Let's Talk About Replica Watches...

[acridsheep]

Originally Posted by OldSchoolCharm

If you want to add another wrinkle to this thread, look at the exchange rate of the dollar driving up the price of Rolex! A new stainless steel daytona was $1175 in 1986. Today a new stainless steel daytona is $10,400. In 1986 one dollar would get 2.43 German Marks. By 1999 1 dollar would get 1.655 German Marks. After the conversion to the Euro, one dollar would get 1.11 Euros in 2002. Today one dollar will get 0.76 euros.

If it was inflation at work, $1175 in 1986 dollars would be about $2400 today at 3% inflation. The $10,400 price is not explained by inflation. It is the weak dollar that is screwing all Americans.

A Rolex was no big deal in the 1980's. People got them as gifts for 30 years of serivce at work. But that was also a time when many companies gave yearly 5% Christmas bonuses. That has been replaced with companies leaving the USA because of free trade, and people taking jobs that pay half as much. I LOL at all the programmer buddies that were making 6 figures, who were pro NAFTA and free trade, "screw the workers we don't need them" attitudes. Then India and Malaysia started producing programmers just as good as Americans and those jobs left. Now they are crying but nobody is left to hear them.

Wrinkle added. Well done.

 

[OldSchoolCharm]

Originally Posted by OldSchoolCharm

If you want to add another wrinkle to this thread, look at the exchange rate of the dollar driving up the price of Rolex! A new stainless steel daytona was $1175 in 1986. Today a new stainless steel daytona is $10,400. In 1986 one dollar would get 2.43 German Marks. By 1999 1 dollar would get 1.655 German Marks. After the conversion to the Euro, one dollar would get 1.11 Euros in 2002. Today one dollar will get 0.76 euros.

If it was inflation at work, $1175 in 1986 dollars would be about $2400 today at 3% inflation. The $10,400 price is not explained by inflation. It is the weak dollar that is screwing all Americans.

A Rolex was no big deal in the 1980's. People got them as gifts for 30 years of serivce at work. But that was also a time when many companies gave yearly 5% Christmas bonuses. That has been replaced with companies leaving the USA because of free trade, and people taking jobs that pay half as much. I LOL at all the programmer buddies that were making 6 figures, who were pro NAFTA and free trade, "screw the workers we don't need them" attitudes. Then India and Malaysia started producing programmers just as good as Americans and those jobs left. Now they are crying but nobody is left to hear them.

The guy who pays $300+ for a replica would probably pay $2400 for the Rolex made version if the weak dollar did not drive the price up to $10,000+. We're not talking about guys who pay $20 for a cheap fake that looks like crap. We are talking about a quality replica.

The $300 replica version will fool 99% of the people. If a salesman could fool 99% of the people to believe him, he would be a millionaire. So what is so bad about a watch that fools 99% of the people? The guy who wants to pick up the brunette who bleached her hair blond, with the big fake ****, who is a gold digger; that guy will benefit from a good replica. Then when he doesn't call her the morning after, she will really believe that she lost another rich stud.

 

[OldSchoolCharm]

Originally Posted by bleachboy

Sure. I've had it about a year, it runs fine. All the chronograph functions work perfectly. It's heavy like a Rolex, it has the crown laser etched on the crystal, the serial numbers all over, etc, etc. There is no such thing as a Swiss made replica. Some may or may not have Lemania or ETA movements. Who knows -- they're counterfeiting the watch, I'm sure they could etch "ETA" on whatever movement. It is very well made.

The "grades" thing is bull too. There are two grades: Crappy and good. Buy a good one. The crappy ones are really crappy. The good ones are indistinguishable and intended to deceive (holograms, packaging, etc).

PM me if you want to know where I got it.

p.s. I am the dork who synced the second hand and the chronograph hand. It works like a normal chrono.


That is a beautiful replica. It may be nicer than the original!

 

[RSS]

Originally Posted by OldSchoolCharm

The $300 replica version will fool 99% of the people. If a salesman could fool 99% of the people to believe him, he would be a millionaire. So what is so bad about a watch that fools 99% of the people? The guy who wants to pick up the brunette who bleached her hair blond, with the big fake ****, who is a gold digger; that guy will benefit from a good replica. Then when he doesn't call her the morning after, she will really believe that she lost another rich stud.
What's the point of fooling people ... you can't fool yourself? You may not think this matters ... but ultimately it does ... it's called low self-esteem.

Of course, I suppose one could make an art of being a fraud. Sebastian Horsley has certainly made an art of pretending to be an artist ... so much so that he may well be one.

 

[Reevolving]

Originally Posted by Metlin

Which basically tells you just how overpriced some of these so-called movements and complications are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmM-u...QL&playnext=12 Interesting comment by some guy:

Yeah...its too bad that Franck Muller got busted in 2003 for buying cheap Russian movements and installing them in their watches and claiming them as their own in-house calibers. I would never buy a FM...scams and flams

Originally Posted by apropos

...someone buying a (well-made) fibreglass replica with a Hyundai engine and going up to a Ferrari owners meetup and telling them all of the above, .
Terrible example. The Ferrari goes 200 mph. The Hyundai doesn't. No one would ever try to pass off a quasi-Ferrari with a Honda motor in it A Rolex and Folex do not have such a massive disparity in functionality.

