Spot the fake

[NDA]

Countdown said:

Leylandeye said:

I also feel that high value watches are an austentacious show of wealth which is not my thing but as I say, each to their own.

I think that's primarily why people get upset at "fakes". It dilutes the ostentation.

Many high value watches are unrecognisable as such to most people, so it's hardly a display of wealth.

I'm not sure owners would be 'upset', simply mystified why someone is pretending they have a particular watch by wearing a fake. It's like adding a fake badge to your car - kind of sad really. I suppose imitation is flattery....

[Tomo1971]

Ridealong said:

I own an Omega and a Rolex, I got them at an AD and would presume they are the real thing, I wouldn't dare open up the case back just incase I scratch it up.

As for the YouTube video I would guess the one on the right was a fake.

Some else said the other..... so just goes to prove the point on how good they are!

[Tomo1971]

Leylandeye said:

gregs656 said:

Tomo1971 said:

A £10,000 Rolex does exactly the same as a £500, or £50 fake one..... tell the time. They do however, look the same though to varying degrees on the quality, but the £500 will be indistinguishable from 12" away to 99.9% of the population. If its do with the quality or the beauty of mechanics, then the likes of Oris, Hamilton and dare I say it Chris Ward offer very similar for a whole lot less.

As I said, I own a replica Pelagos, I could afford a genuine version if I wanted but I like it for its looks rather than its history - One of the 'tells' on the Pelagos is the hour markers not been quite straight - yet when I looked at a gen in an AD a few weeks ago, their display model (working version) had one of the markers slightly off...........so sometimes the additional ££ for the supposed quality isnt, IMO justified.

Maybe people who pay for a Genuine Rolex are erm....odd...... (IMO) ;-)

You don’t own a replica Pelagos. You own a counterfeit one.

Using euphemisms like ‘Rep’ and ‘clone’ shows that you don’t like to admit you own a counterfeit.

If you just liked the look, you could have bought something that looks similar but isn’t counterfeit.

The reason you bought a counterfeit is because you want to look like you own something you don’t.

Owning a counterfeit is inherently dishonest so I am not surprised that you engage in these euphemisms and rationalisations to try and elevate your fake and your choices.

I think this is a little strong against the poster. Using the word counterfeit is inappropriate as counterfeit suggests dishonesty and the poster seems to be completely honest.

I can't agree with any suggestion that someone who is happy to buy a real model is odd but each to their own.

Personally, I prefer a high quality low cost original cheaper brand to a copy as the pleasure to me is the achievement of high quality at low cost.

I also feel that high value watches are an austentacious show of wealth which is not my thing but as I say, each to their own.

My comment about people buying genuine rolexs as 'odd' was meant as tongue in cheek as response to previous poster whom said, for their own reasons, people whom purchase repplica's as odd. No offence meant.

I do tend to wear my CW Trident C60 more though - as above poster said, high quality at low cost - in other words very similar quality to luxury brands but far lower cost.....

But, each to their own, we all have our traits and opinions.....

[stinkyspanner]

Lord.Vader said:

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..

But it isn’t an Omega, why not buy one that looks like it?

I saw a nice Hublot (really?!) and decided to buy a similar version for under £200 to see if I got on with it prior to spending the Hublot amount, I didn’t.

Yeah fair comment, actually in hindsight I'd probably rather have a Seiko or something

[Ridealong]

Tomo1971 said:

A £10,000 Rolex does exactly the same as a £500, or £50 fake one..... tell the time. They do however, look the same though to varying degrees on the quality, but the £500 will be indistinguishable from 12" away to 99.9% of the population. If its do with the quality or the beauty of mechanics, then the likes of Oris, Hamilton and dare I say it Chris Ward offer very similar for a whole lot less.

As I said, I own a replica Pelagos, I could afford a genuine version if I wanted but I like it for its looks rather than its history - One of the 'tells' on the Pelagos is the hour markers not been quite straight - yet when I looked at a gen in an AD a few weeks ago, their display model (working version) had one of the markers slightly off...........so sometimes the additional ££ for the supposed quality isnt, IMO justified.

