# When Is A Homage A Homage?



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

When is a homage watch a homage watch and not a copy?

Some so-called homage watches look like copies of the original, so is the "homage" a tag to give a copy an air of respectability?

Also what about a homage to a watch that is still in production ... can this really be a homage?

I have become a lot more critical lately .... now I have a Rolex







... so am I just being an arse or I am right to question "homages" be they real homages or copies passed off as homages?

And what about homages of homages







... now there's a subject.

I lurk in the MWR Forum, never dared post it seems to be a bit of a bear pit







... but they are often very "verbal" about this issue.

I have a feeling its not a black and white issue ... in my mind a homage watch made by a third party of a watch originally made by a company that is no longer in business seems OK. Is the converse true? Is it OK for a third party to make a homage of a watch made by a company that is still in business even though that company may no longer be making the original watch









I suppose its like the definition of the word itself ... it can mean respect or reverance but it can also mean plagirism


----------



## tom (Jun 2, 2003)

It rather depends on what the watchmaker intends, afake is just that.An attempt to pass somthing off as the real thing.A homage is more an alternitive i.e.,

a rolex exprorer or thr zeno. Both are good watches in their own right and you pays your money and make your choice, there is no right answer just your choice.

Tom


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

A fake is when the name is duplicated on the dial or back to produce a deliberate attempt to deceive, in that the product is the original. When the watch has another name to clearly indicate it is not a Rolex for example, it is a homage when stated to be so.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

I am not talking about fakes ... I am talking about homages and copies

I think it is legitimate to call homages, or at least some homages, copies

A copy can still have its own branding etc.


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

Im with Griff on this one
















If it has its own branding its a hommage not a fake or copy, a copy implies just that a copy of the original. I dont like fakes but I dont mind hommages at all, very often its the only way us poor folk will get something resembaling the original


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

jasonm said:


> Im with Griff on this one
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I`m in full agreement there, I`ve got a Zeno Explorer ( ETA movement) and I`m very happy with it, the style is so classic but its not pretending to be an original. I`ve also got a Rotary Elite which is very Panerai like but is never going to mistaken for the real thing







I`d never have a fake


----------



## MarkF (Jul 5, 2003)

What a thread Jot







Guaranteed to shake up the board, create mayhem, pitch friend against friend and last but not least of course, bring out the snob in everybody









I pity the guy with a fake when we have people with "homages" are looking down at foks with mere "copies"























I do not think there are homages only copies, I have a 8926, it's copy, if people want to spend Â£250 on a similar copy and believe they have a homage then they should seek professional help asap.

Mac, I like the Zeno explorer (I like the Sandoz too) and have considered purchasing one but cannot see how it could be viewed as anything but a copy, not that that devalues it in my eyes, I still want one.

BTW I was in Asda last week, on my way to playing five-a -side, I wanted a can of Red Bull, I mistakenly believe it makes me play better, sad I know. They did not have any Red Bull but I was helpfully led towards a very similar product, similarly packaged too, it was made by Asda and called "Blue Charge", I did not think for one moment it was a homage to Red Bull.









It goes without saying these are my own personal opinions.


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

MarkF said:


> What a thread Jot
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Copy or homage whatever you want to call them I don`t care as long as they`re not pretending to be the original which a fake is.









Re the Zeno its a great watch at a fantastic price







(certainly better then the Rotary version IMO).

I`ve seen and held the Rolex original, a very fine watch, but I`ll stay with my Zeno and spend the spare cash on other fine but cheaper watches.


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2005)

Don't like so called homages and would never buy one.

One of my favourite all time watches is the "Paul Newman" Daytona but I would never buy one of those Gevril look a likes.









I know I will never get a PN because I am too mean to shell out the twenty grand or whatever but owning a cheap homage is just not the same thing.

BTW Mark I caught my son drinking an homage "Red Rooster" the other day.


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

I think as long as you only use the look/design, & have your own name etc that's OK.

