[DocMick]

Epic dive pics!

[8nthatk]

I’m not a watch guy but I’ve enjoyed reading this thread. Maybe I’ll look for a nice time piece in the future.

Thanks Tony.

[TSM330i]

My last time to chime in on this since it seems to be going on and on, plus I'm contributing to it

If you had a company of your own and you spent hundreds of thousands of dollars (possibly millions) to do R&D and build a manufacturing plant plus you had hundreds of employees that you had to pay. Then you had to enlist retailers to sell your product and spent years building your reputation as a quality company that people trust.

Then you have some cut-throat hack come in and produce a fake version of what you're selling and sell something that looks exactly like yours for a fraction of the price.

Bottom line, it's stealing.

I'm thinking you'd have a problem with it. I sure as hell would.

[zmanH2]

So is there a reputable online store where they sell these top notch replicas? I wouldn't mind buying one if the price is right.

[my335i]

Originally Posted by zmanH2

So is there a reputable online store where they sell these top notch replicas? I wouldn't mind buying one if the price is right.

ghetto fabulous...

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by MBM6F

Tony, you seem to be a classy fellow. I dig it. I'd like to run into you at a meet next time I'm in DC.

TY for the kind sentiment.

The trick will be my being in D.C. I was in D.C. 82 days last year. This year is no better. LOL

• I usually work outside the U.S. and almost never in D.C., whether I'm in the U.S. or not.
• Mostly, I make it a point to catch up with my kids for I want to be more a friend to them and less a parent:
  • One son in college -- not in D.C.
  • One son in his "gap year" touring the world
  • Daughter in Michigan with her fiance
• When I'm not meeting up with my kids, I'm visiting or meeting up with friends at various places on the planet.

All the best.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by TSM330i

My last time to chime in on this since it seems to be going on and on, plus I'm contributing to it

If you had a company of your own and you spent hundreds of thousands of dollars (possibly millions) to do R&D and build a manufacturing plant plus you had hundreds of employees that you had to pay. Then you had to enlist retailers to sell your product and spent years building your reputation as a quality company that people trust.

Then you have some cut-throat hack come in and produce a fake version of what you're selling and sell something that looks exactly like yours for a fraction of the price.

Bottom line, it's stealing.

I'm thinking you'd have a problem with it. I sure as hell would.

Were I the former company you mention, I would have a problem with it just as Rolex, Cartier, and many others do.

That said, whom do those companies sue for trademark infringements? I don't know of every suit they bring. I know about a year ago I read that Audemars Piguet sued Tommy Hilfiger for trademark infringement.

Also, I know that fakes have been made available since the late 1970s and they haven't stopped. Rather their abundance has grown. That didn't happen because nobody is buying them and the legitimate trademark owners were zealously defending their intellectual property.

They are generally made in China and they have gotten progressively better as time telling machines, although they aren't as well made as the things they ape. Part of the problem is that authentic high end watches are so damn overbuilt and over engineered that there's not much good reason in the average consumer's mind or life circumstances to buy them and pay $8K+ for them, whether they can afford to do so or not.

Moreover, the companies that make the vast majority of the fakes aren't the ones who are sued out of business. The simple fact is that there are more individuals in the PRC who own a fake Rolex than there are people on the planet who own a real one.

That's so for AP as well, and yet AP sued Tommy Hilfiger over a watch that I wouldn't have known existed had AP not sued TH. AP sued another company -- Swiss somebody...I don't recall their name -- over a watch that they claimed breached their IP rights. As with the suit against TH, I would never have know that other company exists, let alone made a watch that looks like the the AP RO. After I saw the offending watch, I don't think it does look like an RO except in the most general ways, although the judge felt it did.

So yes, I understand the ire that Rolex et al should have, but if it does bother them, they aren't doing much to stop the fakes from being made and sold. In light of that, I have to ask, how upset are they? As far as I can tell, the only reason high end watch companies take legal action is that they think they can get a lot of money for having done so. They don't seem at all concerned about actually stemming the production of outright. unabashed counterfeits.

Here are two Rolex lawsuits. They are for selling (judging by the headlines) counterfeit Rolexes.

