or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Ten rules for spotting watch fakes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ten rules for spotting watch fakes - Page 2

post #16 of 33
Quote:
Ah yes, the standard diatribe from offshore: "There are no certainties. Dark and powerful forces of incredible subtlety manipulate us, and only my sophistication can guide the ignorant unwashed. Do not question me, obey me..." Haven't you "sophisticated" Europeans bought into that nonsense a few too many times in the last century?
Quote:
Haven't you "sophisticated" Europeans bought into that nonsense a few too many times in the last century?
I pity you armscye. To make a comment like that really shows your sophistication.
post #17 of 33
Quote:
eBay has a major advantage over every other internet source -- feedback. I rely heavily on reputation when buying and eBay provides easy access to reputation via the feedback rating.
eBay feedback is a very useful tool, but it can be manipulated. In addition, there are many instances where purveyors of obviously counterfeit designer clothing have feedback ratings near 100%, but their customers either don't know or don't know or don't care that they're buying fakes. I've bought coins and watches off of eBay, and it's always been a satisfactory experience (except for the one guy who waited three weeks to ship), but everything that I've bought has been fairly low-end (two vintage Gruens and a vintage Hamilton). I would hesitate to buy higher-end watches or coins off of eBay unless I knew the seller well and knew both that he wouldn't knowingly sell counterfeits and would know enough to spot them (and from the sound of it, that's a very difficult proposition for some watches). The digital pictures that accompany auctions just don't show the details necessary to tell that something is a well-executed fake.
post #18 of 33
Is it just me, or do the watch threads almost invariably degenerate into name-calling?   While sharing of superior knowledge - and debunking of posts that are truly false- is welcome I feel that the tone of a lot of these posts seems designed to provoke a hostile reaction.   Mr. Massena, while surely a brilliant man with a loupe in his hand, seems to have a gift for adding a sneer to his posts that would provoke a counterpart (in-person or on-line) to a fit of pique.  You can share information - and even disagree - with another person without speaking to them as if they are unintelligent.  Indeed, I always assume good intent on the part of other posters - if there are errors, they are likely sins of omission or lack of knowledge, not willful attempts to mislead.   Maybe - to reference Quill's idea about separate forums - we ought to set up a section of the website where watch aficionados can savage each other to the point of exhaustion.
post #19 of 33
---
post #20 of 33
Quote:
Mr. Massena, while surely a brilliant man with a loupe in his hand, seems to have a gift for adding a sneer to his posts that would provoke a counterpart (in-person or on-line) to a fit of pique.  You can share information - and even disagree - with another person without speaking to them as if they are unintelligent.  Indeed, I always assume good intent on the part of other posters - if there are errors, they are likely sins of omission or lack of knowledge, not willful attempts to mislead.
Hi Duveen, You are absolutely right,  somebody posted "10 rules" as if there were laws to abide by them. I did try to make a point along with offshore observer that it is much more complicated that meet the eye. I debunked the "10 rules" in my post instead of attacking somebody national origin and calling him a "know it all European" or an "ugly american". I will refrain from such in the future, if somebody write a naive comment about wristwatch, I will simply use his race, nationality, geographic location or even his alias to support my argument. Please accept my apologies, I am fairly new to this forum William "get a grip" Massena
post #21 of 33
Quote:
Quote:
(armscye @ 15 Aug. 2004, 05:48) Ah yes, the standard diatribe from offshore: "There are no certainties. Dark and powerful forces of incredible subtlety manipulate us, and only my sophistication can guide the ignorant unwashed. Do not question me, obey me..." Haven't you "sophisticated" Europeans bought into that nonsense a few too many times in the last century?
