# Copy/replica/fake/homage/lookalike/whatever



## Barryboy (Mar 21, 2006)

A propos a recent posting in the Sales section, it led me to wonder just what do we all class as the difference between a replica and a fake?

Through a certain amount of time spent in the museum artifacts world (it's a long and boring story) I always understood that a replica was a copy that only became a fake when it was fraudulently passed off as an original item for (usually financial) gain. Replica watches, to me, are a sort of three dimensional picture and I see no harm in them per se, but I do realise that few people just look at them; there is a huge trade in them and many people have been defrauded of a lot of money. Therefore it is only proper that this site forbids trading in fakes, but if you know it's a replica and it's being sold as a replica does that make it a fake? A moot point, philosphically speaking, but given the obvious issue of copyright it's a minefield we should all steer clear of.

A homage, as I understand it, was historically a vassal's acknowledgement of his feudal Lord's authority, but has come to mean a display of great respect towards something of clear superiority. For example the watches clearly styled on the Panerai (I saw a rather nice Rotary the other day, as well as the watch being sold by Jeremy67), the Citizen homage to the Omega Speedy or the RLT36 homage to the Rolex Submariner.

On the assumption that we are all OK with the concept of the homage watch, if anyone has got the aforementioned Citizen speedy gathering dust in the watch drawer and would like to move it on, please PM me.

Rob


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

To me a replica and fake is the same thing, because to be a replica it has to look exactly the same as the original.

Why else would they be made if it wasnt to decieve?

I have no problem with homages...


----------



## Alas (Jun 18, 2006)

jasonm said:


> To me a replica and fake is the same thing, because to be a replica it has to look exactly the same as the original.
> 
> Why else would they be made if it wasnt to decieve?
> 
> I have no problem with homages...


Could'nt have put it better myself.


----------



## hippo (Jun 27, 2006)

The way I see it is....

A fake is something pretending to be something it's not

A replica is a "fake" that owns up to not being the real thing

And a homage is something made in honour of something that already exists

Does that sound about right?


----------



## Roy (Feb 23, 2003)

A replica to me is a watch where someone has taken and original and made a copy from it no matter what name is on the dial.

A fake is a replica that has been made to deceive people into thinking it is an original.

Replica definition - A close reproduction or copy of the original

Fake definition - One that is not authentic or genuine

Homage definition - A word used by makers and owners to describe none of the above.











> or the RLT36 homage to the Rolex Submariner.


I see no closeness other than they are both wristwatches.


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

Roy said:


> > or the RLT36 homage to the Rolex Submariner.
> 
> 
> I see no closeness other than they are both wristwatches.


I know which I`d rather have*









*& yes I have handled both


----------



## Silver Hawk (Dec 2, 2003)

Roy said:


> Replica definition - A close reproduction or copy of the original
> 
> Fake definition - One that is not authentic or genuine
> 
> Homage definition - A word used by makers and owners to describe none of the above.


Sounds right to me....although I tend to view Fake as illegal whereas Replica and Homage are legal.

I hate Homage watches...I'd rather own a fake.


----------



## jef.L (Dec 30, 2006)

jasonm said:


> To me a replica and fake is the same thing, because to be a replica it has to look exactly the same as the original.
> 
> Why else would they be made if it wasnt to decieve?
> 
> I have no problem with homages...


Yeah, what he said. Unless the replica is marked as such, and I have seen them, I condider it's a fake.

I'd better make it clear what I mean. I am referring to replicas of things long out of production.

I have another vice







, collecting Meccano, yes I know







, but it keeps me off the streets. Some of the older, pre-war, parts are now quite rare but are still required by people wishing to build classic models. There are two or three people about who have arranged manufacture of these rarer items but they are all marked in some way with the modern makers name and not "Meccano, Made in England", this being done deliberately to protect the value of the original items and prevent fraud.

These parts are an exact copy and have the same dimensions and function as the original, so they are a replica. If someone makes a replica and adds "Meccano, Made in England", that is almost indistinguishable from the original, its a fake.

Just my humble opinion.