• http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/r...ickest_kids_fr
• http://www.diamonds.net/News/NewsIte...rticleID=40837
  

You'll see a few more lawsuits for trade dress infringement here: http://springutlaw.com/successes/. Look at whom they sued. Is any one of the defendants a PRC fake watch maker? Every defendant seems to be a well known company or individual. But that's not who makes the overwhelming majority of fakes the millions of Chinese buy/wear.

Is one going to say that if the fake maker doesn't have Western visibility, notoriety and deep pockets, it doesn't matter?

All the best.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by mike the snake

There might be some hot tub situations that no watch, fake or not, can withstand the pressures of.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ugly...ub%3B420%3B286

That's not very nice to say, but it's funny as hell.

All the best.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by DocMick

...Perhaps I should have expanded my comment to convey the exact thought, so as to be understood by people who write with many words and paragraphs and things.

If I met someone and spotted a Swiss watch, my first though would be to assume it's a gen and throw out the "nice Tag" or whatever but after we shook hands, I'd get a closer glance at said watch. If I have to now, after some reflection on the qualities of the watch... heretofore assumed to be genuine Swiss watch, reconsider said genuineness, it would cause me to cast doubtful thoughts on the character of the person I just met. And perhaps reconsider doing any transactions that involve any sums of money, property, commitment, or other obligations.

Because F that fake ass and his fakery. Naw mean?

That makes sense and I can understand that as a pattern of events and thoughts. TY for clarifying.

Red:
I have no idea what that means. Is it even English? (It doesn't need to be.)

All the best.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by brianeck

Oh my! Tony, looks like there are situations when the pressure at sea level may be greater then 20 atmospheres judging by the first picture that comes up here! I hope none of those people are wearing a watch hahahaha. . . Individual gravity could even become an issue in a situation like that!

And Tony as to your run in with the shark there is no shame in that of course.

Below are some particularly close encounters that I have had. . . The last one is a juvenile whale shark. From what I gather they are technically harmless, but the are also supposed to "steer clear of divers." That was probably the scariest moment of my entire life, the thing actually swam right at me and kissed me! Estimated at around 40 feet long

Red:
Yes, I am still chuckling at that post above. It wasn't a very polite thing for that other member to have said, but it damn was a funny thing to say.

Blue:
Awesome pics! I'm envious of your good fortune at having been able to get so close to those creatures.! I'm also envious of your photography skills. Very nice pics.

I immediately recognized the last critter as a whale shark. They don't eat meat, so that bodes pretty well for their comparative harmlessness. That said, I don't want to be the first human to find out if, were I to accidentally end up in one's mouth, it might swallow while I'm there. LOL Plus, 40 feet of fish, no matter how docile, can pack a wallop even if it isn't intending to do one harm.

FWIW, good sense tells me that just about anything in the ocean moving willfully and longer than four feet is probably something deserving a healthy degree of respect and "breathing room." LOL I don't care if it's solid like a fish or diaphanous like jellyfish tentacles.

All the best.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by zmanH2

So is there a reputable online store where they sell these top notch replicas? I wouldn't mind buying one if the price is right.

I have no idea. I can tell you where to go in Luohu to buy high quality fakes. If you want something like the fakes that aren't technically fake, I'd suggest you check out Parnis. Expect to pay ~$100 for one. (That sucks of course because in the PRC they run ~$15 -$20...less if you are Chinese and haggle well.)

Parnis basically are the fake watches, but having non-IP violating brand names on the dial. From what I've seen, they are made in the same place, by the same people. All that's different, AFAIK, is that sometimes the worker reaches into the bin that has Rolex, Panerai, et al dials, and other times s/he reaches into the bin having Parnis dials.

Off Topic:
I went to get you a link for the Luohu center and see that it's popularity has increased to the point it has a Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luohu_Commercial_City .

If you are going to visit Hong Kong, you should absolutely get a visa to visit the PRC too. Shenzhen is literally visible from Hong Kong and there's far more to see in the PRC overall than there is to see in Hong Kong. Plus the PRC is very inexpensive for Westerners.

