Caveman's Watch Forum

When does a tribute/homage become a ? My thoughts..

Posted By: Ricky Lee McBroom
Date: Friday, 15 April 2005, at 1:28 a.m.

This watch caught my eye while browsing :

I initially took it for an true vintage piece. When I saw that it was actually brand new, with the dial "specially plated for a retro look", I was kind of bothered by that.

I don't know why, exactly. It's not a matter of it being a , exactly. I mean, as I understand it, several different watches were produced under the B Uhr specs. They were made by different vendors, were by no means identical, and this particular Aeromatic 1912 doesn't try to exactly duplicate any specific example. It's more of an attempt to distill them into a single watch that captures the essence of the design.

So in that respect, it is perhaps a more honest tribute than the many "Panerai homage watches" on the market. And I have two of those, and love them both. So why did this Flieger bother me?

After thinking it over, I believe it's the oh-so-carefully crafted patina on the dial.. complete with age spotting! I dunno.. it's like by wearing one you'd be trying to pass it off as an actual vintage piece, and that bothers me. So, just as I'd never wear a branded, copyright-infringing , I just couldn't wear this.

That said, I think I could handle this one:

Same watch basically, sans the faux age spots. And I kinda like it!

So I guess, in a nutshell, you cross the line from tribute/homage to fake when you actually misuse anothers copyright by branding the watch & trying to pass it off as the real deal. But that's not the whole story. I find this attempt to pass off a generic but newly minted watch as vintage to be just as objectionable...

Does this make sense to anyone else?

-Ricky

Messages In This Thread

 When does a tribute/homage become a ? My thoughts.. (views: 107)
Ricky Lee McBroom -- Friday, 15 April 2005, at 1:28 a.m.

 I bought a new bomber jacket that looked forty years old. I'm trying to distinguish between the two concepts. . . (views: 35)
Kelly M. Rayburn -- Friday, 15 April 2005, at 1:49 a.m.

 Yeah, pretty much the same. 'course, I wouldn't do the jacket, either.. >> (views: 20)
Ricky Lee McBroom -- Friday, 15 April 2005, at 2:31 a.m.

 Yeah, I see what you mean. It would take ages for a dial to get a patina. . . (views: 16)
Kelly M. Rayburn -- Friday, 15 April 2005, at 2:35 a.m.

 Well, I would suggest >> (views: 17)
John N -- Friday, 15 April 2005, at 2:10 a.m.

 I'd like it, without the faux patina (views: 7)
greg honeycutt -- Friday, 15 April 2005, at 1:41 a.m.

 I find it kind of humourous actually...esp the fake patina (views: 8)
Stef G -- Friday, 15 April 2005, at 1:31 a.m.

'Poor Man's' Watch Forum - Foro de Relojes Para el 'Hombre Pobre' - Horlogeforum voor de 'Arme Man'

Some people buy dog food because it is on sale, even though they don't have a dog. . .

Posted By: Kelly M. Rayburn... >
Date: Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 1:11 a.m.

there are some really inexpensive but quite nice looking homage watches out there and people are snapping them up by the dozens. I wonder if the buyer would ultimately be happier by saving for a watch that he really wants, rather than buy several cheap, quick fix luxury watch look-a-likes. The Rolex Sub and Explorer homages are so abundant that I wonder if anyone really appreciates the technical and qaulitative differences between the homage and the real deal.

Messages In This Thread

Some people buy dog food because it is on sale, even though they don't have a dog. . . (views: 1)
Kelly M. Rayburn -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 1:11 a.m.

 Hmm......and this all started with dog food.
sushirob -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 5:28 a.m.

 Funny thing is that everyone I know who owns a Rolex is not a WIS, they just bought them because they want people to>>>
Mike D -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 3:50 a.m.
see the Rolex as a status symbol. I could not care less about the status and really don't want a Submariner mainly because they are a bit small for my taste. I have an Invicta 8926, but it gets virtually no wrist time. I do think a WIS with an homage would be happier with the real thing, but like me, many have trouble saving for that one watch. I seem to not be happy if I don't have some "different" looking watch on its way to me. I do think I have way too many watches as 60% of what I own does not get worn, but I don't like selling them either. I am probably more of an accumulator than a collector. I can certainly appreciate the differences between an homage and the real thing for some watches, but I do have a hard time with what some companies charge for watches. I am talking like Tag, Panerai, Kobold or Marathon. They cost what they cost because someone will pay for them. As long as someone will pay, there is a market and I guess ya can't blame them for getting what they can from the buying public. I will buy a nice Omega this year and I think I'd like a Robert Poseidon or Marcello since I like the style, but want a larger watch than a Rolex Sub, but that is the only reason for not picking up a used sub for $1K. If I really like the watch, I would pay the money, up to about $2K max. I can't see me spending more than that in the near future, but that could change!  Not sure if I really replied to the post subject or just babbled on and on, but that's my $0.04 worth!

 Here's my feeling about Rolex and Homages >>
Zeb -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 3:11 a.m.
No offense to anyone, but I don't like the Rolex styles much, mainly because they are so over copied that the copies have become the reality. The first thing people ask when they see a Rolex or Rolex look alike on your wrist is "Is it real?" So the expectation is that it's a fake. I wouldn't want to spend the money on such a watch. I'm happier with my PMWs.
Just my 2¢

 Same here, maybe worse, and maybe why Rolex seems to be the touchiest subject for homages...
Brian Uziel -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 3:58 a.m.
IMHO they don't have a fraction of the panache that they used to. Is it real, is it worth the money, etc.? As other brands improve, how much is that almost intangable "extra something" of a real Rolex worth? The infamous Edsel was a fine car that died because of the price point. Not THAT much better than other common cars and not nearly as good as fine autos. Will Rolex diminish in a similar way - too expensive for common people, too "homaged" and "common" for weathy people? It would leave a lot of people "holding the bag" on a watch that only a select group of WIS truly appreciate. If you wear one for "jewelry" hardly anyone looks or cares anyway. Pearls before swine around my town anyway, and not impressive to the well-off in the next valley. I really wonder why this brand always seems to be "sacred cow" of homaged watches. Believe me, I'm not trying to offend Rolex owners. If I were one, I'd dis-invest and get a rarer breed of fine watch and avoid the stress of the homage issue.