As some have said, Zeno make a watch similar to the Explorer. It fits folks' budgets better.

I am toying with the idea with selling my AP. Perhaps gone further than the toying stage i admit as i've advertised it









However my decision to sell is down to how much money is tied up in it, & the amount it gets worn. I recently found a new line of watches that look similar. If I do sell my RO, I may make do with one of these others, & save some money.

So - in case i've lost you in all that - making lookalikes is a good thing I think. Long as you don't rip someone's name off.


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

> making lookalikes is a good thing I think. Long as you don't rip someone's name off.
> 
> --------------------


Im with you there Paul


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

I don`t want to give impression that I look down on anyone who likes fakes.

A friend of mine for whom I have the greatest respect has a nice small collection of real watches including two Omega SMP`s, a Brietling Shark and a Hamilton Ventura.

He also has a fake Breitling because he likes the style and wants to get a Poljot "Jet Fighter 24" which is a "Copy" of the same watch.

For myself I`d rather have the Poljot but thats me, each to their own I guess basically however I do agree with you Paul and Jason









Sorry if this is confusing, I`m working nights again and have been known to become somewhat incoherant at such times


----------



## MarkF (Jul 5, 2003)

jasonm said:


> > making lookalikes is a good thing I think. Long as you don't rip someone's name off.
> >
> > --------------------
> 
> ...


Ripping the off the design, size and ready made market is ok but not using the name?

The Zeno, IMO it is a copy, Rolex designed and produced the original, it was a sucess. It no doubt cost a lot of money from drawing board to the shop, but Zeno, Rotary and others then saw an opportunity to enter a ready made market with a similar (very) watch at a lower price. Would they have produced a "homage" of the Explorer if it had proved to be a superb watch but a sales disaster?

I have no problem at all with this but how is that a watch a "homage"?









Neil, "Red Rooster" indeed!


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

I think that the use of the word "homage" (or "hommage") is, more often than not, disingenuous.

Making a copy of a watch and calling it a "homage", isn't this just an attempt to give it respectability?

Its a bit like QVC ..... a wonderfull diamonique ring ... blah blah blah .... diamonique? Sounds like diamond ... but is in fact cubic zirconia which itself is a diamond simulant made from zirconium dioxide with a few additives .... a homage of a homage perhaps


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

H'mmmmmmmmm..........makes me wonder..........is a sex change with "operation" a homage, copy, or fake!!!


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

I see what you mean John, I suppose if your going to go to the trouble of making a watch it would be nice to come up with an original design element or two,

Dont mention QVC









Alys 'found' Gems TV....jewellery channel, shes on it all the time


----------



## Nalu (Nov 28, 2003)

I think everyone feels the same way about fakes, I'm not going to address this further.

The problem of watch design, to trot an oft-repeated truism, is that there is very little new under the sun. The natural consequence of this is that every new watch borrows design elements from an older watch or watches.

Given that, a watch can be a *derivative* - using elements from several other watches in a unique way. Or it can be an *homage*, which borrows many or most of it's elements from the same watch. An homage is a designer's sincere effort to pay tribute to an older watch. As expressed above in other posts, the 'safest' way to do this is to borrow from an extinct watch. Borrowing from a watch in current production begins the process of crossing the line.

That line sits in a different place for everyone, I suspect, and that's what John is trying to bring out in this topic. From the POV of a Rolex owner, this can be an important issue. Moreso if you are a 'young' Rolex owner, rather than a longstanding owner who dismisses any derivative as not worth consideration. This latter group often feels that _every_ watch is derivative
















Things that are on the other side of the line (specifically WRT Rolex, though variations will apply to most high-end brands), IMO:

1. Logos that look like a crown or names that look like "Rolex" at first glance.

2. Text of the exact size and font, placed in the same position on the dial.

3. Use of unique styling features that are not functionally required to be the same, e.g. the bracelet.

4. Replicating the look and feel with nothing added to improve the watch.

As an example, MarcelloC produce watches that are clearly derivative of the Submariner. They (and I have not owned or even held one) are said to be of superior construction and have certain styling cues that are unique to the line. I'm OK with that.