All the best.

[MBM6F]

Originally Posted by tony20009

TY for the kind sentiment.

The trick will be my being in D.C. I was in D.C. 82 days last year. This year is no better. LOL

• I usually work outside the U.S. and almost never in D.C., whether I'm in the U.S. or not.
• Mostly, I make it a point to catch up with my kids for I want to be more a friend to them and less a parent:
  • One son in college -- not in D.C.
  • One son in his "gap year" touring the world
  • Daughter in Michigan with her fiance
• When I'm not meeting up with my kids, I'm visiting or meeting up with friends at various places on the planet.

All the best.

Totally understand. I travel a ton as well. In 2012 I believe I had 180+ travel days.

[TSM330i]

Originally Posted by tony20009

Were I the former company you mention, I would have a problem with it just as Rolex, Cartier, and many others do.

That said, whom do those companies sue for trademark infringements? I don't know of every suit they bring. I know about a year ago I read that Audemars Piguet sued Tommy Hilfiger for trademark infringement.

Also, I know that fakes have been made available since the late 1970s and they haven't stopped. Rather their abundance has grown. That didn't happen because nobody is buying them and the legitimate trademark owners were zealously defending their intellectual property.

They are generally made in China and they have gotten progressively better as time telling machines, although they aren't as well made as the things they ape. Part of the problem is that authentic high end watches are so damn overbuilt and over engineered that there's not much good reason in the average consumer's mind or life circumstances to buy them and pay $8K+ for them, whether they can afford to do so or not.

Moreover, the companies that make the vast majority of the fakes aren't the ones who are sued out of business. The simple fact is that there are more individuals in the PRC who own a fake Rolex than there are people on the planet who own a real one.

That's so for AP as well, and yet AP sued Tommy Hilfiger over a watch that I wouldn't have known existed had AP not sued TH. AP sued another company -- Swiss somebody...I don't recall their name -- over a watch that they claimed breached their IP rights. As with the suit against TH, I would never have know that other company exists, let alone made a watch that looks like the the AP RO. After I saw the offending watch, I don't think it does look like an RO except in the most general ways, although the judge felt it did.

So yes, I understand the ire that Rolex et al should have, but if it does bother them, they aren't doing much to stop the fakes from being made and sold. In light of that, I have to ask, how upset are they? As far as I can tell, the only reason high end watch companies take legal action is that they think they can get a lot of money for having done so. They don't seem at all concerned about actually stemming the production of outright. unabashed counterfeits.

Here are two Rolex lawsuits. They are for selling (judging by the headlines) counterfeit Rolexes.

• http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/r...ickest_kids_fr
• http://www.diamonds.net/News/NewsIte...rticleID=40837
  

You'll see a few more lawsuits for trade dress infringement here: http://springutlaw.com/successes/. Look at whom they sued. Is any one of the defendants a PRC fake watch maker? Every defendant seems to be a well known company or individual. But that's not who makes the overwhelming majority of fakes the millions of Chinese buy/wear.

Is one going to say that if the fake maker doesn't have Western visibility, notoriety and deep pockets, it doesn't matter?

All the best.

I completely understand your point and well taken.

The fact is, the vast majority are made in China. Without the Chinese Government to back the watch makers, there's no way they can stop the source. Therefore, they have to attack the sellers.
This is the same way counterfeit drugs are being made in China. I'm sure you'd have a problem taking heart medication that ended up being gypsum board.
They also have to contend with online retailers, which they are going after, but is difficult as well.
To say the Swiss watch manufacturers aren't taking it seriously is not true. This has been a thorne in their side for a long time and they are very much so trying to stop it. Like I said earlier, with the Chinese Government involved, they are very limited in how much they can do.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/arielada...plica-watches/
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/fake-wat...ccess/37630748
http://www.thelocal.ch/20130409/swis...counterfeiters
https://swissluxewatches.com/famous-...ounterfeiting/
http://www.fhs.ch/eng/homepage.html

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by zmanH2

So is there a reputable online store where they sell these top notch replicas? I wouldn't mind buying one if the price is right.

