Forstner 1450 bracelet sneak peek

cvalue13 · Jan 3, 2021

Forstnerbands
I don't mean to derail the conversation, but ... Though I doubt anyone would be confused, we certainly aren't trying to pass our product off as a vintage bracelet, or an OEM Omega bracelet.

Hope this is helpful!

It’s very helpful, thank you.

I do have a genuine follow-on question, if you were inclined to give your view on it; as I assume you’ve thought more carefully about this than myself...

Your description of the legal posture above is fair (if U.S.-centric), and to my ear essentially the same legal posture (in the U.S.) as various “homage” watch makers - but, do you have a better considered view as to what if anything philosophically differentiates your “1450-style” bracelet from this “16610-style” watch?

I should say that I’ve purchased Forstner products, enjoyed them, and will purchase more; though, for me personally, there are some offerings I may tend to shy away from for the same reasons as I shy away from the Steinhart above - but am willing to be persuaded otherwise.

P.S., since so much discussion appears to be turning on whether this-or-that is “legal,” I think it worth mentioning that other such bracelet makers appear to not offer certain wares from their non-U.S. sites, and I can’t help but suspect that there could be underlying (non-U.S.) legal reasons for these omissions (though I admit I’m only a U.S. lawyer, so not as familiar with other jurisdictions except to say the, e.g., UK/EU tend to be less forgiving than the U.S.).

SkunkPrince · Jan 3, 2021

Countries do vary in their laws regarding design patents, and that may well prevent certain "looks too much like someone else" products from being marketed.

It appears that the current Forstner has bought or otherwise legally acquired the rights to use the name, logotype, etc, of the original Fornster and Jacoby-Bender companies. Such things do happen. If you trademark something here and you abandon it, after a while anyone can register it and use it. There might be a time limit, not sure.

But not every country works the same way.

offrdmania · Jan 3, 2021

Thank you Forstner for making my original 1450 bracelet skyrocket in value.

rob#1 · Jan 3, 2021

It would be interesting to see how the prices of OEM and ‘after-market’ bracelets and straps back in the days of the original JBC, Holzer, 1450, etc., etc. compare to the straps and bracelets currently available from Omega.

An old acquaintance, sadly long gone, who sold and repaired watches, used to supply the watch with whatever bracelet or strap was preferred by the customer (or sometimes whatever he had available). I’m pretty sure they didn’t cost the equivalent of what they cost now, but I could be mistaken...

SkunkPrince · Jan 3, 2021

Since I recently asked, the modern 5-row BOR 3010/511 is $450 more or less.

zwjk · Jan 4, 2021

cvalue13
I hope you’ll not find the following rhetorical device too offensive or personal, but instead only a part of a conversation worth taking seriously:

“As an example, not everyone can afford to buy a [Submariner 16610] for [$10K].

[Steinhart] is offering a decent alternative for less than 10% of the original. I was a skeptic at first but I just received mine and it’s worth every dollar.

The only alternative that was available previously was one from eBay for around [$6000] and [it was only that cheap because it was a bad example].”

No offence taken 😀

IMHO It's better than wearing a replica Submariner. I know the looks are scarily similar but it has its own design cues which differentiates itself from the Submariner.

I do not mind Steinhart at all. In fact, I did consider purchasing a Ocean Vintage Military at some point in time. Now this brings us to another question, I will never be able to afford a 5517 military Sub myself; does this mean buying a Steinhart 5517 homage is wrong? What about Gevril's homage to the Paul Newman Daytona?

Not to derail this thread, but at what point is a homage considered OK if one will never be able to buy a $400-500k watch?

padders · Jan 4, 2021

offrdmania
Thank you Forstner for making my original 1450 bracelet skyrocket in value.

I would say it’s the opposite. Once a modern, cheap (likely better quality) alternative to the scarce originals appears, the inflated values of the originals tend to deflate rather as some of the demand is removed. It’s already happened with the JB Champion and to a lesser extent the flat links. People are still asking $750-1000 for the JBC but I doubt they are getting it any longer.

JwRosenthal · Jan 4, 2021

zwjk
No offence taken 😀

IMHO It's better than wearing a replica Submariner. I know the looks are scarily similar but it has its own design cues which differentiates itself from the Submariner.

I do not mind Steinhart at all. In fact, I did consider purchasing a Ocean Vintage Military at some point in time. Now this brings us to another question, I will never be able to afford a 5517 military Sub myself; does this mean buying a Steinhart 5517 homage is wrong? What about Gevril's homage to the Paul Newman Daytona?

Not to derail this thread, but at what point is a homage considered OK if one will never be able to buy a $400-500k watch?