I think we can all see that the RLT11 and the DN are also *derivative* watches. They include styling elements from classic dive watches in a unique combination, adding their own innovations. They are both great watches and I'm chuffed to own both.









The RLT 69 and the PRS-53 are *homages*. They are nearly identical to watches which are no longer in production (or even readily available in decent condition), but incorporate improvements that are possible with modern watchmaking. Both great watches and again I'm thrilled to have both.









RXW, Sandoz and some of the newer German companies dance around the line, IMO. Nice watches, but in some cases too close to the original and too little value-added. I'll be saving my ducats for the real thing, thanks.

Cheers all,

Colin

*Still sans Rolex*


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

On the whole I agree with you Colin but I`m not so sure about your point concerning the bracelets.

When the Oyster and President are a common style used on many non Rolex watches why would it matter if the Zeno for example is fitted with one?

Unless I`ve misunderstood the point your making which is quite possible due as I mentioned to my presently working nights and therefore having a mushy brain


----------



## Nalu (Nov 28, 2003)

I was thinking more of the 'nearly blatant copy' Rolexes that also use an Oyster bracelet. IMO, that style of bracelet is being used _only_ to further the resemblance to a Rolex. As such, I think it crosses the line - especially since the Sub's bracelet is often listed as a relative weak point.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

Marcello C ... I love the _faux_ indignation the owner displays when his watches are called Rolex copies







I suppose he would say they are better.

Maybe it isn't _faux_ indignation ... maybe some of the watch "cloners" genuinely believe they have created something unique?


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

This is a tough one but I understand what John's getting at.

A copy, down to the last nail is a fake.

A rip of a current design (though containing only certain "similarities") is plagiarism but I doubt it would be considered theft.

A Homage is a watch which tries to capture the essence of a model no longer made (or likely to be) by the original manufacturer. As in the RLT69.

It's down to terminology and personal opinion I suppose.

I'm reckon I'm with John on this one.


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

A fake is a fake

A copy is a copy

A homage is a whole bigger question









The RLT 69 for eg. Obviously not a fake because it doesn't say SMITHS on it.

Then is it a copy? Well yes and no. Yes it copies the "look" but anyone can see the case is different for a start without looking too deeply at other diferences.

What I hate about the copy subs etc is that although they say Invicta or macello or whatever on the dial, virtually everything else is designed to be as near identical to the original, as if getting it to look almost the same isn't good enough. It's for the "flash my watch" brigade, half under the cuff you could almost fool someone.

So is the 69 a homage? Well the literal translation is : Special honor or respect shown or expressed publicly

So yes the 69 is a homage as Roy loved the original, wanted to show his respect for it but didn't do a downright copy. (No crow's foot







).

Some other claimed "homages" I have doubts over but some have the same ideals. At the end of the day it's down to the buyer to decide what they will or will not be prepared to wear on their wrist.


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

Nalu said:


> I was thinking more of the 'nearly blatant copy' Rolexes that also use an Oyster bracelet. IMO, that style of bracelet is being used _only_ to further the resemblance to a Rolex. As such, I think it crosses the line - especially since the Sub's bracelet is often listed as a relative weak point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fair enough Colin


----------



## rodiow (Nov 6, 2004)

An interesting read, I am in agreement with most on said topic including all said about Roys fantastic 69 Homage to the Smiths......the watch not the group







.....thas got me singin "...I would go out tonight but I haven't got a stitch tooo wear....!










Talking copies perhaps rearing ones snobby head a little, I am trying to understand why is it my mate included and many others wont buy a nice genuine make of watch for a price their budget dictates instead of wasting it {IMHO} on a pretend Breitling or Roley , in their words "....Its a copy but a good one..."...{is there such a thing?}

....I just don't see it why?...

