is not. It is watch that looks like Nomos. movement is different, case is different...

I have owned both. only thing that they have in common is similar type of font used on dial and lug shape. all else is totally different.


----------



## mfunnell (Jun 8, 2017)

sinner777 said:


> actually SKX homage DOES exist.


I don't doubt it. But that's nothing to do with my point. I'm most certainly not here to defend "homage" watches. I have no interest in such watches, and I'm making no argument for or against them.

I was just trying to clarify a point by mleok about restrictions he thinks would improve the watch business, if imposed in some imagined alternative from the way things are currently done (I'm not saying he believes such restrictions would or should be possible in real-world practice).

...Mike


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

mfunnell said:


> Then colour me confused! You want some sort of barrier to entry, but I can't work out whether that's a restriction (by way of price) on what "newcomers" are allowed to buy, or a restriction on what new watch brands, which you find insufficiently innovative, are allowed to produce. Or something. Though I can't work out quite what.
> 
> Unless you're trying to dream up a general-sounding and abstract-seeming rule which has the "unintended" side-effect of preventing what you really want to stop: which seems to be people buying watches you think look too much like Rolex. But if that's it, why not just say so? And skip the pretence of a general rule.
> 
> ...


I'm simply saying that if one wasn't allowed to make virtually identical copies of another brand's designs, then there would presumably be a greater degree of innovation in terms of design.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

sinner777 said:


> erm ..it is not. It is watch that looks like Nomos. movement is different, case is different...
> 
> I have owned both. only thing that they have in common is similar type of font used on dial and lug shape. all else is totally different.


I refer you to this thread,


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Watches/comments/25ma4t

In particular, the following comments by citizen_v,



> This is indeed true. The counterfeit industry works as follows (mechanics have been posted on replica forums): you have "makers" (some also misleading them a "factory") who commission parts from different factories, and they assemble them and sell them to dealers to sell.
> 
> However, there's a lot of evidence that the first Rodina watches were made from the same parts as the original counterfeit Nomos Tangomats. The counterfeits came first, and then Rodinas showed up a little while later on Chinese websites like TaoBao (which is evidence that they are not simply rebranded to be sold in the US or something, since those sites only sell to the Chinese). IMO, it's unlikely someone would have commissioned another factory for the same parts. It probably would cost more, and they probably would not have ordered a large batch of parts since the original counterfeits were unpopular (not many people care about Nomos). They also looked identical (same hands, dial finish, etc.)
> 
> ...


For clarification, are you comparing an authentic Nomos with a Rodina or a fake Nomos with a Rodina?


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

Hornet99 said:


> Read up on Rolex, they don't have any issues with investing in R&D. They do have a problem with going too far away from a 65 year old design, but it's so good why would they.


Why Rolex keep to a 65 year old design is not because it is so good that it can no longer be improved. It is admittedly good but that not the main reason, because in truth Rolex are monotonous and rather boring to look at. The main reason they deviate little from making very similar looking watches over so many decades is to maintain recogniseability and help to keep prices of their used watches up.

A long term strategy that Rolex has done better than any of their rivals and kept them ahead in the game.


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Bottom line is Steinhart established themselves doing homage watches, but in the interests of accuracy let's not forget they are also producing some innovative designs in association with forums - plus some movement modifications like the new nav B uhr with the innovative bridge to allow the Unitas to have a central seconds hand - here's an example of a nice steinhart which isn't really a homage of anything







sure they will continue to produce decent quality homage watches at a great price - why wouldn't they since it's the profitable cornerstone of their very successful business, but don't let that blind you all to the fact they have expanded their range to include some unique pieces. The interchangeable bezel appolon is another that springs to mind. And if any doubting Thomas's think Steinharts are just sh1tters with no following then I would respectfully suggest you are wrong. The watch I pictured above - one is for sale on eBay at the moment and bidding is at £1000 with a week to go. It's only 6 yrs old and retailed at £320 so......

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sinner777 (Jan 13, 2013)

mleok said:


> I refer you to this thread,
> 
> 
> __
> ...


Are you accusing me I owned fake Nomos?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

sinner777 said:


> Are you accusing me I owned fake Nomos?


I am simply clarifying, your wording was ambiguous. I assume from your indignation that you compared a real Nomos to a Rodina. But, just because a Rodina has a different case from an authentic Nomos does not imply that it doesn't have the same case as a poorly made fake Nomos.


----------



## mfunnell (Jun 8, 2017)

mleok said:


> I'm simply saying that if one wasn't allowed to make virtually identical copies of another brand's designs, then there would presumably be a greater degree of innovation in terms of design.


Then I apologise for my confusion and perhaps misunderstanding. Though I'm not sure this takes us back to anywhere but potentially different views of the correct use of intellectual property law to balance encouragement for innovation, producer interest in extracting monopoly rents and consumer interest in competition driving lower prices.

...Mike


----------



## sinner777 (Jan 13, 2013)

mleok said:


> I am simply clarifying, your wording was ambiguous. I assume from your indignation that you compared a real Nomos to a Rodina. But, just because a Rodina has a different case from an authentic Nomos does not imply that it doesn't have the same case as a poorly made fake Nomos.


I have owned original Nomos. Based on antique handwind Peseux movement, without Quick date shift. On 1000$ + watch in 21st century. So much for the luxury brand...


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

RustyBin5 said:


> plus some movement modifications like the new nav B uhr with the innovative bridge to allow the Unitas to have a central seconds hand


I am curious, how is this design fundamentally different from all the other indirectly driven second hand implementations of central seconds hands that came before?


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

mleok said:


> I am curious, how is this design fundamentally different from all the other indirectly driven second hand implementations of central seconds hands that came before?


There's plenty written about it online but I believe it's the bridge design. Point is they are moving in a direction of from time to time doing in house mods to movements. I for one applaud that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

I think if watch companies are not allowed to make identical copies of watches that have been made before by "original" watch companies, then as time goes on, many unique looks are made by different companies, some "original" watch companies die, and then new watch companies are not allowed to make any specific looks that has been made before.

Companies like Seiko and Citizen make so many different looks that could be deemed "original". Seiko and Citizen could someday die. After they die, all watch companies that come after them are not allowed to repeat any specific look that Seiko and Citizen have made before. That could force new watch companies to make looks that are very unusual or non-practical, because all the usual and practical looks have been made before.

Eventually, new watch companies cannot make any watches, because all the specific looks have been made before, and new watch companies are not allowed to repeat those looks. Or it would make the jobs of look designers very difficult, because they would need to plow through tremendous catalogs of all the specific looks that have been made before, and make sure whatever look they come up with does not repeat any specific looks from the past.

I think that's too restrictive. It might foster hyper innovation in looks and good profits for "original" watch companies in the short-term, but in the long-term, maybe it's not practical or conducive to innovation. In fashion and looks, what's old is new again someday, after old generations die and new generations have forgotten what's old.


----------



## Sandman77 (Jun 17, 2017)

Having never taken any interest in Steinhart watches, after seeing more and more threads about them, I thought I would take a look at their website.
I came across this:







What a piss take!


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

Totally, the secret service just told me that the Paul Newman Daytona prices dropped by 70% since Steinhart released their monster. Guess they fooled the world with this watch.

We might try to contact 007 to pay them a visit. 
Anyway, don't spread those photos. We don't want to risk polluting the eyes of innocent civilians.


----------



## sinner777 (Jan 13, 2013)

Homages have actually raised the sales of original designs.

Most get the homage prior the real thing to get the feeling.

Actually I think companies pay smaller brands to homage their designs.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

sinner777 said:


> Homages have actually raised the sales of original designs.
> 
> Most get the homage prior the real thing to get the feeling.
> 
> Actually I think companies pay smaller brands to homage their designs.


I emailed the Rolex CEO and he confirmed this to be true.


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

No seriously, if Steinhart would quote their homage at 5k and the Sub would be around 7k and people actually buy the Steinhart, I would agree that they would "prevent" Rolex sales. At the current prices you can barely get 4 or 5 bracelet links for the price of a Steinhart. And I doubt that Steinhart will open a boutique in Monaco next to Rolex to steal their customers ^^


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

I think part of the problem with copy watches is that people nowadays could easily search online for everything. Back in the days before the Internet, if I were interested in watches back then, I'd have no idea this watch is a copy of that watch. Unless it's a copy of Rolex, and unless someone were to ask me, "Is that a Paul Newman???", I could have bought a copy watch without knowing, and wear it happily for life. Now, I go online, and I'm finding out about this or that looks like that or this, and people are very upset about it. In real life, people around me are not upset about copy watches.

e.g. I wondered if there are copy/homage watches for Seiko Tunas? Google tells me yes (online pic):










Whoever buys one of these for whatever reasons, I hope they like the look as much as I do mine.


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

Another point: if the purpose of "copy" watches is to fool people into thinking the watch is actually a Rolex (even though it says something else on the dial), why are all the copiers producing copies of the old 5-digit case, and not the newer 6-digit "maxi" case???

The 6-digit "maxi" case is over 5 years old (it was introduced at Baselworld in March 2012). Yet no one copies it. Steinhart, Tissel, Invicta, Ginault, Davosa, OWC: they're all still copying the old 5-digit case. Why???


----------



## JohnnyKarate (Oct 8, 2016)

Avo said:


> Another point: if the purpose of "copy" watches is to fool people into thinking the watch is actually a Rolex (even though it says something else on the dial), why are all the copiers producing copies of the old 5-digit case, and not the newer 6-digit "maxi" case???
> 
> The 6-digit "maxi" case is over 5 years old (it was introduced at Baselworld in March 2012). Yet no one copies it. Steinhart, Tissel, Invicta, Ginault, Davosa, OWC: they're all still copying the old 5-digit case. Why???


Because they look the same to the untrained eye so they don't want to spend the extra money to change it.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

JohnnyKarate said:


> Because they look the same to the untrained eye so they don't want to spend the extra money to change it.


I'm sure there are counterfeit versions available so why not? Especially seeing as the assertion is always made that some design copies are just "legally badged" counterfeits.


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

Avo said:


> Another point: if the purpose of "copy" watches is to fool people into thinking the watch is actually a Rolex (even though it says something else on the dial), why are all the copiers producing copies of the old 5-digit case, and not the newer 6-digit "maxi" case???
> 
> The 6-digit "maxi" case is over 5 years old (it was introduced at Baselworld in March 2012). Yet no one copies it. Steinhart, Tissel, Invicta, Ginault, Davosa, OWC: they're all still copying the old 5-digit case. Why???


I think homage brands don't sell their watches to fool anyone into thinking they were real Rolex.

Instead they cater to a market of WIS type people who covet a Daytona or Sub but can't afford it (or simply wish not to spend that sort of money on a watch). So they buy the nearest thing for their own pleasure and satisfaction, not intention to show off fake wealth.

At least that's my take on it.

If Steinhart came out with a good quality Rolex 1016 based homage, I think I'd seriously consider buying one. It wouldn't be to pretend to strangers that I own a Rolex 1016.

If I wanted to fool people, there are other options.


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

obomomomo said:


> I think homage brands don't sell their watches to fool anyone into thinking they were real Rolex.


Bingo! We have a winner.



obomomomo said:


> Instead they cater to a market of WIS type people who covet a Daytona or Sub but can't afford it (or simply wish not to spend that sort of money on a watch).


Or, like me, don't like any of the design combos actually available from Rolex.

I want a 5-digit case (the 6-digit maxi case is just an awful design, which is why no one copies it), a sword hour hand, and an adjustable-on-wrist bracelet. Rolex makes no such thing. And never did.

If Rolex did make that watch, I would pay maybe $4K for it (BNIB with warranty). But their current prices are much too high.


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

If you want to fool people you have a Rolex on your wrist then you would buy a replica - you know - the ones with Rolex written on the dial? You wouldn't buy a homage with "Steinhart" written all over the dial would you? If someone asks me if I have a Rolex on I'm only too happy to tell them it's a Steinhart. On the other hand I'd feel pretty uncomfortable trying to pass off a fake as the real deal. As it happens only once has someone asked and it was the Ocean vintage red









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Hmmmm, "homage", how much in "homage" does Steinhart pay Rolex?


RustyBin5 said:


> If you want to fool people you have a Rolex on your wrist then you would buy a replica - you know - the ones with Rolex written on the dial? You wouldn't buy a homage with "Steinhart" written all over the dial would you? If someone asks me if I have a Rolex on I'm only too happy to tell them it's a Steinhart. On the other hand I'd feel pretty uncomfortable trying to pass off a fake as the real deal. As it happens only once has someone asked and it was the Ocean vintage red
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> Hmmmm, "homage", how much in "homage" does Steinhart pay Rolex?


I will assume....
that this was a rhetorical question

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

RustyBin5 said:


> I will assume....
> that this was a rhetorical question


He was simply asking how the forum usage of the term is consistent with the dictionary definition.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

It was to highlight the misuse of a word.


RustyBin5 said:


> I will assume....
> that this was a rhetorical question
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> It was to highlight the misuse of a word.


So what is the definition of a homage with respect to watches then?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Watchbreath said:


> It was to highlight the misuse of a word.


so since i use the term copy for the steinhart/davosa/invicta i have, that makes you ok with 'em? . . . actually forget it, i know what/how u think, and you're entitled of course as we all know


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

A re-issue as I have stated many times.


Hornet99 said:


> So what is the definition of a homage with respect to watches then?


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> A re-issue as I have stated many times.


Apologies but I've not been following you so excuse my ignorance here.......

So, you believe that the definition of a homage watch is a reissue, such as the Oris 65 40mm?


----------



## pickle puss (Feb 13, 2006)

I wish I could open a tin foil hat concession in this thread!!


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Two great examples, Longines - Conquest 1958 and the Longines - Hour Angle.


Hornet99 said:


> Apologies but I've not been following you so excuse my ignorance here.......
> 
> So, you believe that the definition of a homage watch is a reissue, such as the Oris 65 40mm?


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Avo said:


> Bingo! We have a winner.
> 
> Or, like me, don't like any of the design combos actually available from Rolex.
> 
> ...


I actually have a hard time believing this or that you'd pay $4k for any watch based upon your current line up. I don't have a dog in this fight but this sounds like an attempt to rationalize what you own and what you don't. Apologies if I'm mistaken.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Seaswirl said:


> I actually have a hard time believing this or that you'd pay $4k for any watch based upon your current line up. I don't have a dog in this fight but this sounds like an attempt to rationalize what you own and what you don't. Apologies if I'm mistaken.


I think anyone truly clamoring for the days when Rolex watches were tool watches as opposed to luxury watches should have a gander at Tudor. The Tudor Pelagos is an extraordinary purpose built tool watch with few pretensions, is much better built than a five digit Submariner, and offers an exceptional value.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

mleok said:


> I think anyone truly clamoring for the days when Rolex watches were tool watches as opposed to luxury watches should have a gander at Tudor. The Tudor Pelagos is an extraordinary purpose built tool watch with few pretensions, is much better built than a five digit Submariner, and offers an exceptional value.


There's no shortage of really good watches out there at various price points. It is a great time to be an enthusiast. I usually don't opine on these homage threads as I'm fairly agnostic on the subject, but some of the mental gymnastics undertaken to justify owning one is a bit much.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Watchbreath said:


> Two great examples, Longines - Conquest 1958 and the Longines - Hour Angle.


Those are indeed re-issues. Heuer calls similar stuff Re-Editions, which is also appropriate.

On the topic of definitions:

The definition that Webster provides is good enough for watches: "an expression of high regard". It descends from the tribute and obeisance paid by serfs to the feudal lord.

And that's the nature of these discussions--it's nonsense that companies seeking to profit from the designs of expensive watches are showing them any respect, no matter what one believes about the practice.

When a cover band (since that example was thrown up) plays a song written by someone else, that someone else gets a royalty check. That may come through the dues paid by the venue to ASCAP/BMI, but it surely happens. When one pays a fee to use someone else's work, that is an homage in the classic definition: A tribute paid by a vassal.

These watches are copies, since "replica" has been subverted to mean only counterfeits.

The dishonesty of it all bothers me a lot more than do the watches. If we think it's okay, why the grossly distorted euphemisms?

Rick "coy language exposes intent, too" Denney


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

Seaswirl said:


> I actually have a hard time believing this or that you'd pay $4k for any watch based upon your current line up. I don't have a dog in this fight but this sounds like an attempt to rationalize what you own and what you don't. Apologies if I'm mistaken.


It's true that I haven't been able to bring myself to actually fork over the cash for a high(er) end watch. I was close on the Nomos Tangomat Datum, but never did pull the trigger. I finally got the Rodina to see how drawn I was to wearing that style on a daily basis, and the answer turned out to be not very. So I'm off the Nomos kick for now. Currently I'm mulling over the GO PML (white dial). But I can't decide whether to get it from an AD, or to go through Chronext and save a few K. And then: do I really want a watch that has complications that require being reset if not worn daily? And what about the Swatch/GO service horror stories that pop up a little too often for comfort?

So, yeah, maybe I wouldn't _actually_ pay $4K for a Rolex, even if it was styled exactly the way I like it. But $4K sounds like a price that I would feel is reasonable.

As for Tudor: I dislike any hour hand with a lump on it, including snowflake. I need hands that point. My brain just doesn't register a lumpy hand as _pointing_ to anything.

So I've been sticking with affordables. I've got a white-dial, white-lume (a new thing from Superluminova, apparently) Borealis Portus Cale on preorder, under $400 including shipping, Miyota 9015. I will very likely get a Hamtun Neon full-lume dial with STP1-11 when that goes live on KS in January, also under $400. Right now I'm wearing my Makara Hawksbill Sea Turtle ($300), huge patinaed bronze case with an enormous double-dome crystal that makes me think of the Bottle City of Kandor, custom-made-to-my-wrist Horween burgundy 24mm strap ($50), NH35 that runs at +1s/day.

So it's hard not to be happy with affordables. And I sure as heck never feel embarrassed to wear a watch that looks sorta like some other watch that some other people paid way too much money for.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Avo said:


> It's true that I haven't been able to bring myself to actually fork over the cash for a high(er) end watch. I was close on the Nomos Tangomat Datum, but never did pull the trigger. I finally got the Rodina to see how drawn I was to wearing that style on a daily basis, and the answer turned out to be not very. So I'm off the Nomos kick for now. Currently I'm mulling over the GO PML (white dial). But I can't decide whether to get it from an AD, or to go through Chronext and save a few K. And then: do I really want a watch that has complications that require being reset if not worn daily? And what about the Swatch/GO service horror stories that pop up a little too often for comfort?
> 
> So, yeah, maybe I wouldn't _actually_ pay $4K for a Rolex, even if it was styled exactly the way I like it. But $4K sounds like a price that I would feel is reasonable.
> 
> ...


I've not gone through this entire thread, but there does seem to be a theme with your two recent posts: that $4k seems like a reasonable price for a Rolex and that some of us "paid way too much" money for our watches. In short, your perspective seems to be limited to what you're able to afford and you seem compelled to justify what you've purchased. I don't know why folks are uncomfortable simply admitting that they can't afford a particular watch and, instead, attempt to convince others that their choices were independent of cost.

There are so many watches that I can not afford, but I never feel the need to call them over priced. Moreover, I've never felt the need to convince myself or others that my IWC Portuguese Chronograph Classic is somehow better, or at least just as good, as a Patek 5170 and that I picked the IWC over the Patek for some arbitrary reason. It would be a lie to say so as I opted for the IWC as it shares some basic aesthetics with the Patek, but at a price I could afford. I don't know why this seems to be so difficult to admit when it comes to homages.


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

Rdenney said:


> Those are indeed re-issues. Heuer calls similar stuff Re-Editions, which is also appropriate.
> 
> On the topic of definitions:
> 
> ...


I take your point Rick and and respect your views as a fountain of knowledge on this forum.

However as far as dishonesty is concerned, from a legal standpoint, the courts don't agree otherwise the legal system would have shut down Steinhart (amongst many others) long ago.

From a moral standpoint, this can be endlessly debated to no conclusion.

The music business is the music business, while others have made example of the prescription drugs industry, or (the most appropriate in my opinion), the fashion industry. Pick the most convenient parallel to support one's argument.

Moral or not, what the 'homage' brand makers do is legal and is simply one of the vagaries of the business that any manufacturer has to accept as a cost of doing business, so to speak.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Rdenney said:


> The dishonesty of it all bothers me a lot more than do the watches. If we think it's okay, why the grossly distorted euphemisms?


This pretty much sums it up for me. I think deep down, those who balk at the use of the term "copy" know that while what they're buying is legal, it isn't right.


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

Double post deleted


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

obomomomo said:


> However as far as dishonesty is concerned, from a legal standpoint, the courts don't agree otherwise the legal system would have shut down Steinhart (amongst many others) long ago.


I'm pretty certain Rick was referring to the intellectual dishonesty of it all, as opposed to dishonesty in a legal or criminal sense.


----------



## Silent (Oct 19, 2017)

Can anyone explain to me how copying an exact design is not illegal? I'm not talking about a "likeness", but if I created a pair of shoes and put 3 white stripes on the side adidas would sue me and win, regardless of the name I put on the shoe. How come it doesn't apply to the watch industry?


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

Seaswirl said:


> I've not gone through this entire thread, but there does seem to be a theme with your two recent posts: that $4k seems like a reasonable price for a Rolex and that some of us "paid way too much" money for our watches. In short, your perspective seems to be limited to what you're able to afford and you seem compelled to justify what you've purchased.


I can easily afford a Rolex Sub. Or a Lange One. The $4K is just what I think would be reasonable for a Sub: a little above what Nomos charges for a Tangomat sounds about right to me. That strips off about $4K in pure status-symbol value (largely driven recently by demand from Asia), something I have zero interest in.

That Subs are overpriced these days is a pretty common opinion.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

mleok said:


> I'm pretty certain Rick was referring to the intellectual dishonesty of it all, as opposed to dishonesty in a legal or criminal sense.


Intellectual, yes. I'm not even prepared to say moral, let alone legal.

If it's okay to own a copy watch, then why try to obscure that with a phony and distorted euphemism? All the arguments used to justify it also suggest that the defenders feel as though a defense is necessary.

I have participated in several discussions of this topic. But I have never started a thread about it, or initiated the conversation. I don't see threads that begin in opposition to copies, but only in their defense.

It's instructive.

Rick "...all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." Denney


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Avo said:


> I can easily afford a Rolex Sub. Or a Lange One. The $4K is just what I think would be reasonable for a Sub: a little above what Nomos charges for a Tangomat sounds about right to me. That strips off about $4K in pure status-symbol value (largely driven recently by demand from Asia), something I have zero interest in.
> 
> That Subs are overpriced these days is a pretty common opinion.


I don't think anyone (but you) truly cares about whether you can afford a Rolex or a Lange, or what you think is a fair price to pay for one.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

For the most part, I have seen people use homage/copy interchangeably. I haven’t seen too many, if any try to fight the cause that Steinhart is trying to pay respect to Rolex. Most people understand it is a copy and are fine with calling it a copy. 

Here is some cynicism...

What I find intellectually dishonest is when brands pander to the public with reissues and play up the brand history card. When is the last time any significant innovation came out of Baselworld? Since very few mainstream brands are innovating at all and are very conservative with design, what’s left? Reissues. 

Paying respect to their heritage? Give me a break... it’s a cash grab by a brands trying to stay relevant. I do appreciate that some of the old designs are being made in contemporary sizes though.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> A re-issue as I have stated many times.





Watchbreath said:


> Two great examples, Longines - Conquest 1958 and the Longines - Hour Angle.





mleok said:


> I think anyone truly clamoring for the days when Rolex watches were tool watches as opposed to luxury watches should have a gander at Tudor. The Tudor Pelagos is an extraordinary purpose built tool watch with few pretensions, is much better built than a five digit Submariner, and offers an exceptional value.


Exceptional value?! You must be joking me. Steinhart do a very lovely Titanium non homage watch that smacks the Pelagos down and out in terms of value.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Yippie!!! Just picked up my Rolex/JLC/some other brands copy/homage/whatever watch, it's a beauty and like all new comers, it'll be worn non stop for quite awhile 'till the newness wears off . . .


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

drhr said:


> Yippie!!! Just picked up my Rolex/JLC/some other brands copy/homage/whatever watch, it's a beauty and like all new comers, it'll be worn non stop for quite awhile 'till the newness wears off . . .


I do like your style drhr.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> A re-issue as I have stated many times.





Watchbreath said:


> Two great examples, Longines - Conquest 1958 and the Longines - Hour Angle.


So, your definition of a homage is something that looks pretty much like an older model (that obviously isn't in production anymore). Isn't that just a re-issue? Where the manufacturer has run out of innovative ideas and is raiding the back catalogue......

So, exploring that a little further with say the example of MKII and their superb vintage Rolex homages. This would fit into the category of homage then? Or is it only valid when it's the original manufacturer?

For a counterpoint, my view is that the Steinhart ocean one series is a good example of a homage; it takes a lot of key design elements from the Rolex but has changed some important areas. It's 42mm so not the same size and the lug widths are bigger. The lugs themselves are quite different and don't curve down but come out straight. This isn't like a parnis, which is a design copy, not a homage.

And lets just be honest here, no one (Rolex, Tudor, Nomos, Steinhart, MKII, Longines, Oris, etc) makes any watches for any other motivation than selling them to make money, so rubbish about altruistic (such as an earlier post from someone on Nomos) motivations can be discounted......


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Rdenney said:


> Those are indeed re-issues. Heuer calls similar stuff Re-Editions, which is also appropriate.
> 
> On the topic of definitions:
> 
> ...


If it bothers you so much Rick then you need to get the laws changed. Or relax and not let it bother you, it's only watches and there are no consequences, despite what others say, from all of this.......


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Seaswirl said:


> I've not gone through this entire thread, but there does seem to be a theme with your two recent posts: that $4k seems like a reasonable price for a Rolex and that some of us "paid way too much" money for our watches. In short, your perspective seems to be limited to what you're able to afford and you seem compelled to justify what you've purchased. I don't know why folks are uncomfortable simply admitting that they can't afford a particular watch and, instead, attempt to convince others that their choices were independent of cost.
> 
> There are so many watches that I can not afford, but I never feel the need to call them over priced. Moreover, I've never felt the need to convince myself or others that my IWC Portuguese Chronograph Classic is somehow better, or at least just as good, as a Patek 5170 and that I picked the IWC over the Patek for some arbitrary reason. It would be a lie to say so as I opted for the IWC as it shares some basic aesthetics with the Patek, but at a price I could afford. I don't know why this seems to be so difficult to admit when it comes to homages.


Same could be said for owners of luxury brand watches who get all touchy about Steinharts b-).


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> This pretty much sums it up for me. I think deep down, those who balk at the use of the term "copy" know that while what they're buying is legal, it isn't right.


I don't baulk at the use of the phrase design copy where appropriate. But it is just not appropriate for steinhart seeing as there are a fair number of differences......

If it isn't right and by buying Steinhart I'm entering some grey area of dubious morals, do you apply these high standards to any of the following areas of your life:


Knock off cereals in the supermarket that are copying other original brands
Jeans and any other fashion items that are copying other people's designs


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

eblackmo said:


> I do like your style drhr.


A much cherished compliment from the likes of you eblackmo, mahalo |> . . .


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Hornet99 said:


> So, your definition of a homage is something that looks pretty much like an older model (that obviously isn't in production anymore). Isn't that just a re-issue? Where the manufacturer has run out of innovative ideas and is raiding the back catalogue......
> 
> So, exploring that a little further with say the example of MKII and their superb vintage Rolex homages. This would fit into the category of homage then? Or is it only valid when it's the original manufacturer?
> 
> ...


I think his definition is that it can only be done by the same company - so Longines can release a homage to their own watch but if anyone else does then it's a copy as it's their design. Since people all get precious and try to quote dictionary definitions of homage (even though in horology its meaning is well established) , how about we use the word tribute instead?

There are lots of reasons people buy tribute watches. 
1. They don't think the Rolex is worth it
2. They can't afford the Rolex 
3. They actually think the tribute watch is just as good
4. They want a genuine beater watch that's going to pick up lots of wear and tear 
5. They want a watch without waiting 7 months for the privilege
And no doubt many more.

Point is market forces will dictate - and lots of companies are built on doing homage / tribute pieces. This is not up for debate as it is what it is.

Fun thread though 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> Exceptional value?! You must be joking me. Steinhart do a very lovely Titanium non homage watch that smacks the Pelagos down and out in terms of value.


I guess we have a different sense of value, I have a Steinhart, and they're crudely made in comparison to a Tudor.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> I don't baulk at the use of the phrase design copy where appropriate. But it is just not appropriate for steinhart seeing as there are a fair number of differences......


Aside from the size and the awful lugs, what is original about a Steinhart Ocean One? Do you consider a Squale 1545 a design copy? Or do you really need for a watch to use the same component supplier as a counterfeit watch for it to be considered a design copy?


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> I guess we have a different sense of value, I have a Steinhart, and they're crudely made in comparison to a Tudor.


I'd agree that Steinhart don't have the same quality standards as say Tudor, but then they are a fraction of the price so whadda ya expect?! I've handled a lot of Rolex and Tudor watches and whilst there is some difference in quality compared to Steinhart it isn't sufficient to justify the price difference. So overall you can't deny that the Steinhart Titanium offers incredible value, especially in comparison to the Pelagos.....


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> Aside from the size and the awful lugs, what is original about a Steinhart Ocean One? Do you consider a Squale 1545 a design copy? Or do you really need for a watch to use the same component supplier as a counterfeit watch for it to be considered a design copy?


The size and the lugs make it sufficiently different to invalidate the use of the phrase design copy. You're mixing up two separate issues here, design copy doesn't necessarily have any connection to counterfeit watches. A design copy is exactly what it says, a design copy. It's copying the design. Don't know how I can make that any clearer...... :-s

Squale have been homaging Rolex since the 60's, so they probably get a free pass?! ;-)


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> I'd agree that Steinhart don't have the same quality standards as say Tudor, but then they are a fraction of the price so whadda ya expect?! I've handled a lot of Rolex and Tudor watches and whilst there is some difference in quality compared to Steinhart it isn't sufficient to justify the price difference. So overall you can't deny that the Steinhart Titanium offers incredible value, especially in comparison to the Pelagos.....


I'm not saying the Steinhart Titanium 500 Premium doesn't offer a compelling value proposition, but at the same time, for me, the differences in quality in the Tudor Pelagos are well worth the extra money. The law of diminishing returns certainly applies here, and one ultimately has to decide for oneself what the sweet spot is. If all I was concerned about was value proposition, then I would probably just wear this Citizen Eco-Drive and call it a day.










Seriously, all this talk about value proposition as a reason for justifying the purchase of any watch more expensive than a basic G-Shock is ridiculous, and reminds me of the following George Carlin quote,

"Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?"


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> Squale have been homaging Rolex since the 60's, so they probably get a free pass?! ;-)


The original unoriginal, that must count for something, right?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> The size and the lugs make it sufficiently different to invalidate the use of the phrase design copy. You're mixing up two separate issues here, design copy doesn't necessarily have any connection to counterfeit watches. A design copy is exactly what it says, a design copy. It's copying the design. Don't know how I can make that any clearer...... :-s


You can't differentiate the size of a watch without a point of comparison, so while a 42mm watch is noticeably different when placed side by side with a 40mm watch, if they were photographed separately without something that provides a sense of scale, they can be for all intents identical.

While the lugs on a Steinhart are different, the differences are not readily apparent unless you are intimately familiar with the design of a Submariner. It does however feature everything that the layperson associates with the Submariner design, like the black rotating bezel with luminous pearl and the same layout and design, a black dial with stick markers at 6 and 9, triangle marker at 12, and circle markers at the other positions, date window at 3 and cyclops, and Mercedes hands.

I don't know how I can make myself any clearer...


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Brey17 said:


> Copy brands demonstrate that there is a market for the affordable, ubiquitous and clean submariner design.


Yes. Copy brands do demonstrate there is a market for a design that rips off an established, highly reputed brand.

Whether or not it bothers people - personal decision and I dont care.

