Fakes, what's the feeling?
Discussion
Troubleatmill said:
No one in the "fakes are fine" camp have answered a straight YES or NO to the V6Pushfit test.
That speaks volumes.
It does indeed. I don't fThat speaks volumes.
king care if some chap is wandering down the road wearing a fake copy of something I own. I don't fking care if someone has a fake copy of art that I own. I don't fking care if someone has a fake copy of my car or my furniture, my wife's jewellery, clothing, handbags or anything that I have lobbed my money at for my own personal pleasure and that of my family. If you care then that is your issue. It isn't mine. YES or NO, YES or NO, YES or NO, blah blah blah blah blah f
king monkey blah. 
DonkeyApple said:
It does indeed. I don't fking care if some chap is wandering down the road wearing a fake copy of something I own. I don't fking care if someone has a fake copy of art that I own. I don't fking care if someone has a fake copy of my car or my furniture, my wife's jewellery, clothing, handbags or anything that I have lobbed my money at for my own personal pleasure and that of my family.
If you care then that is your issue. It isn't mine. YES or NO, YES or NO, YES or NO, blah blah blah blah blah fking monkey blah.
That isn't the question I asked. king care if some chap is wandering down the road wearing a fake copy of something I own. I don't fking care if someone has a fake copy of art that I own. I don't fking care if someone has a fake copy of my car or my furniture, my wife's jewellery, clothing, handbags or anything that I have lobbed my money at for my own personal pleasure and that of my family. If you care then that is your issue. It isn't mine. YES or NO, YES or NO, YES or NO, blah blah blah blah blah f
king monkey blah. The question is isomething you make, you sell to make money. But someone is stealing your designs down to the last detail, your ideas and putting your name on it and selling it so they make money. Not you.
It's a very interesting cultural thread.
The U.K.or American poster might be against fakes because they buy an expensive watch to show off and to get one over on others. The fake is seen as cheating, a quick route into achieving their perceived status. They dislike fakes as it undermines their own status. Because the forum is mainly British, people see this wanting to boast or get ahead as a good thing. It's even described as being a natural human condition.
If you were in Scandinavia, where people grow up with concepts like 'lagom' which is about virtue in moderation or not having too much or too little and 'jantelagen' the idea of not boasting and the group being more important than the individual. The concept of wanting a watch to get one over on your work colleagues is not at all a natural human condition they're all about social fairness. Not trying to get one over on each other.
I'm certainly not interested in getting one over on others but I dislike the idea of people making money on fakes by copying other people's ideas and designs.
The U.K.or American poster might be against fakes because they buy an expensive watch to show off and to get one over on others. The fake is seen as cheating, a quick route into achieving their perceived status. They dislike fakes as it undermines their own status. Because the forum is mainly British, people see this wanting to boast or get ahead as a good thing. It's even described as being a natural human condition.
If you were in Scandinavia, where people grow up with concepts like 'lagom' which is about virtue in moderation or not having too much or too little and 'jantelagen' the idea of not boasting and the group being more important than the individual. The concept of wanting a watch to get one over on your work colleagues is not at all a natural human condition they're all about social fairness. Not trying to get one over on each other.
I'm certainly not interested in getting one over on others but I dislike the idea of people making money on fakes by copying other people's ideas and designs.
Troubleatmill said:
That isn't the question I asked.
The question is isomething you make, you sell to make money. But someone is stealing your designs down to the last detail, your ideas and putting your name on it and selling it so they make money. Not you.
I can fully understand why Rolex would get upset about that.The question is isomething you make, you sell to make money. But someone is stealing your designs down to the last detail, your ideas and putting your name on it and selling it so they make money. Not you.
Apart from the impact on "posing" value, I can't understand why you'd get upset about that.
Do you get upset if people use Waitrose carrier bags when they go to Asda?
el stovey said:
It's a very interesting cultural thread.
The U.K.or American poster might be against fakes because they buy an expensive watch to show off and to get one over on others. The fake is seen as cheating, a quick route into achieving their perceived status. They dislike fakes as it undermines their own status. Because the forum is mainly British, people see this wanting to boast or get ahead as a good thing. It's even described as being a natural human condition.
