WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
381 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Quick question for all of you experts. When did Omega start using the anti counterfeit Omega globe on the back of PO's? I recently purchased one from a reputable forum member with all documentation but there is no globe symbol on the back. The warranty card is dated 2006.

Thanks for your help,

Aaron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
213 Posts
Quick question for all of you experts. When did Omega start using the anti counterfeit Omega globe on the back of PO's? I recently purchased one from a reputable forum member with all documentation but there is no globe symbol on the back. The warranty card is dated 2006.

Thanks for your help,

Aaron
Around that time. My '06 PO did have the globe either ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,699 Posts
My 07 PO didnt have it. Remember, if the warranty card says 06, does not mean that it was manufactured in 06. Could have been in stock for a year +.
 

·
Editor
Joined
·
1,753 Posts
I have never understood the anti-counterfeit globe... If our Chinese friends can replicate a complete watch, including every single detail, a small engraving shouldn't be a problem..

I believe the globe is quite recent, from aroun 2008.
 

·
Editor
Joined
·
1,753 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
I think it's instructive to note, when reading the statements of authorities and claims written by Costco's lawyers (offering facts not in dispute by Omega) that Costco obtains(ed) shipments of hundreds of Omega watches at a time from ENE Ltd in New York. ENE Ltd obtains(ed) those Omega watches from TimeWorks Inc in New York. TimeWork Inc obtains(ed) its Omega watches from an un-named dealer or middler in Switzerland. At each step, the company making the sale obviously makes a profit of some sort. So Costco was selling some Seamaster models for US$1299 (which carried an MSRP of $1995). The question to ask then is what the dealer or middler in Switzerland charged TimeWorks Inc, and to also ask what TimeWorks charged ENE Ltd. Costco sold those Seamasters for US$1299 each, but the watches had by then been stepped on four times! So even at US$1299 customers were paying prices inflated by the need for profitable sales by three upstream resellers/distributors or whatever you want to call them?

All the Swatch Group, LVMH, Richemont and independent luxury brands need to pull their heads out of each other's rear ends, shake off the arrogant and wealthy old crust left over from generations of habitual business practices and begin to put in place practices which reflect contemporary exigencies. Reading the documents published so far about Swatch Group vs. Costco leaves me with the impression that Swatch is simply throwing sand bags up after the dam already broke.

It all speaks to artificially high retail prices (even after customer discounts), and over & above the usual aggravations of dollar/franc/euro/pound/yen/yuan/peso fluctuations (sorry if I left out anybody's currencies). Why should I try to afford still-high discounted prices from my local ADs in Toronto when I can purchase the genuine product from some non-domestic AD? I know the arguments about local economies - I've made those arguments repeatedly over the years myself. But when some non-domestic AD presents me with a price for something I want that is another 20% lower than the very best price my local AD can offer, what am I supposed to do? I haven't made any such purchases yet, but if the situation doesn't improve, my local ADs are going to have one less Omega, Rolex, Breitling, Bell & Ross, etc., etc., etc., customer.

Omega and all of Swatch Group can protest and insist all they want about the need to support local ADs within designated national distribution and retail territories, but Omega and Swatch together will inevitably be ignored if they do nothing to sensibly protect those same territories for their ADs at the same time as they prevent multiple distribution and/or resale steps from artificially increasing the retail prices for end consumers. What I'm suggesting is simply that if Omega/Swatch create a truly level playing field occupied by both boutique watch/jewellery retailers and by big retail warehouse operations such as Costco, only pricing based on volume buying and personal service will differentiate for end consumers where they decide to purchase a 3570.

With few exceptions, LVMH, Richemont and the independent brands are no different from Omega/Swatch Group.

Costco has for years been big enough to have set up purchasing relationships upstream for its Omega inventories. Had it done so (and if it does so in the future), in my estimation it could be selling some of its Seamaster automatic models for under US$1000. Doing so would not affect Omega's or Swatch's profits in any way. Doing so would also force Omega/Swatch to sell more directly to boutique watch/jewellery ADs and thereby provide them with the profitable ability to sell Omega watches at prices that are at least within spitting distance of Costco's prices.

Despite what I stated above, I'm not going to make any purchases from non-domestic ADs, nor am I going to buy an Omega from Costco. I want a relationships with local ADs which help me get early access to new or unique or limited editions wristwatches from a variety of makers. I don't like shopping in teeming, impersonal warehouses. So if nothing changes - and I doubt it will - over the next year or two, I guess I won't be buying any new wristwatches from anybody for the foreseeable future.

Omega chose to go after Costco and in the process ended up airing what I consider to be a small part of the watch business's big basket full of dirty laundry. I guess I'm going to be browsing the buy/sell forums here on WUS a lot more often.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,965 Posts
Its just Omega's attempt in doing what Rolex has been doing for years. Put a trademarked item on the watch and use the trademark/copyright clause to prevent grey imports.

U.S. Customs Today - February 2002 - An Untimely Christmas Delivery
Two very different solutions to the same problem. Rolex's solution is to have the US importer be ruled unrelated to the manufacturer (since Rolex, SA is owned by a charitable trust in Switzerland). This gives Rolex USA trademark rights unavaliable to most watch companies which own their own US importers. The main deterrent for Rolex dealers to not sell into the grey market is that Rolex will terminate their license to print money if caught.

Omega was far more subtle. They put a copyrighted (not trademarked...it's not the same thing) symbol on watches sold outside the USA to identify grey market pieces. Then they claimed that since the copyright law did not address items first legally sold outside the USA, then they had copyright infringement protection until such watches were legally sold in the USA. A very interesting argument which will remained unresolved until the next case.

Since the US Supreme Court was split 4-4 on the issue (with the new justice forced to recuse herself, have been Solicitor General), the lower court ruling stands. However, no one can use this case as a Supreme Court precedent.

If Omega and the other watch companies are serious about killing the grey market, they will need to terminate all but the largest AD's who can afford to keep slow-selling models in inventory for years. Either that, or go to an all company-owned Boutique sales model. Omega seems to be heading in that direction. Not sure about the others.

Hope this helps,
gatorcpa
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top