While English never was my strong point, I do know that "diatribe" means an abusive, bitter denunciation.   I invite - no, I challenge you to show me these so-called "standard diatribes" from me.  I don't post here often and I'm by no means a shrinking violet, but what I don't do is post abusive remarks or insults as a matter of course.  Go on, show them to me.  Back up your allegations of my "standard diatribes". I'm merely a watch enthusiast and hobbyist who commented on a post to do with spotting fake watches.  I've re-read my two posts on this subject and I cannot see how they are derogatory or rude to you, or where I suggest that "only my sophistication can guide the ignorant unwashed. Do not question me, obey me..."  I'm not the one guilty of this.   It seems to me that you're upset someone had the audacity to point out that your rules, gleaned from "fifteen years of experience" were not infallible.  I'm sorry you feel this way, but that's your problem, not mine.  If you don't like my posts, then tough.  I haven't violated any posting guidelines or general rules of decorum. Finally, what do Europeans have to do with this?  For all you know, I could be American , African or Asian.  Care to take a swipe at any other nationalities out there while you're at it? For Duveen: I'm not sure why you've singled out William Massena's posts, which were only replies to what had been posted earlier by armscye.  William's posts have not provoked any hostile responses; only mine have.  As for my posts, well I assure you there's no attempted "sneer" tacked onto them and they weren't aimed to provoke a hostile reaction.  This should be self evident from the replies themselves (trust me, you'd know if it were my intention to be insulting).  Also, no one's suggesting that the list of rules originally posted was done in bad faith.
Unerringly, I am irresolute as to why armscye adopted such a stupid and immature approach toward you; I conjecture it is a deeper quandary at hand, as there was absolutely no raison d'être to bring "Europeans" into the issue. Personal views will differ, and as a European, I am sure to say, without a doubt that we are one of the most distinguished, illustrious, eminent, venerated and level-headed group of people / race (per se; the various races in our community, which are as, if not more distinguished, as the Aryan race (and following such, Saxon, Roman, and Norman races) itself). But of course such superiority of a race, is simply shown, not only with actions, and purveyed mental stronghold. But also with refinement in ones words, of indeed such, not blowing ones trumpet and proclaim to all, so to say. If you are a xenophobic, bigoted, and racist against Europeans Armscye, please do not show your imbalances to a more established multitude.
post #22 of 33
Dear Mr. 'Get A Grip' Massena, I debated whether it would only add fuel to the flame to make a plea for civility on your part.  Clearly holding my tongue in the first place would have been the best course - your response bears out my point beautifully while adding no value to the discussion.   My point seemed fairly simple: (i) watch threads on this forum tend to get nasty, largely because people seem to inject poisonous comments about the intelligence/nationality/wealth of others rather more often here than elsewhere; (ii) if this is a favored pastime, why not cordon off these discussions so that discussants can freely have at one another without the rest of us confusing the thread for something useful? You wilfully misinterpret my argument and lay on the sarcasm with a trowel.  I did not indicate that a recourse to nationalism was the right answer.  I did say that addressing people with a modicum of respect might be a nice thing to try once in a while - that applies to yourself, to armscye, and to myself. You are, I am sure, a wonderful and kind individual in person but the internet appears to bring out behavior that ill-befits a man of learning.  Other knowledgable members of the forum (e.g. jcusey, shoefan, etc) seem able to correct misinformation, share information and generally raise the level of education in the group without adding snide jibes. You appear to be almost personally offended by the fact that anyone suggest rules of thumb, which I find a bit silly.   You impute intent to them - saying that they are placing "rules as if they were laws to abide by them".  Personally, I just saw a list that was meant to help those of us who are not dedicated watch hobbyists. Finally, you appear to confuse my plea for your civility for a defense of armscye and act as if the behavior that I am advocating is that which he displayed, rather than that which I clearly described (namely, giving information without being rude).  It isn't.  I am no fan of nationalism or rudeness from anyone.   Offshore asked why I mentioned you rather than him.  I did so because I felt that his posts were fairly factual while yours quickly became ad hominem attacks.  This is a shame as I feel that you have a lot to offer, even if it tends to be concealed in bitter pills.   I'm done with this discussion and, as I said, am not terribly surprised that you have chosen to respond this way. Have fun picking at each other if you wish.
