Replicas and censorship

[cyberface]

I've just noticed Stuart has closed a thread and in his comments he stated that he's tempted to delete all such threads on sight.

I'm not comfortable with this at all. It is true that the vast majority of members here disapprove of 'fake' merchandise and, of course, it is illegal.

However, horologically, there is a lot to be fascinated with in what's happening in the world of 'replicas' recently. One doesn't have to buy one or support the industry in order to examine it, one doesn't have to be a willing participant in order to discuss and evaluate the threats that the counterfeiters may, or may not, pose to the genuine brands.

The top-end 'replicas' are getting stupidly identical to their genuine counterparts, to the point that the only differences are in QC and after-sales support. Threads about where to buy them, yes I agree should be locked / deleted. But the topic of counterfeit watches, given how ridiculously accurate they have become to be for some models, is a very important topic for those of us who love the real thing.

Censoring all discussion of anything to do with 'replicas' smells of the jack-boot. Anyone on these threads wanting to buy one will be shot down in flames anyway. But I think discussion of the problems and potential solutions should be allowed.

For one, if I was a watch newbie, I'd ask a forum like this 'how do I identify a fake xxxxx' - censorship of all discussion of 'replicas' merely means that fewer people can spot the differences between fake and genuine, to the detriment of all parties. Let's say there's a Rolex fake out there that's stunningly good - but it has one fatal flaw that is not noticeable without a loupe, and in the correct place. Those fakes will sell as genuines. Until someone disseminates the information about how to CHECK for the fake - which is what forums are for, right - disseminating information.

And to anyone who thinks that all replicas are easily distinguished from their genuine counterparts, even by an amateur - you're so wrong it's not funny. I consider myself a watch geek and I've seen 'replicas' that I couldn't distinguish from a real watch without examining the movement (Rolex Sub, where the largest demand seems to be). And now the counterfeiters are building clone Rolex 3135 movements - to be fair they're easily spottable now, but what in the future?

Stifling discussion of this large problem is stupid IMO. By all means put a sticky up telling people not to come here asking where to find 'replica' watches - there's Google for that - but banning all discussion of them? Complete overkill and also very dangerous. Inexperienced buyers need a source of information to help them distinguish real from fake, otherwise the counterfeiters win, and criminals will buy the fakes and sell them at genuine prices. The only counter to this is information. We have the information - why not make use of it?

[tomw2000]

If people want fakes why don't they google for them?#

It seems silly and unecessary to post on here asking where to find fakes.

(added later: actually reading your post first might have helped. I agree with you ).

Edited by tomw2000 on Friday 27th November 12:08

[LukeBird]

Definitely agree with that.
I think Stuart is right though, there should be a stickied thread saying that threads asking about where to buy etc. are not allowed and will be deleted.
I think removing anything regarding to fakes is a bad idea for the same reasons as CF... I gleaned a lot of information on here to confirm (pre-purchase!) that the Seamaster I bought was genuine and it was thoroughly useful information.

As the forum is pretty much self-moderating in regard to fakes (no offence Stuart, I think you do a top job! But the fake milsub thread is a perfect example) I think an iron-fist of "no fakes" is a bad idea and will in all likelihood harm more than it will help.


Off topic, CF I will get back to your email chap.

[Mr MoJo]

Totally agree with the OP.

[DAVE-W]

LukeBird said:

As the forum is pretty much self-moderating in regard to fakes (no offence Stuart, I think you do a top job! But the fake milsub thread is a perfect example) I think an iron-fist of "no fakes" is a bad idea and will in all likelihood harm more than it will help.

Have to agree with that - not many will pose a "fakes" question more than once on here!

[fivesixseven8]

I completely agree.

Where to buy them or discussions on selling them, then fair enough, close/delete the threads. Having a cast iron rule that anything discussing "fakes" gets removed is draconian and unwanted.

Threads about MR2/355 copies in GG don't get deleted do they? Ridiculed maybe, deleted no.

[alfabadass]

Discussing fakes should be ok, discussing how to get them a no no!

A simple google will find stloads of forums for that!

If we pretend it doesn't exist or that fakes are crap and easily identifiable then people are going to get ripped off! £150 will buy a fake that looks more or less identiical!