He knows its a fake ,pretty much everyone who sees it with half a brain will assume its a fake,

Ok if it gives him pleasure that's up to him but I keep asking WHY ????

Even any make of watch with its own name on is better surely?, I keep saying what about a good solid Vostok or a Seiko, Timex Rotary... ...anything but that bloody awful FAKE !!


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

I'd go with you on that Rod.

I'd rather have a BoctÃ³k than a fake Rollocks any day.







But, it's down to what floats your boat, I suppose.









We had a bloke in our shop last month wearing a "Rolex". He was a solid bloke (builder) and my first question was "Is it a real 'un mar mate?"

He said "No 'cause it inna, I would'na spend that money on a watch. But it does look good dunner it?"

Nope.









***** case and bracelet, cheap looking with no pedigree. I'd prefer a Vostok any day. They have more pride.







IMVH but, perhaps, mislead O.









I liked his honesty but I didn't agree with the sentiment.

If someone can be impressed so easily by the name but not the substance then that's their malfunction. IMO.









I'll stick with names that carry less "prestige" but have come from the original house, like Wittnauer and RLT et al.

That's my tanners worth ......................... again.


----------



## Daveinspain (Feb 28, 2004)

I think if you were trying to design a dive watch today it would be very difficult (if not impossible) not to copy someone elses design and so be accused of copying.So maybe a direct "hommage" is the way to go.The Zeno explorer seems to have a good quality case and movement and sells for a reasonable price,is the quality of the Rolex so much superior that it warrents the vastly inflated price tag? Roy and Eddie can seemingly "with ease"







produce watches of excellent design and quality at a more than reasonable prices.Are the Rolex and Panni's of this world just taking us for a ride?


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

> Are the Rolex and Panni's of this world just taking us for a ride?


Its the age old question, are you buying it because you like it or because of who makes it?

Some people will buy a watch just for the name....I think it was John (Abraxas) who said that a very high % of Rolex owners thought that their watch had a battery









Present company excepted


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

> high % of Rolex owners thought that their watch had a battery


That really is scary.

Also it just goes to show that in many cases money talks & bovine excrement walks....................


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

Indeed it does......................"pearls before swine".........but I'm far from sure that "pearls" is really an appropriate word


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

Without wishing to cause offence,I don't see why it is scary.

A lot of people dont care if their watch is diesel powered







As long as it looks nice and has the name they want.It may upset a few collectors,but not everyone cares how much it costs and what is inside it.A lot of owners who can afford a high end watch,use it for telling time and posing.It is not seen as a mechanical marvel or a classic design.It is returned to the maker every few years for a service and thats it.

Not everyone will agree with this,but I have seen it myself,and I am not far off this myself,if it looks cool and flash,I do not care what is inside it,quartz or mech


----------



## ESL (Jan 27, 2004)

Great topic for converstion and opinion.

A little trawling around found this definition:

"_The word homage means to show great respect for someone or something. Other words have more or less the same meaning and include reverence, honor, awe, adoration and veneration._"

I suppose therefore, by definition, a "copy" does not show the same degree of respect for the original.

I think a lot of us seem to have the same general view that a "homage" watch can be many things: A watchmaker may admire a particular "house" such as Breguet and make a watch that has a guilloche style dial. If he did nothing else, you might legitimately call it a homage. But where do you stop? If the same watchmaker was to start adding blued moon-hands, and applied romans, etc, etc, you might very well end up with a copy or even







a fake if you add any attempt to deceive.

The O&W M4 Series Diver, is so close to the original Rolex Sub, it could almost pass as either a copy, or worse, as a fake. But is that what Mr Wajs intended? I'm guessing not. But did he intend it as a homage, or as a unique design either? Who knows! It's a very nice watch and survives on it's own merits.


----------



## Nalu (Nov 28, 2003)

jasonm said:


> > Are the Rolex and Panni's of this world just taking us for a ride?
> 
> 
> Its the age old question, are you buying it because you like it or because of who makes it?
> ...


