Fake Watches -- Does it really matter?

[1MOREMOD]

Originally Posted by RR-NYC

I know what it means. Do you know what the difference between theory and practice is? or in vitro vs in vitro? Because it would make sense that an identical active ingredients provide the same outcome but they don't.

The active ingredient in two different toothpastes may be sodium fluoride but for some reason, my mouth feels cleaner using one toothpaste over another.

That's your interpretation of things not the fact, you could be biased about a certain product, the flavor could make you think it works better, study your teeth and see if there is evidence of lack of fluoride with one? What you feel isn't the same thing as what is actually happening. People tell me bigger tablets work better, or green ones, its all assinine and has no basis in reality. You can find studies to prove whatever thesis you want. Are the studies set ip correctly, who paid for the study, who interpreted the data, and on and on. Just like this forum and people thinking they can feel the power increase from and air filter, it just aint so. I'm not basing this on something I did 12 years ago like you either. Would you also argue that this atom of oxygen is better than that one? Its a scientific certainty that they are the same unless they have a different chemical structure then it is a different compound and we are no longer comparing apples to apples just like any medication. Its simple and beyond you.

[RR-NYC]

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

That's your interpretation of things not the fact, you could be biased about a certain product, the flavor could make you think it works better, study your teeth and see if there is evidence of lack of fluoride with one? What you feel isn't the same thing as what is actually happening. People tell me bigger tablets work better, or green ones, its all assinine and has no basis in reality. You can find studies to prove whatever thesis you want. Are the studies set ip correctly, who paid for the study, who interpreted the data, and on and on. Just like this forum and people thinking they can feel the power increase from and air filter, it just aint so. I'm not basing this on something I did 12 years ago like you either. Would you also argue that this atom of oxygen is better than that one? Its a scientific certainty that they are the same unless they have a different chemical structure then it is a different compound and we are no longer comparing apples to apples just like any medication. Its simple and beyond you.

Did you even bother reading the abstracts of what I linked or are you that much smarter than the biotech guys and MD's, PhD's and pharm D's that complied the data to write the study?

If you look at my posts, I didn't say all generics are bad, rather they are not 100% identical - only the active ingredient. I buy branded drugs because that is what has been proven to be safe and effective, not the generics. I'm not going to be the Guinea pig because of the lack of FDA oversight of generic drugs. I'll revisit this topic when the SCOTUS overturns their ruling on the liability of generic manufacturers because it will happen sooner than you think.

For someone to post that the generic market is "highly regulated" and for you to agree is nonsensical. The development of these compounds is highly regulated, not the generic manufacturers. All adverse reporting and liability still rests with the pioneering company even though they have no control over manufacturing of the active and non-active ingredients the generics use.

To the OP, my apologies for taking this so far off topic

[1MOREMOD]

Your right they aren't identical as already mentioned, to the brand a variation is allowed, as is allowed with the brand. Differnt batches of the brand are slightly different and are allowed to change the inactive ingredients as often as the generic is. If your concerned about the function of the inactive ingredients role why take the drug in the first place? Just take handfuls of approved inert ingredients and see if you get better. I just got thru talking to forest today that makes the brand celexa, they couldn't tell me if their product was gluten free or not without doing an analysis of the current batch, ie they don't know. This is the brand product and regulation of the inactive ingredients isn't there for them either.

Yep sorry tony! Back to watches much more fun than work.

[DVC]

[Overpar56]

Wow. Counterfeit watches to generic drugs. A big leap. My question to people who buy knock offs is: "If you had a product that was knocked off and lost 10% or more of your sales to black and grey market trade, would you be pissed off?"

I work with brands to mitigate counterfeiting. It's a tough racket. Did anyone ever die from a counterfeit Rolex? Probably not unless there was a lot of lead in the plating and they licked the coating off. Counterfeit batteries? Yep, people haved died from explosions and fires. Would you want to be on a plane at 35,000 feet and a batch of counterfeit Lithium Ion batteries in the cargo hold overheat and catch fire? Probably not. Would you buy Viagra from some Canadian pharmacy that actually is filling prescriptions from China? Well you might if you're horny (no, you wouldn't).