I can't attest to the top-notch-ness of these things, but plenty of folks buy them and are satisfied with them. There are specific forums dedicated to fake watches. Check there if you really want to buy one.

• http://www.alpha-watch.com/subhome.php - Mostly Rolex Sub homages
• http://www.tiger-concept.com/watch.html - Mostly Tudor homages
• http://www.parniswatch.net/ - These people "homage" Rolex, Panerai, IWC and more.

In spite of the fact that I vociferously remain non-judgmental about the people who wear fake watches, when it comes to the watches themselves, I'm of the mind that at $25 or so in the PRC, fake or not fake, one can't have but so high a set of expectations. It's amusing to buy and wear them, and that's that.


The fakes one buys elsewhere are a different matter. First off, one is going to have to pay $100 - $250 for them, as one must with the "homage" watches offered by the three websites I linked above. At $100 or so, buying a fake is probably thought of still as an amusing novelty by a lot of folks. At $200 or more, however, one is unquestionably better off just buying a low priced watch that stands on it's own rather than trying to ape someone else's watch.


In the $200 range, one can buy an Orient and have an an excellent watch. Orient watches are built to be low cost and high quality. Orient recognize and cater to consumers who don't want junk and who also don't want to or can't pay for "ooh la la" in a watch. Orient also make their own movements and have since they came into existence. Seiko is Orient's parent company. Lastly, I can't say that Orient was made to compete against cheap fakes, but it's clear that Orient does given their price points. In my book Orient wins the battle, hands down.


All the best.

[tony20009]

[Mvy]

All legal and ethical issues aside, I have a real rolex bought new and the movement stopped in the first year and a half of ownership. Expensive and real does not = not breaking or having an issue thats for sure. I was disappointed, but Rolex did fix for free. Was expecting more based on what I paid and how kush I treated the watch.

Buy what you want, have fun and know that if its fake and it breaks you can throw it away and replace it for less than it will cost to mail the real one back registered insured etc mail for repair. ;-0

I got the best replicas in Thailand on vacay. 30 bucks on average and 10 years later they are still working wind up watches.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by Mvy

All legal and ethical issues aside, I have a real rolex bought new and the movement stopped in the first year and a half of ownership. Expensive and real does not = not breaking or having an issue thats for sure. I was disappointed, but Rolex did fix for free. Was expecting more based on what I paid and how kush I treated the watch.

...

I got the best replicas in Thailand on vacay. 30 bucks on average and 10 years later they are still working wind up watches.

You aren't alone in having had that experience. That is exactly the "dirty little secret" that is unavoidable and that plenty of watch reviewers/bloggers know darn well, but won't admit. (And yes, the watch companies know it too.) Of course, they can't admit it publicly either because they receive material sums of support from watch companies.

Red:
If there is any insult to injury, it's exactly that. You'd think for $4K+ one could expect the thing would be issue free, but there's no guarantee. And at Rolex and other high end makers' price points, there's simply no way for the maker to "down manage" consumer expectations in that regard. Nobody in their right might is going to expect watches costing that much to fail in the first two years of owning them, regardless of whether intellectually they know it's possible. And quite frankly, one is justified for having that level of expectation, IMO.

All the best.

[oldmancoyote]

Read through the thread with interest... and since Tony20009 is still reading, I thought I'd add my 2 cents. Or maybe 3, given it's going to be a long post.

There seem to be 3 quite separate arguments against fakes - be they watches or anything else:

1. The legal argument: fakes are illegal.

2. The argument from function: fakes don't work as well as originals.

3. The argument from morals/ethics: fakes are wrong - and in fact using or condoning the use of fakes provides an indication of the (diminished) moral/ethical worth of a person.

On 1., there is little debate. In most jurisdictions, intellectual property, including branding, technology and design characteristics is protected. China (and other Asian nations) are less strict in enforcing the protection, and it is debatable whether protection in its current form is necessary or even useful; however it is there.

On 2., it seems relatively indisputable that the basic function of a watch as timekeeper and personal ornament can be fulfilled by almost any copy as well as by an original. Robustness, long-term reliability, complications and preservation of monetary value mostly remain associated to originals.