But when someone gets into logical contortions to try to prove that this isn't a design rip-off... nope, not buying that either. Have the intellectual integrity to admit that this is a design ripoff. "They all do it" or "It doesn't hurt anyone" or whatever - none of that changes this.

FWIW: I bought a Squale Milsub copy recently cos I like the design and I cant afford the original. But I am not in denial that this is anything but a shameless ripoff.

Sent from my SM-C900F using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

There is actually a rather simple way to quantify how similar a watch is to a Submariner experimentally. All one needs to do is to develop a game where one is presented with numerous wrist shots of a Submariner and one with the watch you're trying to test, and have the user pick the odd watch out, and see what the response time and failure rate is over multiple test subjects and trials.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> I'm not saying the Steinhart Titanium 500 Premium doesn't offer a compelling value proposition, but at the same time, for me, the differences in quality in the Tudor Pelagos are well worth the extra money. The law of diminishing returns certainly applies here, and one ultimately has to decide for oneself what the sweet spot is. If all I was concerned about was value proposition, then I would probably just wear this Citizen Eco-Drive and call it a day.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you really want a value proposition, then get this:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B0...ches+men's&dpPl=1&dpID=51xi5z68o9L&ref=plSrch


----------



## sinner777 (Jan 13, 2013)

Sub homages or copies or whatever are as common as silicone bazongas on MTV. They have been made for years so I see no real danger to original Sub design or any sales drop. Rolex WILL be what it is.. Great design and good watch.

How ever I would like to see some real progress in Rolex design. Evolution. Something.. Not carbon copy of the same 60 year old design..


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> The original unoriginal, that must count for something, right?


They've got a moral high ground on design copies...... b-)



mleok said:


> You can't differentiate the size of a watch without a point of comparison, so while a 42mm watch is noticeably different when placed side by side with a 40mm watch, if they were photographed separately without something that provides a sense of scale, they can be for all intents identical.
> 
> While the lugs on a Steinhart are different, the differences are not readily apparent unless you are intimately familiar with the design of a Submariner. It does however feature everything that the layperson associates with the Submariner design, like the black rotating bezel with luminous pearl and the same layout and design, a black dial with stick markers at 6 and 9, triangle marker at 12, and circle markers at the other positions, date window at 3 and cyclops, and Mercedes hands.
> 
> I don't know how I can make myself any clearer...


Yep, it's got those key elements that make it a homage in my view. To the average Joe on the street (assuming they've heard of Rolex) they'll assume it's a Rolex (and I've had my Helson shark diver mistaken as a Rolex BTW) but to those with a bit of knowledge it's clearly different......

You can't make yourself clearer. It's just that we have fundamentally different views here. But this is a fun thread!


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

How do the proponents of "steinharts are a ripoff" feel about the Helson shark diver? In my view it is a homage to the Rolex submariner (ok I maybe alone here.....) as it takes some key elements and twists them..... 

Is it a homage or is it sufficiently different to be its own design?


----------



## sinner777 (Jan 13, 2013)

it looks like Subs redneck cousin that pops some protein and spends 5 hours a day in gym, when he is not riding in his F150 with rims and a shotgun in the back...


Sub with mullet, to be honest...


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

Hornet99 said:


> Yep, it's got those key elements that make it a homage in my view. To the average Joe on the street (assuming they've heard of Rolex) they'll assume it's a Rolex (and I've had my Helson shark diver mistaken as a Rolex BTW) but to those with a bit of knowledge it's clearly different......


And I've had my SARB033 as well as my Shogun mistaken for Rolex.
I'm not sure whether those two should therefore be labelled 'homage' or 'copy' too because of this. Much of it is subjective, with many of the design cues shared, at least at a superficial level.

Anything with a lumed 12 o'clock triangle and circular hour markers on a black dial and rotating dive bezel (the Shogun) could argueably be labelled a homage to something or other, and so could anything with a band resembling an oyster bracelet (the SARB is guilty) be mistaken by the average Joe on the street.

So exactly where do we start and where does it end?


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

sinner777 said:


> it looks like Subs redneck cousin that pops some protein and spends 5 hours a day in gym, when he is not riding in his F150 with rims and a shotgun in the back...
> 
> Sub with mullet, to be honest...


LOL!

Still a homage then?


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Brey17 said:


> For the most part, I have seen people use homage/copy interchangeably. I haven't seen too many, if any try to fight the cause that Steinhart is trying to pay respect to Rolex. Most people understand it is a copy and are fine with calling it a copy.
> 
> Here is some cynicism...
> 
> ...


They do that because that's what people seem to want to buy. At least they are mining their own library of designs.

Everyone talks about innovation but few reward it.

Rick "or they define innovation only in terms of their own narrow tastes" Denney


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Avo said:


> I can easily afford a Rolex Sub. Or a Lange One. The $4K is just what I think would be reasonable for a Sub: a little above what Nomos charges for a Tangomat sounds about right to me. That strips off about $4K in pure status-symbol value (largely driven recently by demand from Asia), something I have zero interest in.
> 
> That Subs are overpriced these days is a pretty common opinion.


And yet there is a current shortage of stainless steel subs which suggests the opposite.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Hornet99 said:


> If it bothers you so much Rick then you need to get the laws changed. Or relax and not let it bother you, it's only watches and there are no consequences, despite what others say, from all of this.......


It apparently bothers you so much that simple reading comprehension escapes you. I said it wasn't even really moral, let alone legal. But intellectual dishonesty it is.

But saying it doesn't matter anyway is intellectual laziness, on top of dishonesty.

Rick "bothered only in an intellectual sense" Denney


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Hornet99 said:


> Same could be said for owners of luxury brand watches who get all touchy about Steinharts b-).


I don't think it's the same at all. I don't care if others own homage/copies and I own "luxury brand" watches. Same with many others on his thread. I'm simply commenting on the layers of BS some are using to justify what they bought instead of being honest.


----------



## Sir-Guy (Apr 25, 2017)

If I have to take a second or third glance at someone's watch because I think it's the "original," I suppose that's my own personal metric for whether I consider a watch's design too intentionally similar.

There is some discussion about cause and effect here. Are iconic designs copied ("homaged") because the original is expensive? exudes quality? is actually a more pleasing design? Who paid for that design? Who deserves to reap the benefits?

I am reminded of this quote by the late Douglas Adams:

"It is a rare mind indeed that can render the hitherto non-existent blindingly obvious. The cry 'I could have thought of that' is a very popular and misleading one, for the fact is that they didn't, and a very significant and revealing fact it is too."


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

obomomomo said:


> So exactly where do we start and where does it end?


One possible starting point: Where its defenders use distorted and dishonest euphemisms to avoid calling it a copy.

An example of showing homage to a classic design is the Cartier tank. Cartier themselves designed so many versions of it that it came to mean any watch with straight sides that form the lugs. Many modern tanks started with a ground-up design around that very simple concept.

But few people look at a tank watch and assume it's Cartier, simply because Cartier themselves never had specific enough trade dress to define the mere shape as a Cartier.

That Helson above doesn't look much like the Rolex next to it to me. It integrates the design elements quite differently, and the hands are a dominant design feature. But the Steinhart further up does look like a Rolex, and shaving a bit off the side of the lugs doesn't prevent that.

Rick "wondering if this is a defense of lookalikes or another tiresome attack on expensive watches" Denney


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Seaswirl said:


> And yet there is a current shortage of stainless steel subs which suggests the opposite.


Would contradict any claims that Steinhart and their ilk are ruining Rolex sales...... ;-)


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Hornet99 said:


> Would contradict any claims that Steinhart and their ilk are ruining Rolex sales...... ;-)


Which claims are those?

Rick "not recalling any" Denney


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Rdenney said:


> It apparently bothers you so much that simple reading comprehension escapes you. I said it wasn't even really moral, let alone legal. But intellectual dishonesty it is.
> 
> But saying it doesn't matter anyway is intellectual laziness, on top of dishonesty.
> 
> Rick "bothered only in an intellectual sense" Denney


OK may be you weren't being very clear. Intellectual dishonestly? That would appear to be scrapping the bottom of the barrel for reasons here. Maybe I see things in more black and white terms than you do :think:.

But in the spirit of an amicable debate on this subject enlighten me on the intellectual dishonesty that I'm displaying.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Seaswirl said:


> I don't think it's the same at all. I don't care if others own homage/copies and I own "luxury brand" watches. Same with many others on his thread. I'm simply commenting on the layers of BS some are using to justify what they bought instead of being honest.


I am honest about what I've bought, always have been. The problem is that I call a Steinhart a homage and there are people who have a different opinion (opinion being the key word here).


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Hornet99 said:


> OK may be you weren't being very clear. Intellectual dishonestly? That would appear to be scrapping the bottom of the barrel for reasons here. Maybe I see things in more black and white terms than you do :think:.
> 
> But in the spirit of an amicable debate on this subject enlighten me on the intellectual dishonesty that I'm displaying.


Using a word that is used to describe respect to describe a shameless knockoff.

Rick "really wondering if that wasn't clear" Denney


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Hornet99 said:


> I am honest about what I've bought, always have been. The problem is that I call a Steinhart a homage and there are people who have a different opinion (opinion being the key word here).


You are expressing your own opinion by using language that bears no resemblance to the definitions. If it's okay, why use a word that means respect when we all know respect is neither demonstrated nor intended?

Rick "sigh" Denney


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

mleok said:


> I guess we have a different sense of value, I have a Steinhart, and they're crudely made in comparison to a Tudor.


Value is always in relation to price / the titanium Stein is approx 20% of the price of the Pelagos so yes it's good value. Is it a better watch? Prob not. Is it better value? Arguably either way 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Silent said:


> Can anyone explain to me how copying an exact design is not illegal? I'm not talking about a "likeness", but if I created a pair of shoes and put 3 white stripes on the side adidas would sue me and win, regardless of the name I put on the shoe. How come it doesn't apply to the watch industry?
> 
> View attachment 12742019
> 
> View attachment 12742027


My understanding is, the three parallel, diagonal stripes that slant top-to-bottom front-to-back could be argued as purely decorative with no function to them on shoes, so the use of them to identify Adidas is protectable as trade dress. Elements like the Cyclops has function to them, so they are not protectable as trade dress, because to protect functional elements as trade dress leads to monopolies. e.g. I think for toothbrushes, things like stylized brand name/logo that are visual/decorative elements only could be protected as trademark/trade dress, but certain look of the brushes that have functional element can't be protected as trade dress; if the look of the brushes could be protected as trade dress, then the "original" company that invented toothbrushes could claim the "brush-head-look" as trade dress, and have monopoly on making and selling toothbrushes. The "non-functional" requirement for trade dress is to protect consumers against monopolies.

The side effect of that is that functional elements on watches could not be protected as trade dress, which makes copy watches with copied functional elements legal.

e.g. In the case of that specific black/blue color scheme on the 24-hour bezel, copy watch companies could argue that has the function of identifying daytime/nighttime difference, so it's not trade dress.


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

mleok said:


> You can't differentiate the size of a watch without a point of comparison, so while a 42mm watch is noticeably different when placed side by side with a 40mm watch, if they were photographed separately without something that provides a sense of scale, they can be for all intents identical.
> 
> While the lugs on a Steinhart are different, the differences are not readily apparent unless you are intimately familiar with the design of a Submariner. It does however feature everything that the layperson associates with the Submariner design, like the black rotating bezel with luminous pearl and the same layout and design, a black dial with stick markers at 6 and 9, triangle marker at 12, and circle markers at the other positions, date window at 3 and cyclops, and Mercedes hands.
> 
> I don't know how I can make myself any clearer...


So quick question for you. Is this a design copy or a homage









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

I think money is a big issue in copy/homage discussions. Money making for copy watch companies is seen as lazy or parasitic. Money saving for copy watch buyers is seen as pretentious or dishonest.

An alternative view is to see copy watch companies as providing a product that some people want at a price some people like. Who doesn't like saving money? (Well, money saving is not the point of status symbols. The more you spend, the better status symbol it is.)

Is this a homage/tribute to Michael Jackson? 



 I don't know. Michael Jackson is for sure now too dead to take any homage/tribute. But sometimes people are not doing it for profit, people do it for fun. Not sure if that crowd paid any homage money to Michael Jackson's relatives or not.

With watches, too much money and not enough fun is involved sometimes.

As for copy companies for products in general, I am thankful they exist, so that stuff I buy are not too expensive, due to competition between companies.


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

I'll start the ball rolling
1. It's titanium
2. It's 42mm
3. It's bezel is lumed
4. Date at 6 o'clock
5. No cyclops
6. Sword hands
7. Numbered second track
8. Blue gmt hand
9. No lollipop on second hand
10. 500m wr 
11. Sapphire display back
12. AR coating 

Seems a homage to me. Unless Rolex own the rights to blue black combo ofc. There are few similarities other than a colour on the bezel. Open to discussion....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

Again, this bubble of a watch forum has people worked up on both sides, this time over a word. I will say it again, I don’t see anyone seriously trying to make out that Steinhart design is original design or they sell these watches for any other purpose than making money.

In this forum homage has come to mean copy watch. I have never seen anyone confused by it. Trying to shame people by claiming intellectual honesty isn’t doing squat because people are communicating effectively enough here to know exactly what is being discussed. Definitions of words change all the time. The word is interchangeable at this point. That ship has sailed, it’s not coming back to this forum at least.

So in the actual world outside this forum what would satisfy you guys? A person is wearing a Steinhart / Mkii / Tissell / Ginault / Alpha, what have you... Another guy walks up to him to ask him if he knows the time? WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN HERE?


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Hornet99 said:


> How do the proponents of "steinharts are a ripoff" feel about the Helson shark diver? In my view it is a homage to the Rolex submariner (ok I maybe alone here.....) as it takes some key elements and twists them.....
> 
> Is it a homage or is it sufficiently different to be its own design?


Different enough, to my eyes. It is copying some design elements but not enough to enter into design plagiarism territory - it introduces enough of its own: the lugs are different, the indices are different, the hands are different.

Visually, it looks very different.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Brey17 said:


> In this forum homage has come to mean copy watch. I have never seen anyone confused by it. Trying to shame people by claiming intellectual honesty isn't doing squat because people are communicating effectively enough here to know exactly what is being discussed. Definitions of words change all the time. The word is interchangeable at this point. That ship has sailed, it's not coming back to this forum at least.


Have you read this thread and the various arguments trying to justify that this isnt REALLY design plagiarism?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## sinner777 (Jan 13, 2013)

He should be put to public shame for wearing something that is not what it looks like.


TBH Rolex is to blame.

Back in 60-ies before cunning strategies they were something like modern SKX. Tough, quality made watches. Well made, made to last for decades. Sooo..more or less everything they are today...

But... Marketing, from La Manche and James Bond and so on made them status symbols.

Its ok,you have to pay for the quality. But it has gone a bit over the head.

I have seen old Seiko catalogues from 60ies..Seiko 6106 Advan at that time costed 30% less than steel Rolex.

Nova days it would be like Seiko would charge SARB033 30% less than datejust... I mean they could... But... Who would buy it. Its just Seiko.. Right.


So you are buying a symbol... And you can have that symbols for less.

Where there is market, there will be demand. And where is demand, there will be money... Simple as that.


And so - it is a copy. So what? Who can afford a Rolex he will buy it... Sincerelly for its quality and durability and hey. It is frikkin Rolex! Even Bushmans know about Rolex. It is synonime for the watch.


But if you buy it for what is not (and it has become what is not) than dont bother...


----------



## zimv20ca (Oct 21, 2017)

Brey17 said:


> A person is wearing a Steinhart / Mkii / Tissell / Ginault / Alpha, what have you... Another guy walks up to him to ask him if he knows the time? WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN HERE?


he tells him the time.


----------



## Hands90 (Jun 8, 2015)

It's a COPY

That's it! A rip off. You guys might like it. It might be a great watch but if they wanted to make a great watch then why did they copy someone else. 
It's a complete copy.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

sinner777 said:


> He should be put to public shame for wearing something that is not what it looks like.
> 
> TBH Rolex is to blame.
> 
> ...


But has Rolex become something it's not? Yes it's a status symbol and a luxury item. But also a very fine watch with ridiculous fit and design tolerances, premium materials and parts, ton of overengineering.

And last I checked grand seiko pricing is not far off
plus we now see knockoff grand seikos. Reef Tiger comes to mind w their Grand Reef.

Reason rolex (and gs, and AP, and PP, and tag, and NOMOS) get copied is because they are recognizable and expensive. That's it. End of story.

Homage makers aren't profiting from copying the design, they are profiting off someone else's marketing investment. Heck. Even DW is now "homaged", because they are popular and others piggyback on that marketing and popularity


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Brey17 said:


> Again, this bubble of a watch forum has people worked up on both sides, this time over a word. I will say it again, I don't see anyone seriously trying to make out that Steinhart design is original design or they sell these watches for any other purpose than making money.
> 
> ...
> 
> So in the actual world outside this forum what would satisfy you guys? A person is wearing a Steinhart / Mkii / Tissell / Ginault / Alpha, what have you... Another guy walks up to him to ask him if he knows the time? WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN HERE?


This is a straw man. If someone asks if I know the time... I tell them the time. Regardless of watch worn, be it Rolex, Casio , steinhart, or iwatch.

The whole thread is dealing with a very different question. If wearing a copy, and asked "nice watch, is that a Rolex?"... what is the response.

ps. And an even more interesting scenario... if wearing a Rolex and being asked" is that a steinhart or invicta?" ... what is the answer


----------



## sinner777 (Jan 13, 2013)

Its Steinhart homage. (atleast last 43 mm model)


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Rdenney said:


> Using a word that is used to describe respect to describe a shameless knockoff.
> 
> Rick "really wondering if that wasn't clear" Denney


So is Nomos copying older designs isn't a shameless knockoff then? Or is Nomos ok because they are part of the luxury club?


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

EnderW said:


> This is a straw man. If someone asks if I know the time... I tell them the time. Regardless of watch worn, be it Rolex, Casio , steinhart, or iwatch.
> 
> The whole thread is dealing with a very different question. If wearing a copy, and asked "nice watch, is that a Rolex?"... what is the response.
> 
> ps. And an even more interesting scenario... if wearing a Rolex and being asked" is that a steinhart or invicta?" ... what is the answer


It was a rhetorical point to say that all of this discussion of the meaning of the word homage is silly. We all know what is being referred to when the word is used. You don't like? Then transport back to feudal times when there was actually a use for the word true to its meaning.

One member uses 'rose colored glasses' comment.

Another uses 'intellectual dishonesty' comment.

We all know what the word means, and people keep using anyway and the meaning of the word is certainly understood. So what is the point?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Hands90 said:


> It's a COPY
> 
> That's it! A rip off. You guys might like it. It might be a great watch but if they wanted to make a great watch then why did they copy someone else.
> It's a complete copy.


well, at least you're not making insults b4 thinking anymore . . .

oh, and please stop copying what others have said/are saying . .


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Rdenney said:


> You are expressing your own opinion by using language that bears no resemblance to the definitions. If it's okay, why use a word that means respect when we all know respect is neither demonstrated nor intended?
> 
> Rick "sigh" Denney


The problem we're having Rick is that you think that your opinion is right here. There's no specific definition that will clearly define a homage watch, it's clearly open to interpretation. And pretending as if you're the adult that's exasperated with a small child is rather patronising......


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

The thing is, if the original watch is a good looking watch, then you'd think the exactly identical copy watch is also good looking.

People have a problem with the copying/plagiarizing, not the look. The look, looks good. (Or it should, if one thinks Rolex models look good.) If copy watch doesn't look good, then things other than the look is at play in people's minds.

The thing that's deemed wrong about plagiarism is trying to pass off something as original by me when it is not. Do copy watch companies claim that copied looks are their own designs? I've briefly look at some copy watch companies' websites, and they don't say that. Granted, they also don't say upfront that, "We copy this from Rolex", like they should, if they were publishing academic papers. But maybe for some (most?) potential buyers who look at copy watches, some (most?) people know they are copy watches. It could be deemed unethical (along the idea of trade dress) if copy watch companies fool many buyers into thinking that it is a Rolex when it's not a Rolex. Well, that doesn't happen because it says on the dial some name other than Rolex. Or it's potentially embarrassing if one buys a copy watch of a status watch without knowing. Okay, that's bad for the wearer. Maybe a more ethical thing to do is for copy watch companies to have the watches come with a label: "This is a copy watch of Rolex. Beware of potential embarrassment if others judge you for perceived pretentiousness". But if the argument is, most copy watch owners know it's a copy watch, then that label is unnecessary.

One could argue that from further away, copy watch wearer is trying to look like one is wearing Rolex without it being a Rolex. Or there could be this mis-perception. Some mind this, some don't.

I like root beer, and looked into history of root beer. From Wikipedia: turns out, American indigenous people made the first root beer. The first commercial brand of root beer, Hires, is not sold where I live, and Consolidated Foods bought the brand from the Hires family in 1960. All these brands like A&W, Barq's, Mug, that I buy are copy root beers. They should be ashamed of plagiarizing against the indigenous people and/or Hires. But I don't care, I buy and drink root beer all the same, and no one looks at my root beer and think I'm trying to look like anything by drinking root beer but not the original brand.

Point is, it has to do with money and status? Because otherwise, most people don't care if products are copied and not "original" brands.

I have a homage watch. I bought and wear it because I like the color-changing dial and color-matched date wheel, clear look at the dial, and high contrast between dial and hands. I either only wear it at home, or started wearing it out, but with case side on underside of wrist, to hide the big case (because it could look too big on my small wrist). The fact that it's a homage watch is coincidence, or I like it DESPITE that it's homage.

I guess the point is, different people have different reasons for doing what they do, and no one ever thinks oneself is wrong or bad in what one does. So copy watch companies and copy/homage watch wearers are right and okay in their own eyes.


----------



## zimv20ca (Oct 21, 2017)

Hornet99 said:


> There's no specific definition that will clearly define a homage watch, it's clearly open to interpretation.


i think part of the issue is we're talking about a number of different things. consider:

1. company A re-issues its own, older watch
2. company B creates a watch based on previous model watch from company A
(a) new watch has some changes
(b) new watch has no changes
3. company B creates a watch based on current model watch from company A
(a) new watch has some changes
(b) new watch has no changes
4. company C creates a watch with some major design elements from one or more watches from company A
5. no-name company D creates a watch that looks exactly like a watch from company A, including the name of company A

then we're trying to use different words to describe this: homage, copy, re-issue, inspiration, replica, et. al. Or worse, trying to use 1 word to describe all those scenarios.

it's no wonder no one can agree on nomenclature, given all those scenarios.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

RustyBin5 said:


> I'll start the ball rolling
> 1. It's titanium
> 2. It's 42mm
> 3. It's bezel is lumed
> ...


I don't actually think that it's a homage. Ok it's got the dual colour bezel insert which is taken from the Rolex batman......


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Hornet99 said:


> So is Nomos copying older designs isn't a shameless knockoff then? Or is Nomos ok because they are part of the luxury club?


Asked and answered about a thousand posts back.

Rick "yes, it's long thread, but this is why" Denney


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Brey17 said:


> It was a rhetorical point to say that all of this discussion of the meaning of the word homage is silly. We all know what is being referred to when the word is used. You don't like? Then transport back to feudal times when there was actually a use for the word true to its meaning.
> 
> One member uses 'rose colored glasses' comment.
> 
> ...


In my decades of experience on a range of forums, and in my professional work, I've seen many words corrupted to undermine clarity and obscure motives. I resist it.

There is a perfectly good modern definition, and it means just about the opposite of what's happening with knockoffs.

Rick "and the confusion serves the aims of the confusers" Denney


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Hornet99 said:


> I don't actually think that it's a homage. Ok it's got the dual colour bezel insert which is taken from the Rolex batman......


Blatant copy then ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Hornet99 said:


> The problem we're having Rick is that you think that your opinion is right here. There's no specific definition that will clearly define a homage watch, it's clearly open to interpretation. And pretending as if you're the adult that's exasperated with a small child is rather patronising......


Webster:

2 a : expression of high regard : respect bowed in homage to the king -often used with "pay": "Her work pays homage to women artists of the past."
b : something that shows respect or attests to the worth or influence of another : tribute;
"his long life filled with international homages to his unique musical talent"-People

I rather don't think literate people would believe the example in 2a would apply if the subject's work was a copy of those artists of the past, rather than a creative interpretation of that work.

I just can't see how to contort this definition to describe copy watches.

Rick "whatever" Denney


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> The problem we're having Rick is that you think that your opinion is right here. There's no specific definition that will clearly define a homage watch, it's clearly open to interpretation. And pretending as if you're the adult that's exasperated with a small child is rather patronising......


Stretching the well established definition of a word beyond the breaking point so as to soothe the watch community's collective guilty conscience tells me all I need to know about what the collective moral compass is telling us about such watches.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

"raiding the back catalog", it's THEIR catalog. "just to be honest", nothing honest about a knockoff. "make money", always a good business plan. "homage", we used 
that word at times when we were selling the re-issues and it fit.


Hornet99 said:


> So, your definition of a homage is something that looks pretty much like an older model (that obviously isn't in production anymore). Isn't that just a re-issue? Where the manufacturer has run out of innovative ideas and is raiding the back catalogue......
> 
> So, exploring that a little further with say the example of MKII and their superb vintage Rolex homages. This would fit into the category of homage then? Or is it only valid when it's the original manufacturer?
> 
> ...


----------



## RotorRonin (Oct 3, 2014)

Seaswirl said:


> I don't know why folks are uncomfortable simply admitting that they can't afford a particular watch and, instead, attempt to convince others that their choices were independent of cost.
> 
> There are so many watches that I can not afford, but I never feel the need to call them over priced. Moreover, I've never felt the need to convince myself or others that my IWC Portuguese Chronograph Classic is somehow better, or at least just as good, as a Patek 5170 and that I picked the IWC over the Patek for some arbitrary reason. It would be a lie to say so as I opted for the IWC as it shares some basic aesthetics with the Patek, but at a price I could afford. I don't know why this seems to be so difficult to admit when it comes to homages.


I have opted for a number of watches that share basic aesthetics with luxury watches, but at a price I can afford. (SNKL41 instead of Grand Seiko, EF503 instead of a Speedmaster, Invicta 8926 mod instead of a Seamaster or Sub). I have no problem admitting this, and frankly it would be foolish of me to spend more given my income and responsibilities. I don't think many affordable owners are afraid to admit they want nicer watches but have made the choice to go affordable based on what they can afford.

The flip side is the owners of those luxury watches deriding others for owning a watch that shares any basic aesthetics with their watches as somehow ripping off their watches. which makes affordable owners understandably defensive of their choices.

But there's the matter of perspective: the vast majority of folks in both camps _don't care._ It's only here on WUS that it becomes a big deal.

Wear what you like, like what you wear.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Watchbreath said:


> "raiding the back catalog", it's THEIR catalog. "just to be honest", nothing honest about a knockoff. "make money", always a good business plan. "homage", we used
> that word at times when we were selling the re-issues and it fit.


The Cartier Santos 100 XL pays homage to the history of the Santos.










It certainly, and respectfully, captures the flavor of the original:










But in no way is it a copy--it adds significant modern creativity. It is certainly not a reissue, nor is it a re-edition. I can't think of a way to call it a knockoff, either.

Rick "even if it wasn't twice as big" Denney


----------



## JohnnyKarate (Oct 8, 2016)




----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

mleok said:


> I don't think anyone (but you) truly cares about whether you can afford a Rolex or a Lange, or what you think is a fair price to pay for one.


The whole point of this thread is whether or not one should be embarrassed to wear a "copy" watch, because some people will assume that it is an attempt to show that one can afford something that one cannot actually afford. So, yeah, according to you & Rick & many others, people do _truly care _about whether or not I can afford a Rolex when I wear one of my "copy" watches. So I am letting you know: I can.

As for what I think a fair price is, I agree, there is no reason you should care about that. I mentioned it as part of my explanation as to why I have not bought a Rolex (or any high(er) end watch).

You don't have to care about this either. My whole point is to push back against the notion that "copy" watches are intrinsically embarrassing.

Consider that Rolex/Davosa comparison pic. If they were the same price, I would buy the Davosa: it has the much nicer narrow lugs and crown guards, compared to the fat ugly ones on the Rolex. And if you can't see this difference, your WIS credentials are a little suspect.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

I think it's possible to separate out the elements of a watch and ask what one likes/wants/buys:

-Brand name and its meanings.

-Refinements.

-Look.

Etc.

If one wants the brand name and its meanings (e.g. status symbol), then one needs to pay a lot for it.

If one wants the refinements, then one needs to pay a lot for it.

If one just want the look without the brand name and its meanings, and without refinements, and want to save money, then one could buy a copy watch without the extras (i.e. without brand name and meanings, without refinements).

I think usage of the word "homage" in relation to within-brand watchmaking is not right either. e.g. When Seiko make a watch that "pays homage" to an earlier/older model of a watch that they made in the past, Seiko is not doing it out of respect for themselves, they're doing it to sell watches and make money, just like copy watch companies are doing it to sell watches and make money. If "homage" should not be used with copy watch companies, then it should not be used for "original" watch companies either, because both are not paying respect, both are just trying to make money.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Most of us most be overweight from eating so much of that stuff.


JohnnyKarate said:


> View attachment 12743125


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Rdenney said:


> Asked and answered about a thousand posts back.
> 
> Rick "yes, it's long thread, but this is why" Denney


And I don't recall the answer so remind me please? I'm presuming yes, unless you tell me otherwise.....


----------



## soaking.fused (May 3, 2012)

Rdenney said:


>


Beautiful!


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Rdenney said:


> In my decades of experience on a range of forums, and in my professional work, I've seen many words corrupted to undermine clarity and obscure motives. I resist it.
> 
> There is a perfectly good modern definition, and it means just about the opposite of what's happening with knockoffs.
> 
> Rick "and the confusion serves the aims of the confusers" Denney


So define what is a homage watch for you then?


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

RustyBin5 said:


> Blatant copy then ?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


An original design in as far it can be in the world of watches.....


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

Avo said:


> The whole point of this thread is whether or not one should be embarrassed to wear a "copy" watch, because some people will assume that it is an attempt to show that one can afford something that one cannot actually afford. So, yeah, according to you & Rick & many others, people do _truly care _about whether or not I can afford a Rolex when I wear one of my "copy" watches. So I am letting you know: I can.
> 
> As for what I think a fair price is, I agree, there is no reason you should care about that. I mentioned it as part of my explanation as to why I have not bought a Rolex (or any high(er) end watch).
> 
> ...


As if any of those keyboard warriors here would actually go to a total stranger and tell him how sinful he is for wearing a Davosa/Steinhart.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Rdenney said:


> Webster:
> 
> 2 a : expression of high regard : respect bowed in homage to the king -often used with "pay": "Her work pays homage to women artists of the past."
> b : something that shows respect or attests to the worth or influence of another : tribute;
> ...


We've had others say that re-issues are acceptable homages, but the manufacturer is only producing them out of a drive to ride the vintage/retro trend of the last couple of years. They make them for profit, not because they are paying homage to past designers. If we believe that the manufacturer is paying homage then Steinhart can equally pay homage to designs.....


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

I've sent a few out the door with their tails firmly tucked. You learn to tell how they swaggered in, 'fool the SA time'.


Seikogi said:


> As if any of those keyboard warriors here would actually go to a total stranger and tell him how sinful he is for wearing a Davosa/Steinhart.


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> We've had others say that re-issues are acceptable homages, but the manufacturer is only producing them out of a drive to ride the vintage/retro trend of the last couple of years. They make them for profit, not because they are paying homage to past designers. If we believe that the manufacturer is paying homage then Steinhart can equally pay homage to designs.....


The interesting thing is that Steinhart never ever pointed out they pay homage to whatever brand. Only their customers do. Casts a different light on „homages".


----------



## VicLeChic (Jul 24, 2013)

Oh no! That would be terrible, mistaking my Rolex for a mere Steinhart copycat? After selling a kidney and resorting to lending my body to any woman in need? My pride couldn't take it . Thank gosh the SD43 is pretty distinctive, right guys? Jeeeeez...


