Spot the fake

[gregs656]

Leylandeye said:

It is more complicated than you are appreciating.

For the item to be a clone, the branding is part of the process, otherwise it is simply a lookalike of the original and for some, that just doesn't cut it when they want to get as close to the real thing as possible.

I mentioned the C-type kit car as it demonstrates my point well.

C-type copies have been presented as originals which would clearly be counterfeit but as long as the owner is not trying to pass it off as an original then they merely have a copy.

There can be a huge amount of pleasure from owning a C-type kit car and status doesn't have to come into it. I imagine the same can be the case with the copy watch.

My problem with these fakes is if someone is trying to pass them off as the real thing and their existence makes this possible.

I missed where the poster was presenting his fake as a real one and if he has, then of course objection to that would be reasonable.

It really isn't.

By branding something as the original when it is not, it is counterfeit, if a clone C-Type is branded a Jaguar then it is a counterfeit. If it is not then crack on, it's a clone.

There is no reason other than attempting to deceive to deliberately brand something as something else.

As you say, if having a 'proper' counterfeit is what people want then I suppose that is their choice, but they shouldn't kid them selves about why.

[anonymous-user]

stinkyspanner said:

I'm the kind of person that might buy a fake watch and this is why:
I'm not particularly into watches, I haven't owned or worn a watch for 20 years or more-if I want to know the time I look at my phone.
However I saw an advert for an Omega which I thought looked nice, but would I spend £5k on one? Er, no but I would buy a fake for £70 if it told the time and didn't fall apart. Who cares if the movement isn't quite right? Certainly not me..

£30 off a market on Koh Samui. Even had a glide lock strap, though a weld broke on that after 6 months. Locking crown doesn't lock anymore, but I'm hardly going diving with this. Seller assured me it was a Japanese movement, but obviously it wasn't. Tells the time.

[andyeds1234]

MX5Biologist said:

£30 off a market on Koh Samui. Even had a glide lock strap, though a weld broke on that after 6 months. Locking crown doesn't lock anymore, but I'm hardly going diving with this. Seller assured me it was a Japanese movement, but obviously it wasn't. Tells the time.

Not difficult to spot as a fake that one, even in black and white....

[Leylandeye]

At £30 it might as well have Rolecs on it. If someone is happy with that, good luck to them.

The market for even the best copies is very different to the real thing.

Looking at some of the "homage" watches, by that I mean the ones which are don't have fake names, I can see the appeal of those more than one pretending it's something it isn't.

What amuses me though is the amount of snobbery that gets attached to both the real thing and fakes too.

[seastorm]

I'm lucky enough to have owned a few Rolex Seamasters, a SeaDweller 4K and one PP.

I've recently held in my hands a 'high end rep' Rolex SD4K (yes I know it's a copy or counterfeit) that cost it's new owner around 550 pounds. I've owned the original for 3 months (wished I'd kept it) but the high end copy version is amazing. Absolutely the same.

Same weight, same touch, feel, the steel, the matt bezel, the movement of the bezel, the rehaut, everything. I was shocked and amazed at the same time.

Made me think for a second - if they can do this for 500 or 600 pounds... Why pay 12,000 pounds asking today for a SD4K. And that's from an owner... I'm half shocked and half amazed.

If I were Rolex I'd be worried.

[Dolf Stoppard]

seastorm said:

I'm lucky enough to have owned a few Rolex Seamasters, a SeaDweller 4K and one PP.

I've recently held in my hands a 'high end rep' Rolex SD4K (yes I know it's a copy or counterfeit) that cost it's new owner around 550 pounds. I've owned the original for 3 months (wished I'd kept it) but the high end copy version is amazing. Absolutely the same.

Same weight, same touch, feel, the steel, the matt bezel, the movement of the bezel, the rehaut, everything. I was shocked and amazed at the same time.

Made me think for a second - if they can do this for 500 or 600 pounds... Why pay 12,000 pounds asking today for a SD4K. And that's from an owner... I'm half shocked and half amazed.

If I were Rolex I'd be worried.

I don’t know what a Rolex Seamaster is, but you seem to be forgetting the vast amounts Rolex has spent on building a brand, including research, development, marketing, COSC certification etc. That’s why cheap fakes are cheap when compared to a real Rolex. Oh, and the actual build quality being far inferior, despite the superficial appearances.