3. is the interesting argument. Partly because ethics (and morals) around imitation are strongly determined by culture: I don't think it's by chance that in Chinese (and Japanese) art there is a lot of inspiration borrowed by "past masters", whereas the history of art in the West, especially in relatively recent times, has put more emphasis on individual innovation. Perhaps it's an overstatement to say that to the Chinese imitation is only a form of admiration, since there are clearly business interests as well, but the way in which China and the US look at "copying" is profoundly different.

It is also not by chance that the US has been characterised as one of the most "universalistic" cultures ("there is one right answer") by quite a lot of research, and some of the statements made in the thread bear witness to that.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the purchase or use of a fake watch - knowing it is one - tells others practically nothing about honesty or reliability of the wearer; the reasons for buying a fake can be many, and only few of those have to do with deception. I suspect in most cases people wearing fakes simply don't care; the argument of "buy another cheap watch instead" holds up to a point: what if I like that "fake" one more than the other? Or what if an unbranded replica just isn't available?

A couple of months ago I was in the Middle East for business, and I needed a belt because I forgot to take a black one with me. There was a choice between purchasing a genuine branded article - at a high price for something that I would use for a week and for which I had perfectly viable replacements at home - or buying fakes. Unbranded, good quality items simply did not seem to exist. Potential legal issues at re-entry notwithstanding, I bought a fake Brioni belt; it served its purpose. Could I afford to spend the $300+ for a genuine branded item? Yes; I simply didn't want to. I felt (and still feel) that spending $50 for an item that I would not need after returning home was "punishment" enough for my failure to pack properly. FWIW, the custom inspectors at Zurich airport did not seem to notice or care either.

Does having bought a fake belt in the circumstances above - and continuing to wear it - brand me forever as a dishonest, lying, unreliable person? I don't think so, but I fail to see the moral difference between doing that and purchasing a fake watch. Boasting that I only wear Brioni (or perhaps more to the point in leather goods, Hermès: fake Hermès belts were available too, but I didn't like them) would be significantly more revealing, I think, but it does go way beyond what most people do with their belts - or even their watches.

Do I normally buy fakes? No, and that's because I generally appreciate fine craftsmanship, and copies (be they watches, paintings, jewels, furniture, handbags, shoes, dresses/suits or belts) are rarely up to the standard of originals unless there are fraudulent intentions towards the intended purchaser.

Do I think others should not buy fakes? It depends a lot on the circumstances and intentions; however if I were to bet, I'd bet that the vast majority of fake purchases in the world are neither damaging to the originator of the design (very few purchasers of a fake would buy the original instead - for whatever reason) nor an indication of intended deception on the part of the wearer. Legally, things may well stand otherwise.

[P1]

Originally Posted by DocMick

Fakes are fake. They're not replicas, they're counterfeits. If you're cool w that... if you purposely spend money on an item that falsely asserts to be something it's not, it says something about you.

What that something is.... is hard to define.... but in my world view it's unfavorable. I would cut any business ties with anyone that becomes askew when queried about the watch.


"Hey, nice Tag/Omega/Pam/Roles" I'd say but in my mind, I'm critiquing that AR coating, that dial, the milkiness of the crystal. If I have to wonder about the watch, I will wonder about the person and the likelihood that I'm going to get paid or ripped off.

Well said mate.

[marvin100]

Tony wrote "So yes, I understand the ire that Rolex et al should have, but if it does bother them, they aren't doing much to stop the fakes from being made and sold. In light of that, I have to ask, how upset are they? As far as I can tell, the only reason high end watch companies take legal action is that they think they can get a lot of money for having done so. They don't seem at all concerned about actually stemming the production of outright. unabashed counterfeits."

But this is rather interesting, as you've repeatedly objected in this thread to people presuming others' motives in owning fakes. Yet here you are, presuming to know the motives of companies!

Honestly, most of your posts condoning fake watches are better arguments in favor of legal homage watches. If someone wants a Rolex Sub, it's very, very easy to find the same styling without the Rolex brand. If someone buys a fake instead, it's pretty clear the brand name is what they want, not the look. The look has been widely imitated.