post #23 of 33
Quote:
Dear Mr. 'Get A Grip' Massena, I debated whether it would only add fuel to the flame to make a plea for civility on your part.  Clearly holding my tongue in the first place would have been the best course - your response bears out my point beautifully while adding no value to the discussion.   My point seemed fairly simple: (i) watch threads on this forum tend to get nasty, largely because people seem to inject poisonous comments about the intelligence/nationality/wealth of others rather more often here than elsewhere; (ii) if this is a favored pastime, why not cordon off these discussions so that discussants can freely have at one another without the rest of us confusing the thread for something useful? You wilfully misinterpret my argument and lay on the sarcasm with a trowel.  I did not indicate that a recourse to nationalism was the right answer.  I did say that addressing people with a modicum of respect might be a nice thing to try once in a while - that applies to yourself, to armscye, and to myself. You are, I am sure, a wonderful and kind individual in person but the internet appears to bring out behavior that ill-befits a man of learning.  Other knowledgable members of the forum (e.g. jcusey, shoefan, etc) seem able to correct misinformation, share information and generally raise the level of education in the group without adding snide jibes. You appear to be almost personally offended by the fact that anyone suggest rules of thumb, which I find a bit silly.   You impute intent to them - saying that they are placing "rules as if they were laws to abide by them".  Personally, I just saw a list that was meant to help those of us who are not dedicated watch hobbyists. Finally, you appear to confuse my plea for your civility for a defense of armscye and act as if the behavior that I am advocating is that which he displayed, rather than that which I clearly described (namely, giving information without being rude).  It isn't.  I am no fan of nationalism or rudeness from anyone.   Offshore asked why I mentioned you rather than him.  I did so because I felt that his posts were fairly factual while yours quickly became ad hominem attacks.  This is a shame as I feel that you have a lot to offer, even if it tends to be concealed in bitter pills.   I'm done with this discussion and, as I said, am not terribly surprised that you have chosen to respond this way. Have fun picking at each other if you wish.
Verry well said Notably
Quote:
Offshore asked why I mentioned you rather than him. I did so because I felt that his posts were fairly factual while yours quickly became ad hominem attacks. This is a shame as I feel that you have a lot to offer, even if tends to be concealed in bitter pills. I'm done with this discussion and, as I said, am not terribly surprised that you have chosen to respond this way. Have fun picking at each other if you wish.
post #24 of 33
Mr. Duveen, You are correct as to me using sarcasm in my last post directed to you.  I am sincerely apologizing for these comments and I do understand your valid points. I did call, in my initial post,  Armscye's comments unsophisticated and naive.  I felt that the tone of his post was somewhat a "lecture" as to the nature of fake in horology. I have noticed reading much of the past threads in the archives that the "style forum" is populated by many regulars who  seem to need to preach semi-truths that should be read as gospel. When some established industry experts such as Mr. Kabbaz, Mr Graziano or Mr. Beaman   debunked these myths or present an alternative view, they are chased away. I sincerely do not claim having as much expertise in Horology as these gentlemen have in their respective field but I was trying to raise the quality of the thread by making what I thought were judicious comments and observations based on my own experience. Finally, as a moderator on another forum, I feel that I can objectively say that I may have sounded a bit sneering if not mocking in my comments, especially when asked to give "ironclad rules". It could have been seen as sarcasm, rudeness or even insulting but this was not my intent. I will now refrain from posting here about horology and will let Armscye give us his insightful comments about it (sorry I cannot help it)  and prejudice view of the World. I will end with a motto which I often use "The one who knows does already know, the one who doesn't know doesn't need to know." I think this applies beautifully to this thread. William
post #25 of 33
Quote:
Mr. Duveen, You are correct as to me using sarcasm in my last post directed to you.  I am sincerely apologizing for these comments and I do understand your valid points. I did call, in my initial post,  Armscye's comments unsophisticated and naive.  I felt that the tone of his post was somewhat a "lecture" as to the nature of fake in horology. I have noticed reading much of the past threads in the archives that the "style forum" is populated by many regulars who  seem to need to preach semi-truths that should be read as gospel. When some established industry experts such as Mr. Kabbaz, Mr Graziano or Mr. Beaman   debunked these myths or present an alternative view, they are chased away. I sincerely do not claim having as much expertise in Horology as these gentlemen have in their respective field but I was trying to raise the quality of the thread by making what I thought were judicious comments and observations based on my own experience. Finally, as a moderator on another forum, I feel that I can objectively say that I may have sounded a bit sneering if not mocking in my comments, especially when asked to give "ironclad rules". It could have been seen as sarcasm, rudeness or even insulting but this was not my intent. I will now refrain from posting here about horology and will let Armscye give us his insightful comments about it (sorry I cannot help it)  and prejudice view of the World. I will end with a motto which I often use "The one who knows does already know, the one who doesn't know doesn't need to know." I think this applies beautifully to this thread. William
Quote:
I will now refrain from posting here about horology and will let Armscye give us his insightful comments about it (sorry I cannot help it) and prejudice view of the World
So I was not over analysing, armscye is xenophobic, bigoted, and racist.