There is nothing “wrong” with buying any homage watch as long as they are clearly branded by their own maker and not trying to deceive anyone to think they are another brand.
There is a long history of companies “borrowing” design cues from other companies- hell, the lauded Speedmaster is done in the style of a Rodania!
Technos was ripping case and dial styles from Omega in the 60’s (some lovely watches with designs that actually excite far more than the Omega they were trying to emulate).
Where I see the value in this particular case-bracelets- is having options that are no longer available to the mass consumer. Many of these bracelets have been long out of production and only available to the lucky few that have been able to track originals down. By Forstner/JBC picking up where the company was 50 years ago, and Uncle Seiko sliding in where Kreisler used to reside- they are filling the void of the aftermarket that was left.
Neither JBC nor Kreisler were ever thought to be “ lesser” quality (despite being sold in drug stores and on small jewelry store counter displays). They were just alternatives to expensive factory bracelets or watches that only came on leather. It just so happened that they also provided OEM bracelets, so you would see overlap in their catalog with big watch brand catalogs.

Archer · Jan 4, 2021

JwRosenthal
There is nothing “wrong” with buying any homage watch as long as they are clearly branded by their own maker and not trying to deceive anyone to think they are another brand.
There is a long history of companies “borrowing” design cues from other companies- hell, the lauded Speedmaster is done in the style of a Rodania!
Technos was ripping case and dial styles from Omega in the 60’s (some lovely watches with designs that actually excite far more than the Omega they were trying to emulate).

The question is always where to draw the line, and as you have pointed out the Speedmaster is said to have it's roots in a Rodania, so is the Speedmaster an homage?

Is the 1957 Seamaster an homage to the BP Fifty Fathoms and Submariner?

A mod here owns a GO PanoMatic Lunar, which could easily be called an homage of a Lange 1 Moonphase, so is that banned?

Do we allow pilot watches made by companies other then the original companies who made them in WW2?

It seems that this site has focused on a particular type of homage to call them evil for some reason I can't quite fathom...it's puzzling, and of all the forums I've been on over the years, it's the only place I can think of with this rule.

cvalue13 · Jan 4, 2021

zwjk
Not to derail this thread, but at what point is a homage considered OK if one will never be able to buy a $400-500k watch?

For folks who find “homage” distasteful, I’d think that as the value/rarity of a “real one” goes up it makes the “homage” less acceptable.

On that critical view, saying “the more unobtainable it is, the more ok it becomes to have a knock off” is a bit like saying “it’s ok that I’m using a sex doll, because the woman I’m imagining would never sleep with me IRL.”

One of the new Zodiac Sea Wolfs might never be a Bond girl, but she’s got girl-next-door vibes, a great sense of humor, and makes a mean Lasagna.

But as @JwRosenthal said, there’s nothing wrong with spending your time with a sex doll 😉

JwRosenthal · Jan 4, 2021

cvalue13
For folks who find “homage” distasteful, I’d think that as the value/rarity of a “real one” goes up it makes the “homage” less acceptable.

On that critical view, saying “the more unobtainable it is, the more ok it becomes to have a knock off” is a bit like saying “it’s ok that I’m using a sex doll, because the woman I’m imagining would never sleep with me IRL.”

One of the new Zodiac Sea Wolfs might never be a Bond girl, but she’s got girl-next-door vibes, a great sense of humor, and makes a mean Lasagna.

But as @JwRosenthal said, there’s nothing wrong with spending your time with a sex doll 😉

We don’t kink shame on OF- whatever floats your boat.

cvalue13 · Jan 4, 2021

Archer
A mod here owns a GO PanoMatic Lunar, which could easily be called an homage of a Lange 1 Moonphase, so is that banned?

Or, who here doesn’t have a Watchco SM300/120/200?

Watchco is a different animal, but I’d have a hard time explaining why it’s different...

SkunkPrince · Jan 4, 2021

cvalue13
Or, who here doesn’t have a Watchco SM300/120/200?

Watchco is a different animal, but I’d have a hard time explaining why it’s different...

It's not all beat to heck with a filthy dial like the original. 😁

mzinski · Jan 4, 2021

cvalue13
For folks who find “homage” distasteful, I’d think that as the value/rarity of a “real one” goes up it makes the “homage” less acceptable.

On that critical view, saying “the more unobtainable it is, the more ok it becomes to have a knock off” is a bit like saying “it’s ok that I’m using a sex doll, because the woman I’m imagining would never sleep with me IRL.”

I think you're conflating two distinct terms. A "knock-off" is a copy of something. A "homage" shows respect or deference to the original. I'm not sure anyone has said it's okay to buy a knock-off. I do think some people have expressed their acceptance of a homage.

I would argue the more contemporary the homage the less accepted. I think we'd be hard pressed to find anyone on this forum faulting another for purchasing a vintage Wakmann instead of its historical significant other. One might even say that vintage UG is a poor mans PP. Do we slight vintage UG collectors here?