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

Hmmm I don't see the point in a replica.....not if it truly is a replica (trademarks etc) except in extreme cases for props and the like. I have no problem at all with homage...or "in the style of" providing there is no intention of passing the homage off as the real thing.

I think it is just a problem of semantics of words.....

I think "replica" is used in the wrong context too often, thats the real problem.

And Roy....just because Rolex copied the RLT36 doesn't make it fair to take the piss out of them!









Best regards David


----------



## Silver Hawk (Dec 2, 2003)

jef.L said:


> These parts are an exact copy and have the same dimensions and function as the original, so they are a replica. If someone makes a replica and adds "Meccano, Made in England", that is almost indistinguishable from the original, its a fake.
> 
> Just my humble opinion.


Do you get Homage Meccano?


----------



## MarkF (Jul 5, 2003)

Boxbrownie said:


> Hmmm I don't see the point in a replica.....


You would if you lusted after a Sea Dweller but were on the minimum wage.


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

MarkF said:


> Boxbrownie said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm I don't see the point in a replica.....
> ...


I did once, and it was poop.......well OK it was a Sub.....money wasted, better to buy one of Roy's "homage" watches









Maybe I should have said I dont see the point of calling any watch that is a direct copy a replica unless it is specifically intended as a prop or substitute, if its a "replica" being sold as such then it is clearly a "fake". After all the vehicles used in most of the James Bond films that get trashed are not real AM's or Jaguars or BMW's but in fact replicas made from or like kit cars.....they are not fakes of course, but replicas. Would we call them "fakes"? I don't think so.......unless some stuntman tried to sell you a left over









Best regards David


----------



## pugster (Nov 22, 2004)

homage and replica mean the same thing to me, they are both pretending to be something they are not- and are not for me, i can see the point of not being able to afford an original so getting one, but in the same sense (and my view) i dont see the point because its still not the real thing so you are kidding yourself ,i see them as like having beer googles and taking a bird home you think looks like pamela anderson and waking up next to lily savage.


----------



## jaslfc5 (Jan 2, 2007)

weve / some of us have bought fakes in the past - not being able to afford the real thing you have to have it , as long as you realise it is a fake and dont try and pass it off as anything other than a fake then its harmless fun .

take replica guns ,if youre walking down the street with a replica gun - you could get shot ,the 5 0h are not going to look at it and go oh dont worry its a replica -they will shoot first and ask questions later .

im not saying youre going to get shot waring a replica but as long as you dont sell fakes as the real thing ,if you want to own one thats fine - i was at my local car boot on sunday and this dude had an amazing omega "replica " for sale it looked the buisness -but i dont see the point in having something on youre wrist that is a fake ,when people ask nice watch and you go yeah its a replica - how dull will you look.

not sure if ive made any sense - ive been stung by fakes its not big or clever , like someone said to me when i first joined this forum -if it looks like sh/t smells likesh/t ,its probably sh/t .

if im talking sh/t sorry. im just trying to make 50 posts really.


----------



## Barryboy (Mar 21, 2006)




----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

What about this then?


----------



## Roy (Feb 23, 2003)

You have to decide yourself Paul, one mans replica is another mans homage. Everyone has different views.


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

Roy said:


> You have to decide yourself Paul, one mans replica is another mans homage. Everyone has different views.


Yes Roy

As long as it hasn't got Rolex on its ok to me. I wanted it for the design.


----------



## jaslfc5 (Jan 2, 2007)

Mrcrowley said:


> Roy said:
> 
> 
> > You have to decide yourself Paul, one mans replica is another mans homage. Everyone has different views.
> ...


yeah thats purely alphas version of that style of watch (and very nice it is too) ,its the ones with rowlex written on them i have a problem with.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2007)

Any item whether its a watch or something else that you know is a fake should be left alone. In my opinion the people that produce the fakes are doing the genuine makers and dealers out of business, and by buying a fake you are contributing to their (the fakers) wealth.









Rabbit


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

I feel that a Fake is something made cheaply with the intention of being sold as the real deal for an "awful" lot more money than it cost to make.

A replica is something made cheaply with the intention of being sold, possibly honestly, and not as the real deal for a "bit" more money than it cost to make.