 A couple of years ago, someone posted this question on TZ >
TakesALickin' -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 3:23 a.m.
"What's the quintessential Rolex?"
I ventured that the quintessential Rolex was the Chinese fake version of it. Man, did I get scorched for that answer. Some of those Rolex owners wear their briefs a little too tight!
But the Chinese fake captures the essence of the real thing. No? What is the "essence" of Rolex to the non-collecting public? It's the "look", first and foremost. You can argue otherwise, but you'll never convince me.
Most of those folks don't know or care about in-house movements, or even mechanical movements for that matter. I've heard of Rolex owners who didn't realize there was no battery in the watch. All they care about is the appearance of affluence, and the fake provides the appearance of that affluence at a much reduced cost.
Is that right? Of course not! But it captures the "essence" of the  experience for many non-collector Rolex owners. Ergo, the fake is the "quintessential  "...
Cheers,  Jeff

 Funny thing about that...
Brian Uziel -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 4:37 a.m.
ever read some complaining that the exact same movement was in another, much less expensive, watch? It only seems that "original" means "don't copy my brand" and "homage/copy" only applies to case shape. So the reals guts don't matter, just what meets the eye? That would be shallow. Remember when people had prefences between different General Motors brands' versions of the same vehicle because one plant had a better reputation for build quality or dealerships/price/service or one badge was considered the "sporty" model. Friendlier arguments than which ETA watch is better, or if those "imports" perform well.

  You like dangling over the crocodile pit on a fraying rope, don't you?
Zeb -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 3:47 a.m.

 I'm a nurse and work around a lot of Docs...
hoffman -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 2:56 a.m.
Who wear the ubiquitous sub. They are Really nice watches and make sense for them (High quality, waterproof for frequent hand washing and ramming ones fist into varoius orifices ROTF! ) But I think mast "Watch Guys" would rather wear something unique. Subs are about the most anti-unique watches I can think of. Hell I know two Docs who wear quartz look-alikes. For 99 percent of the folks who wear high end recognised brands they want to say "Look, I can afford this." I'm content with people thinking "What a weird f#cker", and "where'd he get that" ROTF! There are plenty of inexpensive watches that you'll never see on anyone elses wrist...
I'd love to have a Speedmaster Pro. Now that's a sleeper...

 I have to agree with the Speedy Pro being a sleeper. . .
Kelly M. Rayburn -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 3:22 a.m.

 There are so many unique models that don't closely resemble other higher end . . . .
Kelly M. Rayburn -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 3:10 a.m.
watches, that I don't see the allure of homages, most of which are Rolex homages. Some would say Rolex is overpriced and, therefore, a cheaper homage is more satisfying to those that like the particular oyster case style. No matter what people think (or say) about Rolex, I still believe the overwhelming majority of Rolex homage owners (that are WIS) want a real Rolex. Save up the bucks for the real thing, or come to the conclusion that it is just too much money to spend on a watch and buy a watch that is unique and different and not a homage to anything. I would rather have a Black Monster than an Invicta Sub.

 You have to adhere to the notion that the Rolex sub is the genesis of the sub style >
TakesALickin' -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 3:34 a.m.
and not the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms. I think many of the sub style watches deviate as much from the Rolex sub as the Rolex sub did from the Blancpain.
I don't buy into the notion that Rolex is the sole owner of the claim to originating that design. I think that's a myth perpetuated by their marketing machine, and consequently it colors how I view other sub-alikes. Are they really homages of Rolex? Rolex would have you believe that. Or are they just other manufacturers' entries into a design category that has plenty of competitors, going back 60+ years now?
Cheers, Jeff

 The original Fifty Fathoms was not a great watch and I know Blancpain did not invent the oyster case. . . .
Kelly M. Rayburn -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 3:50 a.m.
Original dial and bezel treatment aside, I have to give Rolex (a brand that I probably will not own in the future)its due with the Sub over the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms. Frankly, the reason I started this thread is because I believe that the abundance of homage watches really blurs the lines between people who love and collect watches and those who don't know jack about them. Everyone seems to want one over models that are more original and unique but don't have the instant status recognition

 That's a pretty "black and white" assessment of collecting motives >
TakesALickin' -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 10:11 a.m.
Surely there must be a category for people who know a little bit about watches but don't want to sell their house to afford a nice collection.
My problem with many Rolex owners is that they can't fathom the notion that there are people that don't want their watches. Of course, they're heavily invested in the Rolex "experience". They pay a premium for their watches - which are OK watches, no question - because they want to buy the watch and the envy of other people. They want you to look at that little crown and go, "Wow!"
If instead they get a reaction like, "I think you could probably do better for your maney...", then they don't experience the thrill of ownership that they ponied up the extra two grand for. So they can't let themselves believe you don't want a Rolex. What then follows is a barrage of cockeyed reasoning, explaining to the person who doesn't admire and drool over their watch why they must be in denial.
My favorite fractured logic is this - that the reason I argue so much against them is that I really, really, really want one, but I'm out of touch with my inner (Rolex lusting) self. Actually the reason I argue so much against them is that I'm an argumentative SOB who won't concede a point. 
Cheers, Jeff

 Watch love and knowledge doesn't always match price...
Brian Uziel -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 4:17 a.m.
I'd say as many people buy an expensive watch brand because "it must be good" rather than because they know anything about the movement, history, performance etc. Some people start from the top down, buying the finest watch that they can afford. Some people start at the bottom and get the nicest looking inexpensive watch that they find. Not everyone that loves watches is "collecting" watches with notable features to be used for a lifetimme and passed-on. I'm part of the "disposable" generation, a good and affordable watch that meets my needs now and for the near future takes SOME watch knowledge to meet the challenge of not buying pure junk. The handfull of "worthy" watches on the PMWF are another man's beaters.

 Sorry, I guess my reply isn't really a reply...
hoffman -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 2:58 a.m.

 No, I think that's part of what drives my collection, too >
TakesALickin' -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 3:10 a.m.

pride of ownership? faith in the machine?
Bill J. -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 2:31 a.m.

I wonder if some folks realize that perhaps the
Larry -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 2:17 a.m.

Your theory hinges on the assumption that a person "really wants" that RMW >
TakesALickin' -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 2:10 a.m.
(let me get comfortable so I can sink my teeth into this topic   )
I have roughly 35 watches - I'm not sure of the exact number without doing a head count. What I've learned about myself in the course of five years of collecting is this - I love variety. I have some nice watches, but nothing over $800 in value.
Now, by WIS standards, $800 is not a lot of money. But to non collectors, it sounds like a lot of jack for a watch, especially when 90% onf the non-collecting public is happy with $30 Wal-Mart specials.
What would seem like a lot of money to a WIS? Let's say PMWF does a good job of delineating the difference, and that $1K makes a good cut off point. If I were to try to put together a RMW collection with even half the variety I now enjoy, I could easily expect to lay out $17,000 to $20,000 in cash. Wow! My name's not Rockefeller or Kennedy.
But for less than $4000, I enjoy twice as much diversity in style and function. I get that benefit because I'm not a slave to brand consciousness. I actually abhor Rolex and all that they stand for (Ed Rader, this is your cue to insist for the umpteenth time that my aversion stems from a classic repressed psychological craving for that which I claim to hate  :-).
Why the aversion to RMW barnds and their exhorbitant pricing - which in my opinion is out of sync with their actual utility (utility being defined as real value compared to price)? Well, for starters, I was raised by poor, frugal school teachers. I've been brainwashed into a bargain hunter's mentality, and I'm not likely to ever change. I can't imagine paying over $1K for a watch. Even though I mention the Chopard Mille Miglia as my grail, I seriously doubt that I'll ever own it. Some dreams are better left unfulfilled. I'd never be able to forgive myself for spending that much of my family's hard earned money (our future!) on a... a watch! That would be nuts. (I'll pause now, while you reflect on today's postings from TZ and the TZ Sales Corner. Makes you shake your head in mute disbelief doesn't it?)
So, I'm happy with my moderate PMW collection. It includes designs I like, which may or may not be original to the companies that are best known for them (oh, yeah... the original sub? It wasn't a Rolex - it was a Blancpain ). I can live with my purchases because they represent good value to me, at least by my definition, based on the lessons I learned from my now comfortably well off parents. You'll see more homages in my collection, should I ever get the bug to buy again in the future. What you will never see is  , JLC , Patek , Vacheron ... or Rolex !
Sorry... it just ain't me.
Cheers,  Jeff

