Let's Talk About Replica Watches... - Page 25

When you think about it, it's not really the same - the primary (only?) purpose of a replica watch is to pass off as the original, signalling status/wealth/taste if you will via deception. Only twisted people buy straight up replicas to appreciate their artistic value - the analogy is going to McD's to buy a burger to enjoy the effort that went into their make.

A print is... well, no one is going to confuse that Picasso print for a >$50 million dollar oil painting.

I don't go to artprints.com to pick up a print that will convince my mates that I own a real Manet - there is no element of deception. Paintings/sculpture are also usually one-of-a-kind, not relatively mass produced like watches - prints/repros are the only way more than 1 owner will ever 'own' and enjoy a piece. Artists sometimes commission limited prints of their work as well, legitimising the concept somewhat. As for the signalling status/wealth/taste thing - for prints probably not the first 2, perhaps the last one.

In other words, the primary motivation differs, the secondary gains while overlapping generally differ, and due to the inherently different circumstances around their origination the same set of rules do not - cannot - apply.

And surely, somewhere in your house(s) there are reproductions of 'art' - it may be something as simple as a garden ornament, an architectural feature, stained glass lampshade, etc... so maybe you are not that different from the rest of us non-fake-watch buying folk.
Edited by apropos - 9/18/11 at 10:12pm

A couple of points I'd like to make here...

Most famous paintings e.g. the Mona Lisa are public domain, their copyrights have long since expired, anyone can reproduce these legally. Same with much classical sheet music, e.g. Beethoven or Mozart.

There are generic drugs which are copies of drugs where the patents have expired, again anyone can make these legally, e.g. anyone can make a paracetamol based pain killer, it's just that they cant call it 'Tylenol'.

Also there are criminal counterfeits of drugs, e.g. Viagra. Often what happens here, it looks like the real thing but has no active ingredients or could be made from dangerous and/or toxic ingredients. It may look like that expensive erectile disfunction drug, but it doesn't actually work because it's made from chalk.

Some replicas and counterfeits can actually be downright dangerous, e.g. replica aircraft and car parts. One doesn't really want car brake pads to be made from sawdust does one? But that's what can often happen with replica parts like this. Another one often seen in China is replica Marlboro cigarettes, which could be made from rat shit. In fact someone recently posted on SF about the 12 yuan Marlboros in Beijing giving him a headache.

This is what can happen if replica aircraft parts are used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnair_Flight_394
"As the aircraft neared the Danish coastline, 22,000 feet over the North Sea, the tail section of the aircraft started to rattle. The broken APU mount vibrated due to counterfeit bolts in the tail of the aircraft, which were weaker than the authentic parts. "

Well there's trademark and copyright infringement, e.g. 'Rolex' is a registered trademark. Difference is though between a replica Rolex watch and say replica Ford car brake pads. The replica Rolex with cheap Chinese movement is still going to work and tell the time, but the replica Ford brake pads made from sawdust are NOT going to stop a car.
Edited by MikeDT - 9/19/11 at 5:22am

Oh, you mean like buying used designer label clothing that you can not (or prefer not to) buy new? (suits, jackets, ties, shoes, belts, shirts, etc)
I'd say about 90% of SF is guilty of that. If not, what's the difference?
And before you say it, if you think people of SF are NOT trying to pass off "status/wealth/taste", then you're oblivious.

Fail. On multiple levels.

2nd hand ≠ counterfeit, and you can bet your retarded ass a 2nd hand Rollie will cost more than a 'replica'.

 

 

Good post. 

 

People spend money on clothing here to wear nice genuine clothing.  The wearing of the genuine nice clothing should be the success, not whether someone else approves of your budgetary allocation or perceives you as something more grandiose than you are.

 

This concept of "status trickery" is something that is entirely within the head of the individual, and entirely under their control.  I don't put on nice clothing to make people think I'm richer than I am.  I put it on because I want to wear nice genuine clothing.  People will either respond to my sense of taste and style, or they won't.  Who cares? 

 

If someone buys an expensive suit on credit, it's still a genuine expensive suit.  It's still the real thing.  If the owner wears it in the spirit of who he really is, that's a beautiful thing.  Now, if he's hanging out at the yacht club telling lies, that's quite another.

 

If you have the slightest notion that any part of your wardrobe is a "trick", and not what you genuinely believe comes from your personal taste and style, get rid of it.  That or else figure out what you need to do to achieve making whatever it is that you're faking, as soon as possible.

 

That's what this debate comes down to.  Art vs Advertising.  Expression vs. Trickery.  Love of clothing vs use of image.  And, as pointed out, legitimate business vs crime.

 

Like most things, it's all about choices.