The definitions of "awful" and "bit" vary considerably and the lines are quite blurry

A replica made for $10 in China and only ever being sold by the maker for $50 may not be that worrying BUT when the purchaser then fakes a box and papers and then sells it on for $500 the replica becomes a fake. They are both bad imho.

A homage is different if it's done right, imho. The speedbird for the IWC MkXI and the RLT 69 for the smiths military for example are quite clearly based on the respective originals but having named dials are also quite clearly stating what they are Well the RLT has a named dial the 1st speedbird didn't I don't think but I think it had prs on the case back). They are also quite different from the originals when studied closely unlike fakes or replicas.

"No Names" are a whole fuzzy ball game. Can they be classed as having the potential to deceive? I don't know to be honest but possibly yes they could.

The problem is you can fool some of the people all of the time and there is a sucker born every minute.









Just as long as the forum remains honest


----------



## lysanderxiii (Nov 10, 2006)

My personal definitions (as far as watches that are sold on various auction sites or over the web)

FAKE - something that uses a trademark without license.

REPLICA - a sophisticated word for FAKE (see above)

HOMAGE - something that uses the style and design without infringing on trademarks and/or patents.

I have no problem with homages.


----------



## MarkF (Jul 5, 2003)

Rabbit said:


> In my opinion the people that produce the fakes are doing the genuine makers and dealers out of business, and by buying a fake you are contributing to their (the fakers) wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think that is so, what sort of fruitcake would buy a replica if he could afford the real thing.









Nor to I believe that they fund drug runners, the IRA, The Cosa Nostra or any fanatical muslim terrorist organisation.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

Some interesting views.

A fake to me is something that looks like and is "badged up" with the intent to deceive either the buyer or someone viewing it. There are many examples of these infesting E-Bay purporting to be Rolex, Breitling etc there are even fakes of watches like the venerable old Glycine Airman









I have no problem at all with "homage" watches or watches "inspired by" other watch designs, especially if they are as well done as the RLT-69 or Ocean7 LM-1 (the owners of both brands make no secret of the fact that the watches are inspired by others and don't claim any proprietary ownership of the design).

I am less concerned about companies like Alpha, Broadarrow etc producing watches which look similar to the original well known brand but are sold under their own name, as there is no intention to deceive. Let's face it there are some significant brands producing watches that look similar to icons such as the Submariner and MkXI. How to define these? Fakes? No as there is no deliberate intention to deceive by badging-up to present them as an original. Replica? No, because a replica is a close reproduction of the original, for example Tag Heuer's new Monaco is a replica of the original Monaco. There is a word (thanks Roget's Thesaurus) that may describe this type of watch ... *simulacrum* ... Plato's was the first to use this word, he defines it as "an undesirable version of an original model"


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

MarkF said:


> Nor to I believe that they fund drug runners, the IRA, The Cosa Nostra or any fanatical muslim terrorist organisation.


This has always worried me Mark, I mean htf could anyone believe that the guy down the sunday market who looks like a rag and bone man flogging so dodgey home made dvd'c / cd's with horrible home printed sleeves and the name of the album written in permanent marker on the disc is somehow the cheif fundraiser for the IRA and one of Britains most wanted criminals!


----------



## ESL (Jan 27, 2004)

Its a very interesting question, with lots of equally interesting definitions appended.

Take for example the Grovana watches sold by RLT. Now anyone with even a passing interest in watches could never deny this was an obvious copy of a Rolex Sub. So what is it? Fake, Hommage or a Replica?

*Fake*: well most of us would say arguably not. It has a well known brand name of its own on it. Grovana would obviously vigorously defend any claim that they were faking Rolexs. Rolex obviously feel relatively untroubled by this as one assumes they have not already litigated against Grovana.

*Hommage*? Difficult. The Grovanas use so many Rolex Sub style cues, that unless you actually look closely and read the brand name - it would easily pass as a Rolex. And without being unkind, I suspect that they are purchased by people who actually wanted a watch in the Rolex style, but can't afford a Rolex. This is not meant as a criticism, but a financial reality.