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

Watchbreath said:


> I've sent a few out the door with their tails firmly tucked. You learn to tell how they swaggered in, 'fool the SA time'.


They must call you the "Homaginator"


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> Stretching the well established definition of a word beyond the breaking point so as to soothe the watch community's collective guilty conscience tells me all I need to know about what the collective moral compass is telling us about such watches.


But it's not a well established definition, certainly not for watches. People have been debating this for ever and a day on WUS and we don't agree and it's highly unlikely we ever will......

I do object to the insinuation that all Steinhart owners have a faulty morals. Trying to use that argument shows a lack of imagination.


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

stuffler said:


> The interesting thing is that Steinhart never ever pointed out they pay homage to whatever brand. Only their customers do. Casts a different light on „homages".


True. 
Just checked their website on German and they don't seem to be marketing orientated. Its quite the typical no-nonsense "boring" German approach which I quite like.
No such things as "We went to the moon to collect dust for our superluminova developed by quantum physics scientists from CERN in our secret underground laboratory" ... you know who I mean


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

db


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> But it's not a well established definition, certainly not for watches. People have been debating this for ever and a day on WUS and we don't agree and it's highly unlikely we ever will......
> 
> I do object to the insinuation that all Steinhart owners have a faulty morals. Trying to use that argument shows a lack of imagination.


Why redefine a term in the English language beyond all recognition when a perfectly serviceable one exists, unless one somehow feels uncomfortable referring to them for what they are?


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> Why redefine a term in the English language beyond all recognition when a perfectly serviceable one exists, unless one somehow feels uncomfortable referring to them for what they are?


Merriam-Webster suggests homage as "_something that shows respect or attests to the worth or influence of another_", considering that the Rolex Submariner is one of the most iconic (influential) watches ever made (OK we can debate that, but go with it please.....) I would say that Steinhart are attesting to the worth and influence of the Submariner design in reproducing some of the elements in their ocean one series. That there are differences says that they've not made a design copy (as per Parnis) and hence it can be classed as a homage to the Submariner. That Steinhart don't claim anything to this effect is neither here nor there. So we can use the term homage........

_*Hornet "intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt (not....)" 99*_


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Avo said:


> Consider that Rolex/Davosa comparison pic. If they were the same price, I would buy the Davosa: it has the much nicer narrow lugs and crown guards, compared to the fat ugly ones on the Rolex. And if you can't see this difference, your WIS credentials are a little suspect.


De gustibus non est disputandum. Look, I understand why a person would choose a cheaper option if it exhibits most of the characteristics that make the original desirable to him. But, only a person ignorant of mechanical movements would choose a Davosa over a Rolex if the price were the same.


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Hornet99 said:


> So define what is a homage watch for you then?


Probably this









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Hornet99 said:


> Merriam-Webster suggests homage as "_something that shows respect or attests to the worth or influence of another_", considering that the Rolex Submariner is one of the most iconic (influential) watches ever made (OK we can debate that, but go with it please.....) I would say that Steinhart are attesting to the worth and influence of the Submariner design in reproducing some of the elements in their ocean one series. That there are differences says that they've not made a design copy (as per Parnis) and hence it can be classed as a homage to the Submariner. That Steinhart don't claim anything to this effect is neither here nor there. So we can use the term homage........
> 
> _*Hornet "intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt (not....)" 99*_


Not that we need the permission or approval from some of these fools in the use of a word in the English language. I'm thinking the issue isn't Steinhart's, but rather the tribute-haters that have the problem. I feel sorry for that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

mleok said:


> De gustibus non est disputandum. Look, I understand why a person would choose a cheaper option if it exhibits most of the characteristics that make the original desirable to him. But, only a person ignorant of mechanical movements would choose a Davosa over a Rolex if the price were the same.


And only a fool would think a Rolex movement is why it costs so much. If you want horology buy one of these







. If you want a label on your wrist (or just a great diver) then sure - buy a sub, but the movements nothing special sir.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

I still remember that Chrono '4' knockoff; gross.


Seikogi said:


> They must call you the "Homaginator"


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

Well, better is to own both (if interested in movements and watchmaking)


----------



## MarkieB (Feb 25, 2017)

I bet every homage hater has bought, liked or listened to a cover version of some song or other, watched a remake of a film, copied a catchphrase, bought a supermarket own brand and said, wow this tastes just like a whatever it is imitating, read someone else's news paper or magazine, or watched a video that someone else has paid for.

All copying others and benefiting from their investment. 

So if you're one of the above, how dare you knock homages....back in your box and shut up!


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

"homage hater", would that be a real homage or a knockoff that is called that around here?


MarkieB said:


> I bet every homage hater has bought, liked or listened to a cover version of some song or other, watched a remake of a film, copied a catchphrase, bought a supermarket own brand and said, wow this tastes just like a whatever it is imitating, read someone else's news paper or magazine, or watched a video that someone else has paid for.
> 
> All copying others and benefiting from their investment.
> 
> So if you're one of the above, how dare you knock homages....back in your box and shut up!


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

Oh, another stereotype.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

MarkieB said:


> I bet every homage hater has bought, liked or listened to a cover version of some song or other, watched a remake of a film, copied a catchphrase, bought a supermarket own brand and said, wow this tastes just like a whatever it is imitating, read someone else's news paper or magazine, or watched a video that someone else has paid for.
> 
> All copying others and benefiting from their investment.
> 
> So if you're one of the above, how dare you knock homages....back in your box and shut up!


Yep |>

......made the same comment some pages back and there was silence as the response!


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> Yep |>
> 
> ......made the same comment some pages back and there was silence as the response!


Might be nobody read it. Just saying.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

I don't read so good when I'm yawning.


stuffler said:


> Might be nobody read it. Just saying.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> "homage hater", would that be a real homage or a knockoff that is called that around here?


Hate is such a strong word, let's just call you a homage* objector.........

* - Steinhart homages


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

stuffler said:


> Might be nobody read it. Just saying.


Or didn't like the implications....... :roll:


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

A popular word with the PC Crowd these days.


Hornet99 said:


> Hate is such a strong word, let's just call you a homage* objector.........
> 
> * - Steinhart homages


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> I don't read so good when I'm yawning.


No one is forcing you to read this thread. Maybe if you had a better argument other than "All Steinharts are knockoffs and that's the end of it....." this would be more interesting for you?


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> A popular word with the PC Crowd these days.


Nothing PC about it. Ever heard of hate crimes?


----------



## MarkieB (Feb 25, 2017)

Watchbreath said:


> "homage hater", would that be a real homage or a knockoff that is called that around here?


Who really cares, you can convince yourself of anything if you really want to.....read the article about the Swiss setting out to produce copies of English & French watches for less money to capture the watch making industry...whilst Switzerland had some exceptional and innovative watchmakers, in the main, they produced different parts in different factories and each watch company put them together with their name on the dial.

.......a whole country's industry based on copying, knock-offs, homages......seems other countries are just doing to the Swiss what they did to other in the 1860s


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Is Pepsi a homage of Coca Cola or are there enough fundamental differences - just asking?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

RustyBin5 said:


> And only a fool would think a Rolex movement is why it costs so much. If you want horology buy one of these
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh man I really do need to get that GO PML ...


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

RustyBin5 said:


> Is Pepsi a homage of Coca Cola or are there enough fundamental differences - just asking?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ooooow, good one. What about jeans? Are all other manufacturers of jeans just homages of Levi's?


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

Question: when Rolex copied the Fifty Fathoms dial marker arrangement (with the teeniest of changes to the 12 o'clock marker) for the Sub, was that a "copy", an "homage", or an "original design"?


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

There's a few around here that really do, took off my 'Rose Colored Glasses' decade ago, most around here prefer to keep them on.


MarkieB said:


> Who really cares, you can convince yourself of anything if you really want to.....read the article about the Swiss setting out to produce copies of English & French watches for less money to capture the watch making industry...whilst Switzerland had some exceptional and innovative watchmakers, in the main, they produced different parts in different factories and each watch company put them together with their name on the dial.
> 
> .......a whole country's industry based on copying, knock-offs, homages......seems other countries are just doing to the Swiss what they did to other in the 1860s


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

I need a good chuckle every now and then.


Hornet99 said:


> No one is forcing you to read this thread. Maybe if you had a better argument other than "All Steinharts are knockoffs and that's the end of it....." this would be more interesting for you?


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> I need a good chuckle every now and then.


So you're bored and amused at the same time now?! Either way I'm glad you're having some fun, just like me ;-) :-!

.....gotta keep it all in perspective, it's only watches, it's not important! b-)


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Another thread like this one will come up again in less than 90 days.


Hornet99 said:


> So you're bored and amused at the same time now?! Either way I'm glad you're having some fun, just like me ;-) :-!
> 
> .....gotta keep it all in perspective, it's only watches, it's not important! b-)


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

RotorRonin said:


> I have opted for a number of watches that share basic aesthetics with luxury watches, but at a price I can afford. (SNKL41 instead of Grand Seiko, EF503 instead of a Speedmaster, Invicta 8926 mod instead of a Seamaster or Sub). I have no problem admitting this, and frankly it would be foolish of me to spend more given my income and responsibilities. I don't think many affordable owners are afraid to admit they want nicer watches but have made the choice to go affordable based on what they can afford.
> 
> The flip side is the owners of those luxury watches deriding others for owning a watch that shares any basic aesthetics with their watches as somehow ripping off their watches. which makes affordable owners understandably defensive of their choices.
> 
> ...


I hear and agree with you. My post was directed at a particular member who tried to explain that he preferred these homages to the real thing as the Rolex was over priced AND lacked some arbitrary features found on the copy but not the Sub. The argument was reverse engineered to defend what he owned and, well, was likely a lie.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

RustyBin5 said:


> And only a fool would think a Rolex movement is why it costs so much. If you want horology buy one of these
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is the art of horology and the craft of horology. The Rolex movement is extremely well designed, and features many best practices in traditional watchmaking, including a Breguet overcoil, variable inertia balance wheel and free sprung balance. In addition, it has a wonderfully robust instantaneous date change mechanism that can be quickset at any time without fear of damage, and it is very well finished functionally.

I would choose that any day over a Glashutte Original movement which is superficially prettier, but only decorated on the visible side of the movement. The Geneva Seal standards for movement finishing were originally intended to ensure excellent functional finishing, to eliminate burrs that might break off and compromise the movement, and to discourage the use of components like wire springs that might not last very long.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Avo said:


> Question: when Rolex copied the Fifty Fathoms dial marker arrangement (with the teeniest of changes to the 12 o'clock marker) for the Sub, was that a "copy", an "homage", or an "original design"?


The Rolex Turn-o-graph 6202 predated the Blaincpain Fifty Fathoms. So, whatever point you think you're making is based on an ignorance of history.









Rolex Turn-o-graph 6202









Rolex Submariner 6204









Blaincpain Fifty Fathoms


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Brey17 said:


> In this forum homage has come to mean copy watch. I have never seen anyone confused by it.


I've seen a few instances where people were confused by it - homage was correctly being used (as in paying homage, not copying) and it confused the readers.

They were so used to mis-using the word that they didn't recognize when it was being used properly. One occasion was very recent - in the last couple weeks I believe.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Rdenney said:


> In my decades of experience on a range of forums, and in my professional work, I've seen many words corrupted to undermine clarity and obscure motives. I resist it.
> 
> There is a perfectly good modern definition, and it means just about the opposite of what's happening with knockoffs.
> 
> Rick "and the confusion serves the aims of the confusers" Denney


This.

I really don't give a rat's ass if people want to wear copies. Go nuts. I own watches that are commonly copied, and am not threatened by copies in the least.

But don't ask me to mis-use words so that you can feel better.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Hornet99 said:


> So define what is a homage watch for you then?


I realize you were asking Rick, but I'll respond too. First of all I wouldn't typically use the term "homage watch" but rather say a particular watch "pays homage" to something.

An example might be the current Milgauss model (116400). The previous model (1019) was produced from 1960 to 1988 with a straight seconds hand (and then discontinued altogether). However the 1956 model (6541) had a lightning bolt seconds hand. I'd say that the current Milgauss, with a lighting bolt, is a perfect example of "paying homage" to the original Milgauss.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

mleok said:


> The Rolex Turn-o-graph 6202 predated the Blaincpain Fifty Fathoms. So, whatever point you think you're making is based on an ignorance of history.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually here is the 1953 Fifty Fathoms.


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

mleok said:


> The Rolex Turn-o-graph 6202 predated the Blaincpain Fifty Fathoms. So, whatever point you think you're making is based on an ignorance of history.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Man I love subs but that is one ugly watch. Crazy to think it's likely worth a few multiples of my collection. Such is WISdom and the values placed on these funny little items of wrist candy.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

mleok said:


> There is the art of horology and the craft of horology. The Rolex movement is extremely well designed, and features many best practices in traditional watchmaking, including a Breguet overcoil, variable inertia balance wheel and free sprung balance. In addition, it has a wonderfully robust instantaneous date change mechanism that can be quickset at any time without fear of damage, and it is very well finished functionally.
> 
> I would choose that any day over a Glashutte Original movement which is superficially prettier, but only decorated on the visible side of the movement. The Geneva Seal standards for movement finishing were originally intended to ensure excellent functional finishing, to eliminate burrs that might break off and compromise the movement, and to discourage the use of components like wire springs that might not last very long.


Never said it wasn't well designed. It's reliable and has stood the test of time. But it's not the reason for the price of the watch, (which is what I actually said), given that over the decades the changes to the movement have been relatively minor. The double swan neck regulator is a thing of beauty in my eyes, and from what I gather has proven to be a good movement too. So to use your art and craft analogy - one is pretty AND good / the others just good, but it's behind a metal caseback so that's fine ofc.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

cedargrove said:


> Actually here is the 1953 Fifty Fathoms.


I thought that was the one introduced in 1953, but wasn't totally sure, and didn't want to assume that Avo was just totally making stuff up.

In any case, I assume the one that I posted (which presumably came later) was the one that Avo had in mind when he was claiming that the Submariner dial was a minimally modified copy of the Fifty Fathoms dial.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

RustyBin5 said:


> Never said it wasn't well designed. It's reliable and has stood the test of time. But it's not the reason for the price of the watch, (which is what I actually said), given that over the decades the changes to the movement have been relatively minor. The double swan neck regulator is a thing of beauty in my eyes, and from what I gather has proven to be a good movement too. So to use your art and craft analogy - one is pretty AND good / the others just good, but it's behind a metal caseback so that's fine ofc.


I think we're talking at cross purposes here. If you bother to go back to the post I was replying to initially, Avo was saying that even if the DAVOSA and Rolex were the same price, he would prefer the DAVOSA. I was simply saying that only a person ignorant of watch mechanics would prefer an ETA 2893-2 over a Rolex 3186 movement, and I stand by that statement. Not to mention that the ETA 2893-2 has the quickset on the 24 hour hand, which is the GMT hand. Just FYI, GMT doesn't change, the local time does (depending on your location), so the quickset should be on the 12 hour hand, like it is on the Rolex GMT IIC.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

RustyBin5 said:


> Never said it wasn't well designed. It's reliable and has stood the test of time. But it's not the reason for the price of the watch, (which is what I actually said), given that over the decades the changes to the movement have been relatively minor.


The changes have been enough such that Rolex can provide -2/+2 seconds per day rating, which likely has value to some people.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

cedargrove said:


> I've seen a few instances where people were confused by it - homage was correctly being used (as in paying homage, not copying) and it confused the readers.
> 
> They were so used to mis-using the word that they didn't recognize when it was being used properly. One occasion was very recent - in the last couple weeks I believe.


Lol... that is incredible.


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

Sorry for confusion on the Fifty Fathoms; I was going by this article:
https://www.timepiecechronicle.com/...-brief-history-of-the-blancpain-fifty-fathoms
I assumed the picture at the top was of the original. I never heard of the Rolex Turn-O-Graph before.

But if the Rolex Turn-O-Graph came first, then I can flip the question: did Blancpain copy the Turn-O-Graph dial for the Fifty Fathoms dial (the one without numbers)? Is that a "copy", "homage", or "original design"?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Avo said:


> Sorry for confusion on the Fifty Fathoms; I was going by this article:
> https://www.timepiecechronicle.com/...-brief-history-of-the-blancpain-fifty-fathoms
> I assumed the picture at the top was of the original. I never heard of the Rolex Turn-O-Graph before.
> 
> But if the Rolex Turn-O-Graph came first, then I can flip the question: did Blancpain copy the Turn-O-Graph dial for the Fifty Fathoms dial (the one without numbers)? Is that a "copy", "homage", or "original design"?


I don't consider the original Fifty Fathoms to be a copy, the similarities are due to functional convergence. In particular, many of these were stipulated in a French Navy design document.

It also serves to illustrate that just because an element is functional, does not mean that it is unavoidable that one has to mimic the particular aesthetic realization of the functional component. Yes, you need hands and markers with lume, but they don't have to be the exact same shape as an existing design.


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

Did the French Navy document stipulate the shape of each marker? If so, why was the 12-o'clock marker allowed to be slightly different?

If not, then Blancpain did "mimic the particular aesthetic realization of the functional component" of the Rolex Turn-O-Graph. Why is this not an example of the sort of "copy" that you decry?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Avo said:


> Did the French Navy document stipulate the shape of each marker? If so, why was the 12-o'clock marker allowed to be slightly different?
> 
> If not, then Blancpain did "mimic the particular aesthetic realization of the functional component" of the Rolex Turn-O-Graph. Why is this not an example of the sort of "copy" that you decry?


I was referring to the original Fifty Fathoms.


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

mleok said:


> I think we're talking at cross purposes here. If you bother to go back to the post I was replying to initially, Avo was saying that even if the DAVOSA and Rolex were the same price, he would prefer the DAVOSA. I was simply saying that only a person ignorant of watch mechanics would prefer an ETA 2893-2 over a Rolex 3186 movement, and I stand by that statement. Not to mention that the ETA 2893-2 has the quickset on the 24 hour hand, which is the GMT hand. Just FYI, GMT doesn't change, the local time does (depending on your location), so the quickset should be on the 12 hour hand, like it is on the Rolex GMT IIC.


This(all) I agree with

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

cedargrove said:


> The changes have been enough such that Rolex can provide -2/+2 seconds per day rating, which likely has value to some people.


I said price not value. Price is what you pay. Value's what you get. But yes it's accuracy is ofc very good 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Here's a question to ponder. With the iconic Mercedes hand design on Rolex watches, do we know where that originated from? Is that a Rolex original design or did they appropriate it from somewhere else? :think:


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Read somewhere it's a "rising star" symbol, but from a tool watch perspective it's there to differentiate at a glance between hour and minute hands. That would explain the lollipop but the surface area of the lollipop would struggle to hold the lume paint over the long term perhaps and the Mercedes sign symmetrically and with maximum strength and efficiency breaks the area up. So lume stays intact better, etc. Fact it's ended up iconic is a bonus


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

The Tudor snowflake was a design commission by the French navy I think out of interest 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

RustyBin5 said:


> Read somewhere it's a "rising star" symbol, but from a tool watch perspective it's there to differentiate at a glance between hour and minute hands. That would explain the lollipop but the surface area of the lollipop would struggle to hold the lume paint over the long term perhaps and the Mercedes sign symmetrically and with maximum strength and efficiency breaks the area up. So lume stays intact better, etc. Fact it's ended up iconic is a bonus
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The reason for asking was that I think that you end up finding copying of elements all the time. The clever part of the Submariner was blending design elements so successfully.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

I think "homage" is used in the context of love/like. If one loves a copy watch, then one calls it homage. When I love a woman, I could call her queen of the universe if I want to, and she is to me. People who hate copy watches could call them ****tah watches, Archie Luxury style. It's a free Internet.

I don't care about Speedmaster, does nothing for me, but I loved/crushed on Omega DSOTM before (online pic):










If Seiko make a solar quartz chronograph copy watch of that with black super hard coating, clear look of the dial, shiny/looks good, sells for ~$500-1000, and I see it in-store and love love love it, I might buy one next year (bought a watch this year already). Copying the total look might be legal (don't know if patents ran out yet or not for DSOTM). I like the brand Seiko. Omega and Omega's finicky-to-oil co-axial, I don't care about. Too expensive for me to buy (i.e. love of the look does not push me enough to pay the asking price; no love for Omega brand also lessens any push to pay asking price; would like to spend that amount of money on other things instead). Also don't like the high cost of servicing mechanical chronograph, so would like it in solar quartz chronograph instead. I'd wear it case on underside of wrist, for me to see only, not to show others. If someone asks me, "Is that an Omega?", I'd say it's just a Seiko, a copy watch of Omega DSOTM.


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Someone just made a good point to me

Is this







just a cheap (relative to the original) knock off homage/copy of an A.Lange Sohne. If not then why not - what's the difference?

Rusty "tongue only lightly planted in cheek" Bin5

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

Knowing the movement differences would help you to answer your question by yourself, anyway lots of explanations available on the www...






Or read

Armbanduhren Spezial: Glashütte Original. Manufaktur. Mechanik. Meisterwerke; Autor: Peter Braun; ISBN 3898805727

Das ZEITGEFÜHL-Uhrenbuch; Autor: Gerd-Lothar Reschke; ISBN 3-938607-61-0


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

RustyBin5 said:


> I said price not value. Price is what you pay. Value's what you get. But yes it's accuracy is ofc very good


For me price and value are very much related - the price I'm willing to pay is largely a result of the value I get from a watch.

cedar "new enough to not mention cost" grove


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

stuffler said:


> Knowing the movement differences would help you to answer your question by yourself, anyway lots of explanations available on the www...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cmon now . What's movement differences got to do with it? When I said "what's the difference" I meant "what's the difference between those two being homage territory and a steinhart/Rolex".

If movement comes into it then you can't point the homage finger at an ETA steinhart v a Rolex. Question was is the GO a homage ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

RustyBin5 said:


> Cmon now . What's movement differences got to do with it? When I said "what's the difference" I meant "what's the difference between those two being homage territory and a steinhart/Rolex".
> 
> If movement comes into it then you can't point the homage finger at an ETA steinhart v a Rolex. Question was is the GO a homage ?


Cmon now. It's not.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Hornet99 said:


> Here's a question to ponder. With the iconic Mercedes hand design on Rolex watches, do we know where that originated from? Is that a Rolex original design or did they appropriate it from somewhere else? :think:


I honestly don't know. It is certainly a variation on cathedral hands, but with Renaissance (round) shapes rather than Gothic (pointed) shapes. But I don't know who used that variation first. The veins hold lume, which is paint applied across the openings between the veins.

A Submariner is, of course, an integrated visual design, not just a list of words describing parts.

Even so, that integration is not what makes the Rolex so widely copied. It's the fact that Rolex is both popular and expensive, creating a market for those who want the popular design for a lower price.

Rick "noting the Zodiac Sea Wolf has never looked like a Rolex, despite using most of the same functional design elements" Denney


----------



## MarkieB (Feb 25, 2017)

Hornet99 said:


> Here's a question to ponder. With the iconic Mercedes hand design on Rolex watches, do we know where that originated from? Is that a Rolex original design or did they appropriate it from somewhere else? :think:


There doesn't appear to be a definitive answer. One theory (though a romantic one) is that the hand was named after Mercedes Gleitze who swam the English Channel in 1927 wearing a Rolex watch, but as she crossed the channel years before the use of the hands it's highly unlikely. Further, as far as I am aware, Rolex has never used the term "Mercedes" in any marketing and the hand name most likely comes from its resemblance to the Mercedes car badge and was coined by the industry and buyers in general (Rolex couldn't use the name as it was Mercedes' trade mark) The design is supposed to represent Air, Water and Land so a universal symbol.

Tudor first used the Mercedes hand on their sub, released at the same time as Rolex's but the Rolex had sword hands (with Explorer being released a few months later) The trouble with sword hands is that it's difficult to tell the hour and minute hand apart under difficult conditions and the addition of the "Mercedes" symbol makes both hands instantly distinguishable.

Where the idea to use the Mercedes symbol came from isn't clear however early Rolex watches used Romaines hands (sorry for the poor pic) and it's not difficult to see how a simple completing the circle on the hour handwould give the perfect shape to lume and make totally different from the hour hand.









All interesting stuff though.


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

What this thread has done is make me look at Steinhart a little more closely than I otherwise would have.

I'm thinking, I might even add an OVM 39mm dateless to my dive watch collection one day. What a cool looking and perfectly sized watch for not too many dollars. The case resembles an Oyster but only from the top because the the lug tips are quite different seen from the side. The bezel is fully indexed unlike the Sub, the crown protector is different, the crystal is AR double domed sapphire, it has sword not Mercedes hands. The one big negative is I wish the lume was green or white instead of that fake patina brown.

On a tropic strap and it would look no more like a modern Sub than my Shogun.

















And yes I am aware there are other Steinhart models that do very much resemble a modern Sub..


----------



## pickle puss (Feb 13, 2006)

I wore my Rolex yesterday and a guy behind to me in line at Walmart asked me if it was a Steinhart!!!
Imagine my chagrin.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Rdenney said:


> Rick "still insisting on the distinction between motive and intent" Denney


Late to the thread but can you clarify between motive and intent as it relates to watches or homages? When it comes to murder, I get the distinction between motive (revenge) and intent (pulling the trigger) but how does that apply to watches?


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

I think the charge of laziness, parasitism, and plagiarism might be valid for copy watch companies if what they are doing is illegal or unethical.

We know it's legal if patents have expired, there's no trademark infringement (i.e. original watch company's brand and logo are not used), and there's no trade dress infringement (because copied designs have functional elements).

It is unethical if copy watch companies are conventionally expected to cite the source of their copied designs, but they do not. As far as I know, there is no such requirement, to cite the source of their copied designs? When copied designs are not protected under patents, trademarks, and trade dresses, people are free to copy.

If other types of product companies are not required to cite the source of their copied designs, then copy watch companies do not have to either? e.g. When people buy a microwave, fridge, or T-shirt, there's no required tag or documentation anywhere that I know of that tell people who invented whichever designs for this product, and most people don't care and don't need/want to know.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

mleok said:


> I think anyone truly clamoring for the days when Rolex watches were tool watches as opposed to luxury watches should have a gander at Tudor. The Tudor Pelagos is an extraordinary purpose built tool watch with few pretensions, is much better built than a five digit Submariner, and offers an exceptional value.


If only they can ditch that tumescent hour hand... :-d


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

obomomomo said:


> What this thread has done is make me look at Steinhart a little more closely than I otherwise would have.
> 
> I'm thinking, I might even add an OVM 39mm dateless to my dive watch collection one day. What a cool looking and perfectly sized watch for not too many dollars. The case resembles an Oyster but only from the top because the the lug tips are quite different seen from the side. The bezel is fully indexed unlike the Sub, the crown protector is different, the crystal is AR double domed sapphire, it has sword not Mercedes hands. The one big negative is I wish the lume was green or white instead of that fake patina brown.
> 
> ...


I wonder how they managed to get a hair thicker with that watch? Spec says 14mm. I would own it in a heartbeat at about 12mm. I love the quality of the OVM 2.0, but its just a hair chunky for my taste. Anyone with some experience here? Does it wear a bit smaller?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

BigSeikoFan said:


> If only they can ditch that tumescent hour hand... :-d


Agreed, dang it . . . agree whole heartedly with mleok's assessment and I would own at least one modern Black Bay if not for that hand, sigh . . .


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Everyone's at this homage game apparently.......

https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/glash%FCtte-original-homages-disguise-4598257.html


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

BigSeikoFan said:


> If only they can ditch that tumescent hour hand... :-d


It would only be tumescent if you were a canine.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> Everyone's at this homage game apparently.......
> 
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/glash%FCtte-original-homages-disguise-4598257.html


As vkalia said on that thread, degree matter. This is also my issue with the use of the term "homage" as a euphemism for "blatant copy," as it established a moral equivalence between true homages that are inspired by other designs, and blatant copies.



vkalia said:


> If it is a homage*, it is along the lines of "well, let's also do a watch with offset dials and big date".
> 
> Sort of equivalent to - let's also do a watch with a rotating bezel with 5' markings.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> As vkalia said on that thread, degree matter. This is also my issue with the use of the term "homage" as a euphemism for "blatant copy," as it established a moral equivalence between true homages that are inspired by other designs, and blatant copies.


I'll quote this then....... ;-)



Metlin said:


> GO gets a pass on these forums because they are not Parnis.
> 
> Price and exclusivity gets you a free pass. But if you can't cough up a few grand, you're just a sucker who likes fakes.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> I'll quote this then....... ;-)


Again degree matters. As mentioned in other parts of the thread, ALS and GO have a common ancestry and a shared aesthetic heritage.

In any case, Seiko has its own examples of blatant copies,










and one can argue why it isn't brought up as much. I suspect it's because their copies are not their bread and butter products, unlike Steinhart.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> Again degree matters. As mentioned in other parts of the thread, ALS and GO have a common ancestry and a shared aesthetic heritage.
> 
> In any case, Seiko has its own examples of blatant copies,
> 
> ...


That's fine, you just justify it anyway that makes it alright in your head.......:-!


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> That's fine, you just justify it anyway that makes it alright in your head.......:-!


I think that applies just as well to you.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> I think that applies just as well to you.


Ya gotta stop copying me, it's just so playground ;-).


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Gotta find a 'wooden stake' for this thread.


----------



## pickle puss (Feb 13, 2006)

Watchbreath said:


> Gotta find a 'wooden stake' for this thread.


If you can't find a "real one" try one these homages

https://www.dappercadaver.com/products/safety-wooden-stake


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Probably made of lipstick, nothing beats the real thing.


pickle puss said:


> If you can't find a "real one" try one these homages
> 
> https://www.dappercadaver.com/products/safety-wooden-stake


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> Gotta find a 'wooden stake' for this thread.


If you can't find a nice original Swiss stake just stop reading the thread?


----------



## Jim44 (Jul 1, 2017)

ari.seoul said:


> a rather touchy subject that needs to be tread carefully
> 
> personally, I have no problem with people buying and wearing (and enjoying) them.
> They liked the design but does not have the mean nor could they justify such spending, then hey, enjoy them by all mean, I'm OK with that
> ...


I don't know about this whole homage debate but I'll tell you what, George Carlin was a genius

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> Everyone's at this homage game apparently.......
> 
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/glash%FCtte-original-homages-disguise-4598257.html


From that thread:



Metlin said:


> GO gets a pass on these forums because they are not Parnis.
> 
> Price and exclusivity gets you a free pass. But if you can't cough up a few grand, you're just a sucker who likes fakes.


That pretty much sums it up, IMO. What really bugs the "copy" haters is what they regard as _invalid wealth signaling_. They want to use the wearing of a Rolex (by them or by others that they encounter) as an indicator of wealth. That's why they experience embarrassment if someone mistakes a much-less-expensive watch for a Rolex: an invalid wealth signal has been sent.

And this is why it's only the copying of Rolexes (and not other watches) that bugs them: because Rolex is the only generally-recognized wealth-signaling watch. Not enough people know about other brands for them to be nearly as effective as wealth signalers. So no one cares that the Helson Skindiver is a copy of the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms. The Fifty Fathoms, though very expensive, is not an effective wealth signaler because so few people recognize it.

I don't like this game. The very wealthy people I know best don't play it: they got their money from tech, and typically think that inaccurate mechnaical watches made in a factory are not worth buying (but it's OK with them if you pay way more than Rolex pricing to get a bespoke, truly hand-crafted, timepiece: that's a form of art, and paying for art is fine).


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Don't know about the truth behind all of these, but thought it would be interesting:

5 World-Famous Products That Are Shameless Rip-Offs


----------



## Ard (Jul 21, 2014)

What's not to dislike?

I had one three years ago, it was a tough watch and well made. Of course I got the entire package with it, T shirt that had the Rolex logo and name - ball cap with Rolex across the front and some big Rolex stickers for my river boat and truck. Strangely none of the other guides ask if my watch was Rolex, matter of fact I don't recall anyone even talking to me during that summer.