If you were in Scandinavia, where people grow up with concepts like 'lagom' which is about virtue in moderation or not having too much or too little and 'jantelagen' the idea of not boasting and the group being more important than the individual. The concept of wanting a watch to get one over on your work colleagues is not at all a natural human condition they're all about social fairness. Not trying to get one over on each other.
I'm certainly not interested in getting one over on others but I dislike the idea of people making money on fakes by copying other people's ideas and designs.
Thank you for putting this issue into a cultural context, on a very personal level the Scandivian model sounds attractive and something that English society would do well to emulate, although I cannot see it happening. The U.K.or American poster might be against fakes because they buy an expensive watch to show off and to get one over on others. The fake is seen as cheating, a quick route into achieving their perceived status. They dislike fakes as it undermines their own status. Because the forum is mainly British, people see this wanting to boast or get ahead as a good thing. It's even described as being a natural human condition.
If you were in Scandinavia, where people grow up with concepts like 'lagom' which is about virtue in moderation or not having too much or too little and 'jantelagen' the idea of not boasting and the group being more important than the individual. The concept of wanting a watch to get one over on your work colleagues is not at all a natural human condition they're all about social fairness. Not trying to get one over on each other.
I'm certainly not interested in getting one over on others but I dislike the idea of people making money on fakes by copying other people's ideas and designs.
Another hobby of mine is fountain pens, particularly old pens and Montblancs in particular. There are a huge number of Chinese copies out there on eBay and they often sell for around half the MB list price to the unwary and fail within a few weeks of use. I know very little about fake watches but they appear to have an accurate and reliable movement. I would expect that the majority of people looking at this forum has some passion for their watches and aspire to have the genuine article on their wrist, whatever that is. There are many more out there who dont share that same passion and just want an accurate time piece in something that looks acceptable without the significant price tag. Whether you think that the world would be better if these people did not have access to a fake or replica watch is your personal view, but I cannot see it happening antime soon.
This thread is about the dichotomy between IP and fair competition.
It isn't fair competition to produce a watch and then sue anyone who produces a round dial with hands. The only unfairness is the production of a watch which claims to be an original before the original manufacturer has recouped his R&D.
The trouble is a watch is seen differently by different people. Some people see it as an art object, all the way to people who simple see it as a way of keeping time. Unfortunately for the people on this forum most people see it as a way of keeping time, and you lot are a bit odd.
That's why when anyone posts an example outside of the watch world to show you how daft the argument is, you simply say 'thats different', when in actual fact its the watch enthusiasts here that are 'different'
.
.
.
.
Just try to imagine a world where IP was king above all else in the way that you are proposing. There'd be no new cars, no more watches, certainly no more TV shows which when you think about it are all copies of previous shows and formats. In my own world replica cars would never exist. Even baking a recognised cake would have you paying a fee to the original inventors IP.
.
.
.
So how about some sensible perspective rather than all the foot stamping and toy throwing?
There is a balance to be drawn between IP and fair competition, but some watch manufacturers encourage fakes by the difference between what a watch has cost to make and what they end up charging for it. It the case of Rolex that must be thousands of percent.
It isn't fair competition to produce a watch and then sue anyone who produces a round dial with hands. The only unfairness is the production of a watch which claims to be an original before the original manufacturer has recouped his R&D.
The trouble is a watch is seen differently by different people. Some people see it as an art object, all the way to people who simple see it as a way of keeping time. Unfortunately for the people on this forum most people see it as a way of keeping time, and you lot are a bit odd.
That's why when anyone posts an example outside of the watch world to show you how daft the argument is, you simply say 'thats different', when in actual fact its the watch enthusiasts here that are 'different'
.
.
.
.
Just try to imagine a world where IP was king above all else in the way that you are proposing. There'd be no new cars, no more watches, certainly no more TV shows which when you think about it are all copies of previous shows and formats. In my own world replica cars would never exist. Even baking a recognised cake would have you paying a fee to the original inventors IP.
.
.
.
So how about some sensible perspective rather than all the foot stamping and toy throwing?
There is a balance to be drawn between IP and fair competition, but some watch manufacturers encourage fakes by the difference between what a watch has cost to make and what they end up charging for it. It the case of Rolex that must be thousands of percent.