Should we distinguish between a WIS and a non-WIS? . . .
Kelly M. Rayburn -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 2:24 a.m.
I don't care what a non-WIS wears. I have no interest in why my neighbor has a Rolex Datejust for his everyday watch and wears a $50.00 gold plated Elgin as his dress watch (a conversation I wish I never had). Alpha owners don't really want a Rolex? Humm, let's ask Dr. Freud.

 Well, I can only speak for myself, of course >
TakesALickin' -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 3:03 a.m.
Those are the emotions that drive me. Your mileage may vary... 
As for the WIS versus non-WIS stuff, I'm not sure why I threw that line in there. It's probably the least relevant part of my post. I guess I'm just making the point that evn PMWs are pricey by most folks' standards. If someone at work learns that I'm wearing a $300 dollar watch, they act impressed. The mega-dollar watches, by extension, would seem certifiably insane. "You paid $4400?!! Why?!"
So, that's all that's about.
Cheers,  Jeff

  You're speaking for me fairly well...
Brian Uziel -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 3:23 a.m.
Different strokes for different folks, most bang for the buck etc. etc.
A Rolex would be a liability for me in every sense, I wouldn't wear one, or any other $3000 watch, even if someone gave it to me for free. Maybe ingorance IS bliss, I don't secretly yearn for the finest in watch making - I wouldn't enjoy it as much as the cash or equivilent in PM watches :-) It's hard enough to keep a Bic lighter in my possesion and not scratch my eye glasses, I couldn't handle a Rolly.

Nicely put Jeff,
davec73 -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 2:17 a.m.

Kelly, quite a touchy subject, I'm surprised you posted it >>>
Jeff T -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 2:08 a.m.
It's safe to say we all have our own reasons for what we buy. I too, am shocked at the appetite for the watches I personally have no desire to own. But what surprises is me most is when I post a pic of my Seamaster GMT and replies range from DROOL! to GRAIL!.
If it makes you drool or it's your grail watch, GET ONE! There's plenty of used ones out there, if you don't want to go full tilt for a new one.
What I see as the hardest part is many of our compadres cannot turn off the buy impulse and easily get distracted on the way to their own grail. I too got sucked into I need this, that... Then I cleaned out a bunch of junk in the watchbox and then there was real $$$$. End result, Seamaster.
This is a funny and fickle hobby we play in. One mans trash is another mans treasure.
If you really want that Sinn, Breitling, Omega, Rolex... GET IT! ENJOY IT!
Just my 2 cents and NO more!

Felt like stirring it up a bit tonight since our sales forum appears to be homage central and many of us own one. . .
Kelly M. Rayburn -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 2:43 a.m.
I still have one, the Orient Ana-digi, which is a Breitling B-1 or Aerospace homage. I've grown tired of it as well. Watch collector and watch accumulator seems to be the split personality of most on this forum. I don't find homages to be all that creative or interesting. It seems just a way for most of us to be taken in by a style we enjoy (knowing we don't want to spend the bucks for the real thing) and pad the pockets of the less than creative homage artists.

 I Have To Respond To The "pad the pockets of the less than creative homage artists" Bit
Tony V -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 8:55 a.m.
In Response To: Felt like stirring it up a bit tonight since our sales forum appears to be homage central and many of us own one. . . (Kelly M. Rayburn)
The bottom line is that homage makers fall into 2 catgories:
1. Those that are in it PURELY for the money.
2. Those that are in it for the money.
I fall into the 2nd category. My company (I won't mention the name) is new and needs turnover before it can produce "original" watches. Believe me, I have them designed.
The problem for us is 3 fold:
1. People don't want a unique watch from a brand they've never heard of. Homages are the stepping stone, they give brand publicity and sales to begin with. Invicta didn't launch with the Lupah models did it?
2. Due to the fact that watches are Switzerland's premier export, they keep things very close to themselves. It's hard to get anything other than an ETA 2824 (getting harder and more expensive to source) or a Miyota 21J to power your watches. This limits, as a new maker, what you can design and realistically get built. So the only other option for anything "unique" is a chinese movement which makes the watch worth exactly nothing in a WIS eyes, regardless of case, face etc.
3. People are so fickle. I got a mail from a WIS yesterday asking for a comparison between one of my watches and a Tudor Prince Chrono! Easy, one costs 8 times what I'm asking for my watch. When most people pay RMW prices for a watch, it's for a known brand. If a brand called "jorgenschwestersauagedog" released a "unique" watch, many may post, many may like, but few would buy unless it was reasonably priced as it would have no cachet and I'm afraid the only mouldings, movements and cases that are available cheap are homages to something more expensive. You can't say cachet means nothing, it does to the "man on the street" and they are our bread and butter.
Hands up who owns an Ikepod Hempode? Can't get more unique than those!
Sorry if I seem harsh, I do love you guys and the whole "scene", but you can't label all brands that make "homages" as "less than creative". Indeed some are, and it's strange that they are the one's that keep cropping up with such regularity on these forums more than others that are trying their best to do what they can with "stock" homage parts, but are trying to add their own little touches rather than a rebranded FAKE! Creativity is only set free by money and as the large watch companies keep their cartels going, it's hard to break in unless you get the turnover that a homage provides.
The most unique watch of my prototypes is also the worst selling...
Tony

 I bought a Panny homage, sold it two days later!
Jeff T -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 2:47 a.m.

 I sill have mne
Larry -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 2:50 a.m.

 That's what surprises me. You have a R and then >>>
Jeff T -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 3:18 a.m.

There are parallels in the auto industry Kelly >>
Chris L -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 2:03 a.m.
There are rich man's autos and then there are cheaper makes that pay homage to them. All of the general public can't afford the best, but they look to the "best" as a guide to what they should like. Then they get something that at least looks a little like the original.
You cannot separate human nature from this thought exercise. It just is what it is.