Originally Posted by Ahab

OK, I am new to this but a lot of the guys at watchuseek who have replicas also seem to have a stable of Rolex's and other "Original" watches as well.
Uh huh. Suuuuure they do. I can't explain why, but I think wearing an "homage" is worse than wearing a replica.. While I wouldn't wear either, I'd much rather wear a fake Rolex than a brand that simply looks like Rolex. I didn't realize the Parniss was an IWC and Panerai clone brand. I just liked how it looked, but I won't wear that if it's supposed to look like some $10k watch.

 

[hobscrk777]

A thought occurred to me this morning, and I think I can better articulate my ambivalence over homage watches. If I had to sum up the attitude about SF in one sentence, I'd say it's about obtaining the best value in clothing you can as long as it's above a certain baseline standard. For instance, you don't have to spend thousands of dollars on bespoke shoes, but your shoes should at least be goodyear welted. You don't have to get a suit completely handmade on Saville Row, but your jacket should at least be half-canvassed. Yet when it comes to the dive watch, it seems that some people are arguing that it is all or nothing: Rolex for several grand or nothing at all. Am I wrong in thinking that the dive watch is as classic a design as the black captoe balmoral or navy blazer? I don't see anyone proclaiming one true source for either of those. You can find a cheap pair of glued, rubber-soled black captoe bals, but the minimum standard seems to be at least the AE Park Avenue. Anything better is just gravy. Similarly, you can find a $10 Rolex knockoff on the streets of any major city, but there are plenty of quality dive watches out there at prices well below Rolexes (still a couple hundred dollars, though) that don't attempt to pass themselves off as Rolexes.

 

[anginaprinzmetal]

^
that's the whole point. The moment you try to pass something for something is not it becames a fake. You wouldn't buy a cheap suit and put a Zegna label inside, if it is well made most people in this forum could care less about the brand. So I don't understand what is so different about watches that makes people want to fool others in believing they are the real deal when they are not. Because, ultimately, you can fool anybody but you still have a cheap replica on your wrist and you know it!
As for the bleach blonde with fake ****, you can still get one (or two, or three

) of those without a fake Rolex, or so I've been told ...

 

[kulata]

Originally Posted by hobscrk777

A thought occurred to me this morning, and I think I can better articulate my ambivalence over homage watches.

If I had to sum up the attitude about SF in one sentence, I'd say it's about obtaining the best value in clothing you can as long as it's above a certain baseline standard. For instance, you don't have to spend thousands of dollars on bespoke shoes, but your shoes should at least be goodyear welted. You don't have to get a suit completely handmade on Saville Row, but your jacket should at least be half-canvassed.

Yet when it comes to the dive watch, it seems that some people are arguing that it is all or nothing: Rolex for several grand or nothing at all. Am I wrong in thinking that the dive watch is as classic a design as the black captoe balmoral or navy blazer? I don't see anyone proclaiming one true source for either of those.

You can find a cheap pair of glued, rubber-soled black captoe bals, but the minimum standard seems to be at least the AE Park Avenue. Anything better is just gravy.

Similarly, you can find a $10 Rolex knockoff on the streets of any major city, but there are plenty of quality dive watches out there at prices well below Rolexes (still a couple hundred dollars, though) that don't attempt to pass themselves off as Rolexes.

Seiko Orange monster is a good dive watch for a decent price and at a higher price range you can go for an Oris.

 

[acridsheep]

I have an Omega Seamaster and a Seiko Black Monster. They are both respectable watches. One does not have the pinache of the other, but the Black Monster pretends to be nothing but itself.

 

[Reevolving]



Uh huh. Suuuuure they do.I can't explain why, but I think wearing an "homage" is worse than wearing a replica.. While I wouldn't wear either, I'd much rather wear a fake Rolex than a brand that simply looks like Rolex.I didn't realize the Parniss was an IWC and Panerai clone brand. I just liked how it looked, but I won't wear that if it's supposed to look like some $10k watch.

Did anyone ever buy a Parnis clone watch?
Curious how that went.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/200-parnis-...istwatches&hash=item3a626febf6#ht_2204wt_1163
http://www.ebay.com/sch/etrade2012ee/m.html?_trksid=p4340.l2562
http://www.ebay.com/itm/207-parnis-...istwatches&hash=item3a6271b474#ht_2156wt_1163

 

[MikeDT]

They look OK for $89 USD mechanical watches from Hong Kong. Would their longevity and timekeeping be any good though?

 

[coffeecupman]

Reading this thread from start to finish has been an interesting experience.

I don't have a single watch at this point in my life, but am casually reading about the scene, and finding some stuff that I like the look of. Of course, I don't yet understand the market and how things are valued. (Correction: I have a few fun pieces from Tokyo Flash that are DEFINITELY originals . I just have no rare or coveted watches).

