WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

When did copies become homages?

18759 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 - 4 of 538 Posts
Oh God, not this shizzle again...

Watches are not copyrighted, if they were manufacturers would crack down on watches with those features.

If something doesn't pretend to be something else, it's not actually a problem.

People used Homage (clomage, lookalike,etc) to distinguish such watches from hooky ones.

There seems to be a lot of anguish amongst some over these watches, whether that's because they worry people may not recognise their 'luxury watch' for what it is and think less of them or because they believe being fleeced by 'their AD' makes them protectors of the faith I can't say.

Watches have looked like other watches for over a century, it's only recently that nerds have gathered on the internet to worry about such things

See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 5
It's not the purchasing. Nobody cares if Joe Blow and his San Martin are walking the streets.
Its the following up of the purchase with registration on a watch enthusiast site like this one. Then others have to scroll past threads extolling the virtues of this or that copy. It really would be one thing if these guys just kept it to themselves, heads down, go to work until that PO or whatever is within their grasp.
You know, there is a very famous Swiss watch brand that I have no interest in, but I can just skip over the posts featuring those watches and the stories of people being 'on the list' at 'their AD' and the like. I also don't like G-Shocks, so I don't bother opening threads on those.

You could, you know, maybe try doing the same with San Martin threads?

Just a crazy notion.

  • Like
Reactions: 2
Could be perception, and I’m not in internal controls @ whatever drug giant owns them, but I assume quality control is better, better sourcing of chemicals, etc.
I think you've made everyone else's point.

Brands live on perception, not tangible differences.


Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
  • Like
Reactions: 3
To argue there is no difference in controls from company to company is silly.
But the differences do not equal the cost to the buyer.

Everyone knows the law of diminishing returns.

A Rolex is undeniably better than a San Martin, but not tangibly better by the factor of the cost.

And unless you have some evidence that Tylenol is tangibly different to a no name version of the same drug, your argument is full of holes.

  • Like
Reactions: 4
1 - 4 of 538 Posts