Here's another, different way to illustrate the point down >>
Chris L -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 2:37 a.m.
I will make this following statement. It is 100% true.
"I have purchased a flashlight for $90. I know of people who have paid 2.5 times that much for other flashlights."
75% of the people who read that will have just suffered a coronary. "You paid HOW MUCH for a stinkin' flashlight!?!"
THAT is the reaction of the unsuspecting public when they find out how much we spend on watches with movements that cannot keep nearly as good time as their cheapie quartz.
"Why in the world would you spend that kind of money when you can buy something that looks nearly the same for $40 and keeps better time?!?"
We've all heard that in one version or another. That attitute explains the homage market for the general public. The rest of us just bend the attitude to justify better and better homages.
I can explain the various reasons for buying the flashlight, up to and including that I use it nearly daily for work and home. I still can't counter the reaction by people though. It just is how it is. Of course the handful of people who cross-post between here and the flashlight forums (you know who you are) don't need to have an explanation. 

 There are flashlight forums? I'm sticking with watches
bedford -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 5:21 a.m.

 That's why I don't try to figure out the non-WIS take on my watch collecting. . .
Kelly M. Rayburn -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 3:30 a.m.
ultimately their views don't interest me (and I'm sure mine don't interest them either). Heck, sometimes I have trouble justifying a purchase to myself. My only justification for the Apollo 11 Speedy was that it was within the budget (from watches that I sold) and I wanted it.

Re: Some people buy dog food because it is on sale, even though they don't have a dog. . .
Stevens -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 1:57 a.m.
well I am sure that many people do buy the copies and homages because they look like a popular expensive watch, but I really like many of those designs. the Submariner, Explorer and Datejust are all truly timeless classics. if I can get that style in a cheaper package why not? the problem is that very few of these homages copy the actual oyster case lines very well. I've had the Ollech and Wajs, Sandoz HK, and saw the MarcelloC. none of those cases are as elegant and sharp as the real oyster.

I often feel the same way Kelly but it's ultimately up to the individual watch buyer.
Adam in NYC -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 1:53 a.m.

Re: Some people buy dog food because it is on sale, even though they don't have a dog. . .
GH -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 1:43 a.m.
Could I have helped motivate your post? People are always weakest at the point of their desire. I wanted a real poor man's watch and got stuck with a dumb a$$ chinese(only my opinion) zeno off the internet.
Still the Russian Boctoc I bought is ticking away...
The thing I didn't like is the 12/9/6 is printed in white not lume(if you can call it that). Other than that it has been a good poor man's watch. Too fast about a minute per day(don't believe +40sec specs).
Thanks.

You nailed it. I'd rather have the Amphibia than the Explorer wannabe.
Kelly M. Rayburn -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 1:49 a.m.

I don't understand the desire to buy .
waco kid -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 1:36 a.m.

I don't undestand the analogy. I can tell you that my sub>>>
TicToc -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 1:34 a.m.
has a swiss ETA movement and it keeps excellent time. I do not live my life measured in seconds so I do not need that level of accuracy in my watch. I understand the differences between the two watches but cannot justify that kind of outlay for a watch. The majority of owners of these luxury watche sown them as status symbols and not because they are well made time pieces.  

Not quite an analogy, just a catchy headline. WIS understand the differences but buy the homages anyway. . .
Kelly M. Rayburn -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 1:45 a.m.
because of the quality of the homage and its excellent price. The question I have is does that leave the buyer wanting. I've owned a ton of homages and ultimately I wasn't satisfied with any of them. Not because they weren't well made, excellent timekeepers, but because they weren't the real thing. I don't give a crap about status of watches. Where I live nobody knows anything about watches. It is an internal thing with me. I'd rather have an Seiko SKX diver than a Robert Octopus.

To answer your question, no I am not left wanting an overpriced watch. >>
TicToc -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 2:03 a.m.

Cute pooch! Doesn't look like a big eater though.
davec73 -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 2:09 a.m.

That's why I always miss the dog food sales.
TicToc -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 2:10 a.m.

I agree about Seikos. I like the fact that my 173 has a classic look and not some other brand.
waco kid -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 1:50 a.m.

Here is my Day/Date. I still love it. >>>
Ching -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 1:26 a.m.
I can buy about 50 of these babies for the price of one original Rolex Day/Date. It depends on your priorities I guess.
Cheers, Ching

I'm sitting here wearing my Sub thinking that a would be so much better I'm a poor man though
Stef G -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 1:14 a.m.

But you have a lot of very cool watches that don't look like other brands. . . .
Kelly M. Rayburn -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 1:22 a.m.
It seems as though the appetite for Sub and Explorer homages is insatiable though.

The homages make good project watches.
Stef G -- Thursday, 16 June 2005, at 1:32 a.m.

I'm in the middle of a trial and at the office for lunch, but here is a topic . . .

Posted By: Kelly M. Rayburn
Date: Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 6:43 p.m.

at the risk of offending anyone who has endulged in the purchase of the endless varieties of homage watches available out there (and I count myself among them over the years), here goes.

Wouldn't you rather have an original than a knock-off of a more expensive watch? I mean, all these Panny, JLC, Rolex, etc., "homages" are just cheap imitations. Who cares if they look good and you can afford it! I would rather wear an original Seiko model than a Rolex wannabe any day. I think these homages dilute one's appreciation of the genuine article and are a blight on watch collecting in general. If you don't want the real deal because of the price, fine, but why buy a homage? Try an original model on for size. And if you say you just like the way the watch looks, again fine. But buying watches for watches sake isn't particularly interesting to me, particularly if there is no history behind.

So says the Human Torch. Flame On!!

Messages In This Thread

I'm in the middle of a trial and at the office for lunch, but here is a topic . . . (views: 164)
Kelly M. Rayburn -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 6:43 p.m.

 Great thread, Kelly! No flames from North Misissippi! However.. >>
Ricky Lee McBroom -- Thursday, 16 February 2006, at 12:33 p.m.

..I've got to weigh in on the side of those who enjoy homage watches.

Part of it is genetic, I think.. (my cheap-a$$ Scots nature ). To me, an.. well, say an Explorer is a much better value than the Explorer. It does the same job at roughly 2% of the price!

If my interest in watches was purely pragmatic, of course, I'd own one watch. Probably a Exedition or something like it. Hey, if it's good enough for the President of the it's good enough for anybody! So, obviously, watches are a matter of the heart for me. As they are to all here, I expect. Given that, why don't I hold out for the real deal? Good question!

My fascination with watches, I think, is tied to the precision of the mechanism, and the tools and techniques that make their manufacture possible. In a very real way, my chosen career has been made possible by the watchmakers (and gunsmiths!) of yore. I respect and admire them the way you might admire, say, Clarence Darrow. But mine is not an admiration of the individual - to me, the nameless 14th century watchmaker who did his best with what he had is as important as a Breguet or LeCoultre. And it's definitely not brand-specific!

In my opinion manufacturing a piece of the caliber of the average at such a tiny fraction of the cost of the average watch from a haute horological house is as great a technological achievement as anything that or has ever done!