Basically the guys who knock off watches will knock off any product or drug. It's all about opportunity and profit. These organizations are as well run as many Fortune 500 companies. Stay with me for a second: by supporting counterfeits, no matter what the product is, encourages black market, criminal and organized crime syndicates as well as terrorist organizations.

For more info, just read about it in World Health Organization or World Trade Organization reports. There's some scary shit happening out there.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by RR-NYC

Did you even bother reading the abstracts of what I linked or are you that much smarter than the biotech guys and MD's, PhD's and pharm D's that complied the data to write the study?

...

I don't mind that we've veer over to pharmacology, I'm learning from the discussion.

I just want to know if that sort of condescension was really necessary? (I'm reading from the back forward, so I don't yet know if you were responding to a similar thing tossed your way.)

All the best.

[RR-NYC]

Originally Posted by tony20009

I don't mind that we've veer over to pharmacology, I'm learning from the discussion.

I just want to know if that sort of condescension was really necessary? (I'm reading from the back forward, so I don't yet know if you were responding to a similar thing tossed your way.)

All the best.

Not condescension rather a tit-for-tat since it was implied that my pharmaceutical industry experience from 12 years ago was somehow considered outdated in today's discussion.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by RR-NYC

Not condescension rather a tit-for-tat since it was implied that my pharmaceutical industry experience from 12 years ago was somehow considered outdated in today's discussion.

Okay... I thought you both are pharmacists or directly connected to the industry. I'm of a mind to think that there's merit in the points you both are making. That said, if you've been out of the pharmaceutical business for over a decade, you'd have to cede that some things may have changed.

For example, I'm a CPA, but I haven't practiced accounting for ages. I'm sure that GAAP has changed since I was last very familiar with it. Yes, the basics are the same as they were 30 years ago, but the specifics are not.

Consulting offers yet another illustration of that point. Take a popular branch of consulting -- IT consulting. For a time, the trend was to go with ERP-based financials and manufacturing solutions, "best of breed" non-financial back office solutions, custom solutions for highly specialized processes and mix and match all those software solutions. Now, the quality and comprehensiveness of some of the major ERP solutions often eliminates the need to do all that simply because the cost of integrating them doesn't return sufficient benefit over simply adjusting to the business processes inherent in a more general scope ERP offering.

Now, I don't know diddly about pharmaceuticals, at least not from the product product content, legal and regulatory sides that seem to be what's being discussed here to know how much change has occurred in the past dozen years, but as it's a huge industry dominated by several huge and constantly evolving conglomerates, I wouldn't be surprised to find a lot has changed. Wouldn't you think so too?

In short, I think the views you both are presenting provide a degree of perspective, as well as facts, not only on change in that industry, but on substantive details that might matter to me as a consumer.

All the best.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by DocMick

to everyone not having a problem with replica cars, here's your chance to own one... from your front door to the local starbucks, it makes no difference

i wonder how they perform at the limit... maybe TopGear should get one of these and do a head to head vs the genuine

Isn't' that part of the thing with fake anything: nobody really expects them to perform as well at the limit as the authentic item does? Assuming we are limiting the matter only on the practical differences and trade-offs, I'll ask you to consider the following.

• If I buy a fake Submariner and it keeps time accurately to within +/- 20 a day, and a real Sub is at +/- 4 seconds a day, for the $8500 I saved how disappointed am I going to be?
• If one knowingly buys a fake Rolex, one should have enough sense to know that it's WR may not be as good as that of a real one. Accordingly, one'll take it off to get in the shower or wash dishes. If one doesn't, oh, well...that's $50 down the drain. (no pun intended...well, maybe a little now that I think about it. ) That strikes me as a minor concession to make in return for having saved $8500, regardless of why one bought the thing.
• Let's say that Joe buys a fake Submariner when he is 30. Joe will likely live for about another 50 years or so. Assuming Joe can buy the fake Sub for $100, he could choose to buy 85 fakes and have a new one to wear every years or so for the rest of his live. Now, despite whatever misfortune has befallen your fake watches, I'm sure even you realize that that your personal experience isn't the norm.
  