*Replica*? Again difficult for me. As said before, it looks so much like a Rolex, it could indeed be described as a replica. Now I'm sure Grovana wouldn't call it that, but I dare bet Rolex would!

In this particular instance, we would have to define the Grovana as a Hommage!

Why?

Because if we did not describe it so, you and I could not sell one in the RLT sales forum. Now that would be quite silly as Roy himself sells them.

Discuss.


----------



## hotmog (Feb 4, 2006)

I think most of the definitions put forward so far illustrate fairly accurately the distinction that can be made between fake, replica and homage. I would just suggest that these terms apply mainly to design and styling, and do not think any assumptions can necessarily follow as to the functionality or quality of those items that fall into each category.

A fake is either intended to deceive a gullible buyer who thinks they are getting the real thing, or is used by an owner who is fully cogniscent of its lack of pedigree to try and impress others. A fake will invariably carry the brand name and logo of the item it is trying to pass itself off as. Most cheap fakes, of course, fail in their purpose due to lack of build quality and poor attention to detail, and some are just so bad that they couldn't even loosely be described as a homage.

A replica seeks to copy exactly a particular brand and model, including its features and functionality, and although it will not have the brand name or logo of the original, or indeed any at all, the association will be obvious.

Although a homage can be attributable to a particular brand or model, it has more to do with something being "in the general style of". The Rolex Sub is probably the archetypal divers watch, and has set the design standard that most other divers watches emulate to a greater or lesser degree. These are not replicas, because they all incorporate distinct design features that identify them with their own manufacturers, yet they share a common source of inspiration. Whilst some (eg the Rotary Panerai style, and Alpha & Zeno Explorers) are obvious examples of a homage, I think it's often a very fine line that separates a homage from what has evolved into a generic style.

And no, I cannot see myself wearing my particular ffff..."homage" ever again.


----------



## Running_man (Dec 2, 2005)

hippo said:


> The way I see it is....
> 
> A fake is something pretending to be something it's not
> 
> ...


I'd go along with this statement. It sounds about right. I have an O & W M4. What p*sses me off is when it's described as Rolex Sub replica / clone. B*llocks! It's a quality made watch by established watchmakers which happens to look very similar Rolex Sub. Am I wrong?

Andrew.


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

Mrcrowley said:


> What about this then?


No different to one of these.....










It is what is, something that has the same style as a famous watch but isn`t pretending to be one and is therefore IMO a homage


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

Like I say, fake and replica have to mean the same thing, if the replicate is to made exactly the same as the original by someone who isnt the original manufacturer , down to name and trademarks etc.....

If its not exactly the same it cant be a replica.....

Come to think about it though, some of the god awful shite on ebay doesnt even come close to looking like a legit model of watch so are these fakes/ replicas? Of course they are if they use a manufactures marks...


----------



## ESL (Jan 27, 2004)

I can't agree Jase.

When TAG or Omega, or RADO make stated "replicas" of earlier models, they cannot be "faking" their own watches - they are making replicas.

Now when someone else makes an unauthorised replica - that is probably a fake.


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

They aren't replica's George, they are "re issues"


----------



## ESL (Jan 27, 2004)

Troublemaker...


----------



## Robert (Jul 26, 2006)

jasonm said:


> Like I say, fake and replica have to mean the same thing, if the replicate is to made exactly the same as the original by someone who isnt the original manufacturer , down to name and trademarks etc.....
> 
> If its not exactly the same it cant be a replica.....


I would sort of disagree - a fake is made with the intention to deceive. A replica can be a perfectly legit copy of something, but I would like to think it would only exist as a modern replica (by the original manufacturer or not) of something that no is longer produced.

You could say that a replica and a homage could be the same thing.

At the end of the day it is probably the intention behind the item that determines what one considers it to be

Deliberate infringement of trademark/patent is completely unacceptable


----------



## Robert (Jul 26, 2006)

Theres a Robert Poseidon that I want (110083796112) because of the name but i can't bring myself to buy it due to the similarity to another watch that i really want


----------



## MarkF (Jul 5, 2003)

mach 0.0013137 said:


> It is what is, something that has the same style as a famous watch but isn`t pretending to be one and is therefore IMO a homage


What's it pretending to be then? A Casio G-Shock, a Seiko 5, a water melon? Looks like a *copy* to me.