Still, you might say, "Why not choose an original design, say a , that embodies all these intangibles just as well?". Well, simple! I like the looks of certain classic original watches! They just look right to me. And I'd argue that, just as a high quality print of a Monet or a Picasso allows you to appreciate the original, so to can a decent quality homage watch.

Look, you once told me that you "bought a new bomber jacket that looked forty years old". Wish I'd saved the full text of that reply.. but I didn't. But that's enough to tell me that you do 'get' the concept!

So, come on. Lighten up! "A blight on watch collecting in general"? Surely that's too strong!

-Ricky

Great reply Ricky. Yeah, I get it, just stirring the pot a little. . . (views: 6)
Kelly M. Rayburn -- Thursday, 16 February 2006, at 8:43 p.m.
I'm always being tempted by homages. Saw the Bulova watch that is almost an exact duplicate of an AP Royal Oak. Very tempting indeed, particularly since I'm never gonna buy the real thing. Homages are sort of like free crack to a drug addict, almost irresistable.

 RE: ..just stirring the pot a little... (views: 2)
Ricky Lee McBroom -- Friday, 17 February 2006, at 10:38 a.m.
I noticed!  Some threads bear repeating.  

} I'm always being tempted by homages.

"Yield to tempation. It may not pass your way again." -RAH

} Saw the Bulova watch that is almost an exact duplicate
} of an AP Royal Oak. Very tempting indeed, particularly
} since I'm never gonna buy the real thing.

I've got the c-OMEX version, and have added a few mods. Wore it just yesterday, in fact. I enjoy that one immensely!

} Homages are sort of like free crack
} to a drug addict, almost irresistable.

Guess they are, at that. How else can you explain this ?

Blighting watch collecting in general.     

Anyway, thanks for an enjoyable read, Kelly!

-Ricky

 I prefer inexpensive generic homages; otherwise, I like the real thing. (views: 7)
Sushirob -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 11:59 p.m.

 I agree in theory but IMO resources/budget come >>> (views: 22)
mike03 -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 10:37 p.m.
into play at some point. If I could afford to just buy originals of all the styles that I like, I would need to win the lottery! In reality, most watches out there are hommage to something to one degree or another. Is the Seamaster an original or just a great hommage that became the standard for other hommage watches? And, if I don't want to spend the money on an Omega, should I pass on the look and settle for something else just because its unique? I don't think so. In most instances, I'd like to get the "look" and the most quality I can afford at the time. When I am ready for that particular look, it won't be a Rolex and it won't be the Omega. It might be a Precista or it might be one of Eddie's Broadarrow PRS something. It might be a CWC or it could be a Yao. All decent watches I can afford. For someone else, it might have to be an Orsa or an Alpha. Its a personal decision that we all have to make. Personally, I feel hommage is fine but going for a blatant ... that is something completely different. My two cents

99 & 44/100 % of the time, I'd agree > (views: 51)
TakesALickin' -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 9:16 p.m.
I don't tend to look at homages too often anymore, though I have owned a few in the past. These days I'm trying to consolidate and move up the WIS ladder. Most of what remains in my collection is solidly original - the Oris TT1, the Seiko Samurai, the Seiko Sportura, Omega's Speedmaster and Seamaster.
One watch that perplexes me now is my CWC Royal Navy diver - obviously a tribute to the old Seamaster 300, although updated, and changed slightly so as not to be a carbon copy. I bought it thinking it would allay my desire for a real Seamaster, but it did not. Now I have both the Seamaster and the CWC, and the CWC seems superfluous. It's not getting the wrist time it deserves, and I wonder if buying it might have been a mistake. It's a helluva watch that now takes a back seat to the genuine article.
For that much, we're in agreement. Where I diverge is with regard to homage watches that mimic a watch so far out of the reach of the common guy that he is never likely to own the original. Some of those Elysees that looked like A. Lange and Sohns are good examples. I've considered the watch below, an Alpha. I might not have given it a second thought until I read that Panerai only produced ten of the originals, at prices so high you need an air sickness bag handy when you wear them.
As far as I'm concerned, there's no harm in buying a watch like that. I'm not buying it to impress anyone - no one is likely to "get" the homage anyway. I'd like to own one of the Chinese Valjoux copies to see how well they've addressed their QC issues, and what better way than cased in a design I find appealing, but would never afford otherwise?
Cheers,  Jeff

 The isn't so much an homage to the SM300, but simply desigend to MOD specs.. (views: 4)
Duarte -- Thursday, 16 February 2006, at 4:20 a.m.
as was teh precidta diver in the same general style, teh Cyma diver. Legibility and sticking to the MoD dial design were more at play than a commercial homage.
So, don't think of it as an homage, but as a tool watch, designed for high legibility

Oh Torchy one I hate to raise the heat, but this point is raised by the WIS w/ multiple Mods >>> (views: 48)
Mark S. -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 8:39 p.m.
Nothing personal, Kelly ... I buy a watch, firstly, because "it calls to me". I know the point your making, but let's look at it from a little different perspective .
I notice little nuances about all design aspects that make the piece somewhat unique. Take my collection, for example:
~ Glycine Observer - It was "made" to be an homage to watches issued to military personnel who were charged w/ keeping allied assets safe while on the ground (aeroplanes) and other equipment. This is a $400 + dollar made watch. What would I rather have than this piece ... nothing .
~ Marathon GSAR - This is a very unique, quality 30 BAR Diver w/ an 2824 movement w/ a sapphire crystal. No, this is not a (nor is it trying to be ) But, IMO, it is in the same neighborhood as a Submariner in quality (save for movement, of course) and a got a sh!tload of change back .
~ Citizen Super Tough - Again, very unique - sure, not everyone's cup of tea, but I'm not likely to walk into the largest mall in the world and see someone else w/ one on.
~ Poljot Aviator - This design has been done to death etc, etc. Yes, it is a Poljot, but w/ an 2824, beadblasted case, unique crown and large (42mm). Again, when I'm out and about, I'm not likely to see anyone else w/ one on ! BTW, have you priced s lately
~ Valjoux 7733 - This design is common, but many folks in the world of watches own few (if any) V7733's -- Valjoux only made 2 Million movements (in total) Again, something unique about the piece
~ Mid 1970's Orient World Timer - Haven't seen this design on too many watches, and, at 43mm, fairly unusual to be so large
~ - What can I say, you either love 'em, or it doesn't do anything for you ... It's my
~ Frogman - Unique in it's own right
~ "Phantom Project" - There won't be another like it
I've reversed your theory for a couple of reasons, Kelly. You do not have to pay through the nose for unique, and who's to say what a timepiece does or doesn't do for the watch enthusiast. Take Ted, for example, if a Sea Dweller showed up on his front porch this afternoon, he would be ... well, let's say, very happy ! But, time and time again, I've seen him post his appreciation for the Subs -- for their quality and looks !
Let's take the Hx of your own collecting. I've noticed that you appreciate similar "hunting" practices as me and others who like uniqueness in watches. Again, look at your 'mods". You do this to have something 'different' from other watches !
Now, I'm getting down to it ... Let's say someone has purchased chronos at WallyWorld all of their 'collecting' lives ... and love 'em ! Then, they find an Auto Sub ... man, what an upgrade for them ! They are just as happy as Ted getting his SD .
Hopefully, I made my point . Thanks for the provocative post !