Despite the fact that a quartz crystal keeps better time, I agree that the point of an exotic watch is not to tell precision time, but more to exist and be appreciated as a work of mechanical art. Calling a movement inaccurate is like calling the brush strokes of a classic painting "sloppy", because these days autocad drawings are more precise.

I would agree that buying a fake has a psychological impact on its wearer, whether they want to admit it or not. I would not want to do it.

I wouldn't like wearing a repro. Or an homage.

It reminds me of some story from Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance (I think) where a part breaks on a motorcycle, and in a pinch, this guy fixes it with a part fashioned from a soda can. The bike owner appreciates the help, but expresses that eventually he will want to replace it with the genuine manufacturer's part. The debate ensues over whether a piece of metal doing a job is just a piece of metal doing a job, or if it's origin/frame of reference is meaningful. Since both pieces of metal would do the job equally well, it clearly came down to the eye of the beholder. I still struggle with the merits of each argument. On the one hand, I would want the original part there too, just for the art and the sense of legitimacy of it. On the other, god dammit, I also know that it IS just a piece of metal and that soda pop can has every bit the required properties to carry out the task. The part was not in plain view, by the way, so nobody but the two men would ever have known.

A sidebar to this concept is the question of enhancement - what if the same part were replaced with titanium or something more exotic, custom produced for the bike by a respected customizing company? It's still not a factory part anymore. But now it represents an upgrade, and at that stage it enhances the perception of the motorcycle. It is now better than stock, and special.

I honestly think the question boils down to are you going to take a romantic approach to your possessions (which is a facet of taking a romantic approach to your life), or a practical one?

You can say that dress is practical, if you look at it from a perspective of you have things you want people to think about you, and you're trying to manifest those impressions through artful forgery. Your dressing is oriented towards social and professional goals. But once you have achieved those goals, how will you feel, looking back on the way you got there? Maybe you're fine with it. I wouldn't be - but of course that's your business. In the real world we do know that cheaters prosper, even if the particular "prosperity" in this case is as seemingly insignificant as the "achievement of a look"

Beyond a basic professional image, I don't believe that dress is practical. We have solved the problems of basic protection from the elements. And the basic professional image (that which is sufficient to succeed in most professions or dating) is not difficult to achieve legitimately. I see on styleforum all over the place comments that the standard of dress in business and society at large is a very low bar indeed to get over. So if you have the means and skill to be above this very low bar, aren't you now operating on an artistic level?

Isn't part of the beauty of art a religious (and therefore impractical) lack of compromise? The worlds most respected craftsmen in any discipline would probably say so.

So for me it's about the art of style, which is also related to the art of living. And for me, legitimacy must be at the heart of any artistic endeavor, or it ceases to be the fine wine of art, and becomes the vinegar of advertising.

Originally while I was reading this thread, questions like "What if you're working in Rio, would like to dress nicely but you know there are healthy odds your watch will get stolen?" were running through my head. But in the end, you don't HAVE to wear a watch - I never have, and I'm doing just fine in my social life and career. Or you can choose an original design from a less expensive manufacturer that accomplishes the task of your esthetic. Actually in my initial browsing of watches, I'm finding myself drawn to a lot of old Jaeger LeCoultres, which seem to be achievable for less than $1500 - I don't think that's a problem for most of us? I like Submariners and Sea Masters as well, but I'm sure I'll find plenty of stylish original and legitimate designs to compliment a lot of great looks in the "under a grand" category. Even with only a few weeks of casual looking at the world of watches, I don't think I see any real need for homages or counterfeits.

In the end, I believe that faking anything is only justified for matters of basic survival. If you are broke and have to wear a fake outfit or borrow one for a job interview in order to be afforded a legitimate chance to succeed from there on your own true merits, for example. But that's not what we're talking about.

Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. One hopes that one will be recognized for being genuine, but in reality the only reliable reward for adherence to legitimacy is a deeply personal one. So do what you believe in. It's you who has to look in the mirror.

ccm

 

[coffeecupman]

Don't you find this metaphor communicative of a horrible and empty view of the world, even as it pertains to watch-wearing? You could say "Well, that's reality". But it's only your reality when you choose to validate and participate in it.

I refer you to the character Boris Lermontov's line in the classic film, The Red Shoes. When he is told that he cannot fight human nature, he replies :

"No...I suggest you can do even better than that. You can ignore it!"

ccm

 

[RSS]

^ Of course, the guy after the brunette gone blonde, the brunette gone blonde herself, and the replica watch worn by the guy after the brunette gone blond all have one thing in common ... each is fake.

 

[RSS]



I would agree that buying a fake has a psychological impact on its wearer, whether they want to admit it or not.

Bravo ... you've hit the nail on the head.

The wearer always knows it's not real. I can't imagine that anyone will be happy wearing a fake. And what is is the reason for wearing a replica watch ... to revel in the envy of those who covet the real thing?