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

MarkF said:


> mach 0.0013137 said:
> 
> 
> > It is what is, something that has the same style as a famous watch but isn`t pretending to be one and is therefore IMO a homage
> ...


 I can`t see Rolex on the dial


----------



## Henry W (May 13, 2006)

I think:

If the origional watch maker threatens legal action against the offending producer, the copy shouldn't be bought.

If there's not enough evidence to sue the offending producer, then the official watchmaker thinks they haven't infinged their design by enough and I wouldn't mind buying one (provided I class it as being good value for money)

There's a reason Rolex doesn't sue everyone from Grovana to Timex.

This is a 'fake'










This is a 'copy'










...and mine is a hommage!


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

> if the replicate is to made exactly the same as the original *by someone who isnt the original manufacturer*


I agree George, thats why I said this...


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

They are watches in their own right....


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

So my copy of Windows XP is a homage then? I doubt M$ would agree?









NB: I don't run pirated software.


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

Mrcrowley said:


> What about this then?


WOW!!!! I could hardly tell the difference


----------



## ESL (Jan 27, 2004)

jasonm said:


> > if the replicate is to made exactly the same as the original *by someone who isnt the original manufacturer*
> 
> 
> I agree George, thats why I said this...


----------



## James (Jul 17, 2006)

Replica, fake same thing, it is in the way it is marketed. A replica/copy is called such so to define it from one that is original, it can be same in appearance to the original or as close to as possible, this also may be perceived as homage as long as it is stated with these terms. A fake is called such so not  to define it from an original but to pass it off as an original. It's all in a name, the three items/terms can be identical to what is original. Unless you patent a specific look, idea etc then it's open game as with generic vs. name brand drugs, again as long as it is stated as such, name brand or generic, to pass a generic drug off as it's name brand mother would be then called fake and most likely illegal. So taking the drug scenario we then should call all other terms you are discussing generic.

I don't own any what you would call fake, replica etc. I do not see a problem with it unless you are trying to play fool on someone, someone gets ripped off that is where the wrong starts.


----------



## Russ (Feb 7, 2006)

Good thread this. I feel the meaning of each word can easily be deflected by the circumstances, i.e what the humans are doing and saying at the time. Fake implies that dishonesty is going on, replica can suggest that too but it's not as clear cut. Remember that in 2005 the England cricket team lifted a 'replica' Ashes and every year the third 'replica' FA Cup is lifted.


----------



## Silver Hawk (Dec 2, 2003)

Russ said:


> Good thread this. I feel the meaning of each word can easily be deflected by the circumstances, i.e what the humans are doing and saying at the time. Fake implies that dishonesty is going on, replica can suggest that too but it's not as clear cut. Remember that in 2005 the England cricket team lifted a 'replica' Ashes and every year the third 'replica' FA Cup is lifted.


And I fit replica service items to my Renault car: exhaust, battery, bulbs. These are not branded "Renault", they are cheaper, may not last as long, but are perfectly legal.

I don't think replica and fake mean the same thing. I still don't like the word "Homage"; are all 4-wheeled cars a homage to the Ford Model T?

I'm now off to eat my homage Sainsbury Corn Flakes...


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

But they are not replica items fitted to your car, they are 'pattern'









If they were replicas they would have the Renault part numbers and logos on them but not be made by or endorsed by Renault...


----------



## Silver Hawk (Dec 2, 2003)

jasonm said:


> If they were replicas they would have the Renault part numbers and logos on them but not be made by or endorsed by Renault...


No, then they would be fake.


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

my point exactly, replica / fake, same thing.....to be a replica it has to be *exactly* the same as the original, but not endorsed.....

I suppose we could call them 'generic' parts too


----------



## Silver Hawk (Dec 2, 2003)

jasonm said:


> my point exactly, replica / fake, same thing.....to be a replica it has to be *exactly* the same as the original, but not endorsed.....
> 
> I suppose we could call them 'generic' parts too


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree







In my example:

Fake: Seems to be a Renault part, sold as a Renault part, but is not. Illegal.