People spending £500 on a fake Rolex are hilarious. They have as much horological value as a £30 fake. Both will be worthless when they break, while a genuine Rolex will have increased in value, and will probably work out cheaper in the long run.

I suspect Rolex are not worried. At all...

[Doofus]

Dolf Stoppard said:

People spending £500 on a fake Rolex are hilarious. They have as much horological value as a £30 fake.

"horological" relates to 'horology', which is the scientific study of time. The £500 fake has as much horological value as a £30 fake, and they both have as much horological value as a genuine Rolex.

I'm not defending fakes, but if you wish to win an argument, don't start talking like Tristano off The Urban Gentry, because you'll sound as pompous as he does.

[jules_s]

Not a Rolex fan myself - more Panerai

The fakes (a lot of them) on the FB pages, are pretty astounding. We are taking macro pictures of display backs to spot them

[GOATever]

jules_s said:

Not a Rolex fan myself - more Panerai

The fakes (a lot of them) on the FB pages, are pretty astounding. We are taking macro pictures of display backs to spot them

A lot of fakes are made by the people who put the real ones together. Sure the mechs are made by a wizened old man, in a workshop, in a chalet, in Switzerland, he’s probably wearing a leather apron, with pockets containing numerous time piece specific tools, and he probably wears those half moon glasses, perched on the end of his nose, and has one of those magnifying glasses, with the little pincers on arms going on, possibly working with an angle poise lamp as well, but once the mechs are constructed, they are shipped off to Asia, where the timepieces are assembled by the same people who put the fakes together.

[GOATever]

RDMcG said:

I suppose not much different from artificial diamonds.

.

Artificial diamonds always fail the luminescence test ( irradiate the stones with UV light, then put them in a dark box) the artificial stones glow, the real ones don’t. That’s a fairly easy way to distinguish them, it’s a lot trickier with a timepiece, especially if you’re trying to tell, when it’s actually being given wrist time.

[GOATever]

AmosMoses said:

The one on the left for these reasons:

Bezel insert - On the omega the lume isn't recessed into the insert.

Lume pip - On the fake it is too high, needs to be recessed in slightly more.

Dial - On the fake the waves arent deep or wide enough.

Also, look at the quite obvious marked difference in the definition of the little ribs where the strap joins the watch at the top.

[anonymous-user]

Perhaps obvious when side by side
In reality 99.99% of people wouldn’t know if it is real or fake, if seen in isolation..

[NDA]

I've yet to see a fully functioning fake Sky Dweller.... the month indicators on the fakes don't work and therefore easy to spot.

I was musing on the subject of art prints - prints of well known paintings that we might have hanging in our homes. I don't own any, but many do. I wondered if there was, perhaps, a similarity?

[Voldemort]

Jimboka said:

Perhaps obvious when side by side
In reality 99.99% of people wouldn’t know if it is real or fake, if seen in isolation..

I would dispute 'obvious'. On close examination people might be able to tell a difference. This does not mean that they will know which is the fake, just that one is different from the other. They might both be fakes...

And in reality 99.99% of people don't care if it's real or fake. They see 'Rolex' and mentally pigeon hole the wearer accordingly: the wearer thinks they have been pigeon holed as a person of taste and wealth but the vast majority of the 99.99% will have put them in a slightly different category.

[LaurasOtherHalf]

I think it's as simple the individual most likely not wanting to front up the cash more than anything else. The guy buying a Submariner fake probably doesn't/wouldn't/couldn't spend £6-7k on a watch.

And that is a very simple sum to add up, if I had other priorities I wouldn't either.

I've often said I'd probably buy a Richard Mille fake, I quite like the look of them but I'd never spend £50k+ on a watch-simple as that.

I wouldn't claim it as real if anyone asked, I'd not be embarrassed about it-it's just a watch. I'm not sure anyone who wasn't seriously into watches would think it anything different to a G-Shock anyways. I think the simple fact I haven't is they're quite complex things to replicate so they either end up looking st or being expensive for a fake.

If a £99 "homage" came out that was sold by a website that didn't look like it was going to defraud you I'd be tempted.

[Leylandeye]

Dolf Stoppard said:

People spending £500 on a fake Rolex are hilarious. Both will be worthless when they break, while a genuine Rolex will have increased in value, and will probably work out cheaper in the long run.