  I can tell you that in the past eight years, I've bought and given away over 100 of those Chinese fakes. I've given them to teenage relatives, but the overwhelming majority have been given as notional door prizes in office "team building" events and church-related events. To date, nobody has related a "sad story" of their watch failing. I have ~100 people on my project teams in the PRC and nobody has told me they've had a problem. I had one that was a copy of my Air King and the spring tension inside of it went South on me and the thing wouldn't keep good time for even an hour. I tossed it in the trash. Now 1 in 200 is nowhere near what Rolex or any other high quality watch company would consider acceptable, but for Joe and his 85 fake watches, I would bet it's good enough.
  
  I realize that my experience is just as circumstantial as is yours, but it's all I have to go on. I have seen written assessments of the quality of fake watches. Just as with the reviews I read of authentic watches, I take them with a grain of salt. Yet, that multiple parties who have no interest one way or the other -- some writers, and the few people whom I know that have them (the folks I referred to above) -- have good things to say, it seems at least reasonable to believe they aren't as bad as they are commonly alleged to be.
  • http://www.watchreport.co/the-trend-...a-watches.html
  • http://www.rwg.bz/page6/page6.html
  • http://www.watchreport.co/the-ten-mo...he-market.html
  • Reviews of movements one can expect to find in replica watches
    • http://watchguy.co.uk/comparison-sea...eacock-sl3000/
    • http://www.rwgforum.net/topic/155975...2-super-clone/

You can read all that stuff on your own and see if you end up in the same place I am about replica watches. You may; you may not.

Just bear in mind that you are also going to need to spend some time reading critical evaluations of the major authentic watch movements too. I can tell you that between an ETA Top, ETA Chronometer grade and a Rolex, there isn't enough tangible difference to explain the multiple thousands of dollar premium one'll pay for a Rolex. (Or a PP, or JLC or any other super pricey watch.) Also, remember, this post is about the practical differences since that's what you were speaking to. The differences on legal and emotional level are very different matters altogether.

I'm not attempting to justify or legitimize replica watches, but I do have a fair degree of understanding and neutrality regarding the people who buy them. If you look back at my OP, you'll see that it's the condescension some folks display about the watches and the people who wear them that I find distasteful.

Society, marketing angles, and cultures foment feelings inferiority in people. It's tough for an individual to look beyond that much pressure. Haughty attitudes, however, are created from within and my comments here -- both about watches, and in the car specific sections of B-post -- will nearly always show compassion, or at least neutrality toward folks who don't chose -- for whatever reason -- the more expensive, the trendier, glitzier alternative.

All the best.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by NemesisX

I read this post in detail and I just have to say again - thank you so much for taking the time to write this up!

YW

Originally Posted by NemesisX

... As a casual, "outside" observer when I think about "high end watches" the very first watch brand that comes to mind is Rolex, and the very first watch that comes to mind is a diver watch like a submariner.... the question becomes what are you willing to pay for the over-engineering and authenticity that comes with owning the real thing.

Red:
That's exactly the way Rolex wants it to be.

Blue:
Yep...that's almost literally the $10K question. As the quality of replicas increases, even folks who can easily afford to spend the money have to grapple with the issue. There's nobody I know, rich or poor, who can't find something useful to do with $9K beside spend it on a watch. They may choose something equally frivolous, or they may not. Whatever they choose, a great portion of that choice is nothing more than being able to so choose.

Originally Posted by NemesisX

...You know in hindsight, I actually do understand the premium placed on the "intangible" aspect of owning a fine, authentic watch. Take cars, for example. Our family has a policy of only buying brand new cars. ...It seems perfectly reasonable to me that others would place similar premiums on the intangible aspects of other luxury goods.