 

ccm

I really do agree with you here. The motivation is completely different. Few if any with reproduction art are attempting to represent their copy as an original. On the other hand people with fake watches are commiting an act of fraud. That said, neither is an original and neither has any real artistic merit.

Having degrees in art history and architecture, I'm pretty darn careful. Of course, as the art colection includes works from Egyptian antiquities through today ... it's certainly possible that one or more pieces are something other than what they are thought to be. Moreover, we do have a needlepoint made by a niece some years ago ... it is a reproduction of the Bayeax Tapestries. Whenever that niece visits, she finds it on her bed. In addition the are hundreds of art books with photos of paintings ... and each photo is a sort of reproduction.

Edit: We also own a significant forgery ... that was used in a court case in the 1940s.
Edited by RSS - 9/19/11 at 8:37am

Fake watch ≠ vintage/used clothing.
Replica Watch = fraudulent designer clothing
Vintage/used watch = vintage used clothing.

That said, you may well have a point below.

But certainly there are many here out of the love for well made clothing. This may not describe you ... but c'est la vie.
Edited by RSS - 9/19/11 at 8:39am

No, not really ... especially regarding the animosity toward replicas. I assure you that no one of any significance and honesty is lauding designer rip-off clothing. Why would replica (read rip-off) watches be any different. Of course, to be honest, not much real 'designer' clothing is lauded here either ... not that this changes my point.

Someone needs to say it so I will. Anyone wearing a replica -- be it clothing or a watch -- is a fraud pure and simple. Anyone passing himself off as something other than who/what he is equally a fraud. A fraud is sleezy ... no doubt about it ... I don't care if he makes $15K a year or $1M a year.

Allow me to be blunt. If you wear a replica watch ... you ARE sleezy.

And there, you have it. To paraphrase Courbet, it's true because I said it.

Reevolving seems to know people for whom trickery is the entire point. Certainly there are people -- though no where near all -- here at SF who do similarly. Of course, as long as no one is harmed I have no issue. Buying used goods to pass oneself off as more successful than reality might indicate isn't to be admired, but it isn't really hurting others. On the other hand, trademark infringement is financially damageing to the original maker.
Edited by RSS - 9/19/11 at 8:59am

A perfect fake would be so perfect you couldn't tell it from the real thing. If you can't tell it from the real thing then isn't it real?

A replica doesn't try to pass itself off as the real thing.

Now if you try and convince people that your replica is the real thing that's your problem. There are people who would put a Rolls Royce hood ornament on a Rover.

Only as far as the buyer is concerned. It's the buyer who then passes it off as the real thing ... simiply by wearing it. The buyer is perpetrating trademark fraud not only in buying it ... but via wearing it.

Sorry fellows I'm just bored this morning ... and 'these is fightin' words.' But not to worry ... I've got an aircraft waiting for a 10AM departure ... so I'll be off in just a bit.

There are many reasons to buy a watch of any kind. Status symbol (pretty poor reason IMO), love for aesthetics of it, love for the function and mechanical marvel it represents, just to show time, as male jewellery. Maybe all of the above.

Just the fact that you chose a replica watch doesn't mean that you're some douchbag who tries to either sell it as genuine or pass it off as genuine. Let's face it, most brand name watches are overpriced lifestyle items. However, many of them have absolutely beautiful designs and that is where good replicas come in. For most people buying an expensive watch is not a good deal on any level. Not as a heirloom "investment", not for status reasons and certainly not just because they love the design. So a good reasonably priced replica can be just as nice to the owner. I really don't care what brand name is on the watch. If the same design was available from some other brand I would buy it, the Breitling brand name on mine has no value to me.

Of course, you are aware that replica -- or fake -- is a euphemism for counterfeit. It is, quite simply, illegal.
Of course the buyer is -- as you say -- a douchbag (not really a part of my vocabulary but obviously it works for you) as he is violating trademark law.
So just because someone can't afford the real thing makes it okay to produce cheap rip-offs? Give me a break. What are you, a sleezy -- and cheap -- douchbag?
Edited by RSS - 9/19/11 at 6:27pm

Are you in China?

This has been an interesting read. I was embarrassed that this thread was started by a Canadian. Rest assured, we all aren't like him.

As the saying goes "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time". It is often the people that matter most that can tell when someone is being genuine, whether it be in character or people / items they surround themselves with. Do you really want to be seen with a fake rolex when you are trying to close that business deal or making that very important first impression? Do you want someone to question what else, besides your watch is less than genuine?

RSS,
I really doubt anyone here cares about the whole legality, trademark fraud, etc
Trust me, that is the last thing on anyone's mind with regard to this issue.
That is the last reason someone would not wear a fake.