Not


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

I have to say - Ginault is equally deserving of the attention Steinhart gets - prob more so since they even copied the glidelock clasp. They do actually get their fair share of attention about it but what I don't understand is how Davosa fly under the radar


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jim44 (Jul 1, 2017)

Jim44 said:


> I don't know about this whole homage debate but I'll tell you what, George Carlin was a genius
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


And I'll tell you who else was a genius: Frank Zappa. He once said something at a concert in the late 60s that has, IMO, some relevance to this thread. It was captured on record:

[Man In Uniform:] Back on your seats, come on, we'll help you back to your seats, come on . . .
[Guy In The Audience:] Take that man out of here! Oh! Go away! Take that uniform off man! Take that bloody uniform before it's ....in' too late, man!
[FZ:] Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, and don't kid yourself.

... and to be clear that includes me, probably more so than most on this thread.

Peace ✌

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Hornet99 said:


> Don't know about the truth behind all of these, but thought it would be interesting:
> 
> 5 World-Famous Products That Are Shameless Rip-Offs


Interesting that lego gets number one spot - ironic when you look at Lepin who even boldly copy the packaging !!!!









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Have his first album, "Wonderfull WINO, in Western Walla Walla.


Jim44 said:


> I don't know about this whole homage debate but I'll tell you what, George Carlin was a genius
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Late to the thread but can you clarify between motive and intent as it relates to watches or homages? When it comes to murder, I get the distinction between motive (revenge) and intent (pulling the trigger) but how does that apply to watches?


Motives: appearing rich, appreciating craft and beauty.

Intent: deceiving people about one's ability to buy expensive things.

Intent can be presumed by actions. If one aims a gun at a person and pulls the trigger, it can be presumed that they intended to cause harm. If one buys and wears a knockoff of a known expensive watch, it can be presumed that they intend to deceive people about its expensiveness. They may not have, of course, but the presumption is reasonable.

Note that actually buying a Rolex can also be based on the same motives. People may buy a Rolex simply to appear rich. That's not very admirable, but I bet it drives a significant portion of Rolex sales to non-enthusiasts. But there is no way to presume an intent to deceive, even if their motives are deceptive.

But I would rather people buy a Steinhart than a Rolex they can't afford, especially if they are driven by that motive.

Rick "not nearly as binary on this topic as many responses have assumed" Denney


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Avo said:


> From that thread:
> 
> That pretty much sums it up, IMO. What really bugs the "copy" haters is what they regard as _invalid wealth signaling_. They want to use the wearing of a Rolex (by them or by others that they encounter) as an indicator of wealth. That's why they experience embarrassment if someone mistakes a much-less-expensive watch for a Rolex: an invalid wealth signal has been sent.
> 
> ...


It's not that the wealth signal is merely invalid, it's that an observer can presume it's deceptive. Invalidity can be an accident.

I'm no Rolex fan, and one reason is that it is so associated with wealth signaling that it's reasonable to presume that a wearer is wealth signaling. The distinction is whether they are doing it with an intent to deceive.

The only thing worse than a nouveau-riche jerk is a nouveau-riche-jerk-wannabe. 

But those perceptions are going to depend on how the wearer does the wearing.

Rick "just a plain, simple jerk" Denney


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Rdenney said:


> Motives: appearing rich, appreciating craft and beauty.
> 
> Intent: deceiving people about one's ability to buy expensive things.
> 
> ...


Gotcha. Thanks for elaborating.

In addition to those that want to _appear_ rich, there are those that _are_ rich and get a Rolex because it's part of the "uniform." These folks hang out with similarly-situated people - they don't need to convey their wealth - and a "good watch" is nothing more than an accessory that "completes the outfit."


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Rdenney said:


> Rick "just a plain, simple jerk" Denney


Louis C.K. reference?


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Rdenney said:


> Motives: appearing rich, appreciating craft and beauty.
> 
> Intent: deceiving people about one's ability to buy expensive things.
> 
> ...


For us homage lovers to buy and wear Steinharts (other homages are available) with the intent to deceive people that we in fact own a more expensive watch relies on several things:


We'd need people to really notice our watches
People don't look at other people's watches, unless your a WIS and how many other WIS have you ever met outside of here? I've met one.

Those people who see our homage watch would need to know what the heck a Rolex Submariner act looks like to then make the leap that says "wow, he's got a Rolex", which would be quickly followed up by "it must be a fake".

I'd suggest that if you were wearing a counterfeit Rolex that the intent you talk about would be true, but equally as tenuous for the reasons above.

Rick, have you ever totalled up the value of your watch collection? Must be +£20k? That's a f*ck load of cash to the majority of the population (even the first world.....) to be spending on watches isn't it? For most folks buying a £500 watch is a crazy waste of money. Most of the people I work with, who are in the top 10% of earners don't wear watches that expensive and if they have one they have only one. What I'm getting at is that your view is detached from reality here that it's only you thinking that we're all wearing homages cause we want everyone thinking we've got a Rolex, no one outside of the WIS bubble cares or registers what we're wearing on our wrists.

Hornet "still struggling to see what your argument is" 99


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Hornet99 said:


> For us homage lovers to buy and wear Steinharts (other homages are available) with the intent to deceive people that we in fact own a more expensive watch relies on several things:
> 
> 
> We'd need people to really notice our watches
> ...


I happen to agree with much of what you say here. I don't think "homage lovers" (your words) typically buy with the intent to deceive. I'm sure there are many reasons why they buy copies, some of which I completely understand and have no problem with.

But I also don't agree with your* "invalid wealth signaling" theory, at least for the majority of the people here. I'm not a fan of copies, but it has nothing to do with being insecure about other people trying to falsely signal wealth. As I said earlier, go nuts, even if you want to wear fakes, I don't care. But then again I'm not so caught up with the appearance of wealth as many of you seem to be.

My dislike stems from the sheer laziness involved with copying the bulk of a watch's design. I'm not talking about similar sub-dials, hand styles, or a particular font, especially if (possibly) copied decades ago. That type of nitpicking seems like a desperate attempt by some of the "homage" defenders.

I simply have no interest in a watch where the design was blatantly ripped off from another manufacturer. I'd much rather reward a company who spent even just a small amount of effort designing something mildly original.

Edit
* Oops, I see it was Avo's invalid wealth signaling theory, not yours.


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

cedargrove said:


> I happen to agree with much of what you say here. I don't think "homage lovers" (your words) typically buy with the intent to deceive. I'm sure there are many reasons why they buy copies, some of which I completely understand and have no problem with.
> 
> But I also don't agree with your* "invalid wealth signaling" theory, at least for the majority of the people here. I'm not a fan of copies, but it has nothing to do with being insecure about other people trying to falsely signal wealth. As I said earlier, go nuts, even if you want to wear fakes, I don't care. But then again I'm not so caught up with the appearance of wealth as many of you seem to be.
> 
> ...


I agree with you but you should not blame the homage maker brands exclusively. Afterall they sell watches where they see demand. I think the customers demand the design of iconic watches in bigger sizes. Both parties seem to be happy except for a minority of guys like me who are into 36mm ish watches and are ignored by almost the whole industry.

On the other hand there are also more "daring" micro brands who do something their own like the Halios Seaforth which I appreciate much more.

At the end of the day our opinions don't matter, as we live in a free market world where sales dictates who survives from those brands.


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Louis C.K. reference?


There is nothing simple about C.K's jerks.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Louis C.K. reference?


Rick "not intentional" Denney


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Avo said:


> From that thread:
> 
> That pretty much sums it up, IMO. What really bugs the "copy" haters is what they regard as _invalid wealth signaling_. They want to use the wearing of a Rolex (by them or by others that they encounter) as an indicator of wealth. That's why they experience embarrassment if someone mistakes a much-less-expensive watch for a Rolex: an invalid wealth signal has been sent.
> 
> ...


"But they do it too" is not a justification.

And there is a difference between copying a style (GO) and copying all the details.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

Brey17 said:


> I wonder how they managed to get a hair thicker with that watch? Spec says 14mm. I would own it in a heartbeat at about 12mm. I love the quality of the OVM 2.0, but its just a hair chunky for my taste. Anyone with some experience here? Does it wear a bit smaller?


I'm guessing that much of the extra thickness is from the domed crystal. It should wear a lot thinner, closer to the height of the bezel edge.

Judging from pics on this link:

https://www.watchuseek.com/f275/steinhart-ocean-owners-club-553658-136.html


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Ok I actually had a think about this. I own quite a few Steinharts (several more expensive brands too but leave that aside). Total collection value prob £30k so the question is why own steinharts when I could have rolexes. My thought process didn't take long - quite simple answer tbh, i love variety - I love rotation - sometimes wear two watches a day. If I was to have my £30k in three watches I doubt it would give the variety I crave. Of COURSE the Rolex's are better watches and of COURSE many (not all) of the Steins are homage / copies (don't really care which term used) but I'm certainly not trying to portray to the outside world that I own a collection of Rolexes.

Something else not mentioned is that with 25 watches servicing cost becomes a serious factor and if you crave variety and therefore a larger collection then even more so. My local watch repairer guy will service my eta very cheaply.

Last point to make - I bought an older steinhart gmt 2nd hand and the gmt wouldn't set. I contacted steinhart and they repaired it for me for free. They even paid the courier both directions and sent me the watch back with a bar of steinhart praline chocolate (very tasty too!). In my life I can say that's the best service I've had from ANY company......period.









Rusty "chuckled at the Swiss made on the chocolate" Bin5

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

obomomomo said:


> I'm guessing that much of the extra thickness is from the domed crystal. It should wear a lot thinner, closer to the height of the bezel edge.
> 
> Judging from pics on this link:
> 
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f275/steinhart-ocean-owners-club-553658-136.html


It wears small - lovely wee thing tbh. Bezel is surprisingly bad by steinhart standards (all the 39mm ones have too much play).









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

vkalia said:


> "But they do it too" is not a justification.
> 
> And there is a difference between copying a style (GO) and copying all the details.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


Parnis copies all the details, Steinhart copies the style; exactly the same as the GO and the Lange (is that the right one?). All you are doing here is justifying the comments along the lines of "GO gets a free pass because they are part of the luxury family".


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

vkalia said:


> "But they do it too" is not a justification.
> 
> And there is a difference between copying a style (GO) and copying all the details.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


There is but it wouldn't stop someone claiming THIS had "copied all the details" even though the only similarity is a colour









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

cedargrove said:


> My dislike stems from the sheer laziness involved with copying the bulk of a watch's design. I'm not talking about similar sub-dials, hand styles, or a particular font, especially if (possibly) copied decades ago. That type of nitpicking seems like a desperate attempt by some of the "homage" defenders.
> 
> I simply have no interest in a watch where the design was blatantly ripped off from another manufacturer. I'd much rather reward a company who spent even just a small amount of effort designing something mildly original.


I take a different perspective on the 'laziness' part.

I don't see it as laziness, it is not particularly difficult for a designer to take a simple watch case like say, a typical Nomos and set a dial into it. They could have taken and modified any number of watch cases from brands past and present and put a dial in it. No more difficult than doing the same to an Oyster style case. Looking through their website Steinhart do have several ranges of watches including their Marine, Pilots and Diver lines that look nothing like Rolex, but that is not what they are known for.

The way I see it Steinhart has based their business on something that they know will sell. For whatever reasons, right or wrong as debated here, Rolex clones do sell and is presumeably their bread-and butter. It is a business decision and strategy rather than laziness.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

^ +1 I think the difference between copy and "original" watch companies is that there is not enough following or fans of copy watch companies, whereas there are enough fans for "original" watch companies.

Companies like Steinhart might have to make some copy/homage watches to make ends meet, because there are not enough customers or die-hard fans of the brand. Companies like Seiko seemingly make many designs, some of which are very original and "ugly", and Seiko could do that because there are enough customers and die-hard fans of the brand. They could take more risks in designs because there are fans who buy them. e.g. I got handed down a Seiko watch from my Grandfather. To me, it's kind of ugly, kind of nice looking in some way, but for sure very original. My Grandfather bought it because he's a Seiko fan. I know because he has bought multiple Seikos before, for himself and me.

As for laziness, Rolex need to stop being so dang lazy and keep copying their old designs, and come up with something more totally original and new already. What Rolex do is like variations of the same song, and people keep buying. If copy watch companies need to stop copying, then Rolex need to stop copying too. Stop being so lazy, Rolex, you're resting on your laurels! My partner would call this double standard, to apply reasoning differently depending on who it is.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Hornet99 said:


> Parnis copies all the details, Steinhart copies the style; exactly the same as the GO and the Lange (is that the right one?). All you are doing here is justifying the comments along the lines of "GO gets a free pass because they are part of the luxury family".


*shrug*

To me, the distinction is very obvious and it has been explained why (fairly clearly), and it addresses the very point you raise about GO getting a free pass.

But then, I have no deep emotional investment in this one way or the other. I have a "homage" and I also accept that what GO or others may/may not do doesn't change anything.

Similarly, the fact that there is a spectrum of copying that goes on - from concept to design to details - doesn't change the reality of something like a watch that looks exactly like a Sub except the name.

If you don't want to accept it, that's fine. There is nothing more to discuss.

Sent from my SM-C900F using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

rdoder said:


> As for laziness, Rolex need to stop being so dang lazy and keep copying their old designs, and come up with something more totally original and new already. What Rolex do is like variations of the same song, and people keep buying. If copy watch companies need to stop copying, then Rolex need to stop copying too. Stop being so lazy, Rolex, you're resting on your laurels! My partner would call this double standard, to apply reasoning differently depending on who it is.


The last part of your argument is patently absurd, to the point of being nonsensical.

To argue that a company sticking to its own designs is somehow the same thing as someone else copying its designs is possibly the most idiotic statement I have read here.

(I was trying to think of a less offensive way to put it, as i dont intend this post to come off as a personal attack, but unfortunately, your statement doesn't deserve a milder rebuttal).

Sent from my SM-C900F using Tapatalk


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

vkalia said:


> *shrug*
> 
> To me, the distinction is very obvious and it has been explained why (fairly clearly), and it addresses the very point you raise about GO getting a free pass.
> 
> ...


You do realise that you are giving an opinion here, all of this is opinion. Just because you state an opinion doesn't make it right and neither does it make mine right. You have your opinion and I have mine, they aren't the same and that's fine. The whole point of this is to debate it, don't give up (I'll think I've won then ;-)).

So, what about Nomos copying old designs that weren't theirs? Pretty similar to copying the sub design, seeing as it's been around for a fair number of years. What about all the non-horological products you probably have that are copies of someone else's? Do you have jeans? Levi copies? Kids have Lego? Lego copied someone else......

.....and I've explained the differences between steinhart and rolex, so the same argument applies for that as with GO.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Hornet99 said:


> You do realise that you are giving an opinion here, all of this is opinion. Just because you state an opinion doesn't make it right and neither does it make mine right. You have your opinion and I have mine, they aren't the same and that's fine. The whole point of this is to debate it, don't give up (I'll think I've won then ;-)).
> 
> So, what about Nomos copying old designs that weren't theirs? Pretty similar to copying the sub design, seeing as it's been around for a fair number of years. What about all the non-horological products you probably have that are copies of someone else's? Do you have jeans? Levi copies? Kids have Lego? Lego copied someone else......
> 
> .....and I've explained the differences between steinhart and rolex, so the same argument applies for that as with GO.


You seem to be too busy putting words in my mouth to have noticed my earlier statement - there is nothing further to discuss, at least from my side.

Quite simply, I am neither too interested in the subject, nor do I find your "argument" (which, as far as I can tell, consists of ignoring points others have raised and repeating yourself) on this subject worth debating.

We have all said our pieces, but if you want to have another go around, feel free to have at it.

If it makes you feel better, sure, it is ok for Steinhart to commit plagiarism because others do it. Your life, your ethics.

Sent from my SM-C900F using Tapatalk


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

vkalia said:


> You seem to be too busy putting words in my mouth to have noticed my earlier statement - there is nothing further to discuss, at least from my side.
> 
> Quite simply, I am neither too interested in the subject, nor do I find your "argument" (which, as far as I can tell, consists of ignoring points others have raised and repeating yourself) on this subject worth debating.
> 
> ...


OK, I'm sorry if I've not read/missed relevant posts you've made, unintentional I assure you. Busy life and all that. Hit me up with the posts you think are pertinent if you don't mind.......


----------



## pickle puss (Feb 13, 2006)

Too bad Rolex seems not to care near the degree that a few here do about the subject. I imagine if they did then this Steinhart (and others) infringement on all that is horologically holy would cease rather quickly.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

vkalia said:


> The last part of your argument is patently absurd, to the point of being nonsensical.
> 
> To argue that a company sticking to its own designs is somehow the same thing as someone else copying its designs is possibly the most idiotic statement I have read here.
> 
> (I was trying to think of a less offensive way to put it, as i dont intend this post to come off as a personal attack, but unfortunately, your statement doesn't deserve a milder rebuttal).


People hold on too strongly to brand names, which are just names, entities in the mind. Its presence is only there when people think about it.

A company is just a group of people that come and go. Rolex is just an idea. The actual makeup of Rolex (the people) is fluid, ever changing.

The continuation of Rolex the brand and the company is an artificial one. The identity of one Rolex watch as being the same model as another Rolex watch is an artificial one. It's in the mind. Take the parts apart, and there's no inherent and essential watch or watch company.

A company sticking to (its own) designs and being lazy, is similar to a company sticking to (another company's) designs and being lazy. It's the "sticking to" part that's lazy. Mine and theirs is artificial separation of stuff in the mind, necessitated by the biological requirement of survival imposed on sentient beings by genes.


----------



## TJMike (Jan 30, 2014)

There are certainly quite a few people posting in this thread who think they are a lot smarter than they actually are. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

pickle puss said:


> Too bad Rolex seems not to care near the degree that a few here do about the subject. I imagine if they did then this Steinhart (and others) infringement on all that is horologically holy would cease rather quickly.


They very well may care, but it may not be worth the cost or the effort to pursue any action against copy makers. 
Earlier in the thread I shared legal details around AP lawsuit against SWI that ultimately put SWI out of business. That is a very costly endeavor and not easy to argue, plus depending on jurisdiction (US vs Switzerland vs Germany vs China) may yield drastically different outcomes. Ultimately, Rolex may not to use a ballistic missile to swat a mosquito on their ass. (pardon the analogy )

But at the same time, there is also a lot that rings true about Rolex Submariner design becoming too generic or too mainstream to even argue true trade dress. At this point t has been around so long and copied so many times, that Rolex may simply no longer be able to argue anything about it being true trade dress or truly distinctive (although to me the combo of most details, including cyclops and mercedes hands, still screams Rolex)


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

RustyBin5 said:


> There is but it wouldn't stop someone claiming THIS had "copied all the details" even though the only similarity is a colour
> 
> 
> 
> ...


hmmm.... that is a bit selective... would you not agree? Of course Steinhart has some original designs and many of them are quite excellent.
I'd say their Marine Chronometer, Marine Regulator, Marine Blue & Bronze - all are very beautiful and well executed. Their Chronographs like racetimer, Apollon and Marine Officer are all interesting as well.

But to be fair, I think the discussion here does not concern those. And the Steinhart GMT that is at the core of the issue is a bit different from the one you've pictured...


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

If people wish to see things concretely and not abstractly, think of ALL watches made as homage to the very first life form on Earth, some type of self-replicating molecule, when given energy. In that sense, ALL watches are homages/paying respect to the creative power of copying and self-replication of that very first life form.

The rights to ownership is a battle between groups of people for survival. This is a long-running story of life, even before humans arrived on the scene. e.g. Dinosaurs competed against each other for limited supply of plants/food/other-dinosaurs/*territory*.

Battles over rights of ownership to designs is just continuation of that story. The difference with humans is, we are reasoning beings that not only think of the needs of the self, but also think of the needs of others, who are slightly different copies/homages of ourselves.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

So, is this watch a homage or a knockoff? :think:


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

pickle puss said:


> Too bad Rolex seems not to care near the degree that a few here do about the subject. I imagine if they did then this Steinhart (and others) infringement on all that is horologically holy would cease rather quickly.


Actually Rolex makes MORE money because of brands like Steinhart. Think about it as a starter... You start a new hobby (watches) and buy something of great quality for a few hundred quids. After that you might want to move in higher territory and end up with a Submariner. Some do, others don't.

Mainstream luxury watch buyers are rich (or pretend) and consider watches jewelry, status symbols. Do you think they care about microbrands on the internet? ^^

So don't worry... higher end watch brands are doing just fine... at least Rolex does


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

rdoder said:


> If people wish to see things concretely and not abstractly, think of ALL watches made as homage to the very first life form on Earth, some type of self-replicating molecule, when given energy. In that sense, ALL watches are homages/paying respect to the creative power of copying and self-replication of that very first life form.
> 
> The rights to ownership is a battle between groups of people for survival. This is a long-running story of life, even before humans arrived on the scene. e.g. Dinosaurs competed against each other for limited supply of plants/food/other-dinosaurs/*territory*.
> 
> Battles over rights of ownership to designs is just continuation of that story. The difference with humans is, we are reasoning beings that not only think of the needs of the self, but also think of the needs of others, who are slightly different copies/homages of ourselves.


I like that.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Interesting thought: what if Hans Wilsdorf left instructions to not go after copy watch companies? Why? Maybe because it's free advertisement on people's wrist.

e.g. Non-watch person: "That's a nice looking watch! What is it?"
Watch person: "This is a Steinhart, a copy of Rolex."
Non-watch person: "Huh, let me look up that Rolex when I have time."

e.g. Watch person buys copy watch, thinking it would scratch the itch for the expensive watch. Maybe he succeeds, maybe he doesn't. If he doesn't, then the copy watch is a constant reminder to the person to buy the expensive watch.

Not that current trade dress rules allow going after copy watch companies for copying functional elements, but even if it does, maybe a shrewd business person could see the benefits of copy products and not contest their existence. From all evidence, Hans was super savvy with marketing. It would not surprise me if he left instructions to leave copy watch companies alone?

Hey, at the very least, copy watches get people talking about Rolex!


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

pickle puss said:


> Too bad Rolex seems not to care near the degree that a few here do about the subject. I imagine if they did then this Steinhart (and others) infringement on all that is horologically holy would cease rather quickly.


"Infringement on all that is holy"? Wow. Time to get off your cross. Badaboomtsch

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

EnderW said:


> hmmm.... that is a bit selective... would you not agree? Of course Steinhart has some original designs and many of them are quite excellent.
> I'd say their Marine Chronometer, Marine Regulator, Marine Blue & Bronze - all are very beautiful and well executed. Their Chronographs like racetimer, Apollon and Marine Officer are all interesting as well.
> 
> But to be fair, I think the discussion here does not concern those. And the Steinhart GMT that is at the core of the issue is a bit different from the one you've pictured...
> ...


I agree it was selective, but on another forum it got shredded for being a 100% shameless copy. Which is kinda my point. Steinhart now get hoisted by their own petard even for non copies.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Hornet99 said:


> So, is this watch a homage or a knockoff? :think:


Double homage - Tudor hands on a Rolex blueberry gmt2 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

rdoder;44840521A company is just a group of people that come and go. Rolex is just an idea. The actual makeup of Rolex (the people) is fluid said:


> Actually it is the opposite. Companies are independent legal entities and even though the people may change, the identity of the company y remains consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Also, if Hans was as giving as Rolex Awards suggest that he was, then a little profit for relatively small copy watch companies would not affect the continual existence of Rolex that Hans wanted. No matter how others copy the look of Rolex, they're not doing what Rolex do, i.e. constantly innovate inside and out.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

vkalia said:


> Actually it is the opposite. Companies are independent legal entities and even though the people may change, the identity of the company y remains consistent.
> 
> Honestly, I don't even know what to say. This is taking relativism to a degree that I had not imagined possible.
> 
> ...


"Mine and theirs is artificial separation of stuff in the mind, necessitated by the biological requirement of survival imposed on sentient beings by genes."

Think back to babies when they're borne. Babies know nothing about the separation of self from other things. They have instincts to eat and poo. But other stuff, to some extent, they are taught. e.g. They are taught that there is this thing call a body, a mind, and a self. This self needs to eat these "other things" called "food", in order to survive. There are these "other things" that are "not-food", not good to eat, so don't eat them. This mode of seeing things, is taught by parents, who were also taught by their parents, etc., because parents are wired by genes to love their own children, for the purpose of the genes' survival and replication. These modes of operation, and identification and separation of things, are neuronal wirings in the brain. They are not intrinsic to reality. Reality is, there is no separation between self and other things. Without this "self" perspective, everything are interconnected. e.g. What I identify as "me" is actually made of molecules, many of which enter and exit my body, in the form of air, water, food, poo, skin sheddings, urine, etc. This self is in constant flex. The consistent identification of the self is due to neuronal wirings in the brain that identify "this is self".

Interesting experiment that teases out this neuronal wirings' separation (or lack of separation, when wired) of self versus non-self: 




How this applies to different watch brands: people's brains are wired to identify different brands as separate things. Reality is, without this type of thinking, there's no separation between things. Things are interconnected, always in flex, impermanent, not as we think it is. Evidence: people are borne, people die, molecules come from food, and return to the soil and ocean.


----------



## falcon4311 (Jul 28, 2008)

I've owned many of both brands being discussed in this thread. I'd never call someone out for wearing a Steinhart for 2 reasons, it's a brand they can afford and it isn't a knockoff or copy. That would insinuate that Steinhart watches are of the exact same size, dial verbiage and are being sold as the real deal when in fact they are not. We all know about the Chinese and their ability to produce knockoffs that are being sold as a Rolex, or Ugg boots, Dior purses and on and on. Steinhart is not Chinese nor is it a copy, knockoff or blatant copy as some have said.

The fact remains that Steinhart is enblazened on the dial, not Rolex so calling it a blatant copy, knockoff or fake is completely wrong. If it was an EXACT copy you wouldn't hear one thing from me, Steinhart does not pretend to be anything more than what they are. A company that provides a decent watch with similar looks to Rolex that most can afford. 

Again, I have owned many Rolex watches and would never berate someone for wearing a Steinhart. As was mentioned, it's their money and their wrist. It's pretty damn easy to disrespect someone online, next time you see a person in public wearing a homage, give them a piece of your mind and see where that gets you.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

falcon4311 said:


> I've owned many of both brands being discussed in this thread. I'd never call someone out for wearing a Steinhart for 2 reasons, it's a brand they can afford and it isn't a knockoff or copy. That would insinuate that Steinhart watches are of the exact same size, dial verbiage and are being sold as the real deal when in fact they are not. We all know about the Chinese and their ability to produce knockoffs that are being sold as a Rolex, or Ugg boots, Dior purses and on and on. Steinhart is not Chinese nor is it a copy, knockoff or blatant copy as some have said.
> 
> The fact remains that Steinhart is enblazened on the dial, not Rolex so calling it a blatant copy, knockoff or fake is completely wrong. If it was an EXACT copy you wouldn't hear one thing from me, Steinhart does not pretend to be anything more than what they are. A company that provides a decent watch with similar looks to Rolex that most can afford.
> 
> Again, I have owned many Rolex watches and would never berate someone for wearing a Steinhart. As was mentioned, it's their money and their wrist. It's pretty damn easy to disrespect someone online, next time you see a person in public wearing a homage, give them a piece of your mind and see where that gets you.


Well said that man!


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

"Actually Rolex", is this the view from the inside?


Seikogi said:


> Actually Rolex makes MORE money because of brands like Steinhart. Think about it as a starter... You start a new hobby (watches) and buy something of great quality for a few hundred quids. After that you might want to move in higher territory and end up with a Submariner. Some do, others don't.
> 
> Mainstream luxury watch buyers are rich (or pretend) and consider watches jewelry, status symbols. Do you think they care about microbrands on the internet? ^^
> 
> So don't worry... higher end watch brands are doing just fine... at least Rolex does


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

rdoder said:


> A company sticking to (its own) designs and being lazy, is similar to a company sticking to (another company's) designs and being lazy. It's the "sticking to" part that's lazy. Mine and theirs is artificial separation of stuff in the mind, necessitated by the biological requirement of survival imposed on sentient beings by genes.


The dictionary definition of lazy on google is "unwilling to work or use energy".
But the word 'lazy' implies much more than that. It implies a certain indiscipline or insouciuance which leads to giving in to the temptation to be slothful.

Rolex is much more than that. If anything, they have been extremely disciplined in their approach NOT to introduce new models at every turn; something a certain rival of theirs is often accused of. The temptation to bring out the latest new designs, new models and LEs must be hard to resist for a company that has the money and resources at their disposal to easily do so.

Rolex know their market, made a plan and followed their game plan well. How else would you explain their success?


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

Watchbreath said:


> "Actually Rolex", is this the view from the inside?


It isn't, its simple math and market analysis.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Seikogi said:


> It isn't, its simple math and market analysis.


Why lie? It's simply making stuff up.


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

rdoder said:


> If people wish to see things concretely and not abstractly, think of ALL watches made as homage to the very first life form on Earth, some type of self-replicating molecule, when given energy. In that sense, ALL watches are homages/paying respect to the creative power of copying and self-replication of that very first life form.
> 
> The rights to ownership is a battle between groups of people for survival. This is a long-running story of life, even before humans arrived on the scene. e.g. Dinosaurs competed against each other for limited supply of plants/food/other-dinosaurs/*territory*.
> 
> Battles over rights of ownership to designs is just continuation of that story. The difference with humans is, we are reasoning beings that not only think of the needs of the self, but also think of the needs of others, who are slightly different copies/homages of ourselves.


This is great. Really, the thread should just end on this.

I'll do my part by dropping out here. Best holiday wishes to all! May all your watches be well-designed and accurate!


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Rolex isn’t a figment of the imagination. It is a company, with buildings, equipment, inventory, intellectual property, and employees. It also owns intangible assets, the value of which it has intelligently and diligently built over many years. 

That they may not care about knockoffs is of no concern to this discussion. My argument has always been about what people can assume watch owners intend by wearing cheap copies of recognizably expensive watches, and what people can assume about the intent of companies that principally make those cheap knockoffs. 

The degree to which people are willing to call down metaphysical arguments in support of making and wearing cheap knockoffs is really quite revealing, it seems to me. 

Rick “needing taller boots to wade through this BS” Denney


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

*Sigh*. I just said that I was dropping out, but I can't resist responding to this:


Rdenney said:


> My argument has always been about what people can assume watch owners intend by wearing cheap copies of recognizably expensive watches


_My_ intent is to wear a watch with a good design that does not have major design failures (the mercedes hand and the 6-digit case, which is so bad that absolutely no one copies it), and also not to pay the $4K to $5K "wealth signaling mark-up", since I have no interest in wealth signaling.

Rick: you don't know me. You have never met me. You think you can judge my intent, but you have proven to me that you cannot. So please stop.


----------



## ho_moon_ar (Nov 26, 2014)

lol



wschofield3 said:


> My English professor would disagree with you vehemently and hammered this into our brains; consensus does in fact mean general opinion therefore general consensus is redundant...period.
> 
> The point regarding identifying a certain group prior to the term; yes, you are correct, however, within the context of verbaige utilizing the word, the group in question is often identified.
> 
> I don't see the point in using the word "scientist" when they are commenting in an article about global warming, it's obvious that they are not talking about the general publics comments.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

If people prefer more concrete, conventional argument, I've written this before:

-Inventors of whichever designs own or work for company X.
-These inventors die/died (at some point).
-The relatives and/or unrelated employees of company X benefit/profit from patents for inventions for some number of years.
-After patents expire, it's free for all. i.e. All people could benefit/profit from those inventions/designs, not just relatives and/or unrelated employees of company X.
-When more companies and buyers could profit and benefit (due to competition) respectively from inventions/designs of interest, it's good for more people.

When it's allowed to copy one functional element, it's also allowed to copy all functional elements. I think "degree matters" was brought up before. I guess so. But why should that be? Copying 1% of the look and copying 99% of the look is still copying, and both are allowed, so it's up to the copy watch company to what degree they want to copy to maximize their profit.