I suspect Rolex are not worried. At all...

I'm not trying to support fakes but to argue against this, most fake owners won't have the ownership costs of tge real thing as tgry won't get them serviced and as has been mentioned before, there are lots of fakes still ticking away and keeping good time 10-15 years on.

Some who have a fake will be happy to believe they've got a bargain but the reality is that no matter how good it looks to them, it will never be the real thing.

To some that won't matter but to others, it will eat away at them.

Personally, I woukd much prefer a £200 Seiko to a fake OmegaRolTagPa and be happy with the amazing value the Seiko represents.

[TorqueDirty]

Dolf Stoppard said:

People spending £500 on a fake Rolex are hilarious. They have as much horological value as a £30 fake. Both will be worthless when they break, while a genuine Rolex will have increased in value, and will probably work out cheaper in the long run.

A £30 copy is a piece of st obviously, but the thing is that £500 or £1000 fake Rolex should actually be quite a high quality watch - from a mechanical, material and construction stand point. Yes it is a copy but if I understand it correctly these high end copies are really well made with good movements etc.

If you went out to buy a mechanical divers watch with a budget of between £500 and £1000 today you would be able to get something pretty decent I'd suggest, so no reason why the Rolex copy / counterfeit at this price would be complete rubbish.

I would still never buy one (or a real Rolex for that matter) but I reckon there are better ways to criticise the purchase of a £500 fake Rolex than by suggesting it will be total rubbish - it almost certainly won't be.

[LaurasOtherHalf]

TorqueDirty said:

A £30 copy is a piece of st obviously, but the thing is that £500 or £1000 fake Rolex should actually be quite a high quality watch - from a mechanical, material and construction stand point. Yes it is a copy but if I understand it correctly these high end copies are really well made with good movements etc.

If you went out to buy a mechanical divers watch with a budget of between £500 and £1000 today you would be able to get something pretty decent I'd suggest, so no reason why the Rolex copy / counterfeit at this price would be complete rubbish.

I would still never buy one (or a real Rolex for that matter) but I reckon there are better ways to criticise the purchase of a £500 fake Rolex than by suggesting it will be total rubbish - it almost certainly won't be.

That's quite an interesting way of looking at it but does it stack up? Do you have any experience of one? If it is a decent bit of kit (I have my doubts) could it be maintained by a half decent watch repairer without spare parts?

A lot of people claim with rolex you're paying a grand for the watch and the rest on advertising.

I imagine on a grand fake, you're paying a hundred quid for the watch and £900 for their drugs, money laundering and prostitution rackets.

[Countdown]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

I imagine on a grand fake, you're paying a hundred quid for the watch and £900 for their drugs, money laundering and prostitution rackets.

Why are they cross-subsidising their other criminal enterprises from their "Fake Watches" division? If they're not getting a ROI of at least 23% from the other parts of the business I'd be looking at a demerger or a sale quite frankly.

Unless there is some scope for cross-selling..."Did you have a good shag sir? May i interest you in a Rolex and some spliff?"

[Dolf Stoppard]

Doofus said:

Dolf Stoppard said:

People spending £500 on a fake Rolex are hilarious. They have as much horological value as a £30 fake.

"horological" relates to 'horology', which is the scientific study of time. The £500 fake has as much horological value as a £30 fake, and they both have as much horological value as a genuine Rolex.

I'm not defending fakes, but if you wish to win an argument, don't start talking like Tristano off The Urban Gentry, because you'll sound as pompous as he does.

Well, according to the OED, horology also relates to the making of watches and clocks. I'm going to go with their twin definition of the term rather than your single one. And I'm pretty sure Rolex and other watch brands have offered more to the field of horology than the factories in China knocking out fakes.

There's also no argument to 'win'. Fake watches are, for the vast majority of the time, worn by people who can't afford the originals. They'll often try and pass them off as the original, which is someone trying to be something they're not. Same with fake clothes, electronics, misbadged cars etc. Not my cup of tea at all, and there is, in my opinion, no defence.

My view is if you want a Sub type watch but can't afford it, buy something with similar design at a price you can afford. Or go for something different.

If you want to buy a fake, fine. But if you're going to be honest and tell people what it is, I just don't see the point. As above, you may as well buy something genuine with a similar design.

If a person doesn't understand this concept then there's probably no point trying to persuade them otherwise.