To a certain extent, I think we are being taken for a ride. From all accounts and photos that I've read from Rolex owners, the construction quality and features of a Sub/SD are consistent with a watch of half the price. That is also true of at least some other Rolex models. I believe Anonimo have demonstrated it to be true for Panerai also.

I'll take MarcelloC again as an example. I believe their watches have evolved to the point where they are derivative, but have a quality of construction on par with Rolex. Additionally, they have developed a 'house look' which at least partially differentiates them from Rolex. When I start to hear of Rolex dealers laughing in their beards (as Adrian is fond of saying), I look seriously at the Sub derivatives.

How much is the premium for a green bezel again?

I'm not at all trying to take away from Rolex ownership. In many categories, Rolex have set the standard, and we all know the satisfaction in owning the standard. Some are investment-quality watches. Lord knows, I've spent more than a fortune on watches and could stand to buy one that might appreciate. In some cases I've spent SD money for another watch I've been waiting for just as long. Why haven't I pulled the trigger on an SD? The answer is all of the above









Colin

*Still sans Rolex*


----------



## Guest (Mar 17, 2005)

Nalu said:


> jasonm said:
> 
> 
> > > Are the Rolex and Panni's of this world just taking us for a ride?
> ...


I think in virtually * ALL* categories Rolex have set the standard.

It's easy to copy styling and mechanical ideas after someone has thought it out for you first.

Much, much harder to be a pioneer.


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

Not when it comes to case design and innovation.

Citizen and Seiko take the honours there..........and lets not forget the hummers!


----------



## ESL (Jan 27, 2004)

And not when it comes to recent innovations either. If there was ever a company that was "sitting on it's laurels", it's Rolex. What about such advances as the use of ceramics (Rado), solar power (Eco-Drive, Citizen) etc.

I admit, Rolex might have rather of lot of laurels to sit on







, but what is it doing to create further horological advances right now? Or is it really a case of it thinks that there is just nothing worth doing anymore, and anything that is going on, is just "frippery"?

There will always be companies that lead, whilst other follow - but what leading is Rolex doing these days? This is not another knock at Rolex, just a valid question - what are they pioneering?


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2005)

ESL said:


> And not when it comes to recent innovations either. If there was ever a company that was "sitting on it's laurels", it's Rolex. What about such advances as the use of ceramics (Rado), solar power (Eco-Drive, Citizen) etc.
> 
> I admit, Rolex might have rather of lot of laurels to sit on
> 
> ...


Everything worth doing with mech watches has been done IMO and Rolex pioneered virtually all of them.

Most of the stuff you take for granted was invented or produced for the masses by Rolex whether the knockers like it or not.

1. The divers watch in 1953

2. Screw down crowns

3. Full rotor autos (I know Harwood invented but Rolex perfected it)

4. Date feature on an auto watch.

5. GMT watches.

These were important advances at the time of course now its all forgotten.

Most people, myself included, don't really need anything else from a mech watch.

Modern electronics are something Rolex probably doesn't want to get involved with and to my mind would just dilute the range. Besides who needs anything else?

Eco drives etc are OK if you like that sort of thing, not my scene.

I like Accutrons but the technology was surpassed by quartz.

If you don't "get" Rolex you never will and that's not a problem but you can't deny they have pioneered more important horological stuff than all the spring drives and eco drives put together.

Of course the Rolex knockers are virtually always IMO people who have no first hand experience of them.









I personally never comment on a watch unless I have owned one but then I have and do own rather a lot.


----------



## mat (Feb 25, 2003)

Hi Neil, I was wondering, did Rolex invent the Mercedes style hour hand or just make it famous?


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

neil said:


> ESL said:
> 
> 
> > And not when it comes to recent innovations either. If there was ever a company that was "sitting on it's laurels", it's Rolex. What about such advances as the use of ceramics (Rado), solar power (Eco-Drive, Citizen) etc.
> ...