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

mleok said:


> Why lie? It's simply making stuff up.


Alright, I will then break it down for the mathematically more challenged one here.

1. 99% of the worlds population have no idea what Steinhart is, right?

2. the ones that know Steinhart might buy a Steinhart Sub homage/copy/call it whatever you want

2.1 it is clear to everyone that the design comes from the submariner. there are not many ppl out there who own a Steinhart sub homage but have never heard of a Rolex Sub.

2.2 SOME of them might consider the Sub their grail and get it one day.

Now the tricky part... a Steinhart is around 300 bucks, Sub around 7k -> difference over 6k. The Steinhart is essentially strap money.

At the end of the day, Rolex might have one more customer and nobody has to "sacrifice" getting a Sub for a Steinhart bc. its so affordable.

So, how exactly does the existence of Steinhart harm Rolex?


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

Rdenney said:


> Rolex isn't a figment of the imagination. It is a company, with buildings, equipment, inventory, intellectual property, and employees. It also owns intangible assets, the value of which it has intelligently and diligently built over many years.
> 
> That they may not care about knockoffs is of no concern to this discussion. My argument has always been about what people can assume watch owners intend by wearing cheap copies of recognizably expensive watches, and what people can assume about the intent of companies that principally make those cheap knockoffs.
> 
> ...


Any sane person would assume that a Steinhart wearer could likely be a watch enthusiast. The watches are only popular on the internet , watch forums.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

From Googling "Rolex annual revenue":

Rolex annual revenue (2016): US$4.7 billion
Rolex number of employees: 2,800

For Steinhart, I cannot find "Steinhart annual revenue".
Steinhart number of employees: 19 (https://www.steinhartwatches.de/en/steinhart-team)

Let's assume Steinhart generates same amount of revenue as Rolex per employee (I'm sure they don't, but for sake of a calculation, let's assume that).

Steinhart's probably over-estimate of annual revenue: $4.7 billion / 2,800 employees * 19 employees = $32 million

Steinhart's likely maximum annual revenue compared to Rolex as a percentage: $32 million / $4.7 billion = 0.7%

Point is, I guess Steinhart is really no threat to Rolex?



Seikogi said:


> Any sane person would assume that a Steinhart wearer could likely be a watch enthusiast. The watches are only popular on the internet , watch forums.


+1 "Steinhart as a brand was founded in 2001 in Augsburg by Gunther Steinhart. They have taken a fairly novel approach to the business of watchmaking, with all distribution done via there website and direct from Germany. No dealers, no middle men, and minimal overhead (Gunther often answers customer emails himself)."(https://amateurhorologist.wordpress.com/category/brand-history/)

If general public don't go looking for Steinhart online, they probably don't know what Steinhart is?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

rdoder said:


> From Googling "Rolex annual revenue":
> 
> Rolex annual revenue (2016): US$4.7 billion
> Rolex number of employees: 2,800
> ...


You can't have it all, either Steinhart's production is so small that they pose no threat, or they have a substantial production that they helps to promote the Rolex brand, or Rolex marketing is so all pervasive that it has brainwashed everyone and it's the only reason for the inflated pricing.

In any case, Steinhart outsources a substantial amount of their production, so using their number of employees as a basis of comparison to the fully vertically integrated Rolex seems like a poor comparison. Not to mention the dramatically different price points, which means that we're taking about an order of magnitude more Steinharts for the same revenue.


----------



## Ard (Jul 21, 2014)

Isn't it clear that some folks who buy a Steinhart cannot afford a Rolex? If that is to some extent true should those folks be denied the right to own something that they can afford? It seems obvious that Rolex will not in the near future be rolling out their sub $1000.00 issue of a submariner and if that were true why should anyone want to deny people who can't afford a Rolex the right to have something similar?

Would it be possible for members to agree that it would be wrong for a man earning 50K annually and supporting a mortgage and at least a small family to swipe a credit card just so he could find out what it is like to wear a submariner?

Many people vacation in exotic places where they experience great luxury for a period of time. Is that wrong because they are not able to live that lifestyle every day? Why anyone feels the need to speak badly about something as personal as the watch a fellow would buy and wear is beyond me.

I've had people come and spend time with me in the outdoors of Alaska, I've put them up in riverside tent camps and at our log cabin situated far off the road system. All were financially able to drop 3-4 thousand for a weeks worth of the lifestyle I live every year of my life. So far none were willing to drop their current life and come try what I have done. They can't.

I don't know if I'm making sense here but the point is that not everyone can do - own or be the same as we may be but that doesn't make them bad or inferior people. If my clients return to Connecticut and use some of what they learned here to trout fish I'm happy for them. If they take what they learned about catching salmon and then go fish in a river flowing into Lake Ontario that's perfect.

Just because there are people who can't throw down for some 7 - 12 thousand dollar watch does not mean they should never have the chance to own something similar that they choose. All this bad mouthing of these Steinhart watches is (it seems) aimed at those who would own and wear them. That is wrong, to openly cast aspersion on an entire group of people just because they are not able to live the same lifestyle as you is wrong.

This was meant to be a serious comment based on my having read many posts on this thread.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Seikogi said:


> Any sane person would assume that a Steinhart wearer could likely be a watch enthusiast. The watches are only popular on the internet , watch forums.


That itself is only obvious to enthusiasts.

Rick "sane people think 'Is that a Rolex?'" Denney


----------



## Hands90 (Jun 8, 2015)

Ard said:


> Isn't it clear that some folks who buy a Steinhart cannot afford a Rolex? If that is to some extent true should those folks be denied the right to own something that they can afford? It seems obvious that Rolex will not in the near future be rolling out their sub $1000.00 issue of a submariner and if that were true why should anyone want to deny people who can't afford a Rolex the right to have something similar?
> 
> Would it be possible for members to agree that it would be wrong for a man earning 50K annually and supporting a mortgage and at least a small family to swipe a credit card just so he could find out what it is like to wear a submariner?
> 
> ...


I killed myself to be able to buy my first good watch and when I really want to buy something it's painful. So it's NOT OKAY to buy a copy because you can't afford the real thing. 
I want a ALS Zeitwerk Minute Repeater. It's 50K. Will I ever be able to afford it... No probably not but I could save for 20 years.

If you want it. SAVE UP THE CASH. 
Don't buy a copy or what I'd call a FAKE.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Avo said:


> *Sigh*. I just said that I was dropping out, but I can't resist responding to this:
> 
> _My_ intent is to wear a watch with a good design that does not have major design failures (the mercedes hand and the 6-digit case, which is so bad that absolutely no one copies it), and also not to pay the $4K to $5K "wealth signaling mark-up", since I have no interest in wealth signaling.
> 
> Rick: you don't know me. You have never met me. You think you can judge my intent, but you have proven to me that you cannot. So please stop.


If you buy and wear a cheap knockoff, your intent is subject to the accusation of pretending to be able to afford expensive watches. Your motive may be nothing of the sort, and I'm quite sure it isn't, just because you say it isn't. But you might not always get to make that case. If you don't care, that's fine.

I've made that distinction all along, dozens of times in this thread. I have no idea why you do things, and it isn't important to the point I made. Before you get angry and take things personally, however, try assuming that I'm not actually accusing you of such motives and read accordingly.

Rick "sorry to have upset you-not my intent" Denney


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Rick my dear fellow, if your argument is this:



Rdenney said:


> My argument has always been about what people can assume watch owners intend by wearing cheap copies of recognizably expensive watches, and what people can assume about the intent of companies that principally make those cheap knockoffs.


Then my argument is simply that people do not care what you're wearing and they don't even look at watches. Let alone could actually recognise a Rolex. You're living in a WIS bubble my friend! It's OK, I get it, you don't like it cause it makes Rolex and all other luxury watches seem like a utter rip off....... b-)



Rdenney said:


> The degree to which people are willing to call down metaphysical arguments in support of making and wearing cheap knockoffs is really quite revealing, it seems to me.


I'm not using any metaphysical arguments, I'm taking the stance that these are homage watches plain and simple.

Hornet "needing to take a deep breath before carrying on patiently with o|" 99


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

rdoder said:


> From Googling "Rolex annual revenue":
> 
> Rolex annual revenue (2016): US$4.7 billion
> Rolex number of employees: 2,800
> ...


Never heard of Steinhart until I came in WUS........

.....and before finding WUS I wore a citizen ecodrive for 10 years!


----------



## Ard (Jul 21, 2014)

Hornet99 said:


> Never heard of Steinhart until I came in WUS........
> 
> .....and before finding WUS I wore a citizen ecodrive for 10 years!


I learned of them by stumbling onto a thread from here in a google search. I was looking for a quartz diver at the time. After finding the name referenced I went to their website and ordered one. That was before registering with this forum.

After becoming a member of WUS I started seeing the homage hate threads so I changed the hands on the watch and then the straps. Nothing could get my mind off of all the negative things I was reading here regarding the Steinhart watch. I wore it less and less even though I was so far into the bush and rivers systems here no one would ever see it. Finally I sold it and bought an Omega. Since there were no Omega hate threads I felt safe. All this while I owned and wore Tag Heuer watches and we all know there's enough of that that happens here too. Fact is that the experience with the Steinhart taught me that I didn't want a submariner and you could say it saved me a few thousand dollars. These threads serve one purpose to me, they allow me to see how many people are active here that I have no desire to get to know on any level at all. I think you know what I mean by that.


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

The point everyone seems to be missing is.....
If Rolex don't give a toss about Steinhart then why do its customers? I think that says a lot about both. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ard (Jul 21, 2014)

Hands90 said:


> I killed myself to be able to buy my first good watch and when I really want to buy something it's painful. So it's NOT OKAY to buy a copy because you can't afford the real thing.
> I want a ALS Zeitwerk Minute Repeater. It's 50K. Will I ever be able to afford it... No probably not but I could save for 20 years.
> 
> If you want it. SAVE UP THE CASH.
> Don't buy a copy or what I'd call a FAKE.


After reading your first 12 (twelve) words there I don't think I can take anything you say seriously. I recommend spending some time on things other than watches so you aren't tempted to put yourself through something like that again because people like me really don't care which cross someone hung on over a watch.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Hands90 said:


> I killed myself to be able to buy my first good watch and when I really want to buy something it's painful. So it's NOT OKAY to buy a copy because you can't afford the real thing.
> I want a ALS Zeitwerk Minute Repeater. It's 50K. Will I ever be able to afford it... No probably not but I could save for 20 years.
> 
> If you want it. SAVE UP THE CASH.
> Don't buy a copy or what I'd call a FAKE.


So you killed yourself to buy a watch? What was it? A Rolex Sub? And now when you want to buy something it's painful?! Isn't this telling you something? :think:. I can quite happily afford a Steinhart, in fact several if I wanted to, it would not be painful it would be joyous and delightful. And I would have a watch that is just as capable as something 10 times the price.....

And using the word fake to describe Steinharts watches is just stupid. Go use a dictionary and make sure you know the meaning of the word before you use it :roll:.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Hmmm, I wonder if Rolex still has that "ceremony" of running a pavement roller over collected knockoffs.

a


RustyBin5 said:


> The point everyone seems to be missing is.....
> If Rolex don't give a toss about Steinhart then why do its customers? I think that says a lot about both.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Rdenney said:


> If you buy and wear a cheap knockoff, your intent is subject to the accusation of pretending to be able to afford expensive watches. Your motive may be nothing of the sort, and I'm quite sure it isn't, just because you say it isn't. But you might not always get to make that case. If you don't care, that's fine.
> 
> I've made that distinction all along, dozens of times in this thread. I have no idea why you do things, and it isn't important to the point I made. Before you get angry and take things personally, however, try assuming that I'm not actually accusing you of such motives and read accordingly.
> 
> Rick "sorry to have upset you-not my intent" Denney


You're really banging the drum that Steinharts are cheap and that we all want to pretend we own a Rolex aren't you? So far I think that the arguments I've heard have been as follows:


*Buying a Steinhart hurts Rolex*
You've gotta be kidding me with this one, anyone with half a brain should be able to see that someone buying a £500 watch is pretty unlikely to buy a +£6000 watch. And as has been said Steinhart are bought by WIS and there are potentially some who could aspire to owning a Rolex so in fact there is a positive relationship.

*Buying a Steinhart is tantamount to buying a counterfeit *
How? These watches don't break any laws, no one is out to close them down. And of course the elephant in the room of Nomos copying others along with GO is neatly ignored here. See final point....

*We only buy Steinhart because we are Rolex owning wannabes*
No and thrice no. Apart from making the leap to understanding our motives and casting aspersions on our characters. For me I like the design but I don't see that Rolex offers VFM in any way shape or form, so why waste my money. As well that no one notices your watch or cares or knows what a Rolex looks like is pertinent.

*Buying a Steinhart is intellectually dishonest*
So when the counterfeit argument can't be applied this one comes out. Come on, we're scrapping the bottom of the barrel with this one. I've rationally evaluated buying homages (Steinhart, etc) and this is not in a self serving fashion. Its a design that is older than me, so it's fair game in my book.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Ard said:


> I learned of them by stumbling onto a thread from here in a google search. I was looking for a quartz diver at the time. After finding the name referenced I went to their website and ordered one. That was before registering with this forum.
> 
> After becoming a member of WUS I started seeing the homage hate threads so I changed the hands on the watch and then the straps. Nothing could get my mind off of all the negative things I was reading here regarding the Steinhart watch. I wore it less and less even though I was so far into the bush and rivers systems here no one would ever see it. Finally I sold it and bought an Omega. Since there were no Omega hate threads I felt safe. All this while I owned and wore Tag Heuer watches and we all know there's enough of that that happens here too. Fact is that the experience with the Steinhart taught me that I didn't want a submariner and you could say it saved me a few thousand dollars. These threads serve one purpose to me, they allow me to see how many people are active here that I have no desire to get to know on any level at all. I think you know what I mean by that.


Funny isn't it how these opinions can cloud your perception. I always liked Tag Heuer watches and aspired to own one, before coming on here, but subconsciously the derision has affected that. Now I just see it has snobbery and have gone back to liking them (still not a value proposition though for me). Pity no one does homages........ b-)


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Funny.

People are claiming that they don't want a Submariner, which is why they bought a watch that looks 99%like a Submariner.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> Hmmm, I wonder if Rolex still has that "ceremony" of running a pavement roller over collected knockoffs.


You mean counterfeit watches that are a 1:1 copy and have the Rolex branding on obviously. Not sure what this has to do with Steinharts. But I'm sure you can enlighten us...... :-!


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

#3, it sure has to add some extra swagger to your step.


Hornet99 said:


> You're really banging the drum that Steinharts are cheap and that we all want to pretend we own a Rolex aren't you? So far I think that the arguments I've heard have been as follows:
> 
> 
> *Buying a Steinhart hurts Rolex*
> ...


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> Then my argument is simply that people do not care what you're wearing and they don't even look at watches. Let alone could actually recognise a Rolex. You're living in a WIS bubble my friend! It's OK, I get it, you don't like it cause it makes Rolex and all other luxury watches seem like a utter rip off....... b-)


Okay, the man on the street can't recognize a Rolex, but they're somehow able to recognize that the Steinhart is its own distinctive watch because of the minimally longer lugs.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> #3, it sure has to add some extra swagger to your step.


Do you have the same swagger when you wear a Rolex? Probably not cause you're still thinking about what a rip off it was and how secretly you wish you'd bought a Steinhart and saved all that money, but you can't cause all your luxury watch wearing friends would shame you if you did.....

.....come over to the dark side, we've got homages.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> Okay, the man on the street can't recognize a Rolex, but they're somehow able to recognize that the Steinhart is its own distinctive watch because of the minimally longer lugs.


The average man on the street would know that it's a watch and that is it. They wouldn't have even heard of steinhart or Squale or Davosa. I've had someone at work say "I like your watch, I've always wanted a Rolex", I was wearing an Oris 65 40mm.......


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> The average man on the street would know that it's a watch and that is it. They wouldn't have even heard of steinhart or Squale or Davosa. I've had someone at work say "I like your watch, I've always wanted a Rolex", I was wearing an Oris 65 40mm.......


So, if they mistake an Oris 65 for a Rolex, wouldn't it be fair to assume that they'll mistake a Steinhart (or a Ginault or a Squale) for a Rolex?


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

mleok said:


> So, if they mistake an Oris 65 for a Rolex, wouldn't it be fair to assume that they'll mistake a Steinhart (or a Ginault or a Squale) for a Rolex?


No silly. 
They only mistake watches that don't look like Submariners for Submariners.
Obvs.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

I have that "swagger" when I wear my Lucien Piccard.


Hornet99 said:


> Do you have the same swagger when you wear a Rolex? Probably not cause you're still thinking about what a rip off it was and how secretly you wish you'd bought a Steinhart and saved all that money, but you can cause all your luxury watch wearing friends would shame you if you did.....
> 
> .....come over to the dark side, we've got homages.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> I have that "swagger" when I wear my Lucien Piccard.


Wasn't he a character off a Star Trek spin off?


----------



## Jim44 (Jul 1, 2017)

Apparently I'm too stupid not to wade into this thread again ?

I don't have strong feelings on this subject, but it's clear many people do. I did a little googling and discovered that this same debate happens a lot, with great intensity, in a lot of different areas: art, architecture, film, music, etc. The topic does raise some interesting issues.

Also came across this book of philosophical essays on this subject, that may be of interest to anyone here who wishes to explore the issue further:

https://www.amazon.com/Aesthetics-Ethics-Copying-Darren-Hudson/dp/1474254519

I would buy the book myself but personally I'm hoping to find a pirated copy for free somewhere online ?

PS fwiw I'll share my own view: I'm not sure I could care less what other people wear on their wrists. And as I get older I try (often unsuccessfully) to judge others less, and by the same token I have less tolerance for being judged by others. And I can understand why people on both sides of this issue might be feeling judged.

PPS anyone who doesn't like small seconds or big dates is a worthless human being

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> So, if they mistake an Oris 65 for a Rolex, wouldn't it be fair to assume that they'll mistake a Steinhart (or a Ginault or a Squale) for a Rolex?


Duh, if they think that an Oris 65 looks like a Rolex they'll think any dive style watch looks like a Rolex. Hence invalidating the point that a Steinhart could be mistaken for a Rolex.

Hornet "blimey this is hard work" 99


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> Duh, if they think that an Oris 65 looks like a Rolex they'll think any dive style watch looks like a Rolex. Hence invalidating the point that a Steinhart could be mistaken for a Rolex.


On the contrary, it reinforces the point that a Steinhart could be mistaken for a Rolex.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> On the contrary, it reinforces the point that a Steinhart could be mistaken for a Rolex.


Yes a Steinhart could be mistaken for a Rolex, but then so could any other number of watches that don't really looked like a Rolex. So it invalidates the point that we're wearing Steinhart watches to make me people think we're wearing a Rolex, if I wanted to do that I'd wear any diver and it would do the job.......


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Jim44 said:


> Apparently I'm too stupid not to wade into this thread again ?
> 
> I don't have strong feelings on this subject, but it's clear many people do. I did a little googling and discovered that this same debate happens a lot, with great intensity, in a lot of different areas: art, architecture, film, music, etc. The topic does raise some interesting issues.
> 
> ...


I guess I'm half human and half non, ha . . .


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> Yes a Steinhart could be mistaken for a Rolex, but then so could any other number of watches that don't really looked like a Rolex. So it invalidates the point that we're wearing Steinhart watches to make me people think we're wearing a Rolex, if I wanted to do that I'd wear any diver and it would do the job.......


Maybe it's a question of who you hang out around?


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Yep, the official 'Timekeeper'.


Hornet99 said:


> Wasn't he a character off a Star Trek spin off?


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> Maybe it's a question of who you hang out around?


What, you mean normal people, rather than watch snobs?


----------



## Jim44 (Jul 1, 2017)

drhr said:


> I guess I'm half human and half non, ha . . .


I won't ask which half 
Anyway you prefer the classic Reverso so you get a pass

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

mleok said:


> On the contrary, it reinforces the point that a Rolex could be mistaken for a Steinhart.


FTFY

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

given the controversy I'm surprised steinhart hog the limelight so much lol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Invicta poses more threats to Rolex than Steinhart does.


----------



## pickle puss (Feb 13, 2006)

lvt said:


> Invicta poses more threats to Rolex than Steinhart does.


AAAAANNNNNDDDDD..CUE Another 90 pages!!!!


----------



## Eodtech (May 14, 2013)

I honestly have laughed more out loud in reading these last few pages than on any other thread in the history of forever and everything. You are guys are seriously great 

But here is my humble take and I have expressed this on a few other threads...

I wear my Steinhart watches because they make ME happy. I am not wearing them so people whom I don't know, or even the people I do know, think they are a Rolex. I have a few Rolex' and Omega's too, but I wear them because they significant and sentimental to ME. Example, the Rolex wear the most often was my Dad's. 

My Steinhart's make ME happy and I love wearing them for ME. Are you seeing a theme...? One of the earlier posters said he was getting too old to care what others think and I am in the same boat. If it makes ME happy or brings back good memories I am wearing it today. Thats it..!! I am sure there are people that wear to impress, I am not one of those folks and I would venture to guess most Steinhart fans feel the same way.

Wear what you love and love what you are wearing today...!!!


Bob.


----------



## JohnnyKarate (Oct 8, 2016)

My guess is most of the people that wear the Rolex looking Steinharts, Invictas, Squales, Ginaults, etc. wear them because they like the style not because they want people to think it's a Rolex. 

The problem i have is with the companies that make these sub "Homages". They're taking the easy route by copying Rolex and some are even charging over $500. I couldn't support a company like that. They have no essence.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Yep, "greed" is used a lot around here, those are prime examples.


JohnnyKarate said:


> My guess is most of the people that wear the Rolex looking Steinharts, Invictas, Squales, Ginaults, etc. wear them because they like the style not because they want people to think it's a Rolex.
> 
> The problem i have is with the companies that make these sub "Homages". They're taking the easy route by copying Rolex and some are even charging over $500. I couldn't support a company like that. They have no essence.


----------



## rickpal14 (Jul 6, 2017)

Eodtech said:


> I honestly have laughed more out loud in reading these last few pages than on any other thread in the history of forever and everything. You are guys are seriously great
> 
> But here is my humble take and I have expressed this on a few other threads...
> 
> ...


Can't press "like" enough for this post!!!!


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Hornet99 said:


> And using the word fake to describe Steinharts watches is just stupid. Go use a dictionary and make sure you know the meaning of the word before you use it :roll:.


Sure, but not quite as stupid as calling them "homages".

Why all of a sudden are you concerned about using the correct meaning of words?


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

Just dropped in to rubberneck. Someone called mleok mathematically challenged. It's really a doozy of an accident, this one.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

rdoder said:


> If people wish to see things concretely and not abstractly, think of ALL watches made as homage to the very first life form on Earth, some type of self-replicating molecule, when given energy. In that sense, ALL watches are homages/paying respect to the creative power of copying and self-replication of that very first life form.


I'm speechless...


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Rdenney said:


> Rick "needing taller boots to wade through this BS" Denney


Dude, you're waaay beyond boots. May I suggest these?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

omeglycine said:


> Just dropped in to rubberneck. Someone called mleok mathematically challenged. It's really a doozy of an accident, this one.


What can I say, "making stuff up" wasn't a course offered at Caltech, or in today's parlance, "alternative mathematics."


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Dude, you're waaay beyond boots. May I suggest these?


Sometimes, you just have to go old school.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

^ My thinking is, ALL watches derive from some type of copying, copied all the way back to the first watch (whatever watch that is). If one extends that idea further, the first watch had copied elements of sundials and ideas of time. Those ideas of time copied elements from our senses. Our senses derived from errors in copying genes (evolution of senses). Think back further, that goes all the way back to the first life form. Go back further, everything derives from how nature works.









"The earliest dated watch known, from 1530."(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_watches)










"Portable drum watch with sundial."(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_watches)

My thinking is, if copy watch companies are guilty of copying, then "original" watch comapnies are also guilty of copying. Aren't we all guilty of copying, by our very existence? e.g. My parents made copies/homages of themselves, in the form of me and my sister. If people hate copying, then in a way, it's hating life and nature. : )


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

rdoder said:


> ^ My thinking is, ALL watches derive from some type of copying, copied all the way back to the first watch (whatever watch that is). If one extends that idea further, the first watch had copied elements of sundials and ideas of time. Those ideas of time copied elements from our senses. Our senses derived from errors in copying genes (evolution of senses). Think back further, that goes all the way back to the first life form. Go back further, everything derives from how nature works.


With respect, you might wish to lay off whatever recreational drug you're taking that is facilitating all this free association.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

People don't see elements of the Rolex look in watches that came before Rolex or in some "original" watches that come after the first Rolex Submariner, if the look is not 99% identical and obvious. But copied elements are there, even when people don't see it and even when it's not obvious.

In a way, any watch, even the first wrist watch ever, has copied elements of what has gone before. In a way, all watches are copy watches. That's why I put the quotation marks around "original".


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> We only buy Steinhart because we are Rolex owning wannabes
> No and thrice no. Apart from making the leap to understanding our motives and casting aspersions on our characters. For me I like the design but I don't see that Rolex offers VFM in any way shape or form, so why waste my money. As well that *no one notices your watch *or cares or* knows what a Rolex looks like *is pertinent.


Challenge. On _both_ bolded parts. Neither would be true in my neck of the woods.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

mleok said:


> Sometimes, you just have to go old school.


In this case you will need a matching Steinhart dive watch, the bronze Triton.

Rolex doesn't make bronze watch, sorry.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Avo said:


> Rick: you don't know me. You have never met me. You think you can judge my intent, but you have proven to me that you cannot. So please stop.


To be clear:

Rick didn't make a statement about the motives of people who wear copies.

He made a statement about what an average person would assume when he sees someone wearing a Rolex lookalike.

(I got asked "Is that a Rolex" on the second day I wore my Squale Milsub copy. I've never been asked "Is that a Rolex" when I wear my Explorer 2, interestingly.)

Sent from my SM-C900F using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

lvt said:


> In this case you will need a matching Steinhart dive watch, the bronze Triton.
> 
> Rolex doesn't make bronze watch, sorry.


There's always the Tudor Bronze Black Bay. Although in fairness, that Steinhart Triton looks pretty original.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> The average man on the street would know that it's a watch and that is it.


Dude, you need to get out more and hang out on different streets.



Hornet99 said:


> They wouldn't have even heard of steinhart or Squale or Davosa. I've had someone at work say "I like your watch, I've always wanted a Rolex", I was wearing an Oris 65 40mm.......


"They" may not have heard of those other brands but as you've just demonstrated, they clearly know about Rolex. And your buddy knew enough about watches to think you were wearing a Sub...! Just saying.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

vkalia said:


> (I got asked "Is that a Rolex" on the second day I wore my Squale Milsub copy. * I've never been asked "Is that a Rolex" when I wear my Explorer 2, interestingly.*)


I'm not surprised, actually. When people say "Rolex" I think they really mean a Sub and to a lesser extent, a DJ outfitted with a fluted bezel and Jubilee bracelet.

Other Rolex models are waaay down on the awareness scale for most folks...


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

lvt said:


> In this case you will need a matching Steinhart dive watch, the bronze Triton.
> 
> Rolex doesn't make bronze watch, sorry.


That's pretty sharp. If only the bronze didn't age and get that "patina..."


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

BigSeikoFan said:


> That's pretty sharp. If only the bronze didn't age and get that "patina..."


Gotta use the ship's propeller bronze that Hentschel (and others I guess) uses from what little I know . . .


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

cedargrove said:


> Sure, but not quite as stupid as calling them "homages".
> 
> Why all of a sudden are you concerned about using the correct meaning of words?


OMG if I need to explain this to you all hope is lost.......

......fake/counterfeit is that helping? Oh and I'd already explained how homage is applicable to Steinhart. Fake isn't as Steinhart doesn't have Rolex branding.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> Yep, "greed" is used a lot around here, those are prime examples.


Yes I agree with you. Rolex is a very greedy company considering you could get a Davosa that works just as well for a tenth of the price :-!


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

It's more like the 'parasite' knockoffs.


Hornet99 said:


> Yes I agree with you. Rolex is a very greedy company considering you could get a Davosa that works just as well for a tenth of the price :-!


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mleok said:


> With respect, you might wish to lay off whatever recreational drug you're taking that is facilitating all this free association.


Glad to see that you have resorted to petty insults rather than any debate. Is this the point where the whole thread goes down hill because you're running out of steam?


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Challenge. On _both_ bolded parts. Neither would be true in my neck of the woods.


Really? You seriously believe that? Go stand on a street corner and ask random people if they recognise your watch.....

......wait a minute, do you live in a Rolex AD? b-)


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Dude, you need to get out more and hang out on different streets.
> 
> "They" may not have heard of those other brands but as you've just demonstrated, they clearly know about Rolex. And your buddy knew enough about watches to think you were wearing a Sub...! Just saying.


I don't need to get out to flash my watch around fella. If that's your bag well you just enjoy it, I won't judge.....

.....oh and the guy at work clearly didn't know what a Rolex Sub actually looked like, which is the point your missing.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> It's more like the 'delightful' homages .


FTFY.....


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

I'd just like to thank all of you homage averse folk on here; you've reminded me what an incredible value proposition Steinhart is compared to luxury watch brands, so much so I've just ordered a LE. Thanks guys :-!.


----------



## Jim44 (Jul 1, 2017)

drhr said:


> Gotta use the ship's propeller bronze that Hentschel (and others I guess) uses from what little I know . . .


Here's mine, made of aluminum bronze, same as ship's propellers:










I have read as well that this is supposed to age slower than other types of bronze. Personally I want it to age so that almost kept me from buying it.

Only a few weeks old now and I can clearly see signs of aging (the pic is from when the watch was newer)

PS I've also been told that the watch looks similar to the type of dive helmet mentioned above:










I see the resemblance but seeing as how the helmet doesn't have a date window I'm not sure whether to call it an homage or not

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

Hornet99 said:


> I'd just like to thank all of you homage averse folk on here; you've reminded me what an incredible value proposition Steinhart is compared to luxury watch brands, so much so I've just ordered a LE. Thanks guys :-!.


Sounds like a plan. Go for a Steinhart.

Apollon titanium/bronze










OB-DLC










OBM custom










OVM










OVM-DLC










Bronze Ocean One










VGMT


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

Think it is great that 5517 owners wear OVM as daily drivers, apparently so vintage Rolex don't have to take the daily grind.

Also like this Celebrity at a baseball game OVM 5517 story


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Watches/comments/331a72

His wife thought the OVM was prettier than her man's 5517, noted in the OPs later comments

"He was extremely humble and was so excited to talk about watches. He asked me about the OVM and how impressed he was with the homage. So for those of you guys on the fence about "homages", the owner of a 5517 approves your future purchase of an OVM "


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Doctor tells me not to laugh to much so I will have to leave this thread now. It's been highly amusing watching "great intellects" (lol) try to change the minds of others. The futility of it made me choke on my crunchy nut cornflakes on more than one occasion.

Dusting of snow outside so I guess a white face diver for me today







I will keep it securely tucked under my cuff for fear of being mugged for it. Hmm that begs another question - would you wear a 6grand watch to go backpacking across say South America and a sub-question (pun intended) - would you expect to still have it on your return?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

BigSeikoFan said:


> That's pretty sharp. If only the bronze didn't age and get that "patina..."


They call that rose gold, big guy. 

Sent from my SM-C900F using Tapatalk


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

yankeexpress said:


> Think it is great that 5517 owners wear OVM as daily drivers, apparently so vintage Rolex don't have to take the daily grind.
> 
> Also like this Celebrity at a baseball game OVM 5517 story
> 
> ...


Story just shows that we can all just get along and love Steinharts for the beautiful homages that they are....