Troubleatmill said:
That isn't the question I asked.
The question is isomething you make, you sell to make money. But someone is stealing your designs down to the last detail, your ideas and putting your name on it and selling it so they make money. Not you.
OK. Let's look at this pragmatically and from an economic perspective. The question is isomething you make, you sell to make money. But someone is stealing your designs down to the last detail, your ideas and putting your name on it and selling it so they make money. Not you.
A designer is selling a bracelet for £5k. Someone else then manages to make a perfect copy and sells it for £200.
Let's ignore the elephant in the room that if a perfect copy can be made for so little money then there is absolutely no engineering integrity or craftsmanship in the premium item but instead focus on the economics. We are, for the most part, dealing with two very distinct economic sub groups here. The company that sells the premium item has not lost a sale because of a fake being bought. The individual who purchased the fake was never a potential customer for the real thing.
If we look at Rolex as the prime example of this, it is a brand that is targeted at the newer money market and has used marketing to define itself as a premier aspirational brand. Have the litany of fakes of varying quality impacted on their sales? Probably the opposite. They've probably helped cement the Rolex brand where it is today.
If we look at handbags it is very interesting to note that there are known instances within that industry of the original designer of the premium bag also being behind the manufacturing of the fake versions. Why? Because it is highly lucrative and works to get the brand out there even more. So it's isn't black and white that fakes are bad. There are economic and marketing benefits that make it a grey area.
Finally, as well as fakes questioning the integrity and quality of the product you are being asked to pay an enormous premium for based on its integrity and quality and highlighting that for very many modern premium goods there is no true integrity or quality, just a veneer of marketing drivel targeted at people who haven't yet learned how to guage such things, there is also the fact that if something you've bought is also being sported by every punter on the estate then it obviously highlights your poor natural tastes.
Robbo 27 said:
el stovey said:
It's a very interesting cultural thread.
If you were in Scandinavia, where people grow up with concepts like 'lagom' which is about virtue in moderation or not having too much or too little and 'jantelagen' the idea of not boasting and the group being more important than the individual. The concept of wanting a watch to get one over on your work colleagues is not at all a natural human condition they're all about social fairness. Not trying to get one over on each other.
I'm certainly not interested in getting one over on others but I dislike the idea of people making money on fakes by copying other people's ideas and designs.
Thank you for putting this issue into a cultural context, on a very personal level the Scandivian model sounds attractive and something that English society would do well to emulate, although I cannot see it happening. If you were in Scandinavia, where people grow up with concepts like 'lagom' which is about virtue in moderation or not having too much or too little and 'jantelagen' the idea of not boasting and the group being more important than the individual. The concept of wanting a watch to get one over on your work colleagues is not at all a natural human condition they're all about social fairness. Not trying to get one over on each other.
I'm certainly not interested in getting one over on others but I dislike the idea of people making money on fakes by copying other people's ideas and designs.
The real cultural differences can more easily be viewed via the state of debt regulation in the respective countries as despite what we like to think about cultures, all humans across the planet are programmed with the same basic sets of rules and that means that any community on this planet has pretty much the same percentage of people who will lack financial self restraint. It isn't really a coincidence that in the countries where financial activities are more strictly regulated that you see less financial excess.
I think what should matter to the OP is what he likes and whether he thinks he is spending money wisely and responsibly.
Branding is just an advertising trick. Is teaching what advertising is about no longer part of the school curriculum? With more thought people could see their branded watches for what they are. Of course if the Swiss need our billions then carry on.
Branding is just an advertising trick. Is teaching what advertising is about no longer part of the school curriculum? With more thought people could see their branded watches for what they are. Of course if the Swiss need our billions then carry on.
There is, certainly, a discussion to be had about the worth of genuine products, and the validity of the reasons to buy them. It is not obvious to me that the outcome of that discussion would necessarily have any bearing on the - essentially moral - position on counterfeiting.
Likewise for the economic argument - I am sure there are various downsides and upsides to counterfeits being in the market. I am sure there are up and downsides for lots of things being available to the market. Their impact on the market isn't necessarily reflected in our moral position.