It is completely reasonable. My point about doing so is that one just needs to be honest with oneself about why one does so. It could be one just likes the cache of it. It could be that the thing one wants from the watch cannot be obtained from another, less expensive watch. It could be that it's the only way to get this or that color of design attribute. It could be any of one or many things.

So long as one is true to oneself about whatever the reason -- regardless of how silly or ill advised I or others may think that reason to be -- it's probably just fine. Something I often ask folks to consider:

Can you get whatever those things are that're important to you and that that watch has for less money without meaningfully compromising on that which you expect to obtain from the thing?

If the answer is yes and they remain committed to that specific watch that costs more than the "just as good" alternative, they are buying for an emotional reason and there isn't one thing I can say or one watch I can suggest that will be a better choice for them. They don't need to explain the emotional drivers to me for emotional motivations are exactly why we say "to each his own."

Originally Posted by NemesisX

Your enthusiasm about watches is palpable. As a self-proclaimed "non-watch guy" even I get a little excited about the subject after I read your posts

TY. Glad I can inspire a little interest in you. I'd love to see it grow, but I know your accountant would advise against that happening.

All the best.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by Mr.Metak2you

The level of ignorance in this thread......

Reverse engineering, meaning someone takes apart any give object and copies it exactly, bypassing the entire R&D portion of development, is a fraction of the cost. That's why you see so many knock off aftermarket pieces for so cheap. Anyone can make a simple mold of an OEM BMW Performance Splitter and manufacture it in China much cheaper than what it cost BMW to do a proper CAD design, tooling, wind tunnel testing...etc.

I don't have much respect for people that don't have respect for intellectual property. The people that justify stealing ideas/designs/inventions or justify buying those same items so they can save a few dollars are no better. They don't fear having their ideas stolen because they will never have an original thought themselves.

I can abide by your just respect for intellectual property. It's property and that's that. NP with me.

Red:
I'm curious about one thing. If you have a wreck in your car and your insurance coverage doesn't specifically authorize BMW (or whatever brand) OEM replacement parts, just what kind of parts do you think you'll get? What exactly is the difference in your mind between aftermarket equivalents and these copied watches we've been discussing?

All the best.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by DocMick

the essence of counterfeit is deception, that makes it abhorrent

It's like going to a bank to deposit your money, only to find out it's a sham operation...

It's like going to a doctor, only to find out later he forged his diploma and license...

Well who cares, no one got hurt, and the financial loss was minor. I suppose it all comes down to the kind of person you are, a liar, a sham, a fake. Well in that case, it's right up your alley.

Personally, I hate fakes. No amount of flawless argument against Swiss horology industry will make a fake any more genuine, and a genuine into a fake.

The word replica is garbage. No license exists to replicate, and no stamp of replica on the dial. It's still a pos fake.

Off Topic:
The view from atop the moral high ground is indeed how the world should look to everyone. Unfortunately in some instances it's a hill to climb, for other folks it's a mountain. How many of your tangible resources, intangible ones -- time -- are you willing to spend in a way that ensures everyone who's not with you can make their way to the mountain top and stand beside you?

You may recall a recent war that was promoted and fought from the moral high ground. I think "Iraqi freedom" was the call. I gotta tell you, that was some mighty costly moral high ground, but I guess Iraqis are now free. There are a lot of North Koreans who aren't free either, so there's plenty more moral high ground we can claim.

I'm using that just as an example to illustrate the cost -- time, money, lives, etc. -- of the moral high ground. I didn't say that as a vehicle for taking this down a political route; I expressly want to avoid the political aspect of it.

All the best.

[RR-NYC]

Originally Posted by tony20009

Okay... I thought you both are pharmacists or directly connected to the industry. I'm of a mind to think that there's merit in the points you both are making. That said, if you've been out of the pharmaceutical business for over a decade, you'd have to cede that some things may have changed.