----------



## MarkieB (Feb 25, 2017)

If you get in the Starship Enterprise transporter and are beamed out of WIS land you'll notice that the average person doesn't give a stuff about your watch. After all, anyone with a half decent credit rating can buy a Rolex easily. So it's simply a matter of trying to create an image of wealth where there isn't any.

The cost of a Rolex Sub (here in the UK) is about the same as two weeks abroad for a family of 4 in the school holidays. So perhaps it would be far more considerate to wear a Steinhart on one wrist and a picture of your family on a summer holiday in the sun on the other making the statement:

_"I can tell the time, go diving *AND* take my family on holiday"

_The only time that a Rolex relates to wealth is when the wearer steps out of his or her Ferrari (or whatever), helicopter or £2m+ house. However, people with wealth tend to buy what they like. Takes Bernie Eccleston: he could afford a VC for every day of the year from his small change and yet chooses to wear a Hublot! Guess he doesn't read this Forum, or perhaps likes Hublot and doesn't care what anyone else thinks.

So buy what _*you*_ like and only wear what other like if they pay for it.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Hornet99 said:


> OMG if I need to explain this to you all hope is lost.......
> 
> ......fake/counterfeit is that helping? Oh and I'd already explained how homage is applicable to Steinhart. Fake isn't as Steinhart doesn't have Rolex branding.


You can't have it both ways. You can't completely mis-use a word to describe your watch in a flattering way, while expecting others to not mis-use words that disparage your watch.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Hornet99 said:


> Is this the point where the whole thread goes down hill because you're running out of steam?


I assure you, this is not the point where the whole thread goes down hill.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

cedargrove said:


> You can't have it both ways. You can't completely mis-use a word to describe your watch in a flattering way, while expecting others to not mis-use words that disparage your watch.


Fake = replica = counterfeit

You cannot suggest that Steinhart, Davosa, Squale, Invicta, etc are those can you.

I call them homages, you can call them knockoffs if you want to be derogatory. But we'll put GO, Steinhart and Nomos all in the category of knockoffs in that case. ;-)



cedargrove said:


> I assure you, this is not the point where the whole thread goes down hill.


Oh good :-!


----------



## Calasan (Apr 17, 2013)

While attempts to discuss the motives of one another and others appear throughout the thread has anyone actually asked Steinhart? It would be interesting to see what the answer given publicly would be. While the models being discussed may bring the brand more press ('no such thing as bad press') - do sales increase more because of these models than those who may be turned off from the brand because of these models? I, for one, would be more likely to purchase other models if those few very similar to Rolex didn't exist. But I will not ask others to not purchase any Steinhart and will vote with my money, not theirs.


----------



## JohnnyKarate (Oct 8, 2016)

yankeexpress said:


> Sounds like a plan. Go for a Steinhart.
> 
> OB-DLC
> 
> ...


Christ, do they really need to copy the exact font for the bezel though ? Sad.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> Really? You seriously believe that? Go stand on a street corner and ask random people if they recognise your watch.....


Yes, I seriously believe that and if you don't know my neighborhood, you don't any idea what you're talking about.



Hornet99 said:


> ......wait a minute, do you live in a Rolex AD? b-)


No but we _do_ have two ADs within one block of each other.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> I don't need to get out to flash my watch around fella. If that's your bag well you just enjoy it, I won't judge.....


Nobody said anything about flashing a watch. I said to get out more and ask the average man on a _different_ street. Different from the one you're thinking about or are familiar with.



Hornet99 said:


> .....oh and the guy at work clearly didn't know what a Rolex Sub actually looked like, which is the point your missing.


No, not missing a thing. He may not have _known_ what a Sub actually looks like, but he obviously _thought_ that you were wearing a Rolex. Which is exactly on point to the topic at hand...

_
More remedial reading lessons available at your convenience._


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> I'd just like to thank all of you homage averse folk on here; you've reminded me what an incredible value proposition Steinhart is compared to luxury watch brands, so much so I've just ordered a LE. Thanks guys :-!.


Hey, it's your money. If you're happy, I'm happy for you too.

WB may have a different take on things tho but that's just a guess...


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

yankeexpress said:


> Sounds like a plan. Go for a Steinhart.
> 
> Apollon titanium/bronze


Sweet!

I'd get one if they could trim a couple mm from the case and/or bezel...


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Hornet99 said:


> Glad to see that you have resorted to petty insults rather than any debate. Is this the point where the whole thread goes down hill because you're running out of steam?


I prefer petty insults to endless circular logic, self serving definitions of common terms and an incessant and childlike compulsion to have the last word. Btw, dumb emojis don't make an insult any less insulting or sarcasm any less sarcastic. Just looks stupid.b-):-!


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Yes, I seriously believe that and if you don't know my neighborhood, you don't any idea what you're talking about.
> 
> No but we _do_ have two ADs within one block of each other.


Nope I don't know your neighbourhood, why should I? I live in another country FFS. You obviously don't know my neighbourhood and sensibly I'd not expect you to. If this is your best contribution to the debate then I'd suggest you find the exit.......


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Nobody said anything about flashing a watch. I said to get out more and ask the average man on a _different_ street. Different from the one you're thinking about or are familiar with.
> 
> No, not missing a thing. He may not have _known_ what a Sub actually looks like, but he obviously _thought_ that you were wearing a Rolex. Which is exactly on point to the topic at hand...
> 
> ...


I don't need to go out and ask anyone, maybe you should go and talk to some normal average people, you know the ones that make up the majority of the population rather than those living in your neighbourhood.

You are totally missing the point; he would have mistaken any watch for a Rolex and hence I can't be wearing the watch to pretend I've got a Rolex as any watch will do. I don't know how I can make this any simpler for you. Maybe if I drew a picture?


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Seaswirl said:


> I prefer petty insults to endless circular logic, self serving definitions of common terms and an incessant and childlike compulsion to have the last word. Btw, dumb emojis don't make an insult any less insulting or sarcasm any less sarcastic. Just looks stupid.b-):-!


Whatever makes you happy. I'm just having fun with you guys. It's only watches remember not really important stuff, like life.....


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> Nope I don't know your neighbourhood, why should I? I live in another country FFS. You obviously don't know my neighbourhood and sensibly I'd not expect you to. If this is your best contribution to the debate then I'd suggest you find the exit.......


Exactly. You don't know my neighborhood so don't talk as if your assertions on what the man on the street knows or doesn't know is _universally_ true. It's true for _your_ neighborhood but that's the extent of it. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm also suggesting that you expand your mind/horizons. Just a suggestion, of course.
_

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. _


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

JohnnyKarate said:


> Christ, do they really need to copy the exact font for the bezel though ? Sad.











Nope

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> You are totally missing the point; he would have mistaken any watch for a Rolex and hence I can't be wearing the watch to pretend I've got a Rolex as any watch will do. I don't know how I can make this any simpler for you. Maybe if I drew a picture?


Ok, you said your buddy said, "I like your watch; I've always wanted a Rolex." How should we have interpreted that then? Does it not sound like he thought your watch was a Rolex? Or was it just your unfortunate juxtaposition of two unrelated comments that caused us to misunderstand your intent?

Oooh, there's that word again...

Since we weren't there, we'll take your word as to what he meant.


----------



## kevinlucci (Aug 10, 2011)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Sweet!
> 
> I'd get one if they could trim a couple mm from the case and/or bezel...


Did someone say Apollon?? I haven't taken mine off since I got it in September and one of the most under appreciated watch in the Steinhart collection! I'm guessing it's the size, but honestly it's not as bad as you think


















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 3005 (Apr 10, 2015)

I currently own a Submariner and I've owned many, many Steinharts. Steinhart makes great, high quality watches for the money and I've always been very impressed with them and have no problems with the brand. Yes, when compared side by side the Rolex is better quality, but that's to be expected at the price point.

I just don't understand why so many people feel the need to be the "morality police" with homages beyond something having to do with justifying what's on their own wrist. Do you work at Rolex and have an actual stake in the watches others choose? Is your actual income or livelihood being impacted by homages? No? Then why do you care? From an intellectual property prospective, using the designs of others in this way is not illegal, and never has been. It happens in every industry.

And second, it's not just Steinharts that are mistaken for Rolexs. People who don't know watches mistake any dive watch with a black bezel for a Submariner. I can't even count the amount of times people have asked my girlfriend if her SKX was a Rolex... more than my actual Submariner I think. :roll:


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

3005 said:


> I currently own a Submariner and I've owned many, many Steinharts. Steinhart makes great, high quality watches for the money and I've always been very impressed with them and have no problems with the brand. Yes, when compared side by side the Rolex is better quality, but that's to be expected at the price point.
> 
> I just don't understand why so many people feel the need to be the "morality police" with homages beyond something having to do with justifying what's on their own wrist. Do you work at Rolex and have an actual stake in the watches others choose? Is your actual income or livelihood being impacted by homages? No? Then why do you care? From an intellectual property prospective, using the designs of others in this way is not illegal, and never has been. It happens in every industry.
> 
> And second, it's not just Steinharts that are mistaken for Rolexs. People who don't know watches mistake any dive watch with a black bezel for a Submariner. I can't even count the amount of times people have asked my girlfriend if her SKX was a Rolex... more than my actual Submariner I think. :roll:


Nice watches, thanks for showing 'em off :-!


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Exactly. You don't know my neighborhood so don't talk as if your assertions on what the man on the street knows or doesn't know is _universally_ true. It's true for _your_ neighborhood but that's the extent of it. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> I'm also suggesting that you expand your mind/horizons. Just a suggestion, of course.
> _
> ...


All very interesting, but your still missing my point. Or just ignoring it. The very nature of Rolex as a luxury brand means that they are unobtainable for the vast majority of the population. Therfore they don't worry or think about them or even care that they exist hence they won't know what one looks like. Go work out the percentage of the population that owns a Rolex.....

You're living in a bubble if you think your neighbourhood (with Rolex ADs on every corner) reflects everywhere else. Seems like you need to expand your horizons......


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Ok, you said your buddy said, "I like your watch; I've always wanted a Rolex." How should we have interpreted that then? Does it not sound like he thought your watch was a Rolex? Or was it just your unfortunate juxtaposition of two unrelated comments that caused us to misunderstand your intent?
> 
> Oooh, there's that word again...
> 
> Since we weren't there, we'll take your word as to what he meant.


Blimey this is like wading through treacle.......

Bob: I like your watch, I've always wanted a Rolex
Me: it's not a Rolex, it's an Oris
Bob: oh, I thought it was a Rolex. I've never heard of Oris
Me: they are a reasonably priced Swiss watch manufacturer
Bob: I like it
Me: great.


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

Another good advertisement for Rolex and how they've earned their reputation (and the price they are able to command). I'm not saying a sports watch from another brand would certainly fail, but if I had to place a bet on a mechanical wristwatch from one brand surviving such an event, my money would be placed on Rolex.

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/r...-sea-dweller-back-after-surviving-fiery-crash


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Hornet99 said:


> Fake = replica = counterfeit
> 
> You cannot suggest that Steinhart, Davosa, Squale, Invicta, etc are those can you.
> 
> I call them homages, you can call them knockoffs if you want to be derogatory. But we'll put GO, Steinhart and Nomos all in the category of knockoffs in that case. ;-)


I think you've completely missed my point, as I didn't suggest they are fakes, replicas, counterfeits, nor call them knockoffs. In fact in an earlier post I agreed with you when you suggested that calling them fakes is stupid.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

97 pages caused by lipstick and 'Rose Colored Glasses'.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Watchbreath said:


> 97 pages caused by lipstick and 'Rose Colored Glasses'.


uh no wb, it's multiple pages but don't think for a minute the length is caused by anything other than u, me and a few other folk . . .


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

cedargrove said:


> I think you've completely missed my point, as I didn't suggest they are fakes, replicas, counterfeits, nor call them knockoffs. In fact in an earlier post I agreed with you when you suggested that calling them fakes is stupid.


Sorry, there's so many questions to field here I'm losing track. That and in the middle of travelling.....


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

DB


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

drhr said:


> uh no wb, it's multiple pages but don't think for a minute the length is caused by anything other than u, me and a few other folk . . .


That's what she said.....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> 97 pages caused by lipstick and 'Rose Colored Glasses'.


Where's the other 48 pages? Are they for Rolex owners only?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

The truth is that you pay 10x for a Rolex but you don't get 10x quality or 10x accuracy.

Wear a Rolex if you want to impress people.

I wear my Steinhart just to impress myself, my watch consistently runs within COSC specs, hard to ask more for a sub-$600 watch.


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

lvt said:


> The truth is that you pay 10x for a Rolex but you don't get 10x quality or 10x accuracy.
> 
> Wear a Rolex if you want to impress people.
> 
> I wear my Steinhart just to impress myself, my watch consistently runs within COSC specs, hard to ask more for a sub-$600 watch.


Nobody is impressed by a Rolex. You can also wear the Rolex to impress yourself.

Apple watch might catch attention.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

lvt said:


> The truth is that you pay 10x for a Rolex but you don't get 10x quality or 10x accuracy.


I'm not aware of any watch for which that kind of linear scaling holds, it's called the law of diminishing returns.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Seikogi said:


> Nobody is impressed by a Rolex. You can also wear the Rolex to impress yourself.


Actually I do, I've seen local women wearing the Sub and I'm very pleased.


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Seikogi said:


> Nobody is impressed by a Rolex. You can also wear the Rolex to impress yourself.
> 
> Apple watch might catch attention.


Well this one would









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

RustyBin5 said:


> Well this one would
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just wait for a celebrity or musician to buy one with diamonds for 500k


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

lvt said:


> Actually I do, I've seen local women wearing the Sub and I'm very pleased.


Fair enough, most men cannot resist that


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Wonder whether anyone would make a homage of this delightful Rolex? b-)







........probably not.


----------



## Metlin (Dec 15, 2010)

lvt said:


> The truth is that you pay 10x for a Rolex but you don't get 10x quality or 10x accuracy.
> 
> Wear a Rolex if you want to impress people.
> 
> I wear my Steinhart just to impress myself, my watch consistently runs within COSC specs, hard to ask more for a sub-$600 watch.


I disagree. I think you get a much higher quality with Rolex than what you pay for.

In fact, I think of Rolex as the Seiko of higher-end brands. Terrific quality for the price point, and incredible craftsmanship.

People may buy it because of the brand name and accessibility but those who know watches know how incredible they are.

The average Rolex can take so much more of a beating relative to most of its other "luxury" counterparts.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Metlin said:


> I disagree. I think you get a much higher quality with Rolex than what you pay for.
> 
> In fact, I think of Rolex as the Seiko of higher-end brands. Terrific quality for the price point, and incredible craftsmanship.
> 
> ...


No doubt that Rolex are higher quality and you pay for that. But x10 the quality I can get from Steinhart, Squale or Davosa? Isn't the higher price of Rolex building in the cost of ADs (which for the most part are swanky and in high rent districts), the advertising, sponsorship of events and celebrities. We don't know the profit margins but I bet they are good......


----------



## Metlin (Dec 15, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> No doubt that Rolex are higher quality and you pay for that. But x10 the quality I can get from Steinhart, Squale or Davosa? Isn't the higher price of Rolex building in the cost of ADs (which for the most part are swanky and in high rent districts), the advertising, sponsorship of events and celebrities. We don't know the profit margins but I bet they are good......


Economics of Veblen goods don't work like that. Speaking objectively, a G-Shock can take much more of a beating than a Steinhart or a Rolex.

But there's an important reason why I really like Rolex. You see, Rolex SA is owned by the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation, which is a charity and a non-profit. So basically, Rolex pays their employees top tier salary and donates the rest to charity.


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Hornet99 said:


> Wonder whether anyone would make a homage of this delightful Rolex? b-)
> 
> ........probably not.


To be fair it was designed during the Xmas party

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sub1680 (May 24, 2013)

So, are we at 100 pages yet?


----------



## Sub1680 (May 24, 2013)

Okay, I guess not. I was kind of hoping that we could trip the 100 page or 1000 post mark before I posted something here. But okay.

So, I would like to introduce another subject here which is somewhat tangential but still related to the themes of wealth signaling and virtue signaling that are being rehashed in this thread over and over again.

My friend and I went to see the Blade Runner movie. We went and had dinner afterwards, and the subject of consuming dog meat came up. There are many cultures around the world where people eat dog meat as a protein source. Many people in Western cultures are outraged by this and openly describe the societies where this happens as being evil or primitive. They often describe the people in these societies who eat dog meat as being of low character.

The truth is, however, is consumption of dog meat happens in societies where there has generally been no tradition of hunting or animal husbandry. So it's a cultural thing - to these people a dog is just another source of protein, like a pig or goat. And indeed, most of these countries are undergoing economic development and urbanization where the younger generation would not think of eating dog meat - they think it's gross or low class.

That said, how do we to judge the truck driver, who grew up in a poor village, now making his way in society with a decent job, who stops off at the dog meat restaurant just outside of downtown to get a taste of his childhood? Is this person automatically someone of low character? Are we just judging this person based upon what we are accustomed to?

I have never eaten dog meat. I have however eaten horse meat. It was pretty good, but I don't think I'll be doing it again.

So what does eating dog meat have to do with Steinhart watches, apart from the fact that there are some people in this thread who wish to accuse those who wear Steinhart watches of being persons of low character? I'm not sure. But I think it has something to do with wealth signaling versus virtue signaling. Both are crass. And if both are crass, how does one judge virtue signaling based upon wealth?


----------



## Sub1680 (May 24, 2013)

(sorry, duplicate post. when do we get to 100 pages)


----------



## TheGanzman (Jan 12, 2010)

Sub1680 said:


> Okay, I guess not. I was kind of hoping that we could trip the 100 page or 1000 post mark before I posted something here. But okay.
> 
> So, I would like to introduce another subject here which is somewhat tangential but still related to the themes of wealth signaling and virtue signaling that are being rehashed in this thread over and over again.
> 
> ...


I'd eat that dog, and I'd wear that watch!


----------



## TheGanzman (Jan 12, 2010)

Dreaded Double Post...


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Dog = beef homage


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sub1680 (May 24, 2013)

And now we are at 100. Rusty wins thread.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Metlin said:


> Economics of Veblen goods don't work like that. Speaking objectively, a G-Shock can take much more of a beating than a Steinhart or a Rolex.
> 
> But there's an important reason why I really like Rolex. You see, Rolex SA is owned by the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation, which is a charity and a non-profit. So basically, Rolex pays their employees top tier salary and donates the rest to charity.


I'm not very familiar with the theory of Veblen goods, so you'll need to elaborate on what you mean here as I'm not following how Veblen goods relates to the slice taken off for the ADs (they effectively buy the watches from Rolex) and the rest of the expenses.

Partial true about the non-profit:
https://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-blog/rolex-news/rolex-non-profit.html

If they can plough money into charities, sponsor events and still put money in the bank then doesn't that suggest they are making a lot of "profit"?


----------



## Toothbras (Apr 19, 2010)

Sub1680 said:


> Okay, I guess not. I was kind of hoping that we could trip the 100 page or 1000 post mark before I posted something here. But okay.
> 
> So, I would like to introduce another subject here which is somewhat tangential but still related to the themes of wealth signaling and virtue signaling that are being rehashed in this thread over and over again.
> 
> ...


This is one of the weirdest posts I've ever read


----------



## Metlin (Dec 15, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> Wonder whether anyone would make a homage of this delightful Rolex? b-)
> 
> ........probably not.


That Rolex was designed for a rock star. The blingy Rolexes look pretty much normal when seen in context.


----------



## TheGanzman (Jan 12, 2010)

Well, that's ~8 hours of my almost-62-year-old-life that I'll never get back! Most of you guys know my story, here it is again: 61+ years old, learned to dive in a backyard WWII UDT diver's "pool", which was actually a large circular "tank" - he was an underwater welder that worked on the myriad bridges in the NY-NJ area - he taught both me and his 7 year old son Bobby to dive one weekend using a pair of "Twin 50's" and (of course) a dual hose regulator. Over the years I've prolly had ~200 watches - they come & they go, but I would estimate that ~190 of those 200 were what ANY man, regardless of his semantic leanings, would call "Tool Watches". A wrist watch for ME virtually always HAS been and always WILL be a "tool", and it's a tool that I demand/expect a few things of; to wit:
1). A relative degree of "toughness". I grew up "lower middle class", the son of a Depression-era boxer/bare-knuckle "stall fighter" (Watch "Hard Times" with Charles Bronson if you care to know what a stall fighter was); one of his MANY quotes was "Always take care of your things - you never know how long you might HAVE to own them."
2). Simplicity - NO date window to confuse the function of telling me either the elapsed time or the time of day (to the second) itself.
3). Accuracy - I like COSC accuracy on a consistent basis, leaning towards the + seconds/day preference, as I wind & set my modest watch collection daily.
4). Analog. Of COURSE I've had digital watches; back in the day, I had bellbottoms too - I'd like to forget BOTH!

Not much of a list, really - simple, right? Now I live in Orange County CA - the LAND of "conspicuous consumption" in ways most of you can not even IMAGINE! As such, I see NO END of Rolex Submariners - they are virtually ubiquitous. Since 2003, I've owned 2 6538 "Big Crowns", a 6536/1, a 5508, a 5512, 2 5513's including a Maxi-dial, and most recently a 4 line 14060. They all kept time at ~+2-4 seconds/day, for the record. During the 11 years that *I* wore a Rolex Submariner, I got exactly ONE "Nice Rolex" compliment...

Here's what I own today - ALL "Homage Watches": A Tactico TC3 Expedition (A tip of the hat to the aforementioned UDT welder who wore an Eterna Matic Super Kon Tiki); 2 Helson SS Skindivers; a Beluga Ascent; a Steinhart OVM Mk. 1 (currently in Greece being relumed in C3); and my own personal "Grail" - a 2009 Steinhart Ocean 1 Vintage "Comex" homage that is heavily modded by both Steinhart and myself, and that keeps consistent time at +2 seconds/day. Let's do the quick math here; that's prolly in resale pricing less than US$4K "all-in" - yet I wouldn't trade the entire handful for a single Rolex Submariner! Here's why:
1). I GREATLY prefer (for my 7 /8" wrist) watches in the 41-43mm "wheelhouse"; 40mm and below is too diminutive to MY eyes.
2). I like some "variety" in my tool watch life; I'm a 1 woman man, but I like to see something different on my wrist - sometimes I change out my watch four times/day!
3). I have no need to impress ANYONE with what I am "wearing" - PERIOD! I tried JUST that during my Rolex Submariner days and it was a catastrophic FAIL! In retrospect, it didn't make me ANY handsomer, funnier, taller, bigger either above OR below the belt, or get me laid a SINGLE time more often! It DID make me worry more about scratches devaluing my "investment", loss, theft, and water intrusion however; I wear a watch 24/7, and my watches get wet EVERY day. I also twist wrenches and "work on sh*t" every single day...

"Homage Watches" are JUST what the Doctor ordered for ME! They tick off ALL of MY personal requirements for what *I* need and expect of a tool watch, with NONE of the "bad". They're "right-sized" & infinitely more functional than their respective vintage counterparts - sapphire crystals & strong luminous being the most notable - and I can mod them as *I* see fit! And finally, they are the PERFECT respective complements for my (largely) Costco & Walmart-sourced wardrobe, LOL. "My mind is made up - don't confuse me with the FACTS!"


----------



## Tres (May 6, 2017)

Will this discussion happen in the world of flieger watches? They all look similar to one another and i dont know which one pays homage to who.

Merry Christmas to all of you.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Don't know of any knockoffs of the Longines - Hour Angle.


Tres said:


> Will this discussion happen in the world of flinger watches? They all look similar to one another and i dont know which one pays homage to who.
> 
> Merry Christmas to all of you.


----------



## NapoleonDynamite (Jul 30, 2016)

RustyBin5 said:


> Dog = beef homage
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's the best post. Haha!

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

TheGanzman said:


> Well, that's ~8 hours of my almost-62-year-old-life that I'll never get back! Most of you guys know my story, here it is again: 61+ years old, learned to dive in a backyard WWII UDT diver's "pool", which was actually a large circular "tank" - he was an underwater welder that worked on the myriad bridges in the NY-NJ area - he taught both me and his 7 year old son Bobby to dive one weekend using a pair of "Twin 50's" and (of course) a dual hose regulator. Over the years I've prolly had ~200 watches - they come & they go, but I would estimate that ~190 of those 200 were what ANY man, regardless of his semantic leanings, would call "Tool Watches". A wrist watch for ME virtually always HAS been and always WILL be a "tool", and it's a tool that I demand/expect a few things of; to wit:
> 1). A relative degree of "toughness". I grew up "lower middle class", the son of a Depression-era boxer/bare-knuckle "stall fighter" (Watch "Hard Times" with Charles Bronson if you care to know what a stall fighter was); one of his MANY quotes was "Always take care of your things - you never know how long you might HAVE to own them."
> 2). Simplicity - NO date window to confuse the function of telling me either the elapsed time or the time of day (to the second) itself.
> 3). Accuracy - I like COSC accuracy on a consistent basis, leaning towards the + seconds/day preference, as I wind & set my modest watch collection daily.
> ...


Ach ganz you made me want your Comex. That's very naughty

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MarkieB (Feb 25, 2017)

JohnnyKarate said:


> Christ, do they really need to copy the exact font for the bezel though ? Sad.


Why are you bothered? And what's Rolex about these watches, tell me. Show me side by side pictures to prove that no other watch manufacturer doesn't use the same font..

You can't. So either slag all watch makers off or none. I take it you saw the band wagon passing and decided to jump on it for a bit of fun........

And I wasn't aware that Christ was either a WIS or regular poster on here so I'm not sure he's the best person to ask anyway!


----------



## MarkieB (Feb 25, 2017)

Sub1680 said:


> Okay, I guess not. I was kind of hoping that we could trip the 100 page or 1000 post mark before I posted something here. But okay.
> 
> So, I would like to introduce another subject here which is somewhat tangential but still related to the themes of wealth signaling and virtue signaling that are being rehashed in this thread over and over again.
> 
> ...


Not sure what this has to do with the debate but it has occurred to me that do people who wear Rolex eat pedigree.......


----------



## MarkieB (Feb 25, 2017)

The only people who can make a fake Rolex is Rolex, similarly only Rolex can make a knock-off Rolex or a Rolex Homage.

The correct terminology is a fake of a Rolex, an homage of a Rolex, a knock-off of a Rolex. To simply say fake, homage or knock-off indicates a model made by Rolex

At least use the correct terminology, or are there models called the Rolex Fake, Rolex Homage & Rolex Knock-off?


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

Um. I think this thread is disappearing up it's own arse at this point. Just forget the whole rolex thing and buy german or japanese.

Merry Christmas y'all!


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

RustyBin5 said:


> Dog = beef homage
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's the hotdog that is beef homage, not dog


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Metlin said:


> That Rolex was designed for a rock star. The blingy Rolexes look pretty much normal when seen in context.


I think when you wear that kind of watch you should have better matching clothes.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Metlin said:


> I disagree. I think you get a much higher quality with Rolex than what you pay for.


Rolex has higher quality, but not 10x

And if you want the GMT Master, it costs 20x more than GMT watches from micro brands.

The Rolex's GMT movement is neither 20x more accurate than the ETA 2893 or it's modified 2836, nor 20x better made. Movement parts are made by precision machine, you can't make a wheel that is 20x better than another Swiss manufacturer using almost the same process and tooling equipment (unless you say that Rolex's tooling equipment costs 20x more than ETA's).

But the best point is, while Rolex makes 1 million watches a year, your favorite micro-brand might only make less than 1000 watches a year. You probably won't find the same watch within 100 miles radius.


----------



## Metlin (Dec 15, 2010)

lvt said:


> Rolex has higher quality, but not 10x
> 
> And if you want the GMT Master, it costs 20x more than GMT watches from micro brands.
> 
> ...


I'll reiterate. Economics of Veblen goods.

Is a 1980 Bordeaux 1000x better than last year's Napa produce? What about art? Is a bespoke suit worth 100x the cost of a Macy's suit?

The point is, it doesn't matter. If the buyer is willing to pay, then that's the price.

There are plenty of Veblen goods of questionable quality (e.g., most of commercial grade Armani and Hugo Boss sold at most mall stores), a few of reasonable quality and very few of exceptional quality. Rolex is one of those.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Metlin said:


> Is a 1980 Bordeaux 1000x better than last year's Napa produce? What about art? Is a bespoke suit worth 100x the cost of a Macy's suit?


I've been in France for nearly a decade and I know a little about wine. It's actually a process that is 100x more complicated than making watches so the comparison might not be appropriate.



Metlin said:


> The point is, it doesn't matter. If the buyer is willing to pay, then that's the price.


Agreed.

It's like buying a diamond that costs 1 million dollars, the diamond doesn't tick, it doesn't tell time or date, you can't wind it. But it's a diamond.

Same for Rolex, even if your sub isn't 10x better than a Steinhart or a Squale, it's still a Rolex. You are confident that it's worth 10x because of the brand-name that you see on its dial.


----------



## Jim44 (Jul 1, 2017)

Metlin said:


> I'll reiterate. Economics of Veblen goods.
> 
> Is a 1980 Bordeaux 1000x better than last year's Napa produce? What about art? Is a bespoke suit worth 100x the cost of a Macy's suit?
> 
> ...


You keep using that word "Veblen"










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Wow 101 pages... Common guys. Lets wrap this one up with holidays and all. 
Where is your holiday cheer.

Merry Christmas to some and the best wishes. Hope Santa brings you some original Watches!

To the rest, a good Krumpus and hope you haven't been too impish, else Belsnickel may take all your horological wishes....

Belsnickel... he is like a "homage" to Santa Claus...


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

Merry Christmas


----------



## Jim44 (Jul 1, 2017)

Marry Christmas to all, and a happy Festivus too!










But in all seriousness, wishing you all a happy holiday and a terrific new year!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Metlin said:


> I'll reiterate. Economics of Veblen goods.
> 
> Is a 1980 Bordeaux 1000x better than last year's Napa produce?


He is not comparing the production of wine to watches; he is comparing one wine to another: a Bordeaux to a California cab. Very much a like-to-like comparison to illustrate the nature of Veblen goods.



lvt said:


> I've been in France for nearly a decade and I know a little about wine. It's actually a process that is 100x more complicated than making watches so the comparison might not be appropriate.


Btw, I too have participated in the making of a California cab. Not that difficult: know how to adjust the sun exposure of the grapes, know how to prune the leaves back, know when to pick the grapes, know to how to sort them, know how to ferment them, know how to test the chemistry, know how to use new vs used oak barrels, know how long to age them in such, know how to do the final blend and you're all set. Especially if you've worked that particular vineyard before. It's not rocket science. IMO, it's "easier" than making a watch with all its parts...


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Jim44 said:


> You keep using that word "Veblen"


From Investopedia: a comparison between a Veblem good and a Giffen good.

*What is a 'Veblen Good'
*
_A good for which demand increases as the price increases, because of its exclusive nature and appeal as a status symbol. A Veblen good, like a Giffen good, has an upward-sloping demand curve, which runs counter to the typical downward-sloping curve. However, a Veblen good is generally a high-quality, coveted product, in contrast to a Giffen good which is an inferior product that does not have easily available substitutes. As well, the increase in demand for a Veblen good reflects consumer tastes and preferences, unlike a Giffen good, where higher demand is directly attributable to the price increase. The term is named after the American economist Thorstein Veblen, who is best known for introducing the term "conspicuous consumption."_

​


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

As others have said, "Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and A Happy New Year" to one and all!


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

lvt said:


> Rolex has higher quality, but not 10x
> 
> And if you want the GMT Master, it costs 20x more than GMT watches from micro brands.
> 
> ...


Yeah, but the functionality of the Rolex 3186 movement is far more than 20x better than the ETA.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

cedargrove said:


> Yeah, but the functionality of the Rolex 3186 movement is far more than 20x better than the ETA.


Are you a pilot or a businessman who travels across the ocean everyday?


----------



## MrDagon007 (Sep 24, 2012)

lvt said:


> Are you a pilot or a businessman who travels across the ocean everyday?