All the Best, Mark

BTW ... I couldn't buy a new Sea Dweller for what I have in my whole collection (views: 10)
Mark S. -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 8:53 p.m.

's OK, Marky Mark - ain't no sea up in your part of Tejas anyway... (views: 5)
TakesALickin' -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 9:17 p.m.

You get no argument from me, Kelly. (views: 8)
John N -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 8:39 p.m.

Another problem with Hommages or s (views: 65)
A MattR of Time -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 8:06 p.m.
Is that they detract from the value of the original. If I see a submariner style watch on someone's wrist, the first thought that goes thru my mind is, "Is it a Rollie, or an Invicta, Sandoz, or a fake etc......."

Do you really think so? (views: 48)
Matt V. -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 8:13 p.m.
Isn't it more "human nature" to judge by appearances?
That Sub on a waiters wrist gotta be a ?
That Sub on the used car salesman's wrist has got to be genuine?
Personally, I feel that the Rolex sub has become such a status symbol that I tend to dismiss sales guys wearing them but totally dig it when one wears something different, be it a vintage piece, a cool dress watch, a distinctive or unusual watch or brand. Gives me a lot more to talk about! And most of the time, these people are into watches versus the used car salesmam with the Sub that isn't into watches and just got it as a status symbol because all of the others wear one too...
(Generalizing here, but it helps making my point).
Cheers, Matt

Didn't say I jump to conclusions........... (views: 35)
A MattR of Time -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 8:23 p.m.
I just wonder if it's the real deal.
Also, like you eluded to, seeing a Sub on a car salesman's wrist, you know there's a 95% chance he just bought it cuz of the status, to be flashy. Now, if I saw a Marine Master or Sea3 or even a Doxa on a salesman's wrist - You bet I'd be talking watches!!!

'Xactly! (views: 7)
Matt V. -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 8:28 p.m.

I happen to agree with you 100%, also another point (views: 33)
beshannon -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 7:59 p.m.
I feel that the money spent on "hommages" could be saved for the real thing. I can only wear so many watches at one time and having 10 of "something" does not replace the feel of having one of the "original"

I guess I only agree if... (views: 19)
Ross Messing -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 8:30 p.m.
We're talking about, say, buying 10 Sub homages instead of a sub. But, to be frank, if I were to drop $100 or so on a sub homage, and find that wasn't enough, I wouldn't build up to the price of a sub in sub homages. And every watch that's ever been in my collection (probably 3-4 x the value of my current collection) is worth maybe 30% of a Rolex Submariner.

Yes, I'd rather have one of the original, rather than 10 of something... (views: 20)
Tim -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 8:05 p.m.
I guess. But depends on the person. Especially if it is about the look/style of each of the 10 watches, if they are unique from one another. -Tim

Agreed it does depend on the person! (views: 8)
beshannon -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 8:06 p.m.

Fine if you're young or making some good money. Unfortunetly .... (views: 40)
Robmks -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 7:59 p.m.
I'm like the guy in the commercial where at the end he goes, "I'm in debt up to my eyeballs." I would love to buy XXX for $4-10K. But it ain't going to happen. I would rather put that into my IRA and have it work for me. -Bob

I'm young (I guess) and not making a fortune (views: 6)
Micha -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 9:13 p.m.

I second that (views: 9)
Rodrigo -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 8:03 p.m.

No argument from me, the real question is (views: 24)
beshannon -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 8:01 p.m.
does the person buying multiple "hommage" watches fall into that category also?

I like the homages and I'm wearing a Sandoz right now (views: 11)
Bill J. -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 7:47 p.m.

Personally, I like watches ... >> (views: 66)
Matt V. -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 7:41 p.m.
... for what they are and if I am happy with the quality, value and design as well as service from the company behind it, I couldn't give a arse about what name is on the dial (pardon my french).
I just don't believe in paying for fluff.
Bayer may have been the original manufacturer for Aspirin, but if I can get a generic from anyone else with the same ingredients and performance/results for less $$$, I will go with the generic.
Nike may be a great sports marketing company, but there are others that make better sneakers or other sports wear that don't have the name (and price tag) attached to it.
Harley-Davidson may have made a nice bike 20 years ago, but I don't need to pay for the image of riding one when I can get a more modern motorcycle with updated technology for less $$$.
Mercedes had huge quality issues with some of their latest high end vehicles, so did BMW and yet people still pay big bucks for these cars just for the image.
I just don't need designer labels or "image" transfer resulting from marketing, I rather look for the "real" quality and value behind a product that I intend on using for myself, not for the benefit of others or their approval. Substance and usability over image for me!
Unfortunately I also have a strong affinity to quality products, be that from tools to appliances to entertainment devices, so they more often than not are pricey anyhow. Yet I dare to try new products outside the realm of well marketed brand names if there is a return in quality or value.
But come on, the whole story about "the original" is BS and just a marketing scam to hide the fact that some companies are greedy and hide the lack of innovation or cost control behind image. Often embraced particularly by those who lack self-esteem, taste or simply the basic knowledge about a product.
I remember vividly the phrase "You can't be fired for buying IBM" when networking based on PC's became popular and had to compete angainst mini's and mainframes from "the market leader". The world would be different today if it weren't for PC's, for manufacturers that "copied" computers from eachother and were able to bring the prices down and improve value through competition. I don't miss the "Charlie Chaplin" IBM PC-XT and IBM's PC-DOS. And my PC is running Windows XP, not MAC OS, the original GUI.
You cannot seriously tell me that a Rolex Submariner is worth $4,000.00 with the stamped sheet metal clasp and joke of a bracelet and the lack of finish between the lugs. $200 for a set of hands? Come on.... So does paying that much money for the privilige of buying it in a plush store and for the instant recognition in any way make it a better watch?
And if you seriously look at the watches from that time, wasn't eh Fifty Fathoms the first with the black diver bezel? Wasn't the Omega Seamaster released only a year after the predecessor of the Sub looking awefully familiar to the Rolex?
There really isn't anything new anymore, everyone is somehow using interesting design elements from everyone else in new combinations. Somehow, everything seems to have been done before, in watches or in fashion.
Personally, I believe a Seiko GS is a lot more watch for the money than a Submariner. Yet, Seiko has also copied the design of so many other products (including the Oyster) and successfully marketed and sold those in their "affordable" watch categories without anyone ever pointing the finger at them for "stealing" a design.
Poljot has copied the likes of a lot of chronographs ranging from Omega over Breitling to Sinn and for $150, we all embraced them as great value for a WIS on a budget trying to get the looks for less.
How much are you really willing to pay for a "new/unique" design over actual substance? And that question goes way beyond just watches....
Cheers, Matt

 The ubiquity argument. Well said Matt. Don't buy it, but well said. (views: 4)
Kelly M. Rayburn -- Thursday, 16 February 2006, at 12:41 a.m.