[cyberface]

Exactly. It's getting absolutely insane and personally I wouldn't want to be a buyer of a second hand watch right now unless it was a haute horlogerie bespoke movement or something not popular with the Asians (which is where the majority of the fake market goes, and most of it is Rolex). And no, I'm not being racist, just realistic. As a result, the effort put into counterfeiting Rolexes (especially) is phenomenal. Obviously other manufacturers like Breitling and Hublot are trivial to replicate since they use mass-market movements (7750s) and these are readily available to the counterfeiters.

They even have a go at Franck Muller, when he dropped the ball by releasing a watch based on the ETA 2892. But in general, watches that aren't based on ETA movements are pretty safe.

However, Rolex counterfeiting is a whole new ballgame. First we had the 'perfect' exterior copy (impossible to distinguish without opening the back, to find a gilt ETA 2836-2 guiltily hiding inside). Now the counterfeiters are modifying ETA movements to look more like the Rolex 3135 - if you didn't *really* know your stuff, or if you didn't have a comparison movement to check against, then these movements would fool a lot of people.

And then you've got nonsense like this:


Which shows that the counterfeiters have 'released' the new 2009 steel Submariner before Rolex have. Check the Rolex home page, where they show only the steel and gold (and blue, yuk) Sub. The all-steel version was displayed at Basel IIRC - in identical style with polished centre link bracelet, stubbier crown guards, ROLEX ROLEX etc. round the rehaut, and the excellent (at last!!!!) new clasp (Rolex's clasps being functional but crap quality for decades). Rolex aren't, AFAIK, offering the all-steel version for sale yet. But the counterfeiters are. With a cloned 3135 movement. And, in its own right, it's a bloody good quality watch (better than the Christopher Ward / Aeromatic stuff at the same price point).

I wonder if Rolex will change the design of the 2009 steel Sub as a result? I'm not even sure they care, since most people who buy fakes really want the real thing, and when they can afford it they dump the fake and give their money to Rolex. And the more fakes around, the greater the brand exposure worldwide. But it's still illegal and Rolex make a token effort to stop it.

However in the world of CNC mills and CAD... how hard is it to replicate a mechanical watch? Designing one that works is hard, yes - that's why people like Abraham-Louis Breguet are considered gods (well by me ) - but once it's designed and debugged, copying is easy. Just like software.

I used to quite like Rolex sports watches - they showed a certain level of achievement without being brash or arrogant, and they were also solid, tool watches that could take decades of hard use. Now I've had to become pretty much a bloody trainspotter in order to tell whether a watch is genuine or not.

Listen - the reason why fakes work in Rolex's favour is that it encourages people to BUY NEW FROM DEALERS. If you're scared a second hand watch is snide, then you may say 'sod it' and pay the extra to buy a new one. Second hand watches are great bargains, as we here all know. But it's a minefield because of the fakes. Knowing what's fake and what's not is important, and I think we should continue discussing it.

And for reference, my latest 'high-end' watch purchase is a complicated JLC Reverso. No chance of the Chinese faking that one, in a million years.... hehehehehee

[sneijder]

I guess PH could really do without watch makers looking angrily at them, I assume we all go on other watch websites and have seen them with a similar set of rules after being threatened directly. I guess PH is a bit more under the radar so it hasn't happened yet.

As an aside I know a Hublot AD, he has to sell a Big Bang with much cheapness to make his target.

Bag of sand, email me [e-mail]

[cyberface]

sneijder said:

I guess PH could really do without watch makers looking angrily at them, I assume we all go on other watch websites and have seen them with a similar set of rules after being threatened directly. I guess PH is a bit more under the radar so it hasn't happened yet.

As an aside I know a Hublot AD, he has to sell a Big Bang with much cheapness to make his target.

Bag of sand, email me [e-mail]

Why should watch makers look angrily at us? What I'm proposing is full disclosure - demonstrating how to tell a fake from the genuine, so that prospective purchasers can ensure they are getting the genuine product.

The vast majority of PHers on this forum want real watches, not fakes. If you'd saved for ages to pay big money (for you) for a watch, only to find later at an AD that it's fake... or even worse - validated at an AD as genuine but when returned to the manufacture for servicing found to be fake (not all ADs are infallible) - how would you feel?

Preventing discussion here prevents interested parties demonstrating what the fakers are up to, and how to avoid it. When I bought my JLC at watches.co.uk, Tim mentioned that they'd been caught out by fakes before. And if the experts get caught out by fakes, then how the hell can the amateur enthusiasts tell? Only by spreading the word about certain tricks you can use to tell the difference between fakes and real watches...

[sneijder]

I understand your point, I just read this this afternoon :

http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=3162...