Until this year I did 2-3 business trips per month across timezones. Indeed it the eta gmt method is vaguely irritating then.
This being said I also had to fly sometimes to Mumbai which has a 30 minutes time shift, and once to Katmandu which has a 15 minute time shift. No mechanical gmt watch I know about can handle this. In the end I found that for business travel, my Apple watch (oh heresy!) was ideal.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

MrDagon007 said:


> Until this year I did 2-3 business trips per month across timezones. Indeed it the eta gmt method is vaguely irritating then.
> This being said I also had to fly sometimes to Mumbai which has a 30 minutes time shift, and once to Katmandu which has a 15 minute time shift. No mechanical gmt watch I know about can handle this. In the end I found that for business travel, my Apple watch (oh heresy!) was ideal.


I see what you mean, beside an expensive Apple watch, you could buy a more affordable G-shock too, those watches can handle the situation perfectly.

But I guess that the choice of an Apple watch is more obvious for you if you have some serious meetings where a G-shock might be less appropriate.


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

MrDagon007 said:


> Until this year I did 2-3 business trips per month across timezones. Indeed it the eta gmt method is vaguely irritating then.
> This being said I also had to fly sometimes to Mumbai which has a 30 minutes time shift, and once to Katmandu which has a 15 minute time shift. No mechanical gmt watch I know about can handle this. In the end I found that for business travel, my Apple watch (oh heresy!) was ideal.


OT, may I suggest the Gavox Aurora, ideal for pilots, sailors and globetrotting businessmen with the ability to set all timezones, with intervals of 15 minute offsets anytime.

UTC/GMT
All possible timezones worldwide (96)
Perpetual calendar including leapyears
Day/Date and Month
Countdown timer to 32 hours
Stopwatch chronograph to 32 hours
Moonphase
Power save mode
Unique Soprod Mecatronic Swiss movement
4-7 year battery life


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

yankeexpress said:


> OT, may I suggest the Gavox Aurora, ideal for pilots, sailors and globetrotting businessmen with the ability to set all timezones, with intervals of 15 minute offsets anytime.
> 
> UTC/GMT
> All possible timezones worldwide (96)
> ...


That's a nice watch, I only hope it has a separate date window.


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

lvt said:


> That's a nice watch, I only hope it has a separate date window.


Sub dial at 9H does duty as date, seconds, hours, moonphase, and 24 hours depending on mode.


----------



## Jim44 (Jul 1, 2017)

BigSeikoFan said:


> From Investopedia: a comparison between a Veblem good and a Giffen good.
> 
> *What is a 'Veblen Good'
> *
> ...


Hmmm, you've made me think about this since my last snarky comment. Initially I was doubtful that the demand curve on a Rolex is actually upward sloping. I guess it depends upon what point of the curve you're looking at, as well as your time horizon. But your (and Metlin's) broader point on this might be correct- e.g, I guess it is possible that if Rolex cut all of their prices in half (with no change in quality), demand actually would drop in the long run. I'm not sure, but I think it's plausible. So snarky meme withdrawn 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

MrDagon007 said:


> Until this year I did 2-3 business trips per month across timezones. Indeed it the eta gmt method is vaguely irritating then.
> This being said I also had to fly sometimes to Mumbai which has a 30 minutes time shift, and once to Katmandu which has a 15 minute time shift. No mechanical gmt watch I know about can handle this. In the end I found that for business travel, my Apple watch (oh heresy!) was ideal.


The Vacheron Constantin world timer allows the regular hands to be quickset in 15-minute increments with respect to GMT.

Rick "bring your checkbook" Denney


----------



## Beamer82 (Aug 4, 2016)

The steinhart is a bit larger than the sub


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Beamer82 said:


> The steinhart is a bit larger than the sub


Don't worry, the extra part of the case comes free of charge


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

Beamer82 said:


> The steinhart is a bit larger than the sub


There are new 39mm Steinhart now.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Metlin said:


> I'll reiterate. Economics of Veblen goods.
> 
> Is a 1980 Bordeaux 1000x better than last year's Napa produce? What about art? Is a bespoke suit worth 100x the cost of a Macy's suit?
> 
> ...


Economics of Veblen goods - does this simple mean that people are willing to be ripped off? b-)


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Anyway, Merry Christmas to you ALL. I have to say I've enjoyed this thread enormously, and glad that it didn't get *****y! Ceasefire declared for Christmas festivities (we can play football between the trenches.....).

Wishing you all and your families a lovely day and the best for the coming year.









Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

Merry Christmas!


----------



## Tres (May 6, 2017)

Hornet99 said:


> Economics of Veblen goods - does this simple mean that people are willing to be ripped off? b-)


I'd say some people are willing to pay more for exclusivity for some reason. Imo, eeding the ego is probably one of the reason.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Rdenney said:


> The Vacheron Constantin world timer allows the regular hands to be quickset in 15-minute increments with respect to GMT.
> 
> Rick "bring your checkbook" Denney


So does the new Parmigiani dual time. A fair bit cheaper, at street prices.

Sent from my SM-C900F using Tapatalk


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Hornet99 said:


> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


Seriously we need a winner from the above photos.

Let's be honest and tell us which watch takes your vote


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

lvt said:


> Are you a pilot or a businessman who travels across the ocean everyday?


I travel for business but not sure how that matters to your comparison of GMTs. I'm simply providing another point of comparison between your two watches that you seemed to have missed.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Jim44 said:


> Hmmm, you've made me think about this since my last snarky comment. Initially I was doubtful that the demand curve on a Rolex is actually upward sloping. I guess it depends upon what point of the curve you're looking at, as well as your time horizon. But your (and Metlin's) broader point on this might be correct- e.g, I guess it is possible that if Rolex cut all of their prices in half (with no change in quality), demand actually would drop in the long run. I'm not sure, but I think it's plausible. So snarky meme withdrawn


No problem, big guy. You're good. |>

Merry Christmas!


----------



## Jim44 (Jul 1, 2017)

BigSeikoFan said:


> No problem, big guy. You're good. |>
> 
> Merry Christmas!


Same to you!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MrDagon007 (Sep 24, 2012)

Rdenney said:


> The Vacheron Constantin world timer allows the regular hands to be quickset in 15-minute increments with respect to GMT.
> 
> Rick "bring your checkbook" Denney


Interesting, and also the Parmigiani that was mentioned, I wasn't aware of the 15 minutes savvy gmt watches. They are ever so slightly over my budget but cool.
A g shock was mentioned, well indeed for holiday trips my all-analog pilotish gwa1000d offers quick adjustment, but it is not a suit compatible watch. The stainless apple watch on leather is actually quite smart and can be worn on a suit, I think. A useful business trip watch.

The Gavox Aurora is clever but not really my thing looks-wise.

Slightly back on topic, I have seen people at first sight thinking that a steinhart flieger chrono was an iwc. Now fliegers are a more generic, non proprietary style hence they cause less homagey discussion


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

MrDagon007 said:


> Until this year I did 2-3 business trips per month across timezones. Indeed it the eta gmt method is vaguely irritating then.
> This being said I also had to fly sometimes to Mumbai which has a 30 minutes time shift, and once to Katmandu which has a 15 minute time shift. No mechanical gmt watch I know about can handle this. In the end I found that for business travel, my Apple watch (oh heresy!) was ideal.


"Vaguely irritating" - seems to fall short of "far more than 20x better" just saying 

Gratuitous monster shot just since it's Xmas ....









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Jim44 said:


> Hmmm, you've made me think about this since my last snarky comment. Initially I was doubtful that the demand curve on a Rolex is actually upward sloping. I guess it depends upon what point of the curve you're looking at, as well as your time horizon. But your (and Metlin's) broader point on this might be correct- e.g, I guess it is possible that if Rolex cut all of their prices in half (with no change in quality), demand actually would drop in the long run. I'm not sure, but I think it's plausible. So snarky meme withdrawn
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Demand curve only upward sloping when supply deliberately restricted - of course - new term pseudo Veblen?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Metlin (Dec 15, 2010)

RustyBin5 said:


> Demand curve only upward sloping when supply deliberately restricted - of course - new term pseudo Veblen?


Practically speaking, most Veblen goods have their supply deliberately restricted.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

lvt said:


> Seriously we need a winner from the above photos.
> 
> Let's be honest and tell us which watch takes your vote


Squale 30 atmos (pan am and batman), seeing as they are the only ones remaining in my collection b-)


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Metlin said:


> Practically speaking, most Veblen goods have their supply deliberately restricted.


Well yeah but the definition mentions exclusiveness but at a million watches a year I think that's stretching it a bit even with restricted supply

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tres (May 6, 2017)

RustyBin5 said:


> Well yeah but the definition mentions exclusiveness but at a million watches a year I think that's stretching it a bit even with restricted supply
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Things would be different if we talk about rolex in third world country. Even a steinhart can be exclusive in some part of the world.


----------



## MrDagon007 (Sep 24, 2012)

RustyBin5 said:


> "Vaguely irritating" - seems to fall short of "far more than 20x better" just saying
> k


I would say that the rolex method of setting gmt is say 5 times better than the eta way for travellers. Remember the old smartphones before the first iphone changed that industry? That feeling of superior difference.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

https://www.ablogtowatch.com/rolex-prices-past-60-years-revealing-analysis/


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

MrDagon007 said:


> I would say that the rolex method of setting gmt is say 5 times better than the eta way for travellers. Remember the old smartphones before the first iphone changed that industry? That feeling of superior difference.


The ETA way is better when you want to track other time zone without affecting your home time.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

lvt said:


> The ETA way is better when you want to track other time zone without affecting your home time.


Yes, but it's not a GMT watch then.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

mleok said:


> Yes, but it's not a GMT watch then.


Not a GMT Master, but it can be a GMT watch too. In my opinion it's more flexible than the Rolex way, as the fourth hand can be independently adjusted, you can setup your watch as a GMT, a 24H watch or watch with second timezone.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

lvt said:


> The ETA way is better when you want to track other time zone without affecting your home time.


You know that's not true, right?
You can set the gmt to your home time and use the regular hour hand to track whatever time zone you want.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

drunken monkey said:


> You can set the gmt to your home time and use the regular hour hand to track whatever time zone you want.


 I think not much people want to use the red GMT hand as their main home time.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

lvt said:


> I think not much people want to use the red GMT hand as their main home time.


Think what you like; it does not make the previous quote any less false.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

drunken monkey said:


> Think what you like; it does not make the previous quote any less false.


It's not false.

But it's not as practical as you might think.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

lvt said:


> It's not false.
> 
> But it's not as practical as you might think.


So explain why it isn't practical.

FYI
I have my gmt hand set to track hong kong time while I live, work and travel in london and around Europe. I prefer to have my local time referenced in 12 hour scale and hong kong time is only for reference so 24hr scale is perfectly fine.

If it worked as per the eta version, then my fixed reference would be set on 12hour scale while my local time is in 24 hour scale.
Hardly more "practical".


----------



## Jim44 (Jul 1, 2017)

drunken monkey said:


> So explain why it isn't practical.
> 
> FYI
> I have my gmt hand set to track hong kong time while I live, work and travel in london and around Europe. I prefer to have my local time referenced in 12 hour scale and hong kong time is only for reference so 24hr scale is perfectly fine.
> ...


IMO they should both be on a 12 hour scale. That way even my easily-confused brain can read it at a glance:










Plus when you don't need it it hides away nicely under the regular hour hand:










The only downside (for some) is that you need a day/night indicator on the dial, but I rather like this design. It is connected to the "GMT" hand which makes sense since I (usually) know if it is day or night where I am.

When either I or my wife is traveling (which is often) the regular hands stay on my local time, and the "GMT" hand stays on whatever time zone she is in.

Of course the other downside is I have to keep explaining to people that it's not a Rolex GMT Master. I get asked like ten times a day... 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Jim44 said:


> The only downside (for some) is that you need a day/night indicator on the dial, but I rather like this design. It is connected to the "GMT" hand which makes sense since I (usually) know if it is day or night where I am.
> 
> When either I or my wife is traveling (which is often) the regular hands stay on my local time, and the "GMT" hand stays on whatever time zone she is in.


I think the Reverso Duo would be my "perfect" travel watch.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

I hope this thread is really dead before the start of the new year.


----------



## Jim44 (Jul 1, 2017)

Watchbreath said:


> I hope this thread is really dead before the start of the new year.












Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

lvt said:


> It's not false.
> 
> But it's not as practical as you might think.


There is no end to this discussion. Ultimately, it's a question of whether you tend to stay in one place and need to track different timezones, or you tend to travel, and need to know GMT or home time. The quickset on the 12 hour hand is useful for travel, and the quickset on the 24 hour hand is useful if you stay put.

But, the Rolex GMT was designed as a pilot's watch, and its implementation allows one to track the local time on the 12 hour hand, GMT on the GMT hand, and a third timezone on the rotating 24 hour bezel. That may not be your use case, but for the use case it was designed for, it is a very natural implementation, and the ETA 2893-2 implementation is far less elegant in such a case. In contrast, if you tend to stay in one place, and need to track different timezones, then the quickset on the 12 hour hand is less natural, and the natural way to use the Rolex GMT in that instance is to rely on the rotating bezel to indicate the other timezone.


----------



## Hands90 (Jun 8, 2015)

It's sad you people buy these fake Rolex looking Steinharts, Invictas, Squales, Ginaults, etc. 
Could we have a mod Close this thread?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

drunken monkey said:


> I think the Reverso Duo would be my "perfect" travel watch.


I have the Grande Reverso Duo, and it is a bit of a hassle in practice to have to flip the case to see the second timezone. But, the second dial is nice, as it allows you to change up the look from your daytime to evening watch. Practically, I agree with Jim44 that the JLC Master Hometime approach, with two 12 hour hands is the most intuitive for quickly reading a second timezone. I have the Montblanc Heritage Dual Time that mimics that design.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

mleok said:


> I have the Grande Reverso Duo, and it is a bit of a hassle in practice to have to flip the case to see the second timezone.


Well, I don't need to actively track the other time zone.
As mentioned, I am mainly between uk and hk and with uk time being gmt/gmt+1 and hk time set at gmt+8, i would pretty much have the watch set at those two, with the uk time on the button quick set to allow daylight savings.

Basically, the watch would serve the two time zones I'm in most.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

drunken monkey said:


> Well, I don't need to actively track the other time zone.
> As mentioned, I am mainly between uk and hk and with uk time being gmt/gmt+1 and hk time set at gmt+8, i would pretty much have the watch set at those two, with the uk time on the button quick set to allow daylight savings.
> 
> Basically, the watch would serve the two time zones I'm in most.


Fair enough. But, if you simply need to switch between two timezones on the main display, then maybe an Omega Aqua Terra with a quickset on the 12 hour hand would do the job.

On my Grande Reverso Duo, the main functional difference between the two dials is that one of them has the date, and the other has the 24 hour subdial as well. The quickset is on the dial with the date, and the dial with the 24 hour subdial stays stationary. This arrangement is analogous to the one on the Rolex GMT, makes the most sense for a travel watch. However, with the newer Reverso Duos, the quickset is now reversed, which makes more sense if you're staying put.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

mleok said:


> Fair enough. But, if you simply need to switch between two timezones on the main display, then maybe an *Omega Aqua Terra* with a quickset on the 12 hour hand would do the job.


Have one. 
To be honest, I travel with more than one watch and because both locations are "home", I also have a watch box at both locations. I don't *need* a practical travel watch, I just like the idea of one and in practice, my gmt does exactly what I need it to do.

Let's not forget that I am a movement hoarder and the Reverso Duo is a unique one.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

drunken monkey said:


> Let's not forget that I am a movement hoarder and the Reverso Duo is a unique one.


Okay, carry on.


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Hands90 said:


> It's sad you people buy these fake Rolex looking Steinharts, Invictas, Squales, Ginaults, etc.
> Could we have a mod Close this thread?


Lmao the Grinch is here

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

mleok said:


> Okay, carry on.


This is very hard to find a viable alternative for.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

drunken monkey said:


> This is very hard to find a viable alternative for.


Well, if you want two different faces, then the Reverso is the one to beat.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Hands90 said:


> It's sad you people buy these fake Rolex looking Steinharts, Invictas, Squales, Ginaults, etc.
> Could we have a mod Close this thread?


only if they also close GO homage referring threads . . .


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

Hands90 said:


> It's sad you people buy these fake Rolex looking Steinharts, Invictas, Squales, Ginaults, etc.
> Could we have a mod Close this thread?


I don't think the mods can give you a hand with that. Perhaps use your hands and close the thread. Hands down, that would be more handy


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Zombie threads are the norm around here.


Jim44 said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Jim44 said:


> IMO they should both be on a 12 hour scale. That way even my easily-confused brain can read it at a glance:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


People mistake that for a GMT Master?! Further endorsement of my point that average folks will not be able to recognise a Rolex from any other brand.......



Watchbreath said:


> I hope this thread is really dead before the start of the new year.


......there's life in the old dog yet :-!


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Hands90 said:


> It's sad you people buy these fake Rolex looking Steinharts, Invictas, Squales, Ginaults, etc.
> Could we have a mod Close this thread?


There's a village somewhere that has an opening for you, you'd be perfect.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> Zombie threads are the norm around here.


Don't zombie threads require a "dead" period, this is hardly dead, seeing as you keep on posting WB...... :roll:


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Can't find the magic wooden steak.


Hornet99 said:


> Don't zombie threads require a "dead" period, this is hardly dead, seeing as you keep on posting WB...... :roll:


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> Can't find the magic wooden steak.


Can't get your hands on a decent bit of wood eh.

......wooden stakes are for vampires btw, I think for Zombies you need to cut the head off?


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Watchbreath said:


> Can't find the magic wooden steak.


You mean "stick", right?


----------



## Jim44 (Jul 1, 2017)

Hornet99 said:


> People mistake that for a GMT Master?! Further endorsement of my point that average folks will not be able to recognise a Rolex from any other brand.......
> 
> ......there's life in the old dog yet :-!


I was being sarcastic, no one ever notices my watch 

BUT... I do agree with your point!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Hmmmm, never handled a Katana before.


Hornet99 said:


> Can't get your hands on a decent bit of wood eh.
> 
> ......wooden steaks are for vampires btw, I think for Zombies you need to cut the head off?


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

drunken monkey said:


> This is very hard to find a viable alternative for.


Darn, that is nice.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

lvt said:


> You mean "stick", right?


I think he means stake unless he hunts vampires with prime rib-eye

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheGanzman (Jan 12, 2010)

Maybe WB got ahold of that dog a few pages back...


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Olde age and all that.


RustyBin5 said:


> I think he means stake unless he hunts vampires with prime rib-eye
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

vkalia said:


> Darn, that is nice.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


For sure. Unfortunately for me, it is thicker than it should be, sigh . . . just the home dial on a grand reverso ultra slim tribute case would be dynamite.


----------



## falcon4311 (Jul 28, 2008)

RustyBin5 said:


> I think he means stake unless he hunts vampires with prime rib-eye
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Damn, you beat me to it.


----------



## Sub1680 (May 24, 2013)

Oh HAi, I am back now, I had to go to the drug store for more Tinactin. I once bought counterfeit Tinactin, it was bad. I could not sit for weeks.

Many people develop anxiety over what they see as counterfeit products. They develop a "counterfeit panic".

Maybe they ate a counterfeit steak and got indigestion.

On the other hand, did you know that there are about 30 deaths per year in America from accidents in elevators? Many of these accidents are due to the elevators being made from, or repaired with, counterfeit parts.

How can you tell if you are about to go inside a counterfeit elevator?

It is often simple. For instance, if you look down at the kickplate of the elevator floor as you enter, you will see the name of the manufacturer, such as OTIS.

It the elevator is a fake, it may use a similar but different name, like SILO or SITO.









If you see this as you enter the elevator, Be careful.


----------



## TheGanzman (Jan 12, 2010)

▲▲▲ - I'll have what he's having...


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> Olde age and all that.


Stake is original - you used the homage "steak". Welcome......you first step into being a homage fanboy. Have you ordered a Ginault yet?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

drunken monkey said:


> So explain why it isn't practical.
> 
> FYI
> I have my gmt hand set to track hong kong time while I live, work and travel in london and around Europe. I prefer to have my local time referenced in 12 hour scale and hong kong time is only for reference so 24hr scale is perfectly fine.
> ...


The problem is that there hardly is a home time that uses 24H so it's weird to use the GMT hand for your home time and the hour hand for local time. It's more natural to use the GMT (24H) to track any time zone but your home time.

The Rolex way is historically justifiable but few people use it nowadays. I don't think that pilots and travellers still bother unscrewing the crown all the time to set the hour hand again and again. I bet that people buy the GMT Master just for the look rather than for the GMT function.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

lvt said:


> The problem is that there hardly is a home time that uses 24H so it's weird to use the GMT hand for your home time and the hour hand for local time. It's more natural to use the GMT (24H) to track any time zone but your home time.


So basically, you mean it is less practical if you don't actually travel. 
I guess "desk travellers" is a thing now.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

lvt said:


> The problem is that there hardly is a home time that uses 24H so it's weird to use the GMT hand for your home time and the hour hand for local time. It's more natural to use the GMT (24H) to track any time zone but your home time.


One of the best watches for tracking time in other countries is, IMO, the JLC Master Geographic. It isnt as busy as a full-on world timer dial, but your main markers show home time, and world time is shown in a sub-dial, with the associated city in a small window below. Turn the crown at 10, and you can see the time in any city on the dial on the sub-dial.

Amazingly clean and tidy.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

drunken monkey said:


> So basically, you mean it is less practical if you don't actually travel.
> I guess "desk travellers" is a thing now.


Let's say you sit in your office in Washington and you are monitoring a possible nuclear ICBM launch in North Korea


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

vkalia said:


> One of the best watches for tracking time in other countries is, IMO, the JLC Master Geographic. It isnt as busy as a full-on world timer dial, but your main markers show home time, and world time is shown in a sub-dial, with the associated city in a small window below. Turn the crown at 10, and you can see the time in any city on the dial on the sub-dial.
> 
> Amazingly clean and tidy.


Personally I would buy an atomic G-shock watch and put the rest of money in the bank


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

RustyBin5 said:


> I think he means stake unless he hunts vampires with prime rib-eye


I'm not a vampire but a prime rib-eye would would most definitely lure me out from wherever I was! :-!


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

lvt said:


> Personally I would buy an atomic G-shock watch and put the rest of money in the bank


Don't be playing with all those buttons while you're supposed to be looking for North Korean nukes!! :rodekaart


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Don't be playing with all those buttons while you're supposed to be looking for North Korean nukes!! :rodekaart


Thanks for reminding.

I always have my backup watch, synchronized with Pongyang time of course


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

drunken monkey said:


> So basically, you mean it is less practical if you don't actually travel.
> I guess "desk travellers" is a thing now.


Well 90%+ of sub owners prob don't "dive" so?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jim44 (Jul 1, 2017)

RustyBin5 said:


> Well 90%+ of sub owners prob don't "dive" so?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


And we haven't even gotten to "pilot" watches yet... ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Jim44 said:


> And we haven't even gotten to "pilot" watches yet... ?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Need something to talk about in 2018

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Metlin (Dec 15, 2010)

RustyBin5 said:


> I think he means stake unless he hunts vampires with prime rib-eye


Or with dogs. Who's a good boy??!


----------



## Jim44 (Jul 1, 2017)

Metlin said:


> Or with dogs. Who's a good boy??!


Depends on the dog. Some are meant more for leisure than work










Not my pic (or dog) so I'm not sure if that's a Rolex or a Steinhart. Looks like a pretty happy dog either way 

Here's the one he should be wearing anyway:










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Toothbras (Apr 19, 2010)

Jim44 said:


> Depends on the dog. Some are meant more for leisure than work
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Leisure all the way 

This is an old pic, RIP Brutus


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Already a "fanboy", Longines - Hour Angle is atop the list. Oh, it's a REAL homage.


RustyBin5 said:


> Stake is original - you used the homage "steak". Welcome......you first step into being a homage fanboy. Have you ordered a Ginault yet?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Watchbreath said:


> Already a "fanboy", Longines - Hour Angle is atop the list. Oh, it's a REAL homage.


Hour angle is lovely watch. Not sure why I like it - very busy dial but its uniqueness sings to me. Which model you going for?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Lindbergh had a hand in its design, you can almost call it the original pilots' watch. Had one in my former store, it had to be seen to be believed and sadly the clown
who bought it, bought it because it was big. At the moment I'm not in the market for any watches.


RustyBin5 said:


> Hour angle is lovely watch. Not sure why I like it - very busy dial but its uniqueness sings to me. Which model you going for?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

;;

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Just a friendly remind that the Steinhart company is out of their business activities until Jan 08, 2018. Rolex SA continues their business hours as usual.


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

lvt said:


> Just a friendly remind that the Steinhart company is out of their business activities until Jan 08, 2018. Rolex SA continues their business hours as usual.


Hopefully Steinhart can cope with the backlog then.


----------



## Minorcollector (Dec 28, 2015)

lvt said:


> Just a friendly remind that the Steinhart company is out of their business activities until Jan 08, 2018. Rolex SA continues their business hours as usual.


I love my Steinhart, but their customer service is not the greatest. Never heard of an online company that completely shuts down for two weeks during the busiest shopping period of the year. But, They make a great product and people are willing to wait.


----------



## Sub1680 (May 24, 2013)

Oh look, here is some news!

Police Intercept Activist With Cheap Seiko For Gen. Prawit

BANGKOK - Ekachai Hongkangwan may have no love for the junta deputy junta chairman currently besieged by a scandal involving his collection of luxury watches, but the activist said Thursday that he sympathized with the general as a fellow watch lover.
That was the rationale Ekachai gave for attempting to block a junta motorcade Wednesday morning: to present Gen. Prawit Wongsuwan with a new watch as a New Year's gift. For his latest stunt, Ekachai was detained by police, though the activist said he was told no charges would be filed.

"Right now Prawit is facing a big backlash. He likes wearing watches, I understand his feeling," Ekachai said by phone from the Thewet Intersection police box, where he was being held. "Now that his watches have become big news, he has stopped wearing them. It feels like something is missing."

Read: Watch Watch: Seven Bling Timepieces and Counting

He continued, "If he wears [the expensive watches], it would be big news. I sympathize with him, so I wanted to give him a cheap watch. If he wears my cheap watch, no one would care."

His would-be late Christmas present? A Seiko wristwatch worth less than 3,000 baht.

Police Intercept Activist With Cheap Seiko For Gen. Prawit


----------



## DirkW (Mar 13, 2017)

Sorry I'm so late to the party. This thread reminds me of an incident over the summer.

I was attending a child's party at home in a swanky neighborhood. A pretentious neighbor awkwardly reaches over the table to position his Submariner inches from my face. I said "Nice watch, it looks just like an Invicta." He wasn't amused.


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Minorcollector said:


> I love my Steinhart, but their customer service is not the greatest. Never heard of an online company that completely shuts down for two weeks during the busiest shopping period of the year. But, They make a great product and people are willing to wait.


Steinhart repaired my 10 yr old watch for free and sent it back freepost with a free bar of praline chocolate.







I don't think being shut for 2 weeks at Xmas warrants me lowering their customer service score from a 10/10 in my eyes. Can only imagine what a Rolex repair would cost, still, at least they are open at Xmas 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

RustyBin5 said:


> Steinhart repaired my 10 yr old watch for free and sent it back freepost with a free bar of praline chocolate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't imagine that the UK Rolex service centre (in London) is open for all of Christmas. Bet they are shut for at least a week.......


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

DirkW said:


> Sorry I'm so late to the party. This thread reminds me of an incident over the summer.
> 
> I was attending a child's party at home in a swanky neighborhood. A pretentious neighbor awkwardly reaches over the table to position his Submariner inches from my face. I said "Nice watch, it looks just like an Invicta." He wasn't amused.


Maybe he is currently saving for his first Invicta that he thinks higher-end than his Sub


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Minorcollector said:


> Never heard of an online company that completely shuts down for two weeks during the busiest shopping period of the year.


Real WIS always managed to get their watches long before the rush period └(^o^)┘


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

DirkW said:


> I was attending a child's party at home in a swanky neighborhood. A pretentious neighbor awkwardly reaches over the table to position his Submariner inches from my face. I said "Nice watch, it looks just like an Invicta." He wasn't amused.


You mean he did so out of the blue? Or is there a backstory to this that you conveniently forgot to mention, such as a discussion of watches or something that led up to this?

I find it very hard to believe he just did so out of the blue. So I am going to have to give you a "Cool sorry, bro" sticker for this.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## DirkW (Mar 13, 2017)

vkalia said:


> DirkW said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry I'm so late to the party. This thread reminds me of an incident over the summer.
> ...


OK, here's the back story.

The host has frequent parties for his kids. The neighbor has a kids who is playmates with the hosts' kids, so he also attends all the parties. I'm related through marriage, so I attend all the parties with my wife. While attending an earlier party, I start talking watches with the host, who is a proud owner of a Breitling Navtimer. As we're talking, the host interrupts and introduces his neighbor. While the host starts to tell me the watches the neighbor owns, the neighbor interrupts and tell me he owns an Oris. He was not wearing a watch at the time. The neighbor and I went on to have several conversations over a variety of topics.

I'm obviously not opposed to owning nice things, but I own them for my own pleasure, and for the pleasure of my loved ones. So many people, including people I love, like to buy expensive stuff just to show off. Everyone in this particular neighborhood lives in newer 5,000+ sq' homes, drive expensive cars, and most I've met love to talk about what they own. Respect should come from who you are, not what you own.


----------



## Minorcollector (Dec 28, 2015)

lvt said:


> Real WIS always managed to get their watches long before the rush period └(^o^)┘


I think it's a testament to their quality product. People are actually willing to wait 2-3 weeks to get one. However, while these guys are doing whatever for two weeks off, literally every competitor is filling orders and making money. Still seems like a really bad business model.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Minorcollector said:


> I think it's a testament to their quality product. People are actually willing to wait 2-3 weeks to get one. However, while these guys are doing whatever for two weeks off, literally every competitor is filling orders and making money. Still seems like a really bad business model.


They continue to receive orders during the said period (you know it's e-commerce, right?). It's just the dispatches that will be delayed until they are back to office


----------



## Metlin (Dec 15, 2010)

vkalia said:


> You mean he did so out of the blue? Or is there a backstory to this that you conveniently forgot to mention, such as a discussion of watches or something that led up to this?
> 
> I find it very hard to believe he just did so out of the blue. So I am going to have to give you a "Cool sorry, bro" sticker for this.


Honestly, who doesn't?

I frequently walk around and stick my watches in the face of strangers. And not just my watches.


----------



## Minorcollector (Dec 28, 2015)

lvt said:


> They continue to receive orders during the said period (you know it's e-commerce, right?). It's just the dispatches that will be delayed until they are back to office


Yes, they receive orders but don't process them for weeks after. I ordered one about this time last year. At the same time last year I ordered a Melbourne (from Australia) and had it in my hand 5 days later complete with emails from their customer service people ensuring the watch arrived on time. Steinhart, you get crickets....there were a lot of threads on the Steinhart forum last year with people asking "WTF? Did my order go through?"

However, despite that, my Steinhart is still my favorite watch. Their watches truly are fantastic.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Minorcollector said:


> I think it's a testament to their quality product. People are actually willing to wait 2-3 weeks to get one. However, while these guys are doing whatever for two weeks off, literally every competitor is filling orders and making money. Still seems like a really bad business model.


Maybe they like to have a break and enjoy Christmas with their families! Gunter also needs time to raid the Rolex catalogue for next year's watches ;-)


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Minorcollector said:


> Yes, they receive orders but don't process them for weeks after. I ordered one about this time last year. At the same time last year I ordered a Melbourne (from Australia) and had it in my hand 5 days later complete with emails from their customer service people ensuring the watch arrived on time. Steinhart, you get crickets....there were a lot of threads on the Steinhart forum last year with people asking "WTF? Did my order go through?"
> 
> However, despite that, my Steinhart is still my favorite watch. Their watches truly are fantastic.


No offense when I say this (.....honestly) but is this symptomatic of modern society and a lack of patience?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Happy New Year watch lovers!!!


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

DirkW said:


> OK, here's the back story.
> 
> The host has frequent parties for his kids. The neighbor has a kids who is playmates with the hosts' kids, so he also attends all the parties. I'm related through marriage, so I attend all the parties with my wife. While attending an earlier party, I start talking watches with the host, who is a proud owner of a Breitling Navtimer. As we're talking, the host interrupts and introduces his neighbor. While the host starts to tell me the watches the neighbor owns, the neighbor interrupts and tell me he owns an Oris. He was not wearing a watch at the time. The neighbor and I went on to have several conversations over a variety of topics.


Hmm, since you talked about watches among other things, I wouldn't say he showed his watch "out of the blue." I think he was simply following up on a common topic of interest, nothing more nefarious than that...

That said, it also sounds like he didn't have a sense of humor regarding his watch; you might have well just called his kids stupid and ugly!



DirkW;44888319I said:


> 'm obviously not opposed to owning nice things, but I own them for my own pleasure, and for the pleasure of my loved ones. So many people, including people I love, like to buy expensive stuff just to show off. Everyone in this particular neighborhood lives in newer 5,000+ sq' homes, drive expensive cars, and most I've met love to talk about what they own. Respect should come from who you are, not what you own.


While others like to talk about their fancy vacations, the elite schools their kids got into, the shows they attended at Fashion Week, etc. Where do you draw the line between bragging and making cocktail party small talk?

IMO, it's all harmless chatter.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

drhr said:


> Happy New Year watch lovers!!!


Very cool pic! |>

Have a great 2018!


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Minorcollector said:


> Yes, they receive orders but don't process them for weeks after. I ordered one about this time last year. At the same time last year I ordered a Melbourne (from Australia) and had it in my hand 5 days later complete with emails from their customer service people ensuring the watch arrived on time. * Steinhart, you get crickets....there were a lot of threads on the Steinhart forum last year with people asking "WTF? Did my order go through?" *
> 
> However, despite that, my Steinhart is still my favorite watch. Their watches truly are fantastic.


Yeah, Steinhart could really prevent some avoidable customer angst by improving this part of the operation. There's nothing worse than being left hanging...


----------



## Metlin (Dec 15, 2010)

drhr said:


> Happy New Year watch lovers!!!


You're the perfect example of someone who loves watches, without judgment.

If you like something, wear it and enjoy it. It's not anyone's business to judge.


----------



## Minorcollector (Dec 28, 2015)

Hornet99 said:


> Maybe they like to have a break and enjoy Christmas with their families! Gunter also needs time to raid the Rolex catalogue for next year's watches ;-)


The whole place takes a 2 week vacation at the same time? i cant think of another business that does that.


----------



## Minorcollector (Dec 28, 2015)

Hornet99 said:


> No offense when I say this (.....honestly) but is this symptomatic of modern society and a lack of patience?


It's just how modern business operates. I got my Melbourne delivered from Australia to Florida in 5 days after ordering during the Christmas holidays. It's not a lack of patience, it a matter of what competitors are doing. Melbourne chose to keep the door open while Steinhart decided to close up shop for a couple of week. It's a business decision.


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

RustyBin5 said:


> Dog = beef homage
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


A lot of major BS in this thread, but wading through 25 or so pages was made worth it in one post. I laughed out loud.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

gagnello said:


> A lot of major BS in this thread, but wading through 25 or so pages was made worth it in one post. I laughed out loud.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 mission accomplished - merry xmas!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pickle puss (Feb 13, 2006)

Aside from a WIS get together I've never been in the same room with anyone else who gives a hoot about watches,let alone owns a nice one.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

drhr said:


> Happy New Year watch lovers!!!


I feel offended when I see this pic, the watch in the center should be a Steinhart.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

lvt said:


> I feel offended when I see this pic, the watch in the center should be a Steinhart.


But it's not a Sub so I don't put it with these ;-) . . .


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Minorcollector said:


> The whole place takes a 2 week vacation at the same time? i cant think of another business that does that.


I know of two: a national defense laboratory in New Mexico and a money management firm in Connecticut.

And I'm sure _many_ in the latter category are staffed by the most junior personnel during the last weeks of the year and told, _"Don't touch anything; just call us if something happens."_


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

lvt said:


> I feel offended when I see this pic, the watch in the center should be a Steinhart.


I'm offended that you're offended. :-d

HNY!


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

Toothbras said:


> This is one of the weirdest posts I've ever read


I am right there w you

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Minorcollector (Dec 28, 2015)

BigSeikoFan said:


> I know of two: a national defense laboratory in New Mexico and a money management firm in Connecticut.
> 
> And I'm sure _many_ in the latter category are staffed by the most junior personnel during the last weeks of the year and told, _"Don't touch anything; just call us if something happens."_


Never heard of a company that sells stuff that completely shuts down for two weeks.


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

Minorcollector said:


> Never heard of a company that sells stuff that completely shuts down for two weeks.


I have a lot of respect for a firm that treats their employees to extended time off. I wonder if it is PTO?


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

DirkW said:


> OK, here's the back story.
> 
> I'm obviously not opposed to owning nice things, but I own them for my own pleasure, and for the pleasure of my loved ones. So many people, including people I love, like to buy expensive stuff just to show off. Everyone in this particular neighborhood lives in newer 5,000+ sq' homes, drive expensive cars, and most I've met love to talk about what they own. Respect should come from who you are, not what you own.


I agree with the sentiment in your last paragraph.

That said, for the most part, I would tend to be a little less bothered by someone showing me a fancy watch on his wrist *after* we've conversed about watches. As an enthusiast, I like talking watches with fellow enthusiasts, and to me, something like this could be just enthusiasm.

Hell, even if someone is it showing off an expensive purchase, it wouldnt bother me as long as the discussion was about the product and not the price. I find people who are enthusiastic about things -whatever they may be - to be interesting company.

(Speaking generally - obviously I don't know the specifics of that guy and that situation).

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

lvt said:


> I feel offended when I see this pic, the watch in the center should be a Steinhart.


I thought they all were Steinharts........ b-)


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Minorcollector said:


> The whole place takes a 2 week vacation at the same time? i cant think of another business that does that.





Minorcollector said:


> It's just how modern business operates. I got my Melbourne delivered from Australia to Florida in 5 days after ordering during the Christmas holidays. It's not a lack of patience, it a matter of what competitors are doing. Melbourne chose to keep the door open while Steinhart decided to close up shop for a couple of week. It's a business decision.


https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifesty...atification/q8tWDNGeJB2mm45fQxtTQP/story.html

Maybe they just have a different ethos. Their business doesn't seem to suffer from this.....


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Hornet99 said:


> I thought they all were Steinharts........ b-)


It should have been the case


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Minorcollector said:


> Never heard of a company that sells stuff that completely shuts down for two weeks.


Must be making enough money to not worry about it...... bet the staff enjoy working there

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Hornet99 said:


> https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifesty...atification/q8tWDNGeJB2mm45fQxtTQP/story.html
> 
> Maybe they just have a different ethos. Their business doesn't seem to suffer from this.....


Ofc the obvious point here is that they don't only selll direct and chronomaster and gnomon don't close for 2 weeks - so they still make money by shifting stock during that time

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

RustyBin5 said:


> Ofc the obvious point here is that they don't only selll direct and chronomaster and gnomon don't close for 2 weeks - so they still make money by shifting stock during that time
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


.....and their Hong Kong AD was only closed for two days.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Hornet99 said:


> .....and their Hong Kong AD was only closed for two days.


In HK they are waiting for the traditional Chinese New Year. It surely will last more than 2 days


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

RustyBin5 said:


> Must be making enough money to not worry about it...... bet the staff enjoy working there
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Especially when you don't have to hear about Steinhart vs Rolex saga


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

lvt said:


> Especially when you don't have to hear about Steinhart vs Rolex saga


And ofc there IS no vs, since different target market completely

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

RustyBin5 said:


> And ofc there IS no vs, since different target market completely
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


And didn't we win this round? Making Steinhart better than Rolex |> b-)


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Hornet99 said:


> And didn't we win this round? Making Steinhart better than Rolex |> b-)










although I do like (and am wearing) Tudor a lot so I guess I'm a hypocrite.









I'll get me coat

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RUSH2689 (Sep 28, 2011)

^^ That Tudor is beautiful


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

RustyBin5 said:


> Well 90%+ of sub owners prob don't "dive" so?


Irrelevant. 
Dive watch specs are static and do not affect how a person uses it.

On the other hand in a gmt watch the point is that the reference does not change regardless of you location i.e your local time can be changed as you change time zones.
If your argument is that if you don't travel then the quick set is more practical on the reference hand then basically you are saying it's better that way if you don't use it like it was intended.

But I forget that this is the place where some people say you can use the chrono hand in a Speedmaster Pro to mark the date.


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

drunken monkey said:


> Irrelevant.
> Dive watch specs are static and do not affect how a person uses it.
> 
> On the other hand in a gmt watch the point is that the reference does not change regardless of you location i.e your local time can be changed as you change time zones.
> ...


It's not irrelevant - we are talking about a gmt function - it's my favourite complication and yet I don't travel much. I just like them. The comparison with people who like dive watches and don't go near water would therefore be a valid one.

You are talking about the different mechanics of how companies implement their dual times whereas I'm talking about the habits of the wearers. Cross purposes perhaps as we are both probably correct.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

RUSH2689 said:


> ^^ That Tudor is beautiful


Thank you. Bit of a faux pas sticking it on leather but I'm not really going swimming any time soon and it suits it pretty well 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

RustyBin5 said:


> It's not irrelevant - we are talking about a gmt function - it's my favourite complication and yet I don't travel much. I just like them. The comparison with people who like dive watches and don't go near water would therefore be a valid one.


Logical fallacy.
The function of watch should be judged on its performance for its intended purpose. Saying a watch function is more practical if you don't use it as it was intended is plain stupid.

And let's be clear here, the reason why the ETA gmt works that way us because it is a modification of an existing movement (2836), not because it is more "practical" or somehow "better" than the other method.


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

drunken monkey said:


> Logical fallacy.
> The function of watch should be judged on its performance for its intended purpose. Saying a watch function is more practical if you don't use it as it was intended is plain stupid.
> 
> And let's be clear here, the reason why the ETA gmt works that way us because it is a modification of an existing movement (2836), not because it is more "practical" or somehow "better" than the other method.


"Let's be clear here". Your flippant "irrelevant" says more about you than I ever could. You say diver specs are static yet there are count up count down and different variations so plainly that's just incorrect. If I go abroad and want to set my second time to be the one back home so I don't wake my folks up, then the Rolex gmt doesn't meet my needs. I won't call your comments plain stupid as that's your style not mine, but you are certainly coming across as a colourful character. Nice that Santa brought you the blinkers you wanted though. Merry Xmas

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Hornet99 said:


> And didn't we win this round? Making Steinhart better than Rolex |> b-)


The fact that you thought it was a competition instead of an adult conversation says much about you, and about F2.

Rick "seeing a lot of air punches being thrown long after everyone else left the ring in disgust" Denney


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Rdenney said:


> The fact that you thought it was a competition instead of an adult conversation says much about you, and about F2.
> 
> Rick "seeing a lot of air punches being thrown long after everyone else left the ring in disgust" Denney


This thread is the gift that keeps on giving. They should rename it the Hotel California thread on account you can check out any time you like but you can never leave.

Rusty "not surprised to see Rick checking in again" Bin5

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

RustyBin5 said:


> If I go abroad and want to set my second time to be the one back home so I don't wake my folks up, then the Rolex gmt doesn't meet my needs


Actually it does and it will do it better.

2nd time (on 24 hour hand tells you if it's day or night) and you can then quickset the hourhand to suit whichever time zone you're in without affecting hometime, unless you need a 24 hour hand to you if it's day or night where you are.


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

drunken monkey said:


> Actually it does and it will do it better.
> 
> 2nd time (on 24 hour hand tells you if it's day or night) and you can then quickset the hourhand to suit whichever time zone you're in without affecting hometime, unless you need a 24 hour hand to you if it's day or night where you are.


The issue to me is one of incorrect use of GMT. The eta gmts should be called dual times then the Rolex can be called gmt. But really it makes little difference outside of pedantry since the upshot is simply a desire to monitor more than one time simultaneously

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

vkalia said:


> Hell, even if someone is it showing off an expensive purchase, it wouldnt bother me as long as the discussion was about the product and not the price. *I find people who are enthusiastic about things - whatever they may be - to be interesting company.
> *


What he said, right there.

Have a happy 2018!


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Rdenney said:


> The fact that you thought it was a competition instead of an adult conversation says much about you, and about F2.
> 
> Rick "seeing a lot of air punches being thrown long after everyone else left the ring in disgust" Denney


Are you struggling to see the joke there Rick? Your attitude towards a little bit of lighthearted banter, in taking all of this far too seriously, speaks volumes about you. o|

P.s. If you've left the ring you're conceding the fight (it's another joke btw).


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

lvt said:


> The problem is that there hardly is a home time that uses 24H so it's weird to use the GMT hand for your home time and the hour hand for local time. It's more natural to use the GMT (24H) to track any time zone but your home time.
> 
> The Rolex way is historically justifiable but few people use it nowadays. I don't think that pilots and travellers still bother unscrewing the crown all the time to set the hour hand again and again. I bet that people buy the GMT Master just for the look rather than for the GMT function.


I use mine all the time and travel a pretty good bit










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

jmanlay said:


> I use mine all the time and travel a pretty good bit
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How the date works on your watch? It's linked to the hour hand or the GMT hand?


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

lvt said:


> How the date works on your watch? It's linked to the hour hand or the GMT hand?


That is a good question the date is linked to the 12 hour hand. I use the "gmt " hand as the local time in the city where I am at and the regular 12 hour hand as my home time. 
When I go overseas I use the gmt as my home and the 12 hour as my local.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheGanzman (Jan 12, 2010)

Let me end this thread RIGHT now; to wit: MY Dad can beat up YOUR Dad(s)...


----------



## Metlin (Dec 15, 2010)

BigSeikoFan said:


> vkalia said:
> 
> 
> > Hell, even if someone is it showing off an expensive purchase, it wouldnt bother me as long as the discussion was about the product and not the price. *I find people who are enthusiastic about things -whatever they may be - to be interesting company.*
> ...


Couldn't agree more.

I think so many people go through life without being really passionate about things. To quote Jack Kerouac:

_"...the only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars..."_


----------



## Sub1680 (May 24, 2013)

(Please note I'm posting this in Lucid Mode as opposed to my earlier Jedi Mind Control Posting Mode.)

In my experience the Rolex/GS approach of making the 12 hour hand and date independent works best for those who travel between different time zones. The ETA/Orient approach works best for those who stay in one place but make calls to different time zones. Mind you, the original GMT Master didn't have independent hands; the 24 hour hand was basically a day/night indicator for your home time and you used the bezel for wherever you were.


----------



## Sub1680 (May 24, 2013)

(Lucid Mode Off)

When I went to London I did not have a GMT watch. So I went to the Royal Observatory Greenwich, and saw the actual line. There were a lot of drunk people tripping over it. I went to the gift shop. They didn't have any GMT watches. They had those stupid TV-shaped Lip watches, though.

Travelling is hard. In foreign countries you can feel lonely. One trip I asked the cab driver to take me to Dennys. I figured they're everywhere.

he drove me to this place


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

It's Hogmanay - tonight I will hug homage and original watch wearers without distinction between the two. The only thing I will think looking at their watches is whether it's 12 o'clock yet. To be certain I might seek out a radio controlled eco drive wearer . Happy new year to one and all. Stay safe 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Brey17 (Mar 29, 2016)

I have decided this is my last watch wear of 2017.

It's my last chance to try to fool anyone into thinking I am wearing a Rolex this year. xD Since I am on the couch surfing WUS, I doubt there is much chance of that anyway.

Looking forward to more homage/copy lovers vs anti-homage/copy lovers throughout the 2018!


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

I seriously think that 2018 will be a great year for homage watches.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Do you think that Longines is working overtime?


lvt said:


> I seriously think that 2018 will be a great year for homage watches.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Watchbreath said:


> Do you think that Longines is working overtime?


Rather undertime in my opinion


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

lvt said:


> I seriously think that 2018 will be a great year for homage watches.


Indeed, will be looking for another like this homage . . .


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

drhr said:


> Indeed, will be looking for another like this homage . . .


Seagull brand from China may have what you want, only if there are enough of demands...


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

lvt said:


> Seagull brand from China may have what you want, only if there are enough of demands...


Mine is a Homage to FA Lange of course, not sure SG is doing anything to honor their founder(s), so search continues into the coming yr, hope your prognostication will come to pass . . .


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

drhr said:


> Indeed, will be looking for another like this homage . . .


Holy crap! Excuse the language, but OMG! |>


----------



## anrex (Jul 30, 2017)

An inside job for a Submariner Homage...


----------



## pickle puss (Feb 13, 2006)

Interesting triva note pertaining to this epic thread.

The OP ,with the obvious exception being the initial post, has never since posted in the thread.

Also the OP has not posted on the forum in over a year.

Thank you, Raider89, wherever you are.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Holy crap! Excuse the language, but OMG! |>


Yeah. That is probably my favorite watch on WUS, period. Every time i see it, I drool a little.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

vkalia said:


> Yeah. That is probably my favorite watch on WUS, period. Every time i see it, I drool a little.


Too kind sir . . . . what with your recent acquisitions, it's me/us who should be foaming at the mouth.


----------



## Sub1680 (May 24, 2013)

anrex said:


> An inside job for a Submariner Homage...
> 
> View attachment 12771567


Ironic, since this exact watch with a cyclops is what the Sub should look like today. But Nooooooooo....


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Sub1680 said:


> Ironic, since this exact watch with a *cyclops* is what the Sub should look like today. But Nooooooooo....


So glad I got one before they added the magnifier and fattened it up . . . .


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

drhr said:


> Indeed, will be looking for another like this homage . . .


Which Lange is that?? When was it made?? And if I mortgage my house, can I afford it???


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Avo said:


> Which Lange is that?? When was it made?? And if I mortgage my house, can I afford it???


1815 Moon Phase Homage to FA Lange, 2010 limited edition, 265 in the world, rarely come up for sale (from what I've noticed) but if/when I don't see why not (depending on house equity of course) since the prices should be no different than from any other "expensive watch" manufacturer . . .


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

Sweet! Yeah, I would guess that no one (including you?) who owns one is going to sell anytime soon ...


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Avo said:


> Sweet! Yeah, I would guess that no one (including you?) who owns one is going to sell anytime soon ...


 Took me four years to find one used (at more than I was hoping to pay) so gonna hold it at least 4 years just on principle alone, the looks will extend that period of course (backside's not too shabby either imo) ;-) . . .

Avo, I'm glad I'm not the only one who appreciates a good looking watch, thanks for the nice sentiment . . . . Lange has come out with many gorgeous pieces imo, especially the older no longer in production models that I wish I could grab but was way late . . .


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

I saw one of those moonphase Lange 1815s on sale last year at Chrono24. In hindsight, a part of me wonders if i should have skipped the 4-watch binge of the past 12-odd months and gotten that instead. 

Probably not, as these recent 4 really flesh out my collection very nicely, but maybe i should plan to go on the hunt for one myself, and flip my Up/Down for one of these, if i can find it. It really is deserving of grail status (in some ways, a more realistic grail - the kind you can marry and live happily ever, unlike the Zeitwerk, which is mainly one to ogle/fantasize over but which may not be as easy to live with).


----------



## TJMike (Jan 30, 2014)

vkalia said:


> I saw one of those moonphase Lange 1815s on sale last year at Chrono24. In hindsight, a part of me wonders if i should have skipped the 4-watch binge of the past 12-odd months and gotten that instead.
> 
> Probably not, as these recent 4 really flesh out my collection very nicely, but maybe i should plan to go on the hunt for one myself, and flip my Up/Down for one of these, if i can find it. It really is deserving of grail status (in some ways, a more realistic grail - the kind you can marry and live happily ever, unlike the Zeitwerk, which is mainly one to ogle/fantasize over but which may not be as easy to live with).


Here you go:
https://www.chrono24.com/alangesoeh...tion-18k-honey-gold-mens-watch--id6400057.htm

And something similar to tempt you:
https://www.chrono24.com/alangesoeh...mmage-limited-150-pcs---231035--id5041028.htm
https://www.chrono24.com/alangesoehne/1815--id7288105.htm


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

TJMike said:


> Here you go:
> https://www.chrono24.com/alangesoeh...tion-18k-honey-gold-mens-watch--id6400057.htm
> 
> And something similar to tempt you:
> ...


The platinum Emil Lange Homage is a stunner for sure . . .


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

TJMike said:


> Here you go:
> https://www.chrono24.com/alangesoeh...tion-18k-honey-gold-mens-watch--id6400057.htm
> 
> And something similar to tempt you:
> ...


So I got a message from someone yesterday telling me they have a new 5711 coming next month. My well of watch funds is dry, and I am not gonna dip into savings to buy a watch.

And now this.

*Sigh*

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## TJMike (Jan 30, 2014)

vkalia said:


> So I got a message from someone yesterday telling me they have a new 5711 coming next month. My well of watch funds is dry, and I am not gonna dip into savings to buy a watch.
> 
> And now this.
> 
> ...


Well if you are disciplined, buy the watch by dipping into your savings. Then rebuild your savings by not buying a watch for a few years. You could also flip a few watches, pens, and bikes(?). No regrets and not buying the watch will cause regrets.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

TJMike said:


> Well if you are disciplined, buy the watch by dipping into your savings. Then rebuild your savings by not buying a watch for a few years. You could also flip a few watches, pens, and bikes(?). No regrets and not buying the watch will cause regrets.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


.... just don't borrow

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Donut vs Steinhart


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

TJMike said:


> Well if you are disciplined, buy the watch by dipping into your savings. Then rebuild your savings by not buying a watch for a few years. You could also flip a few watches, pens, and bikes(?). No regrets and not buying the watch will cause regrets.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Nah. I am not very disciplined by nature, and my way around that is to set some ground rules that I do NOT break. One of those rules is that money that goes into my savings is not to be taken out for indulgences. And watches are just that.

Plus, nothing I want to sell from my core collection.

So the 5711 will have to wait. In any case, I need a new underwater rig and then a Rolex for the missus first (it was close - she was eyeing an Omega initially). About the only watch I am going to buy in the next 2-3 months is maybe a green dialled Oris 65.

Late 2019 or 2020 - decision time. Get a 5711 or 5712. Let's see.

Sent from my SM-C900F using Tapatalk


----------



## TJMike (Jan 30, 2014)

vkalia said:


> Nah. I am not very disciplined by nature, and my way around that is to set some ground rules that I do NOT break. One of those rules is that money that goes into my savings is not to be taken out for indulgences. And watches are just that.
> 
> Plus, nothing I want to sell from my core collection.
> 
> ...


Either Patek is average against those Lange watches.

And I would never have guessed you are not very disciplined 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

TJMike said:


> Either Patek is average against those Lange watches.
> 
> And I would never have guessed you are not very disciplined
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hah yeah, my mom, bless her heart, still holds out hope that, as I am about to turn 45, I will learn patience and discipline.

I haven't shut the door on a big Lange. One possible permutation that I have is to get a 5712 instead of 5711, and use the 12th slot on something truly special (Z******k?).

If I go that route, 2018 will be a Box 2 year. Which is ok as well.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

TJMike said:


> Well if you are disciplined, buy the watch by dipping into your savings. Then rebuild your savings by not buying a watch for a few years. You could also flip a few watches, pens, and bikes(?). No regrets and not buying the watch will cause regrets.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Pro Enabling par excellence :-! . . .


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

vkalia said:


> Hah yeah, my mom, bless her heart, still holds out hope that, as I am about to turn 45, I will learn patience and discipline.
> 
> I haven't shut the door on a big Lange. One possible permutation that I have is to get a 5712 instead of 5711, and use the 12th slot on something truly special (Z******k?).
> 
> ...


5712, 5712, go 5712!!!!!


----------



## Jim44 (Jul 1, 2017)

drhr said:


> Pro Enabling par excellence :-! . . .


Yeah, "A" is for "Abstinence", not "Advocacy"! FFS! 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jim44 (Jul 1, 2017)

Jim44 said:


> Yeah, "A" is for "Abstinence", not "Advocacy"! FFS!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sorry, I thought this post was in the WPAC! Carry on ...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Loofa (May 31, 2013)

By default I'm not into homages, but this new smaller 39mm OVM is the best 5517 homage out there.









It's a combo of the normal OVM being stupidly big and that a 5517 costs more than a year's salary (g fowler NEEDS to have 13 of them so that doesn't help supply and demand lol)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

TJMike said:


> Here you go:
> https://www.chrono24.com/alangesoeh...tion-18k-honey-gold-mens-watch--id6400057.htm


OK, I've updated my grail list: the Lange 1 moonphase is out (I don't really like the day-night wheel they added recently, and the GO PML is close enough at 1/4 the cost), and the 1815 moonphase LE is in!


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Avo said:


> OK, I've updated my grail list: the Lange 1 moonphase is out (I don't really like the day-night wheel they added recently, and the GO PML is close enough at 1/4 the cost), and the 1815 moonphase LE is in!


Oh great. Now I have competition.

See what you did, Mike?

Sent from my SM-C900F using Tapatalk


----------



## TJMike (Jan 30, 2014)

vkalia said:


> Oh great. Now I have competition.
> 
> See what you did, Mike?
> 
> Sent from my SM-C900F using Tapatalk


You had your chance. You did not take it. Regrets, you have a few...


----------



## Minorcollector (Dec 28, 2015)

TJMike said:


> Well if you are disciplined, buy the watch by dipping into your savings. Then rebuild your savings by not buying a watch for a few years. You could also flip a few watches, pens, and bikes(?). No regrets and not buying the watch will cause regrets.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Talk about instant gratification. Dipping into savings to buy a watch...if you are willing to do something that dumb you will never rebuild savings. There will always be something more temping. Buying a watch you can not afford will cause tremendous regret. Not buying a watch you can't afford will probably make you thankful that you didn't blow a wad since your taste will most likely change and you have money to spend on important things.


----------



## anrex (Jul 30, 2017)

Oh, sorry, wrong thread...


----------



## fish70 (Oct 12, 2006)

I mistook a gold-tone Seiko day date for a Datejust once.


----------



## pickle puss (Feb 13, 2006)

Richard Brautigan wrote in "Trout Fishing in America" (perhaps this is what prompted this epic thread)

_I remember mistaking an old woman for a trout stream in Vermont, and I had to beg her pardon._
_"Excuse me," I said. "I thought you were a trout stream."_
_"I'm not," she said.

_


----------



## TJMike (Jan 30, 2014)

Minorcollector said:


> Talk about instant gratification. Dipping into savings to buy a watch...if you are willing to do something that dumb you will never rebuild savings. There will always be something more temping. Buying a watch you can not afford will cause tremendous regret. Not buying a watch you can't afford will probably make you thankful that you didn't blow a wad since your taste will most likely change and you have money to spend on important things.


When did I mention buying a watch one can't afford? I was talking to @vkalia who can afford such watches. I also clearly pointed out whether he was disciplined enough to dip into his savings.

As for dipping into savings to buy a watch, I have done it on two occasions. And each time I have rebuilt my savings to a lot more than they were before.

So maybe it is best not to generalize.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## briang583 (Mar 25, 2014)

Minorcollector said:


> The whole place takes a 2 week vacation at the same time? i cant think of another business that does that.


I'm really thankful to live in Europe where many companies give their employees time with their familys around the holidays. There are several very large and prestegious production companies which stop production completely around this time. I'm American so I also know that not everywhere works like this, but here it is fairly normal.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Maybe it is time to let this thread drift off into the sunset with @drhr as an example of what being watch enthusiast truly is about: someone who appreciates watches for what they are, regardless of price. No snobbery or drawing-of-battle-lines on either end of the spectrum (and no stretched-logic justifications either). 

Incidentally, it is his fondness for the Steinhart that convinced me to get a Squale MilSub homage. I like the watch. Not sure i am fully comfortable with the design rip-off part, but it is ameliorated to some extent by the fact that this is a relatively old/obscure (in the wider, non-WUS world) model that is essentially unobtanium, and so it isnt copying anything presently under production.

A downside of that - i kinda wish i had a real Rolex Milsub.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

It's hard to fault drhr generally. Top guy.


----------



## HSTexan (Mar 19, 2014)

I really like Steinharts for their price, but I personally can't get over most of them because of the near 1:1 copy of Rolex. I owned an OVM1 for a bit and it kept time at -0.7s/day over a span of two weeks. It was incredibly accurate and beautifully made. As a copy of the 5517 it's about the only one I could convince myself to buy as I'll probably never own an actually 5517. Then they released their 39mm line and I'd love to get one as a beater or for when I'm traveling out of the country, but I just wish they took at least some liberty in changing the design a bit. Use different shaped hands or don't try to mimic the text placement and fonts as a Submariner. Of course I think the flip side is most people probably don't look at your wrist or know what watch you're wearing unless they're into watches as well which in my experience is fairly rare.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

vkalia said:


> Incidentally, it is his fondness for the Steinhart that convinced me to get a Squale MilSub homage. I like the watch. Not sure i am fully comfortable with the design rip-off part, but it is ameliorated to some extent by the fact that this is a relatively old/obscure (in the wider, non-WUS world) model that is essentially unobtanium, and so it isnt copying anything presently under production.
> 
> A downside of that - i kinda wish i had a real Rolex Milsub.


I think one of the things that makes the MilSub's character is the fully marked bezel, which the Squale doesn't have. The new 39mm OVM ticks all the right boxes for a rep of the original 5517 if that's what you're after.

What I'd like to see, is an Omega style big triangle dial in a Rolex style case, or maybe Tudor Snowflake dial too with the MilSub bezel.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

drunken monkey said:


> I think one of the things that makes the MilSub's character is the fully marked bezel, which the Squale doesn't have. The new 39mm OVM ticks all the right boxes for a rep of the original 5517 if that's what you're after.


Funnily, I actually picked the Squale because it was a little different. Tempting though the design would be, a full duplicate of the Milsub would have been a bit more than I'd feel comfortable owning.

There is probably a very large degree of self-rationalization I am doing in drawing the lime HERE as opposed to just a wee bit over THERE, but that's how it goes.

And i am not ruling out getting the Steinhart either. As my core collection nears completion, I am finding renewed interest in less expensive watches.

Let's see how time with the Squale goes.



> What I'd like to see, is an Omega style big triangle dial in a Rolex style case, or maybe Tudor Snowflake dial too with the MilSub bezel.


Email Steinhart 

Sent from my SM-C900F using Tapatalk


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

vkalia said:


> Funnily, I actually picked the Squale because it was a little different. Tempting though the design would be, a full duplicate of the Milsub would have been a bit more than I'd feel comfortable owning.
> 
> There is probably a very large degree of self-rationalization I am doing in drawing the lime HERE as opposed to just a wee bit over THERE, but that's how it goes.
> 
> ...


But I guess this does also boil down to what it is about the watch you like. As I said, I like the bezel above all else and my interest in other dials probably supports that idea further. What I like about the homage market is that it allows for versions of watches that don't normally exist, which is where out of production vintage models falls under.

I really like black bezel/white dial divers but they hardly exist from the mainstream manufacturers. I like the Sub and think it would look good with that combo (ala TAGHeuer 1000 full lume dial) and if Steinhart were to make one (NTH has one) I'd be interested.

My reservation with Steinhart is that their lugs are straighter/flatter than the Rolex (or other more dubiously cased) ones are, so not sure how it would fit on me.


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Glad you like it Hornet - is it a keeper?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

RustyBin5 said:


> Glad you like it Hornet - is it a keeper?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think so. But going to give it a few more days to make my mind up......


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

hmm, that specialized customized blue Rolex doesn't look like a homage to me?


----------



## soaking.fused (May 3, 2012)

This thread has ran its course. Closed.


----------