Replica: Fits a Renault car, not sold as a Renault part. Legal.

My homage Corn Flakes are getting soggy.


----------



## mycroft (Oct 20, 2006)

I have a feeling that it may have been a remark I made to Hotmog that has sparked off this thread, so I thought I should contribute...

Broadly the sentiments expressed here are the same as mine (with some exceptions naturally). I believe fake and replica are in most cases the same thing, and both involve the misuse of a brand name and the legal implications of 'passing off' i.e. pretending the watch is something it is not. I would agree that a homage/hommage is rather different, since it does not purport to be something it is not but seeks to be 'in the style of' a well known design. So Pauls Alpha to me is clearly a homage, since it is not pretending to be a Rolex or Tudor. In the same way RXW make homages to the Panerai Marina Militare - they don't pretend they are a Panerai and don't misuse the Panerai name. I have a Tauchmeister T37G which is very clearly a homage to the Rolex Sub - it has their design cues all over it, but again there is no pretence that it's _actually _a Rolex.

What is interesting to me about the differences between the words 'replica' and 'fake' is that there is something going on there about social acceptability. When I posted a comment about Hotmogs faux Yacht Master I described it as a fake... a remark that someone else took exception to since they assumed (wrongly btw) that I was being rude. That was not my intention as I believe Hotmog knows - I was merely seeking to be accurate. Most websites that sell fakes describe them as replicas, presumably because they consider that to be a more socially acceptable term - it's not, they are still selling something that most people who buy it will 'pass off' as the real thing.

*Simon*


----------



## mycroft (Oct 20, 2006)

OK, I've just seen the thread in the Sales Forum so I'm aware that it wasn't my post that kicked this all off, but Hotmog will no doubt recall what I was alluding to and my comments still stand...

*Simon*


----------



## hotmog (Feb 4, 2006)

mycroft said:


> I have a feeling that it may have been a remark I made to Hotmog that has sparked off this thread, so I thought I should contribute...
> 
> Broadly the sentiments expressed here are the same as mine (with some exceptions naturally). I believe fake and replica are in most cases the same thing, and both involve the misuse of a brand name and the legal implications of 'passing off' i.e. pretending the watch is something it is not. I would agree that a homage/hommage is rather different, since it does not purport to be something it is not but seeks to be 'in the style of' a well known design. So Pauls Alpha to me is clearly a homage, since it is not pretending to be a Rolex or Tudor. In the same way RXW make homages to the Panerai Marina Militare - they don't pretend they are a Panerai and don't misuse the Panerai name. I have a Tauchmeister T37G which is very clearly a homage to the Rolex Sub - it has their design cues all over it, but again there is no pretence that it's _actually _a Rolex.
> 
> ...


You're quite correct, Simon, my Yachtmaster is definitely not a faux, a homage or a replica. It is an out and out fake. That's why I honestly cannot bring myself to wear it now. My use of the term "homage" in referring to it was made tongue in cheek, and was intended to be taken in the context of "nudge, nudge, a nod's as good as a wink to a blind man, know what I mean, squire".


----------



## Silver Hawk (Dec 2, 2003)

OK, apart from being a cr*p watch, how would you class this?

In the early 1960's, the Swiss imported into the US various cheaply-made Hamilton lookalikes....in an effort to jump onto the electric bandwagon.

The dial on this one says "Hormilton" (not Hamilton!)

The dial also says "Electra" (but it is a cheap manual wind pallet pin movement)

The intention here was clearly to deceive but without breaking the law. I wonder how many buyers thought they were buying a new fangled Electric watch from the great American watch maker, Hamilton?









Cheers

Paul


----------



## mel (Dec 6, 2006)

Interesting ~ how many are wearing Adihash, Noke or Leve "market" clothes/trainers without hand wringing about whether or not they are fake, replica or homage









'tis a weird thing! seriously! Tesco imports (grey-ly) genuine branded jeans and sells 'em legit, but the original manufacturer complains because they are doing it without a profit going to their agent/company in this country. But nobody asks how come the same item costs around twice as much here, coming from the same plant via the maker, as Tesco can sell still importing from the country of origin direct?

