WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

When did copies become homages?

18840 Views 537 Replies 144 Participants Last post by  Fahoo Forays
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.
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Wow
Reactions: 5
1 - 6 of 538 Posts
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.
Some people would rather call their new watch purchase an "homage" instead of a knockoff, which is what it really is. To "Pay homage" is to publicly show honor or respect. I'm not sure how a company is showing respect by ripping off the design. On the contrary I think it's terribly disrespectful. They're just trying to make money on the work of others. I also see derivative works as copying, just at a different level. From this point of view then, an "homage" watch can only be a reintroduction of a previously made design by the same manufacturer. That's an homage watch.
  • Like
Reactions: 4
Happy we have an ignore feature for such dead horse topics.
I stepped away for a couple of days, come back, and the tire fire is still going strong.
  • Haha
Reactions: 2
Yeah, great watch!

View attachment 17153680
Just think of it like one of those watches with a layer of glitter over the face. And when you're in boring meetings, you can use it as one of those puzzle games where you have to try to get them back into the right places by jiggling.
  • Haha
Reactions: 4
Wow, another day, and the tire dump fire hit a coal seam. Down we go...
Homages and copies are not the same, that's true.

Nevertheless, the copies have their right to exist. Someone who cannot or does not want to spend a fortune can enjoy an optically cool watch.

More importantly in this debate, people who have a problem with the very existence (not the definition) of cheap copies actually have a huge problem themselves and are using their expensive watches to compensate for their ego. The expensive original serves these people primarily as an ego crutch because they lack self-confidence in real life.
Well, seeing how your registration is Switzerland, Basel no less, it sounds like what you're saying is that a major Swiss industry exists to exploit people with low self-esteem. I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you, to learn that a country that pretty much sat out WW II would do such a thing. How's Credit Suisse doing by the way?
  • Haha
  • Sad
Reactions: 2
For me, they are straight copies. But they still have a right to exist. You shouldn't have to spend a fortune to enjoy this design.
I have nothing against cheap watches. I own some cheap watches, they're just not knockoffs of someone else's designs. I have a problem with theft of intellectual property. I don't like companies who do this because I don't like the idea of making money off the honest work of others.
You shouldn't have to spend a fortune to enjoy this design.
What you have to pay for a design should be whatever the creator deems appropriate. You make it sound like it's some sort of inalienable right that if you like something, you should be able to get it cheaply. What about bootleg videos? I'm not seeing much of a difference.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
1 - 6 of 538 Posts
Top