Neil,

I may get flamed for posting this link but what the heck!









Rolex DID make a substantial contribution to the development of the quartz watch movement, I knew it did but my memory failed me until I found this link.

Perhaps Rolex is not so interested in the quartz engine these days but it's contribution to that technology, along with that of Seiko et al, should not be pushed aside.

Quartz movements are to be respected, they were fostered by some of the most respected watch makers on the planet.

I have great respect for a forward looking company like Rolex that has given so much to the world of timekeeping.









http://www.timezone.com/library/cjrml/cjrml0001

If the administrator wishes to remove the link and chastise me for posting it, so be it.









I think I have made my humble point.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2005)

Can't argue with Carlos' very erudite link, thanks for posting it Stan, never read that before.

After it's initial non-acceptance by Rolex afficianados the Oysterquartz is a sought after watch today like many similar objects that were deemed failures at the time.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2005)

mat said:


> Hi Neil, I was wondering, did Rolex invent the Mercedes style hour hand or just make it famous?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am not 100% sure on that one Mat, however I wouldn't be surprised, Rolex were definitely using the "mercedes" hands prior to the first world war.

Talking of dials the "California" dial was also a Rolex design.

Oh and another first for the Rolex list .........they invented the Helium release valve.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

I can't comment on the Rolex Sub and SD but the GMT has great build quality. It's not as heavy as many modern watches but this isn't a refelction on build quality IMO


----------



## Nalu (Nov 28, 2003)

How does the Rolex GMT compare to the SMP GMT?

Some time ago, I saw a very well done comparison of the SMP to the Sub (TZ maybe?). I'd be interested to hear your thoughts as a person who's owned both and someone who has a lot of experience with 24H and GMT watches.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

Nalu said:


> How does the Rolex GMT compare to the SMP GMT?
> 
> Some time ago, I saw a very well done comparison of the SMP to the Sub (TZ maybe?). I'd be interested to hear your thoughts as a person who's owned both and someone who has a lot of experience with 24H and GMT watches.
> 
> ...


Colin the SMGMT weighs about 163g and the RolexGMT weighs about 128g so straight away the first impression is that the SM is a "better build". A lot of the weight difference is down to the bracelet the SM is more substantial.

The dial of the RolexGMT is superb with the lume outlined with white gold, the bezel is better loooking as well. the bezel is easier to grip and turn but also has a higher turning resistance than the SMGMT. I find the SMGMT bezel tends to move off station.

Both watches operate the same way i.e. independently adjustable hour hand, the lume has a greater intensity on the SMGMT.

The RolexGMT is only water resistant to 100m as against the SMGMT's 300m . There is also something about the Rolex being better (safer?) at altitude.

The movements .... I am not knowledgable enough .... but the Rolex is around +1.5 secs a day and the Omega is about +3.5 secs a day.

The Rolex GMT has a superb heritage that adds to it's appeal.

Out of the two ... I prefer to wear the Rolex GMT







but both are great watches.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2005)

JoT said:


> I can't comment on the Rolex Sub and SD but the GMT has great build quality. It's not as heavy as many modern watches but this isn't a refelction on build quality IMO
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly right John, a lot of people mistake a heavy watch for a well engineered watch.

Many people say the Rolex bracelet should be heavier like the SMP's however none other than the esteemed Roland Ranftt recently pointed out the error of their reasoning.


----------



## Heeksy (May 11, 2005)

Stan said:


> I'd go with you on that Rod.
> 
> I'd rather have a BoctÃ³k than a fake Rollocks any day.
> 
> ...


 It's a refreshing change to read Potteries dialect on the web, where's your shop, youth?


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Hey up Heeksy, welcome to the forum.









"where's your shop, youth?"

'anley ar kid.


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

Not another Potty *Potter!!! *





































Welcome to the forum Heeksy


----------