Maybe people who pay for a Genuine Rolex are erm....odd...... (IMO) ;-)

If whoever buys that watch or the AD recognises the fault/imperfection, the watch would be sent to a UK service centre or even Switzerland (if it is a Swiss watch) to be fixed or replaced and as it has a serial number probably can be traced back to the factory/technician who put the watch together or the quality control team.
There was an issue (date wheel) with a lot of Tudor Black Bay GMT's in 2018/19 (spoken of on many watch forums), all the faulty watches were returned back to the AD and again were either fixed or replaced because they were under warranty, fakes and counterfeit goods do not have (pardon the pun) this luxury.

[gregs656]

Leylandeye said:

I think this is a little strong against the poster. Using the word counterfeit is inappropriate as counterfeit suggests dishonesty and the poster seems to be completely honest.

The watches are counterfeit. They are not clones or reps, they are counterfeit. The poster isn’t completely honest, he doesn’t own a pelagos or a clone pelagos he owns a counterfeit one.

The language around this bothers me almost as much as the cognitive dissonance.

Very rare that people are honest enough to say I buy counterfeits because I want the status without the spend. Good luck to those people.

[FWIW]

So you’re saying that you spend £ks on a watch as a visible demonstration of your status?

[Leylandeye]

Countdown said:

(I assume you mean ostentation and it wasn't a reference to a female novelist )

I've been spelling that word with an a for as long as I can remember and you're the first person to have the decency (or capability) to correct me!

Thank you

[Leylandeye]

gregs656 said:

The watches are counterfeit. They are not clones or reps, they are counterfeit. The poster isn’t completely honest, he doesn’t own a pelagos or a clone pelagos he owns a counterfeit one.

The language around this bothers me almost as much as the cognitive dissonance.

Very rare that people are honest enough to say I buy counterfeits because I want the status without the spend. Good luck to those people.

Surely it's only counterfeit if it is being presented as the real thing and I don't think the poster is doing that?

Is a C type kit car a copy or a counterfeit?

The language around this bothers me too and that's why I'm uncomfortable with associating an otherwise (what I assume) decent person, with the word counterfeit.

Surely there is more to these watches than status? The genuine article is visually beautiful in its own right and one that looks the same has the same visual beauty.

I'm not even sure that there is much status to premium watches these days as finance schemes make them available to virtually anyone with an interest in one.

I appreciate that the beauty goes beyond the looks and that's why a genuine model is worth paying more for if that is important to you.

[gregs656]

Leylandeye said:

Surely it's only counterfeit if it is being presented as the real thing and I don't think the poster is doing that?

Is a C type kit car a copy or a counterfeit?

The language around this bothers me too and that's why I'm uncomfortable with associating an otherwise (what I assume) decent person, with the word counterfeit.

Surely there is more to these watches than status? The genuine article is visually beautiful in its own right and one that looks the same has the same visual beauty.

I'm not even sure that there is much status to premium watches these days as finance schemes make them available to virtually anyone with an interest in one.

I appreciate that the beauty goes beyond the looks and that's why a genuine model is worth paying more for if that is important to you.

The watch is presenting its self as the real thing. The object is counterfeit. It can be presented honestly as a counterfeit or dishonestly as a clone or rep - which is what the posted chose to do.

The kit car example is the same - It depends how it is presented.

You don’t need to buy a counterfeit If the status doesn’t matter and you just want the look, clones are available in abundance.

It’s not that complicated. You can sit in front of the Mona Lisa and do a stoke for stroke copy of it and it only becomes counterfeit when you sign it Leonardo Di Vinci. As soon as you brand a clone with the branding of the original it is a counterfeit object.

[Leylandeye]

gregs656 said:

The watch is presenting its self as the real thing. The object is counterfeit. It can be presented honestly as a counterfeit or dishonestly as a clone or rep - which is what the posted chose to do.

The kit car example is the same - It depends how it is presented.

You don’t need to buy a counterfeit If the status doesn’t matter and you just want the look, clones are available in abundance.