 And you don't have to ... >> (views: 7)
Matt V. -- Thursday, 16 February 2006, at 3:17 a.m.
... as I said, this is how I personally feel about watches (amongst other things) and your mileage may vary.
That's the beauty of ; we can have different opinions and argue passionately about our favourite subject and still remain civilized.
I don't dare thinking about how this discussion might have gotten out of hand and more extreme on a different forum (TZ for example) and how quickly the namecalling would have invoked the "moderators"....
Cheers, Matt

  (views: 1)
Kelly M. Rayburn -- Thursday, 16 February 2006, at 4:08 a.m.

Good points you raised there Matt However I feel differently about the issue: (views: 23)
Evan -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 8:56 p.m.
Yes, the Rolex Submariner at its current retail price is very expensive especially when discounts are extremely small compared to other watches with the same retail and when its bracelet feels sub-par. However, Rolex was one of the pioneers of underwater timekeeping and a great deal of R&D was spent on developing the Submariner into what it is today and they continue as one of the most intensive R&D centres in the Swiss watch industry today.
Sure, buying generic drugs is fine when the ingredients are the same; however, in the case of some watches, the ingredients are NOT the same. How many homages can tout the fact that they have been issued for military use or have been used as extensively in professional applications? Moreover, how many homages can have an in-house, non-generic movement? For me, these are just a few of the things that separate the original from the homage and makes me desire the original much more.

I disagree >> (views: 20)
Matt V. -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 9:26 p.m.
"However, Rolex was one of the pioneers of underwater timekeeping and a great deal of R&D was spent on developing the Submariner into what it is today"
Past performance is not necessarily a guide to current or future performance.
This watch has become their cash cow and I bet it's success is partly owed to the fact it hasn't changed that much over the years.
Also, keep in mind that the actual R&D cost has been amortized decades ago, just like any CAPEX in machines, tooling cost etc.
At the volume they are producing with machines that have been paid for, the actual COST of the watch should be a lot lower than what you might think.
Nevertheless, they are a business and in business to make money, just like all the places we go to every day for a pay check!
"Yes, the Rolex Submariner at its current retail price is very expensive especially when discounts are extremely small compared to other watches with the same retail and when its bracelet feels sub-par."
That's the thing. Luxury industry. High pricing results in perceived high value, image of exclusivity and quality. That's where I believe the price or the plush retail experience doesn't nescessarily reflect actual value, yet thousands of people fall for it every week. That's why expensive luxury SUV's have the best margins for the auto makers.
"...and they continue as one of the most intensive R&D centres in the Swiss watch industry today."
Sorry, but I have no exposure to that. Can you give me some examples?
BTW, the cynic I am looks at the tax benefits of investing in R&D!
"How many homages can tout the fact that they have been issued for military use or have been used as extensively in professional applications?"
Honestly, how many years ago was that? Are they still being issued?
Keep in mind that leather helmets were once being issued to protect aviator's heads....
Were there any better alternatives at the time? Are there better alternatives today? Are these better alternatives today more cost effective and have they replaced them as the issued watch or timepiece of choice?
Moreover, how many homages can have an in-house, non-generic movement?"
I always hear that argument. Just because it is "in house" doesn't mean it is "better". I have had a watchmaker (head of a watchmaking school) point out to me all of the issues with that exact movement and his frustration with the fact that people today still believe it is "better" than other, more modern movements on the market. It is their engine, based on their R&D, their investment in tooling from 196x, their machines from .... you get the point. What innovations have been made? What new movement has been introduced to replace it? What value does "in-house" have for me, the consumer?
For crying out loud, the Poljot P3133 could be considered an "in house" movement!
Again, this to me is fluff. I am happy with a quality product at a reasonable price that performs the way I expect it to perform. I am happy if my watchmaker has access to parts and can service it for a reasonable price. Everything else as far as "image" or "brand recognition" to me is irrelevant and I am not willing to pay for it!
And yes, I am an engineer turned marketeer with an MBA, so I learned all about Product Management and Product Marketing and have to do "the Rolex thing" (positioning, pricing, promotion with messaging/marketing) every day for a living, not in the luxury industry though.
Cheers, Matt

 I disagree also (views: 19)
Evan -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 10:51 p.m.
You said: } Also, keep in mind that the actual R&D cost has been amortized decades ago, just like any CAPEX in machines, tooling cost etc.
At the volume they are producing with machines that have been paid for, the actual COST of the watch should be a lot lower than what you might think.
Nevertheless, they are a business and in business to make money, just like all the places we go to every day for a pay check!
You are claiming that new machinery such as automatic breguet-overcoil setters have already been paid for, would you have something to support that?
} Past performance is not necessarily a guide to current or future performance
} Were there any better alternatives at the time? Are there better alternatives today? Are these better alternatives today more cost effective and have they replaced them as the issued watch or timepiece of choice?
It¡¦s not about whether the watch will perform better in the future, there is history behind the watch that brings value to it (for some), much like how an original condition Dodge Challenger can become one of the most desirable automobiles. Even the current Panerai can become the new hotness because its name is the same as the company that made watches for the Italian Navy 5 decades ago.
} Sorry, but I have no exposure to that. Can you give me some examples
An article by John Davis (8eightohms) from the PuristS stated that Renaud et Papi of Audemars Piguet cited that and they further said that they very much respect Rolex for its extensive R&D.
} I always hear that argument. Just because it is "in house" doesn't mean it is "better". I have had a watchmaker (head of a watchmaking school) point out to me all of the issues with that exact movement and his frustration with the fact that people today still believe it is "better" than other, more modern movements on the market. It is their engine, based on their R&D, their investment in tooling from 196x, their machines from .... you get the point. What innovations have been made? What new movement has been introduced to replace it? What value does "in-house" have for me, the consumer?
No, inhouse definitely does not mean better, but for many collectors, it means it is more } special. Sure the 3135 has its own issues, but a watchmaker friend of mine (Richemont Latin America) spoke about flaws of the ETA 2824/2895/2892 and of the Rolex 3135 (primitive winding system); however, he also stated that the 3135 is also one of the most well endowed automatics of today and many new movements from luxury manufactures like the Audemars Piguet 3120 and JLC 975 really take a lot of design features from the 3135 to improve the ruggedness of their movements. Furthermore, I doubt breguet-overcoil setters or laser welders are tooled from the 1960¡¦s. Innovations? I¡¦m afraid I don¡¦t know too much myself; however, some features have been enumerated on different watch forae such as a special balance pivot that is more durable and less dependent on servicing, breguet overcoils on all current models, balance bridges combined with laser welded hairspring for long term stability (bridge prevents end shake), crowns that disengage from the movement when screwing down¡Ketc. For many, these things, like having 450hp under the hood even though you can't legally use all of it, don¡¦t translate into any benefits; for myself however, it makes the watch more appealing which translate into higher utility for this particular consumer, myself.