The reality is that there is no consistent, coherent argument for fakes other than in complete anarchist-style protest of intellectual property rights and laws (a position I'd actually be very sympathetic to!), but that it doesn't matter: people buying fake may offer justification but they don't really need it or care--they buy fakes because they want the real thing, can't afford it, and don't care about laws and intellectual property rights when it's inconvenient for them to do so.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by marvin100

Tony wrote "So yes, I understand the ire that Rolex et al should have, but if it does bother them, they aren't doing much to stop the fakes from being made and sold. In light of that, I have to ask, how upset are they? As far as I can tell, the only reason high end watch companies take legal action is that they think they can get a lot of money for having done so. They don't seem at all concerned about actually stemming the production of outright. unabashed counterfeits."

But this is rather interesting, as you've repeatedly objected in this thread to people presuming others' motives in owning fakes. Yet here you are, presuming to know the motives of companies!

...

Well, companies are different from people. Companies do everything they do because they feel that in the long or short run, it's beneficial to the motivation for everything they do and that is the profit motive. Companies don't care about much at all that doesn't compromise their ability to generate revenue and profits. Companies may talk about and lobby for things on the basis of morality, legality, etc., but the fact is that one could walk all over their legal and moral rights if doing so were in the end more profitable to the company.

Individuals would not countenance such a thing, regardless of the monetary impact. How often, for example, have you felt wrong and pursued redress saying, "it's not about the money; it's the principle." The only principles a company has are those that favor its economic interests.

So, when I wrote the passage you quoted above, I did so with the awareness I have of what catalyzes corporate behavior. Having a CPA, now an MBA and 30+ years of management consulting experience, I'm in a position to speak to what motivates companies to do what they do. Fifty pus years of living has similarly shown me that one cannot generalize in the same way about people and what motivates them.

I ask you to look at all manners of human behavior -- criminal behavior is probably the easiest to consider -- and ask yourself if you've been exposed to substantively the same sets of factors as another individual and yet chosen a different course of action. As a fairly straigntforward illustration I point to very, very wealthy people who have been caught shoplifting. (http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/...t-shoplifting/) I don't care what reason those people gave for why the stole the merchandise, the fact is that millions of other people crave the same outcome yet obtain it differently.

I offer Swatch Group/ETA's decision to cease making ETA movements available to non-Swatch Group companies. Sure, N. Hayek said that one reason for doing that was to help catalyze the watch industry and the value of watches to adopt once again the great and long honored traditions associated with the watchmaking craft. I believe that was a reason why he made that decision, but I doubt at all that was the main reason.

Long story short: it's in Swatch's economic interest not to make ETA movements available to every "Tom, Dick and Harry" company that pops up wanting to buy them and put them inside their own watch case. The reason for that is that with watches and their ability to perform, the motor matters more than the case. The case/dial drives why one wants "this one" and not "that one." The motor is why one feels comfortable that one or the other watch will serve one well and operate without trouble. As some folks have noticed, the prices for ETA-inside watches has skyrocketed in recent years, as has the price of ETA-clone-inside (Sellita, Soporod, Sea-gull, et alI) watches.

And that's the thing about corporate behavior...no company is going to directly say "we're doing this because it's more profitable for us." They are going to call upon their marketing departments to "spin" the story to make it more palatable to the people who must bear the cost of the companies' actions and preferences.

Are there folks who buy fake watches so they can pass them off, innocuously or nefariously, as the real thing? Of course there are. But to generalize that that's why most folks do so is unfair to individuals who don't have a shady motivation. I don't want to be fair to another man. I don't care about being fair to corporations because at the end of the day, I know that a company will choose what's in its shareholders' best interest before it chooses what's fair to me or people in general. Look at BMW...they had to be shamed into issuing a recall for their HPFP issues.

All the best.

PS
I appreciate that you were thinking as you read my post. Thoughtful comments always make for better discussions, so I'm glad you shared your thoughts. I look forward to seeing other posts from you on B-post.

[1MOREMOD]

Winner most words per post goes to?