Fake watches

[Chris]

Having seen a few of these crop up in the WRUW thread, genuine question for anyone that owns one: What's the attraction to fake watches? I'm not having a dig, I genuinely don't get it.

I've made my peace with the fact that even if I was comfortable dropping six grand on a Submariner Rolex doesn't want to sell me one. If I buy a fake I still won't own a Sub and I'll have bought a watch from a company that is inherently dishonest, thus rendering suspect any claims that the movement is a half-decent one and leaving me with no recourse if (when?) it goes wrong. So what is the appeal?

 

[Rufusdog]

I can’t abide fakes of any kind, but their abundance speaks to the power of highly aggressive marketing and product placement as well as the gullibility of the general public.

 

[N_Architect]

From my short experience with 'copy' watches as well as from replicas:

Whatever the appeal is, it dissipates once you wear the watch a handful of times (my personal take on the matter, anyway).
Nothing beats the original, whether the original article is a Muhle R89 closed comb razor, a Hermes silk scarf or a Rolex Submariner.

A 'copy' watch (or replica) is good enough for one to get acquainted with the size, feeling, wearability of the watch model itself.
A 'copy' watch (or replica) can never attain the water resistance, movement durability as well as timekeeping, and the overall quality of finish of the original piece.

It is true that many of us may not at times have the stroke of luck or the funds to purchase a very good quality piece (as for example a Rolex sports model).
But there are other watch manufacturers out there who offer outstanding value products at fantastic prices, e.g. Longines is one of them.

The main advantage of a 'copy' watch (or replica) is that it is instantly available, or rather I should say purchasable. It's like "I fancy treating myself a nice 20 quid shave soap, so let's go to XXX vendor and get it - today". The replica works in the same way, its acquisition cost is rather insignificant, the gratification is instant but of course you always get what you pay for.

With a thousand quid Longines, Oris, or whatever else you don't get Omega or Rolex quality but instead you do get a good-standing timepiece that will last you years.
With a replica you get what? The hard-to-quench desire to replace it in a couple of weeks or months?

A fifty quid Casio is much more honest as a value proposal toward the consumer than a 'copy' piece or replica.

 

[Dr Watson]

In answer to your question, they're just a bit of cheap fun. Wear it a bit, get a feel for it... I would never attempt to pass it off as genuine, now that's tacky. Completely agree with K, once worn for a few weeks the novelty wears off very quickly. Anyone looking to spend £100 on a watch should look at Seiko or Casio.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I'm not much of a watch aficionado, but I tick along with the sentiments here. In most things, I go for the the genuine article, and I'd rather have a genuine cheap "cheap" watch than a fake, cheap "expensive" watch. A couple of mine have had a rough life, and haven't let me down, and I'm mainly interested in owning a durable timepiece that does the job and keeps going. Mind you, if someone were to give me a nice watch; say, a genuine IWC or Breitling, I wouldn't be turning my nose up at that.

 

[Rufusdog]

On a recent trip to the market in Bodrum, Turkey, one merchant proudly displayed a sign advertising “Genuine Turkish Fakes”. Can’t be more honest than that.

 

[vates]

I don't wear 'copy' watches but I can understand those who do.
A watch in the modern day is just an accessory, usually picked to match a certain look/outfit.
Nobody really expects your 'rolex' to be super-precise. It will never outperform a mobile phone which synchronizes instantly.
Also, a basic g-shock will outlive any "sport-class" Swiss piece of jewelry in a real-life harsh situation.

So if your look requires something that resembles MM to blink on your wrist - I'd say go for it.

 

[R181]

I don't wear 'copy' watches but I can understand those who do.
A watch in the modern day is just an accessory, usually picked to match a certain look/outfit.
Nobody really expects your 'rolex' to be super-precise. It will never outperform a mobile phone which synchronizes instantly.
Also, a basic g-shock will outlive any "sport-class" Swiss piece of jewelry in a real-life harsh situation.

So if your look requires something that resembles MM to blink on your wrist - I'd say go for it.

Why buy a copy/fake watch to match a certain look/outfit when an inexpensive honest Times in one of many styles to suit all occasions will do?

Bob

 

[vates]

People want bling. And obviously an honest Timex won't do for many, hence the fake watch industry.

 

[Twelvefret]

My Casio Marlin was $45. For the price of a $6K famous brand, I can replace it 133 times if damage occurs/

 

[Chris]

I can kind of understand the market for homage watches, for example Steinhart do a range of Rolex lookalikes but they do have their own branding. For me they look too much like the real thing but at least the branding's honest even if the design is... erm... "inspired". I'll give a pass to the Ocean Vintage Military though on the grounds that an actual Milsub is total unobtanium.

I agree that there are plenty of honest, good quality and affordable watches, Seiko and Casio being two excellent examples. I do quite fancy a G-Shock but I'm not a digital fan and the analogue ones are generally enormous. I think if I went for one I'd have to accept digital and go for a Baby-G, but having solidly worn my SBS for nearly a year I think I've found my ideal.

 

[Razorman]

Collecting watches (among other things) has been one of my pastimes. My history with fakes is poor reliability. Most of them break down really quick. There are some (if your lucky enough) with good movements but they aren't many among the majority of bad ones. Not worth it at any price and neither are the genuine Rolex ones for the prices they're charging. Authentic watches are far superior.

 

[Northam Saint]

I bought a couple of cheap copies a couple of years ago out of interest really. Pretty crappy they were too. They didn’t full function and weren’t what they were even advertised as fakes to be. They are around somewhere.

 

[Rufusdog]

I don't wear 'copy' watches but I can understand those who do.
A watch in the modern day is just an accessory, usually picked to match a certain look/outfit.
So if your look requires something that resembles MM to blink on your wrist - I'd say go for it.

”Horse feathers” to quote Colonel Potter (MASH). That’s a sweeping generalisation and poorly informed. You seem to have taken your cue from so-called “celebrities”. I collect mechanical watches and wear a wristwatch everyday. My choice has nothing to do with matching an outfit or “bling on my wrist”. I don’t own a Rolex, but I do have two watches from the “holy trinity of watches”, which I suspect the average Rolex owner would not recognise on my wrist. I also collect and use vintage and modern fountain pens, drive a car with a standard transmission and am a wet shaver. My cell/mobile phone is strictly for calling and texting and has nothing else on it; it never occurs to me to consult it for the time since I have a watch on my wrist.

 

[UKRob]

The demand is created by the ridiculous prices attached to originals - this applies to all sorts of luxury goods. I can’t get my head around a handbag that’s retails for £25k - but I do understand why a backstreet workshop in a developing nation will produce almost identical quality goods that can be had for less than £100. You have to ask whether this does any harm to the brand owner - after all how many people will decide to buy the fake if they can afford an original?

Likewise, does it put people off buying an original just because there are fake versions about? I can only speak for myself and the answer, (for my Omega watch), is no in my case.