When did copies become homages?

18844 Views 537 Replies 144 Participants Last post by Fahoo Forays, 4 mo ago

zymphad

Discussion Starter · 5 mo ago

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.

Save

Reactions: 5

1 - 11 of 538 Posts

benoni47

· #425 · 5 mo ago

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.

Save

benoni47

· #432 · 5 mo ago

Seabee1 said:
so people that can't afford expensive watches are entitled to buy ~~counterfeits~~ ~~fakes~~ r~~eplicas~~ homages because they are good and wholesome people while people that can afford the real deal expensive watches are insecure and not nice people? I don't know, your argument just seems like a rationalization to purchase and wear knockoffs. donchathink?

Unfortunately, you did not understand my post. Firstly, I am saying that homages and copies are defined differently. Secondly, I explicitly write that those 'Rolex wearers' who have a problem with the existence of cheap copies alone have an ego problem.

Save

benoni47

· #435 · 5 mo ago

Seabee1 said:
you said nothing about rolex in the comment I was quoting and referencing. it appears you're backtracking a bit here perhaps?

as for copies and homages being defined differently, who defines them is more important that how they are defined, n'est-ce pas

1. Nothing to do with backtracking. Didn't you see the inverted commas? You can use Patek, Vacheron or any other expensive brand you want, it doesn't change the content of the statement.

2. The important thing is that the terms stand for a different thing, it doesn't matter who makes the definition.

Save

benoni47

· #436 · 5 mo ago

Uhrentraeger said:
Has wearing the original become immoral?

Friendly neighbours wear copies.

Ego driven meat eaters wear the original.

Immoral is the wrong term.

Wearing the expensive original AND at the same time having a problem with the sole existence of copies indicates a mental problem. Yes.

Save

benoni47

· #439 · 5 mo ago

Seabee1 said:
1. I'm so sorry, could you please point out the inverted commas that you used as a substitute for words? I seemed to have glossed right over them.

2. the two terms could stand for different things or, they could stand for the same, or similar things. therein lies the rub...different people use different definitions regardless of what you opine.

1. In the first post I wrote "expensive watches". In the second post I wrote "Rolex wearers" using inverted commas. If I had used another expensive brand instead of Rolex, this would not have changed the content of the statement. The rolex wearer ist the expensive watch wearer. How can this not be understood?

2. I am already aware that there is no general consensus on these definitions here. I just wanted to express my opinion that a homage and a copy are really not the same thing.

Save

benoni47

· #441 · 5 mo ago

Uhrentraeger said:
Are we on the same page?

What exactly do you understand under 'copy'?

Experts (not everything is wrong on the internet) write that a 'copy' is more or less a 'fake' (Fake vs Copy - What's the difference?).

Copy is a synonym of fake.
As nouns the difference between fake and copy
is that fake is something which is not genuine, or is presented fraudulently while copy is the result of copying; an identical duplicate of an original.
As verbs the difference between fake and copy
is that fake is to cheat; to swindle; to steal; to rob while copy is to produce an object identical to a given object.
As an adjective fake
is not real; false, fraudulent.

I cannot see how a manufacturer who copies 1:1 (without leave from the manufacturer or copyright holder) a Royal Oak can claim that this watch is not a fake.

Copy and fake are not synonyms for me. Every fake is also a copy (and more), but not every copy has to be a fake. I wouldn't call Steinhart watches fake, for that they would have to be passed off as Rolex.

Save

Reactions: 2

benoni47

· #443 · 5 mo ago

Uhrentraeger said:
But a Steinhart as such is also not a copy. Some call it a homage. Others call it a rip-off etc.

Another Steinhart of the same Steinhart is a copy though.

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.

See less See more

Save

Reactions: 1

benoni47

· #445 · 5 mo ago

Uhrentraeger said:
But there are enough semi-original watch designs out there that are inspired in some way or the other by the original design(s).

No one has to buy a Steinhart (is it real a copy?) to enjoy that specific design.

That is a legitimate objection. Watches that are not copies and have a similar design are then more like homages for me. Wearing homages is always better than wearing copies.

Let me put it this way: I, for one, find people who buy a copy less dislikable than people who wear the original and are bothered by the existence of such copies. After all, the latter are only concerned with their ego.

Save

benoni47

· #455 · 5 mo ago

[BOBO] said:
Those watches do not look the same at all.
Different everything. The fact that you think the Steinhart looks like a 1:1 copy of the Rolex tells me that you don't really look that hard.
Look at the lugs, look at the bezel, look at everything and tell me it's a copy. Not even the colors match.

I'd say it's a homage in the words correct meaning. If Rolex feels honored by it makes no difference.

Yes, the watches do not look exactly the same. But in my eyes, they are far too close to the original to be considered a homage. Look at the dial, the exact same hands, the indices, the date magnifier or the Oyster bracelet. A clear imitation.

Save

Reactions: 1

benoni47

· #459 · 5 mo ago (Edited)

Bluco said:
They’re defined differently by the folks wearing the copy, I mean homage. To others, changing the logo or making something worse does not atone for the sin or ripping a design off.

‘Rolex wearer’ here, with no ego problem - I’m not the one who wears a fake, sorry, copy, oops - I mean a homage of one, and then defends it. Regardless of what anyone wears, they are entitled to judge anyone else by what they wear, say or do. Wearing a copy shows that you wear copies / fakes - it’s quite a statement. Imagine showing up to a job interview wearing a Parnis copy of a Rolex GMT and the person interviewing you is wearing a real one. That’s embarrassing. And it doesn’t mean the interviewer has an ego problem if their opinion of you is informed by what you are wearing.

I agree with your first paragraph. Copies are often mistakenly called homages, which is clearly not the case. What the motives behind this are should be clear.

Yes, the Rolex wearer would have an ego problem.

[BOBO] said:
No. The hands are not the same. The Steinhart hours hand has a taper where the Rolex is straight. Neither are the indicis the same. Look at the battons, and both have a jubilee style bracelet, not an oyster, but their not the same.
Look at the crown guards and tell me they're the same.
They both have black dials and a magnifier, I'll give you that.

But you don't look closely enough.

Yes, of course it's the jubilee bracelet. Again, I have to agree with your lists. However, that doesn't change the end result. In my eyes, it remains an imitation because it is too close. All these similarities are not coincidental.

The people who buy it don't say to themselves, look what a cool design, I don't know it in this way, I like it, I'll take it. Rather, they buy it because it's very close to the original.

Save

Reactions: 1

benoni47

· #510 · 5 mo ago

Al.Macrest said:
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?

1. Since you bring up WW II: 80% of cream of the cream of Axis troops were annihilated on the Eastern Front.

2. You tell me. The pearls for the yanks, the bad bank for Switzerland.

Save

1 - 11 of 538 Posts

Top Contributors this Month