post #26 of 33
Quote:
How can one tell if a particular Franck Muller piece is a hundred percent, or any percent, genuine?
I guess my small unpretentious question was too mundane to distract the warring gods of horology.
post #27 of 33
Wait, when did we chase away Beaman or Graziano? (Kabbaz I know about, because I saw the spectacular flame war, and the guy responsible has since been banned.)
post #28 of 33
Quote:
As for the $75 Patek that started this discussion, that buyer and seller knew exactly what they were doing, and they deserve each other.  Trademark infringers and counterfeiters flock together.
What the hell does this mean? I am not a trademark infringer; I don't buy stolen property. I purchased a watch in the off hope that it was what the seller said it was. I purchased it using a reputable and powerful "bank" -- Paypal. Unlike buying from the street, the buyer made a statement of fact (perhaps a false one), and Paypal benefited from the transaction in the form of fees that they collect due to their statement that I would be protected were the seller to send me something "substantially different" than what he purported to sell. At what point do deals become "too good to be true" such that the buyer "deserves whatever he can get." If A. Harris's St. Andrews suits were knockoffs, would you say, "Well, did you really think you could get a St. Andrews for $600?" Why do you not see it possible that Ebay can, sometimes, produce deals that are as good as thrift store purchases, where many of you claim to have found $3000 Brioni cashmere sportcoats in pristine condition? Is it not possible that some people simply don't know the value of what they are selling? See me for example -- I put a $39.99 buy it now price for a perfect condition NWT Trafalgar alligator belt. Now, that is 10% of the retail value rather than 1% as in the case of the watch, but the point was I just didn't know the value of what I had. To call me either a trademark infringer or a counterfeiter -- and you implied I was one or the other -- is not only offensive to me, but also ignorant. If I would have purchased the watch for $1,000 would you call me the same names? If not, please explain to me the difference in that situation -- in both cases I would have bought a watch for well below the lowest price that actual Patek watches sell for on Ebay. And, FYI, I didn't go on to Ebay to buy a Patek watch -- I sort of searched for it as a joke to show my fiance the watch I wanted her to buy me (as a joke, since she knows I'd kill her if she bought me even a $500 watch).
post #29 of 33
Quote:
If A. Harris's St. Andrews suits were knockoffs, would you say, "Well, did you really think you could get a St. Andrews for $600?"  Why do you not see it possible that Ebay can, sometimes, produce deals that are as good as thrift store purchases, where many of you claim to have found $3000 Brioni cashmere sportcoats in pristine condition?  Is it not possible that some people simply don't know the value of what they are selling?  See me for example -- I put a $39.99 buy it now price for a perfect condition NWT Trafalgar alligator belt.  Now, that is 10% of the retail value rather than 1% as in the case of the watch, but the point was I just didn't know the value of what I had.
Unfortunately, the ridiculous discounts one can find on world-class clothing don't extend into the watch world. A guy will buy a $6000 Kiton suit, wear it a few times, and send it to a consignment shop where it will be sold for a few hundred, happens quite regularly. They don't do the same with fine watches, which is why I have closet full of world-class clothing and no nice watches   Oh, and Johnny, don't get upset, you aren't guilty of anything but taking a little chance. I'm ashamed to say that I did the same thing a couple of years ago with a Lange replica. A real piece of junk it turned out (stopped running almost immediately, had a truly cheap movement in it) but I went after the seller and he gave me my money back.
post #30 of 33
duplicate, deleted.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Ten rules for spotting watch fakes