So what would a Rolex actually cost *at manufacture*, compared with the price charged by a Rolly dealer here in the UK?









Sharp intake of breath time? Anyone willing to hazard a guess?? And that's why the "high-grade" replica/fake/homage market succeeds, possibly, as distinct from the market/bling fakes from HK or eastern shores.









2p worth

Mel


----------



## pauluspaolo (Feb 24, 2003)

Silver Hawk said:


> Russ said:
> 
> 
> > Good thread this. I feel the meaning of each word can easily be deflected by the circumstances, i.e what the humans are doing and saying at the time. Fake implies that dishonesty is going on, replica can suggest that too but it's not as clear cut. Remember that in 2005 the England cricket team lifted a 'replica' Ashes and every year the third 'replica' FA Cup is lifted.
> ...


Bit late to this thread myself but I find myself agreeing with Pauls assessment of what fake, replica & fake mean.

I like kitcars & there are any numbers of homages of the original Lotus 7. None of the manufacturers of 7 style cars claim them to be replica's or identical copies of the original Lotus 7 (except maybe Caterham & they bought the rights to produce the car from Lotus I think - besides which they still don't use the name Lotus on the car - they do use 7 though which I don't believe any of the other car manufacturers do). The other cars being manufactured are in the style of the original & will differ in some way - wider track, different bodywork/wings, overall size etc etc etc. It's an incredibly popular type of car which is why there are so many manufacturers offering their take on the idea. I'm willing to bet that if you put MrC's Alpha Daytona next to a real Rolex/Tudor Daytona you'd be able to see plenty of differences apart from the name on the dial - to my way of thinking it's a homage.

I think a replica is something that looks exactly like the original but isn't badged, or sold, as being an original. Some of the Lancia Stratos/Ford GT40/Cobra replica's are very convincing. I'd love to buy a Stratos but I wouldn't buy one badged as a Lancia unless it was an original - besides which who wants an unreliable Ferrari lump under the bonnet???

A fake to me is something that intends to fool the buyer/wearer into believing that it's something it isn't & is badged & built exactly like the original item. I've seen a few fake watches - a chap at work used to buy them off the internet - & they seem to be exact copies (down to each & every last bit of writing on the dial or serial number on the case) of very expensive watches. The biggest shame is theat the manufacturers of these watches could obviously build a good product but chose to copy someone elses design. The watches were, obviously, a lot cheaper than the originals but still quite pricey as I recall - certainly an awful lot more than the Â£25 Apogaum Panerai replica that I used to own. Not sure I can think of any examples of out & out fakes in the kitcar industry as I don't think the manufacturer would last very long.

The line between replica & fake is very blurred.

Just my 2p's worth & I'm not sure where I'd draw the line myself


----------



## mel (Dec 6, 2006)

> The dial on this one says "Hormilton" (not Hamilton!)
> 
> The dial also says "Electra" (but it is a cheap manual wind pallet pin movement)


Also interesting Paul, I wonder if you had this valued, would it come out nearly as well as a genuine item, simply because there were lots sold, but they were cr*p and most were eventually binned, whilst the few left are of interest to a Hamilton collector as a curiosity, much like on the Antiques Roadshow where the fakes/copies are sometimes worth as much in their own right as the original?









[Actually I must be a bling addict, I think it looks not too bad








Get a life, eh? ]

Mel


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

I have used many "replica" items professionally in the past, these are perfect looking pieces sometimes indistinguishable from the real thing, unless you try to use them like the real thing! they don't fire bullets, they don't send out signals and best of all they don't explode







but they were "replicas" not fakes. The companies are happy to have thier products seen and endorse thier use even if they are not the real thing.......now if I tried to sell these as the real thing then I consider they become "fakes", I think it is much the same with virtually everything else which is copied.....try using a "fake" Sub at 100metres.....oops no crystal!

Just because something looks exactly like an original doesnt make it a "fake" it can be an honest to goodness "replica" and be perfectly legal.