For example, I'm a CPA, but I haven't practiced accounting for ages. I'm sure that GAAP has changed since I was last very familiar with it. Yes, the basics are the same as they were 30 years ago, but the specifics are not.

Consulting offers yet another illustration of that point. Take a popular branch of consulting -- IT consulting. For a time, the trend was to go with ERP-based financials and manufacturing solutions, "best of breed" non-financial back office solutions, custom solutions for highly specialized processes and mix and match all those software solutions. Now, the quality and comprehensiveness of some of the major ERP solutions often eliminates the need to do all that simply because the cost of integrating them doesn't return sufficient benefit over simply adjusting to the business processes inherent in a more general scope ERP offering.

Now, I don't know diddly about pharmaceuticals, at least not from the product product content, legal and regulatory sides that seem to be what's being discussed here to know how much change has occurred in the past dozen years, but as it's a huge industry dominated by several huge and constantly evolving conglomerates, I wouldn't be surprised to find a lot has changed. Wouldn't you think so too?

In short, I think the views you both are presenting provide a degree of perspective, as well as facts, not only on change in that industry, but on substantive details that might matter to me as a consumer.

All the best.

I agree with you on your CPA and consulting reference. Being current with the goings on in all industries is critical however the same does not hold true to the topic of pharmaceuticals as it relates to this discussion. Today's Viagra is the same as it was 12 years ago and it will be the same in 20 years from now. In fact, the pharmaceutical industry has more to do with physicians than it has to do with pharmacists.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by tony20009

You may recall a recent war that was promoted and fought from the moral high ground. I think "Iraqi freedom" was the call. I gotta tell you, that was some mighty costly moral high ground, but I guess Iraqis are now free.

I guess the coalition needed to stand on the moral high ground to be able to see over the top of all the 1.4m dead Iraqis. But history is written by the victors and the oil is safe, which was the whole point. Bad luck for the Syrians that they don't have any oil worth fighting for.

Originally Posted by tony20009

I'm using that just as an example to illustrate the cost -- time, money, lives, etc. -- of the moral high ground. I didn't say that as a vehicle for taking this down a political route; I expressly want to avoid the political aspect of it.

Claiming the moral high ground is often just a smug way of saying I'm right and you are wrong.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

I guess the coalition needed to stand on the moral high ground to be able to see over the top of all the 1.4m dead Iraqis. But history is written by the victors and the oil is safe, which was the whole point. Bad luck for the Syrians that they don't have any oil worth fighting for.

Claiming the moral high ground is often just a smug way of saying I'm right and you are wrong.

Red:
To your credit, even as you took the high moral position re: fake watches, you weren't clandestine about your reasons for doing so. For that bit of integrity I accord you all due respect and credit even though I think the position you articulated is a bit harsh toward folks who choose to wear fakes.

From a legal POV, I think you and I agree, but I think we see the moral picture differently. I can live with that as the ethics and morals of the matter leave me somewhat conflicted in terms of what I think versus the extent to which I am willing to impose upon and assess others by my own mores.

Blue:
My statement wasn't about right or wrong. It was my commentary on the haughtiness, the self-righteousness that accompanies lofty moral principles. I was trying to use irony and overstatement to highlight "the pulpit's" bumptiousness.

I can see validity, cause, rightness and wrongness in the actions of folks on both sides of the issue. I don't think I've yet come to think that absolutism from either perspective is the right solution, but I also don't know for a fact that it's the tack.

All the best.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by tony20009

though I think the position you articulated is a bit harsh toward folks who choose to wear fakes.

Really? wow that just goes to show how much the meaning of what I wrote changed between me constructing it in my head and you reading it.
I don't have any problem with people wearing fakes, replicas or homages.

How about replicas of old watches like the "James Bond" Rolex Sub?
A real version that is not only very expensive but also quite rare.
Its about the only real Rolex I would like to own....buts thats not likely to happen so a replica would be about the only way to own one.

