Originally Posted by rnguy001
I would disagree with you here, and though I can see where you're coming from I don't think that if a person can't afford a Rolex for example, then he automatically should not be allowed to buy a MkII because it's a Rolex homage. Maybe he likes the styling and the MKII presses all his buttons at his price point. It's not a Rolex, it's a MKII. No one will argue that it hasn't copied many of the design elements from the Submariner.
Some will never have enough or will never want to pay enough for a Rolex, but that shouldn't keep them from buying other watches that they like and want and can afford.
I agree with everyone on the fake Rolexes out there though, that is something entirely different IMO.
I understand your point.
But when you think about it there are literally zillions of non-homage watches out there that are affordable and
genuinely interesting - so why do people still go for homages? The elephant in the room is the borrowed prestige of the original watch.
That Kingston which RogerP likes was 1100 GBP
- which is well into the territory inhabited by interesting companies like Fortis, Oris, Baume et Mercier, Damasko, Stowa, etc. If you went vintage you could pick up a spectacular Omega Constellation "pie pan" or Universal Geneve Bicompax for that price, and have enough left over to service the watch too. Second hand non-vintage would get you a Nomos or maybe a Tudor.
So really... there is no excuse.
me on an intellectual and aesthetic level. They're lazy unimaginative solutions released by lazy unimaginative companies eager to make a quick buck by standing on the shoulders of giants. The term "homage" itself is the basest form of PR triumph, pure marketing doublespeak.
The homage buyer pays for the privilege of an unregulated and completely unfinished or minimally finished ebauche in a cheap steel case that will be finished in a ho-hum way and without a shadow of doubt be a pale imitation of the original. I can guarantee you your homage company would have gone bust in 20 years because they are simply not there for the long haul and their business model depends mostly on the goodwill of cheapskates... who are a fickle bunch and will move on to the next homage company that sells the same thing or close enough for $30 less.
Given their very existence
is a sort of common-sense defying anachronism when you really think about it, I don't believe in too many half measures when it comes to little luxuries like mechanical watches - and homages are a half measure too far for me, the "Gacci", "Chenel" or "Luis Vuitton" bags of the watch world. Would you let your wife carry one of those?
I guess there are those homage lovers who will call me a watch snob, but I'm happy to be one if it means that I am passionate about something actually worth
preserving, something with deep roots in tradition and skill... unlike the homage anti-snob who too often is happy to hoist the banner of faux egalitarianism. Just drop by any of the homage forums... you'll see what I mean.
Originally Posted by Belligero
What I don't get is why we'd even be discussing them in a watch appreciation
thread. Wow, someone copied a design and put their own logo on it. What am I supposed to say — "good work, that must have taken some real talent"?
:Edited by apropos - 3/11/13 at 6:03am