 Good arguments... >> (views: 5)
Matt V. -- Thursday, 16 February 2006, at 3:11 a.m.
... but as I said, none of that is important to me personally.
Cheers, Matt

  It all comes down to: Blondes, Brunettes or Redheads???? (views: 2)
Evan -- Thursday, 16 February 2006, at 3:29 a.m.

 In that order, please! (views: 1)
Matt V. -- Thursday, 16 February 2006, at 4:58 a.m.

This is relatively how I see it too... (views: 21)
Tim -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 8:02 p.m.
Same basic opinion. Although it would be nice to afford a Rolex, to own one (I'd buy vintage anyways), I can't. The big question being, is the watch worth that price? Is the price only/mainly due to the manufacture name? -Tim

Nothing new? Hmmmm......... (views: 58)
A MattR of Time -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 7:49 p.m.
This looks pretty unique to me.......
That's why I own Seiko's, Citizens, Orients - and not the President copies.

(views: 39)
Matt V. -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 7:52 p.m.
Know what I'm saying?

Sad thing about this Invicta is that it costed more than the watch it was copying (views: 8)
Evan -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 8:36 p.m.

Invicta should change there name to Xerox..... (views: 11)
A MattR of Time -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 8:00 p.m.

You got to love them for ... >> (views: 20)
Matt V. -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 8:07 p.m.
... their entertainment value. Especially when you hear that Eyal dude talk through the ShopNBC show and announce their phantasy list prices and other stories about how good/unique etc. these watches are and how many celebreties wear them and so forth.
BUT ... there are enough poor people who believe these fairy tales and spent good money on those watches!
We know where to get a nice Seiko for a price that makes them a steal, but how many poor sould pay retail for those (at the full retail price / sticker price of the it wouldn't be the great deal it is at $120).
Matt

Homeage watches I have no problem with...look at all the Rolex lookalikes from Seiko, Citizen, et al. (views: 28)
John S. -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 7:30 p.m.
I do have a very big problem with Knockoffs, counterfeits, etc.

I buy what I like whether it is a Homage or Genuine Article! (views: 10)
jtcastillo -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 7:28 p.m.

I concur whole heartedly. >>>> (views: 27)
Jim Morrell -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 7:26 p.m.
I originally thought that a homage watch would somehow satisfy my urge for the real thing, but that never happened. Consequently, I sold off all my homage watches, including an Invicta 8926; an Invicta Speedway; a Sandoz Day/Date; a Mido Commander Day/Date; and a couple of others. I've decided that if I can't afford an original, I'll either buy something styled differently or buy nothing at all.

In defense of homage watches (views: 56)
Ross Messing -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 7:18 p.m.
If all things were equal, then sure, I'd rather have an original. But by definition, all things aren't equal.
Everyone faces different choices, even when looking at the same problem. We're all here because we're at least a little crazy - 99% of us (easily) could have all of our watch needs met by a 50M water resistant . We like needless extraneous complication within tightly controlled bounds - the whole watch thing, for most of us (again, speculation) is a lot like having a huge range of choice at the coffee bar - it's about control (or, in this case, control and the need to care / nurture. Sorry guys ).
Back to the point...
I'd LOVE to have a submariner. I think they're just impressively fine-looking watches. Unlike many (most) of you, I care very little about historical provenance. I'm completely unimpressed by the , for example, as anything other than a nifty chronograph. Doubtless I'd make exceptions for watches with great personal history / importance, but such things don't exist in my family, so I'm unlikely to know.
Dios Mio, I'm digressing a lot.
Anyhow, I'd love a sub, but the fact is, I'm a graduate student in a Ph.D. program. That means that not only can I not afford a real sub now, but I'm unlikely to ever be able to afford one (depending on how NSF funding goes ). My preference for a sub has nothing to do with anything historical, but stems from the sub's awesome looks (personal opinion), and great quality / workmanship (I guess the name factor isn't zero, but close to it). So when I look at an sub, I see a watch that meets most of the criteria of the one I want. I can't wear it in the shower (not that I'd ever wear a real sub in the shower), but when I look at it, I don't stare at it and notice all those things that make it different from a real sub - I appreciate it as a sporty watch with a fabulous dial. Let's be real - most of the big design houses aren't being terribly original these days anyhow.
I feel that as long as I can look at my wrist and appreciate what a watch is, rather than what it isn't, the homage-thing is a non-issue.
Sorry this wasn't too coherent

Very well stated (views: 10)
RedDwarf -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 7:24 p.m.

AMEN!! (views: 11)
A MattR of Time -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 7:11 p.m.

It's hard to generalize, Kelly! Sure, I'd like... (views: 29)
fishtek -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 7:07 p.m.
to have a Rolex Sub. Can't afford THAT, so I've got a Sandoz Sub. I don't/won't buy "Knock-offs", (read "counterfeit"), but just because a company rolls out a design similar to an existing popular model (Seiko has stuff looking like a datejust, for instance), doesn't mean it doesn't have its own value.
In the world of timepiece marketing, when someone shows up with a sure winner, you can be sure it'll be copied, more or less, by others. Personally, the only REALLY nefarious buyers are those who buy counterfeits on purpose.
My Sandoz has a good ETA motor, sapphire crystal, well-built and finished case, well-fitted bezel, and tells time quite well. I don't think any apologies are necessary.
OH, yeah,...I do have an IWC, a couple Omegas, a Benrus (all vintage), Elgin and Hamden PW's, too. I like 'em ALL!
Best Regards!  -Don

Homages are like cover bands (views: 30)
Evan -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 7:05 p.m.
There is no substitute for the real thing, I do not desire the partial essence of a watch, I want the essence and the form all together as one and these for me, can only be found on the originals. I'd rather listen to U2 than a U2 cover band.

I owned several homages and sold them all... (views: 43)
Micha -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 6:48 p.m.
...so yes, I do prefer original designs. Somehow it didn't feel right for me owning a homage. I'm still tempted by some of them now, so I don't disapprove of them. Somehow I ended up selling them again. The only exception are my Poljot Burans. These are only partly homages, since the Poljot Buran history dates back to WWII.

I think watches made by the same company that are homages to past models of the same company are okay. . . (views: 33)
Kelly M. Rayburn -- Wednesday, 15 February 2006, at 6:54 p.m.
reissues aren't in the same category for me. There is a brand and model history there. But watches made by companies such as Robert, that seek to take advantage of a rich Rolex (insert any company that has had its styles copied) history of style and innovation are just piggybacking on a tradition they had no hand in making.

  < Back to My Watch Collection >