[MikeRR]

I wear only original watches and hommages of older models (for example Crepas - wich have their own branding).
I would never war a fake (watch with brand name of the original on it).

If you can't afford a Rolex there is plenty of nice quality swiss watches at a much lower price point (Certina, Tissot, Longines...) and there are many nice hommages (Steinhart, MKII, Raven etc.) out there.

[TrevorM3]

Originally Posted by paprmkr

That's why my watch box is full of Fossils, Guess, my favorite is my BMW watch and the Bulova Precisionist http://www.bulova.com/en_us/watch/bu...sionist/96B131

i can respect a man who is stays in his lane.

what makes my blood boil are the idiots who wear the fake garbage and try and play it off in front of people.


i've got one g-shock and a breilting. keeping it simple til i get an AP.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Really? wow that just goes to show how much the meaning of what I wrote changed between me constructing it in my head and you reading it.
I don't have any problem with people wearing fakes, replicas or homages.

Fair enough. My mistake then. Apologies.

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

How about replicas of old watches like the "James Bond" Rolex Sub?
A real version that is not only very expensive but also quite rare.
Its about the only real Rolex I would like to own....buts that's not likely to happen so a replica would be about the only way to own one.

I don't have a problem with it at all, if that's all you want to know. Personally, I'm more inclined to "let bygones be bygones" when it comes to having missed out on a vintage watch. I'd be content with the current model instead if just having one to wear is the thing. That said, if it's just a matter of wanting the specific 1950s look and the details that distinguish it -- the most obvious being the size (38mm or 36mm, depending on which reference one chooses) and the dial (less writing) -- it's far more plausible that one can obtain a fake in large measure due not only to price but also availability.

In consideration of price, however, the smaller Sub that's associated with Bond and Dr. No (5508) can be had for not a lot more than a current model Submariner. The 38mm 6538 is a different matter altogether. At least I don't see the difference as being all that significant -- $9K vs. $12K - inasmuch as I figure one who can spend $9K can probably spend $12K too, despite their perhaps not wanting to or initially expecting to do so.

For a contemporary watch, however, I probably wouldn't go over my budget, not even by a pretty small sum, because I set a budget limit for a reason; if I'd wanted to spend more, I'd have set a higher limit back when I was planning and had some sense in my head. Once I'm caught up in the excitement of the moment, it's important to keep within the guidelines I'd sent when I was thinking clearly, with my head not my heart. For a vintage piece that has more significance to me than the intrinsic qualities of the watch itself, I would pay what I need to pay if I'm that committed to having that specific thing and the unique intangible attributes I expect to receive along with it.

• 5508 -http://www.chrono24.com/en/rolex/ref-5508.htm
• 6538 - http://www.chrono24.com/en/rolex/ref-6538.htm

From a collecting standpoint, clearly a current Sub cannot stand in for an authentic 5508 or 6538 any more than a fake can. In that regard, there's no difference between a fake, current Sub and an authentic one. A fake variant of the vintage model might indeed be more satisfying to one who lacks access to an authentic one.

All the best.

[BaNaNaBoy69]

If money were no object, I highly doubt one would choose fake over authentic. Then why don't you just go buy a knock-off of everything for a fraction of the price of the real thing? You can pretend to be rich without having to pay the big bucks. In China, anything you can think of is knocked-off, even products and brands at grocery stores.

Call a spade a spade - looks like a fake, smells like a fake, probably a fake. People who buy fake things are pretentious people with no pride who can't afford the real thing, period. They are posers pretending to be ballers, walking around thinking no one knows they are wearing or using fake things, when others can spot it a mile away because they own, sell or work with the merchandise. They might impress their ignorant friends, but those who know will just be snickering behind their back. I was one of those people when I was in college and didn't know any better, but no more! Yes, buying counterfeit supports organized crime and even terrorism. It's the same as people who put an M badge on their non-M car.

Buy within your means or don't buy at all. Save up or make more money until you can buy the real thing. I think it's more respectable to buy an authentic cheaper brand than a counterfeit luxury brand.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by BaNaNaBoy69

If money were no object, I highly doubt one would choose fake over authentic. Then why don't you just go buy a knock-off of everything for a fraction of the price of the real thing? You can pretend to be rich without having to pay the big bucks. In China, anything you can think of is knocked-off, even products and brands at grocery stores.

Call a spade a spade - looks like a fake, smells like a fake, probably a fake. People who buy fake things are pretentious people with no pride who can't afford the real thing, period. They are posers pretending to be ballers, walking around thinking no one knows they are wearing or using fake things, when others can spot it a mile away because they own, sell or work with the merchandise. They might impress their ignorant friends, but those who know will just be snickering behind their back. I was one of those people when I was in college and didn't know any better, but no more! Yes, buying counterfeit supports organized crime and even terrorism. It's the same as people who put an M badge on their non-M car.

Buy within your means or don't buy at all. Save up or make more money until you can buy the real thing. I think it's more respectable to buy an authentic cheaper brand than a counterfeit luxury brand.

While it's an interesting and not uncommon line of reasoning you make, by your own statements, it's also true that non-luxury goods are also copied by makers in China. Your allegation of pretension is also not true. An awful lot of Chinese folks buy fake goods of all sorts and they readily will tell anyone they are fake. Those consumers may want to buy the authentic item, but that they didn't isn't a matter of their desire to appear to have done so.

Take art as another example. Surely you've been places and found prints of various works of art hanging on the wall. What makes those articles anything but fake versions of some authentic non-printed painting? Almost all the furniture most folks buy is a copy of some original furniture design invented by someone else. Every trench coat one buys is a knock-off of the Burberry original. The point is that your argument has a lot to do with the prices of things and what folks can afford, but the fact is also that many items are copied by other makers who also charge a lot for their wares. I can all but promise you that a consumer who bought a Brooks Brothers or Loro Piana trench coat isn't wearing it in the hope that folks perceive it to be a Burberry one. Ditto any consumer who buys Baker or Henredon furniture that apes original colonial designs such as Chippendale, Queen Anne or Hepplewhite, for example.

What if the person buys a fake non-luxury item? The same character flaws you allege regarding buyers of fake expensive goods must necessarily apply, yet the implication of your post suggests that you don't have the same disdain for such consumers. The fact is that there is no moral or ethical grounds for despising a person's act of buying a fake product. There is a thin thread of legal basis for such disdain, but to get on that bandwagon, one necessarily must take the stance of protecting the maker. It's an altruistic position few of us would care to espouse and carry to it's logical conclusion. After all, would you care to help finance, say Rolex, in its prosecution against the Chinese fakes? I sure won't.

I can tell you for a fact that being able to afford the "real thing" doesn't always have much to do with whether one buys a fake watch or not. All the peop0le who work on my projects in the PRC have purchased fake watches, iPhones, and plenty of other goods, including electronics, foods, appliances, household items, and clothing. The price has a lot to do with why they bought them, but not being able to afford the authentic articles doesn't. Even the most lowly paid, junior members of my team earn $150K+/year and they don't have anything to actually pay for out of their own pockets because they are living in the PRC and all their personal expenses are paid for by the client.

The practical reality is that for a time-only or time + date watch, there's hardly enough difference to warrant spending $5k+ on a luxury watch. If one isn't buying with a collector's purposes, there's just no need to spend the money, even if one has it to spend. If one likes the look of some fancy watch and wants that look for less money, a fake or a very close knock-off is going to work just fine.

When it comes to multi-complication watches -- those having multiple time-telling features -- it's something of a different story. I have yet to come across a cheap watch that offers minute repeater, perpeptual calendar, moon phase and other functions all in one watch that also works even remotely as well as the authentic high-end watches they attempt to replicate. Even some single complications are not well implemented in the fakes or even in non-fake, cheap mechanical watches. The moon phase is one such complication.

[i2ichal2dZ4M]

http://jalopnik.com/tag/super-replicas