Likewise for the economic argument - I am sure there are various downsides and upsides to counterfeits being in the market. I am sure there are up and downsides for lots of things being available to the market. Their impact on the market isn't necessarily reflected in our moral position.
gregs656 said:
There is, certainly, a discussion to be had about the worth of genuine products, and the validity of the reasons to buy them. It is not obvious to me that the outcome of that discussion would necessarily have any bearing on the - essentially moral - position on counterfeiting.
Likewise for the economic argument - I am sure there are various downsides and upsides to counterfeits being in the market. I am sure there are up and downsides for lots of things being available to the market. Their impact on the market isn't necessarily reflected in our moral position.
Is it not simply a case that a product is only worth what somebody is willing to pay? If Rolex makes 800k units a year at (say) an average retail price of 6k and sell the majority of them obviously people must value them at the retail prices. Likewise for the economic argument - I am sure there are various downsides and upsides to counterfeits being in the market. I am sure there are up and downsides for lots of things being available to the market. Their impact on the market isn't necessarily reflected in our moral position.
CRB14 said:
Is it not simply a case that a product is only worth what somebody is willing to pay? If Rolex makes 800k units a year at (say) an average retail price of 6k and sell the majority of them obviously people must value them at the retail prices.
Can always question as to why they are willing to pay it. If people are buying £4k watches because the engineering is better than a £200 one, but it is demonstrated that the £200 watch is just as well engineered then why would they buy the £4k one?As I say, there is a discussion there - but it is not obvious that the outcome of that discussion could be used, in a meaningful way, as part of the moral argument that is at the centre of counterfeits.
The fact is fakes are made by using stolen IP, patents and TM (brands), are illegal to make, distribute and in some countries also illegal to buy and own.
As to whether someone is ok with supporting those criminal activities, by buying one, that's up to them.
Everything else discussed so far in this thread is opinion.
My personal opinion is a fake is pretending to be something it is not, because it's fake. So, why waste your money on a fake when a quality genuine item can be bought for the same money?
If someone wants a Rolex, they buy a Rolex, if someone wants a Rolex but can't afford, or is not willing to pay the price, they buy an alternative brand.
If someone wants the Rolex branding, but can't afford or is not willing to pay the price, they buy a fake.
People can justify buying fakes all they like, but in the end it's all because they want the brand without the outlay
As to whether someone is ok with supporting those criminal activities, by buying one, that's up to them.
Everything else discussed so far in this thread is opinion.
My personal opinion is a fake is pretending to be something it is not, because it's fake. So, why waste your money on a fake when a quality genuine item can be bought for the same money?
If someone wants a Rolex, they buy a Rolex, if someone wants a Rolex but can't afford, or is not willing to pay the price, they buy an alternative brand.
If someone wants the Rolex branding, but can't afford or is not willing to pay the price, they buy a fake.
People can justify buying fakes all they like, but in the end it's all because they want the brand without the outlay
Edited by bobbybee on Monday 15th February 12:24
bobbybee said:
So, why waste your money on a fake when a quality genuine item can be bought for the same money?
Never yet seen a copy at the same price as the original....If someone wants to buy a copy that's up to them as far as I'm concerned. No amount of other people moralising, spouting opinions or sneering down their noses should put them off if thats what they want and its at a price they want to pay.
lostkiwi said:
Never yet seen a copy at the same price as the original....
If someone wants to buy a copy that's up to them as far as I'm concerned. No amount of other people moralising, spouting opinions or sneering down their noses should put them off if thats what they want and its at a price they want to pay.
But, how would you feel if you made a product, but people just bought fake versions instead?If someone wants to buy a copy that's up to them as far as I'm concerned. No amount of other people moralising, spouting opinions or sneering down their noses should put them off if thats what they want and its at a price they want to pay.
You'd be pretty annoyed I would have thought.
And if everybody was so smart there wouldn't be anyone left to buy the genuine items, so what would the fakers fake then?
I do agree with the notion of "if you want to buy fakes, then go ahead, not my concern" as it's their money and can spend it where they like and supporting crime is a choice, I guess.
Edited by bobbybee on Monday 15th February 13:11
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff