[zymphad]

When did copies become homages? I'm curious, how this came about? To me a homage is a watch that makes reference to another iconic watch, inspiration or repurposing a desirable feature or design. For example a watch with Oyster case and sterile dial with sword hands but with Fifty Fathom like bezel, to me that would be a homage to Fifty Fathom and possibly vintage military dive watches.

But I'm curious how the WUS or watch community has come to accept copies like Steinhart, Invicta Pro Diver, or Tissell Explorer as being homages, when in fact they are copies. Homage would be pay respecting to the original. This is just ripping off the original design.

I understand some people don't like homages of any kind. I'm OK with a watch that combines features from others, and apply some flair of their own. But I see so many straight copies that are called homages and I don't understand it, since they are clearly not homages, they are copies.

And some people also seem to not able to understand a copy and replica are no the same thing. I"m not saying Steinhart or Davaso make Rolex replicas, but they certainly are making Rolex copies.

To me calling these watches homages is an insult to other watches that are actually homages, as it puts a watch with interesting character of their own in the same basket with these lame copies.

 

[caribiner23]

IBTL

 

[Watchbreath]

👎 They don't, they become just another 'facade'.

 

[Barnaby'sDad]

IBTL

Well…it’s a legitimate question (not agreeing to comments on one brand or another…just the general discussion). There are a LOT of blatant rip offs that folks call “homages.” I guess whatever makes folks sleep better at night.

 

[zymphad]

👎 They don't, they become just another 'facade'.

But I see it everywhere, wherever watches are discussed, there is no distinction between a homage that makes reference or appreciation of watch history vs just a straight copy.

I'm just curious when did this become accepted, calling copies homages.

 

[Barnaby'sDad]

But I see it everywhere, wherever watches are discussed, there is no distinction between a homage that makes reference or appreciation of watch history vs just a straight copy.

If you look hard enough, you’ll find general distinctions between the two. They’re often covered here, but yeah…there’s often bleed-over between the two, in my opinion.

 

[fabslife]

Here we go again!

 

[Watchbreath]

But I see it everywhere, wherever watches are discussed, there is no distinction between a homage that makes reference or appreciation of watch history vs just a straight copy.

And you have been here for Seven years.

 

[Buramu]

They”re still copies. There are just a lot of apologists out there who will grasp at legal straws to justify their lack of morals.

 

[Watchbreath]

Here we go again!

There seems to be a little more distance this time.

 

[[BOBO]]

"This is not a pipe".
...It's just a picture of one.

Nobody cares except for 13 people on wus who really, really cares.

 

[EPK]

🍿

 

[zymphad]

View attachment 17145167
"This is not a pipe".
...It's just a picture of one.

Nobody cares except for 13 people on wus who really, really cares.

But why not? If people here really like talking about watches, shouldn't the watch hobbyists stop calling copies homages and make a distinction? If there was a thread discussing Submariner homages, I don't think there should be a singe picture of a copy, it should be homages...

I understand hey, I love the "whatever watch," it's beyond my budget, I'd like to get a homage. But I'm sure person would be told hey look at list of copies.
-- Honestly I think it's impossible for smaller brands to make a watch that isn't homage to another watch at this point, but it is certainly possible to not make copies.

 

[BundyBear]

When did copies become homages? I'm curious, how this came about? To me a homage is a watch that makes reference to another iconic watch, inspiration or repurposing a desirable feature or design. For example a watch with Oyster case and sterile dial with sword hands but with Fifty Fathom like bezel, to me that would be a homage to Fifty Fathom and possibly vintage military dive watches.

But I'm curious how the WUS or watch community has come to accept copies like Steinhart, Invicta Pro Diver, or Tissell Explorer as being homages, when in fact they are copies. Homage would be pay respecting to the original. This is just ripping off the original design.

I understand some people don't like homages of any kind. I'm OK with a watch that combines features from others, and apply some flair of their own. But I see so many straight copies that are called homages and I don't understand it, since they are clearly not homages, they are copies.

And some people also seem to not able to understand a copy and replica are no the same thing. I"m not saying Steinhart or Davaso make Rolex replicas, but they certainly are making Rolex copies.

To me calling these watches homages is an insult to other watches that are actually homages, as it puts a watch with interesting character of their own in the same basket with these lame copies.

100% agree with your statements.

Originals, homages, copies - all need a good and clear definition.

As to your main question, I think the rise of YouTube watch reviewers in the last 2 or 3 years where they started to call design copies a homage is when the copy watches got into the main stream and the waters have been muddied.

 

[FullFlavorPike]

Definitely Keep starting threads like this and maybe after a couple thousand we will get an answer.

 

[BundyBear]

But why not? If people here really like talking about watches, shouldn't the watch hobbyists stop calling copies homages and make a distinction? If there was a thread discussing Submariner homages, I don't think there should be a singe picture of a copy, it should be homages...

I understand hey, I love the "whatever watch," it's beyond my budget, I'd like to get a homage. But I'm sure person would be told hey look at list of copies.
-- Honestly I think it's impossible for smaller brands to make a watch that isn't homage to another watch at this point, but it is certainly possible to not make copies.

There was a time when there was even a fraternity of Brotherhood of Submariner Homages here on WUS....

Honestly, most micro brands make some sort of copy. Even Time factors "Smiths" which is a photocopy of past designs.

 

[zymphad]

Definitely Keep starting threads like this and maybe after a couple thousand we will get an answer.

And after a thousand this forum hasn't come to consensus, that copies are not homages and should stop calling copies homages?

 

[Michael Day]

From where I stand the term copy seems to have morphed. While there are many watches today that appear to be quite accepted, years back they would be called straight out money grabbing copies. These days, copying another watch seems to be fine as long as you put a different name on the dial. Personally I still see the categories, fakes, copies and homages. But I have no problem with people buying any of these categories. I do get a bit miffed though when people start to Trump on how great they are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[thewatchidiot]

Well using the word eloquence wrongly does indicate either an extreme ignorance or a jealousmaking level of irony.

this quote was from the post ”eloquence” and not from here but most in that thread didn’t like misusing the definition of the word to mean something else. Maybe just like here. What I don’t understand is why people want some words used correctly and some don’t matter.

 

[[BOBO]]

But why not? If people here really like talking about watches, shouldn't the watch hobbyists stop calling copies homages and make a distinction? If there was a thread discussing Submariner homages, I don't think there should be a singe picture of a copy, it should be homages...

I understand hey, I love the "whatever watch," it's beyond my budget, I'd like to get a homage. But I'm sure person would be told hey look at list of copies.
-- Honestly I think it's impossible for smaller brands to make a watch that isn't homage to another watch at this point, but it is certainly possible to not make copies.

Very few makers of what's called homages here makes 1:1 copies of anything. Not even Steinhart. Possibly Ginault.

But Steinhart never did. The cases aren't the same, the proportions aren't the same, the dial marker's aren't the same and the handsets aren't the same.

Sure, they look to be the same, but they're not. Put enough similar element's together and they look to be a copy, but that doesn't change the fact that Steinhart never released a watch that was a clone of any model that Rolex (or Tudor) ever made.

Those who are saying something different didn't really look that closely. Blurred vision from the anger, i presume.