In a nutshell WUS don't want folk using the phrase 'Marina Militare' unless you're specifically talking about the real thing. That's the extreme.

I just read the thread that was stopped, and I don't think I've seen that many people coming on here asking here to buy a snide watch before though. You are right though, sensible discussion about the snides should be OK. Hell, I'll even admit it's entertaining watching the 'cloners' creep up on quality. It can only mean the Swiss outfits, who are often accused of lazily slapping some gold on an ETA, will up their game. Certain makers are putting out their own movements now of course and this is a good thing (although I seem to remember ETA will stop selling to outside companies soon ?)

[anonymous-user]

cyberface said:

I've just noticed Stuart has closed a thread and in his comments he stated that he's tempted to delete all such threads on sight.

I'm not comfortable with this at all. It is true that the vast majority of members here disapprove of 'fake' merchandise and, of course, it is illegal.

On the fake Rolex thread he said this.

Stuart said:

Motorrad said:

Personally I think Pistonheads should forbid any discussion of counterfeit merchandise, these threads come up all too often for my liking.

Edited by Motorrad on Friday 20th November 21:40

I take your point, but we're not really in the business of overt censorship of whole discussion topics and, in my experience at least, whenever they come up there is always sufficient condemnation for it to leave any casual reader in no doubt as to what the forum thinks of fakes.

In the latest 'where to buy a fake' thread he appeared to say he was thinking of deleting "these threads". I didn't see him talk about deleting all mention of fake watches, just the ones where people are asking where to buy them.

It's not 1984 in here

[andy_s]

Out of interest Damasko are currently developing their own movements and have patented a new process involving nanodeposition of silicon to produce springs and other parts. I think this is the way ahead for similar companies to be honest. Mind you, it's Damasco, so order now for 2012.

[Stuart]

Hmm. Hopefully I can't often be accused of overt censorship. I guess that my line of thinking was vaguely along these lines:

- We don't permit links to fake software threads elsewhere on PH, so why is this different?
- Every time we have a "should I buy a fake" thread everyone rows in to tell them how wrong they are. How many times do we need to see this?
But, it is tempered by the fact that the watch forum is largely self censoring (I'm here because I'm obsessed interested by watches rather than because I'm a mod). We're also still underground so don't tend to get legal action in the way that WUS and the others do.

[whoami]

Stuart said:

Hmm. Hopefully I can't often be accused of overt censorship. I guess that my line of thinking was vaguely along these lines:

- We don't permit links to fake software threads elsewhere on PH, so why is this different?
- Every time we have a "should I buy a fake" thread everyone rows in to tell them how wrong they are. How many times do we need to see this?
But, it is tempered by the fact that the watch forum is largely self censoring (I'm here because I'm obsessed interested by watches rather than because I'm a mod). We're also still underground so don't tend to get legal action in the way that WUS and the others do.

Totally agree (as do many others it seems).

Asking for pointers about what amounts to stolen goods is billox and should be stamped out.

[plasticpig]

Stuart said:

Hmm. Hopefully I can't often be accused of overt censorship. I guess that my line of thinking was vaguely along these lines:

- We don't permit links to fake software threads elsewhere on PH, so why is this different?
- Every time we have a "should I buy a fake" thread everyone rows in to tell them how wrong they are. How many times do we need to see this?
But, it is tempered by the fact that the watch forum is largely self censoring (I'm here because I'm obsessed interested by watches rather than because I'm a mod). We're also still underground so don't tend to get legal action in the way that WUS and the others do.

So why do PH allow replica cars to be advertised? Whats the diffrence between a Cobra replica being sold with all the correct badging but a Rover V8 engine? Surely this is exactly the same as a vintage Rolex replica? Looks the same on the outside but the innards are inferior/different.

[Stuart]

plasticpig said:

Stuart said:

Hmm. Hopefully I can't often be accused of overt censorship. I guess that my line of thinking was vaguely along these lines:

- We don't permit links to fake software threads elsewhere on PH, so why is this different?
- Every time we have a "should I buy a fake" thread everyone rows in to tell them how wrong they are. How many times do we need to see this?
But, it is tempered by the fact that the watch forum is largely self censoring (I'm here because I'm obsessed interested by watches rather than because I'm a mod). We're also still underground so don't tend to get legal action in the way that WUS and the others do.

So why do PH allow replica cars to be advertised? Whats the diffrence between a Cobra replica being sold with all the correct badging but a Rover V8 engine? Surely this is exactly the same as a vintage Rolex replica? Looks the same on the outside but the innards are inferior/different.