As to pattern parts and the fake issue! There are so many "faked" vehicle parts on the market, mostly manufactured in India and eastern block countries that have bloody awful quality control, I have seen crash tests of repaired vehicles using "fake" panels, the originals are high strength steel formed to ensure rigidity and controlled deformation, the copies......should have been wrapped around a Kit-Kat bar! Bloomin' frightening!









Best regards David


----------



## James (Jul 17, 2006)

One thing we do know breast augmentation is always referred to as fakes!


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

James said:


> One thing we do know breast augmentation is always referred to as fakes!


Well they feel bloody good for fakes!


----------



## Barryboy (Mar 21, 2006)

James said:


> One thing we do know breast augmentation is always referred to as fakes!


I prefer the word 'enhancements', myself.....


----------



## in_denial (Aug 3, 2005)

Barryboy said:


> James said:
> 
> 
> > One thing we do know breast augmentation is always referred to as fakes!
> ...


Unless they are modelled on somone in particular e.g. 'Mae West Replica'

-- Tim


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

in_denial said:


> Barryboy said:
> 
> 
> > James said:
> ...


Well maybe not Mae West.......but nice anyway!


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

potz said:


> Why not just put silicone to its intended use: bathroom sealant. I hate plastic tits - but then again I'm not American.


Same here Chris


----------



## pauluspaolo (Feb 24, 2003)

potz said:


> Why not just put silicone to its intended use: bathroom sealant. I hate plastic tits - but then again I'm not American.


I've only felt one plastic tit (one of my friends' girlfriend had a fake boob due to a subcutaneous mastectomy) & that felt very real to me, it looked good too







!!


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

pauluspaolo said:


> potz said:
> 
> 
> > Why not just put silicone to its intended use: bathroom sealant. I hate plastic tits - but then again I'm not American.
> ...


I've felt two.....usually at the same time


----------



## hotmog (Feb 4, 2006)

pauluspaolo said:


> potz said:
> 
> 
> > Why not just put silicone to its intended use: bathroom sealant. I hate plastic tits - but then again I'm not American.
> ...


It just goes to show that even a "hands on" approach isn't always enough to tell a fake (or is it a replica?) from the real thing.


----------



## pauluspaolo (Feb 24, 2003)

Boxbrownie said:


> pauluspaolo said:
> 
> 
> > potz said:
> ...


I felt the other one too & it felt just the same as the falsie (or maybe that should be the other way round?) - in fact she had a very perky pair (please note the past tense







!) we are not talking Pandora Peaks here!!!! As I've heard it say "more than a handful is wasted"


----------



## hotmog (Feb 4, 2006)

pauluspaolo said:


> Boxbrownie said:
> 
> 
> > pauluspaolo said:
> ...


Out of curiousity, where was your friend while you were carrying out this quality control examination on his girlfriend?


----------



## pauluspaolo (Feb 24, 2003)

hotmog said:


> pauluspaolo said:
> 
> 
> > Boxbrownie said:
> ...


He was in the kitchen making us a cuppa while we were in the adjoining living room .......... & no he doesn't know about it (I don't think) & it never did go any further than that & it certainly won't do now!!


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

Perfect Clones

Perfect clowns more like!


----------



## mattjg01 (Jul 3, 2006)

Wow, came to this one late on. Controversial or what. I agree with what appears to be the general consensus, that is homage is okay but fake/replica not so good.

As to what each is, I guess this is a personal question as much as whether you like a watch or not. I think a fake is something that attempts to exactly copy the *appearance* of the original *and* tries to fool people into believing it is the original.

I think of a replica as the same as a fake, except that it doesn't try to fool people into believing it is the original. This would include all those dodgy sub clones that get offered for Â£20 as a copy/clone.

A homage uses many of the design elements of the original but includes something of its own in the design, thus making it clearly distinguishable from the original.

Price is also part of the replica/fake issue. A replica must be offered at a significantly lower price than the original otherwise it must be trying to fool people into believing it is the original. If it is clearly offered as not the original and the price isn't too far from the originals nobody would buy it.

In essence though if it feels good does it matter if they are fake or not? As for watches, who knows?







:lol:


----------