It’s not that complicated. You can sit in front of the Mona Lisa and do a stoke for stroke copy of it and it only becomes counterfeit when you sign it Leonardo Di Vinci. As soon as you brand a clone with the branding of the original it is a counterfeit object.

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.

[NDA]

A counterfeit is an exact copy that is intended to deceive. These watches are exact copies and made to deceive. How the purchaser might describe owning one, 'bit of a joke' 'love the design' 'homage' etc, is secondary.

[Voldemort]

[aside] I spoke to a brand protection officer some years ago and he said the only thing worse than having your brand faked was not having your brand faked...[/aside]

My takeaway from this thread is that if you want a genuine watch from a brand then you simply have to buy new from an AD. As soon as you are considering second hand you are opening yourself up for a fleecing.

[Humble Pi]

Ninjin said:

I watched this the day it was released. As an owner of said watch (albeit in black) I tested myself to see if I could tell. If it was alone, even with a loupe I wouldn't be able to tell. Side by side, the giveaway for me was the sweeping second hand. The fake uses a 28,800 movement and the genuine, a 25,600. Ironically, this means the genuine has a more jerky movement, whilst the fake seems to glide more.

If they actually managed to use a 25,600 movement, now that would be scary....

Genuine question, did the fake feel as nice in your hands as a real one, as the weight of it etc? I was under the impression Rolex had their own exact stainless steel they manufactured themselves that was very hard replicate?

[Ninjin]

Humble Pi said:

Genuine question, did the fake feel as nice in your hands as a real one, as the weight of it etc? I was under the impression Rolex had their own exact stainless steel they manufactured themselves that was very hard replicate?

Cant help you on that respect, I have the real one!

However, I have handled the high end Rolex reps with the cloned movements and 904l SS, and they are 98% there if you don't use a loupe or remove the case back.

[Barchettaman]

Humble Pi said:

...I was under the impression Rolex had their own exact stainless steel they manufactured themselves that was very to hard replicate.

I don’t think the steel used is one of the ‘tells’ that replica spotters normally check.

The cheaper reps have inconsistent brushed/polished surfaces on case and bracelet that are inferior to the gens but this is due to manufacturing inconsistencies rather than materials used.

The latest fakes are as far removed from the dodgy Turkish looky-looky man watches of the past as you could possibly imagine. The Noob v.10 submariner, for example.

[Humble Pi]

Just been reading this particular thread on Daytona replicas. It’s quite frightening how good they look.

https://forum.replica-watch.info/forum/rolex-tudor...

[Richtea1970]

FWIW said:

So you’re saying that you spend £ks on a watch as a visible demonstration of your status?

And this is why people get so hung up on fakes.

If you've just spent £Thousands on a new watch and then Joe Bloggs rocks up with an identical piece for a fraction of the price (that 99.9% of the population wouldnt notice any difference), they think it devalues what they are wearing (and they are probably right).

If you want to buy an original buy one, likewise if you want a fake get that, most people wouldnt be bothered either way.

[Leylandeye]

Richtea1970 said:

And this is why people get so hung up on fakes.

If you've just spent £Thousands on a new watch and then Joe Bloggs rocks up with an identical piece for a fraction of the price (that 99.9% of the population wouldnt notice any difference), they think it devalues what they are wearing (and they are probably right).

If you want to buy an original buy one, likewise if you want a fake get that, most people wouldnt be bothered either way.

I can't disagree with this.

[Jayho]

Fakes which can be had for £500 looking almost identical to real one and the arguement for "shows how much markup Rolex put on" is very much a moot point. £500 compared to £5000 is just silly. That £500 fake does not have to spend the money on marketing, R&D, extreme testing etc. They don't even have to spend thousands on a designers time.

I've played with a few homage type watches in the past and will never buy a fake or even homage now. End of the day, spending £500 on a fake, at the end of the day you've spent / wasted £500. If you buy a genuine watch Rolex / Omega etc, end of the day you pay £5000 and probably still be able to sell it for £5000.