Quite a lot - they don't generally try to pretend that they're anything other than a Cobra rep with a Rover V8 engine, and they don't tend to be used to try and defraud buyers out of the sums involved in buying a real one on the used market.

[plasticpig]

Stuart said:

plasticpig said:

Stuart said:

Hmm. Hopefully I can't often be accused of overt censorship. I guess that my line of thinking was vaguely along these lines:

- We don't permit links to fake software threads elsewhere on PH, so why is this different?
- Every time we have a "should I buy a fake" thread everyone rows in to tell them how wrong they are. How many times do we need to see this?
But, it is tempered by the fact that the watch forum is largely self censoring (I'm here because I'm obsessed interested by watches rather than because I'm a mod). We're also still underground so don't tend to get legal action in the way that WUS and the others do.

So why do PH allow replica cars to be advertised? Whats the diffrence between a Cobra replica being sold with all the correct badging but a Rover V8 engine? Surely this is exactly the same as a vintage Rolex replica? Looks the same on the outside but the innards are inferior/different.

Quite a lot - they don't generally try to pretend that they're anything other than a Cobra rep with a Rover V8 engine, and they don't tend to be used to try and defraud buyers out of the sums involved in buying a real one on the used market.

Thera are plenty of sites out there though that sell replicas as replicas. People buy a replica Rolex for the same reason the buy a replica Cobra. They would really like the real thing but can't afford it.

Then there are the very few who have the real thing but dont want to damage it so also have a replica. Not Cobra's prehaps but there is at least one Buggatti Type 35 owner who has an Argentinian knock off as well.

[whoami]

plasticpig said:

Stuart said:

plasticpig said:

Stuart said:

Hmm. Hopefully I can't often be accused of overt censorship. I guess that my line of thinking was vaguely along these lines:

- We don't permit links to fake software threads elsewhere on PH, so why is this different?
- Every time we have a "should I buy a fake" thread everyone rows in to tell them how wrong they are. How many times do we need to see this?
But, it is tempered by the fact that the watch forum is largely self censoring (I'm here because I'm obsessed interested by watches rather than because I'm a mod). We're also still underground so don't tend to get legal action in the way that WUS and the others do.

So why do PH allow replica cars to be advertised? Whats the diffrence between a Cobra replica being sold with all the correct badging but a Rover V8 engine? Surely this is exactly the same as a vintage Rolex replica? Looks the same on the outside but the innards are inferior/different.

Quite a lot - they don't generally try to pretend that they're anything other than a Cobra rep with a Rover V8 engine, and they don't tend to be used to try and defraud buyers out of the sums involved in buying a real one on the used market.

Thera are plenty of sites out there though that sell replicas as replicas. People buy a replica Rolex for the same reason the buy a replica Cobra. They would really like the real thing but can't afford it.

Then there are the very few who have the real thing but dont want to damage it so also have a replica. Not Cobra's prehaps but there is at least one Buggatti Type 35 owner who has an Argentinian knock off as well.

Complete and utter rubbish

[cyberface]

Stuart said:

Hmm. Hopefully I can't often be accused of overt censorship. I guess that my line of thinking was vaguely along these lines:

- We don't permit links to fake software threads elsewhere on PH, so why is this different?
- Every time we have a "should I buy a fake" thread everyone rows in to tell them how wrong they are. How many times do we need to see this?
But, it is tempered by the fact that the watch forum is largely self censoring (I'm here because I'm obsessed interested by watches rather than because I'm a mod). We're also still underground so don't tend to get legal action in the way that WUS and the others do.

Fair enough. My line of thinking was that plenty of PH watch enthusiasts buy used watches - therefore making sure you're not ripped off is a prime concern. Replicas have got so damn good that you need to *really* be on the ball (and preferably have a genuine, or a multi-angled picture of a genuine, to compare with). I've bought replicas of a couple of my genuine watches for exactly this reason - to see how good they've got.

After all, only with a 'top replica' and a genuine side by side can you spot the differences. And these differences are those which I feel should be disseminated via the forum so that other people can benefit. I don't care if someone calls me a 'fake person' for buying a fake watch of which I've already got the genuine version - I use them for practising dismantling / reassembling movements (as they're ETA, and widely used). And I'm not a fake person, anyway - and I believe the benefits of pointing out the differences to the rest of us here outweigh the downsides of supporting (one watch) illegal activity. So I hope at least some information can be passed on...