IMO the hate for things like Steinhart is a class thing. Conspicuous consumption demands our purchases indicate something about our status. Anything that diminishes that "value" is an attack on our class and should be vehemently defended.

I don't take any issue with Steinhart - it's a clearly branded watch with enough differences and brand identity as to not confuse itself with another company. Someone can't afford a Rolex but enjoys that design aesthetic decides to buy a Steinhart in lieu of a fake Rolex - I think that's a solid choice.

cvalue13 · Jan 4, 2021

mzinski
I think you're conflating two distinct terms. A "knock-off" is a copy of something. A "homage" shows respect or deference to the original. I'm not sure anyone has said it's okay to buy a knock-off. I do think some people have expressed their acceptance of a homage.

No, I meant “knock off” (a copy or imitation of ... something popular).

We agree the word “homage” means “showing respect or deference to the original” - but disagree that Steinhart the company or it’s watches shows “respect” or “deference” to Rolex. (I think we both know what Rolex would request of Steinhart in terms of both respect and deference, if the law allowed.)

Bur such semantics RE “homage/knock off/fake/reproduction” are something for which everyone has an opinion, and probably everyone can cite chapter and verse for why theirs is correct - peruse WUS for it debated ad nauseam.

Whatever position one takes, though, I think there is no reasonable denying that the marketing phrase “homage watch” was conjured up by companies like Steinhart (or their devotees) so that they didn’t have to invoke the obvious alternative phraseology that already existed to aptly describe the product.

I don’t hold it personal to anyone who wants a Steinhart, either - but if they can only stomach wearing one by calling it an “homage,” they’re probably fooling themselves...

Similarly, and as relates to the topic at hand: the title of this thread “Forstner 1040”, as well as the required legal name finessing described by Forstner of the “1040-style” bracelets are all indicative of the obvious: they are copies or imitations of something popular.

Archer · Jan 4, 2021

cvalue13
We agree the word “homage” means “showing respect or deference to the original” - but disagree that Steinhart the company or it’s watches shows “respect” or “deference” to Rolex. (I think we both know what Rolex would request of Steinhart in terms of both respect and deference, if the law allowed.)

Since Rolex calls a genuine Rolex with any sort of aftermarket part attached a fake, well yes, I'm sure they would do something if they could. But they can't, because these are not fakes so the law very rightly allows them.

cvalue13
Bur such semantics RE “homage/knock off/fake/reproduction” are something for which everyone has an opinion, and probably everyone can cite chapter and verse for why theirs is correct - peruse WUS for it debated ad nauseam.

These aren't semantics, and your claiming that they are appears to be just an attempt to blur them all as fake. These watches are ot fakes - they do not try to represent themselves as something they aren't. It appears you have something against these watches, but let's be clear - they are not fakes.

cvalue13
Whatever position one takes, though, I think there is no reasonable denying that the marketing phrase “homage watch” was conjured up by companies like Steinhart (or their devotees) so that they didn’t have to invoke the obvious alternative phraseology that already existed to aptly describe the product.

No idea who coined the phrase, but is that really important?

cvalue13
I don’t hold it personal to anyone who wants a Steinhart, either - but if they can only stomach wearing one by calling it an “homage,” they’re probably fooling themselves...

"Stomach" wearing one? "Fooling themselves"? God you are insufferable...

cvalue13 · Jan 4, 2021

Archer
because these are not fakes so the law very rightly allows them

Archer
an attempt to blur them all as fake. These watches are ot fakes

Archer
but let's be clear - they are not fakes.

I didn’t say “fake.”

I said “knock off,” then provided Merriam-Webster’s definition of same: “an imitation of something popular.”

I then admitted that these “semantics” weren’t really agreeable for everyone, and the stuff of WUS rants.

You then proved that admission with a responsive rant turning on an issue of semantics (“fake” vs “knock off”).

Archer
No idea who coined the phrase, but is that really important?

Yet this WAS the point I was making and stand behind: whatever we call this category of watches (or bracelet!), to me the term “homage” is the only term that’s OBVIOUSLY bulls*it.

I own a WatchCo 120, and say “it’s a fake built of Omega service parts.”

But a Steinhart!? Oh, no THAT’S is “a deference, obeisance, an honorific - nay, an homage - of fidelity, loyalty, and devotion to Rolex.”

Give me a break. Spade a spade. Own it or don’t.

Archer
"Stomach" wearing one? "Fooling themselves"?

This was again about own it or don’t and the term “homage.” In response to something specific said by someone else, I made the (admittedly sarcastic) point that IF you can only buy a Steinhart by telling yourself it’s an “homage,” then you’re “probably” fooling yourself; put conversely, if you would NOT buy one if it could rightfully be called a “knock off,” then don’t buy one.

Archer
God you are insufferable...

Based on the above exchange, it seems 1/2 our problem is your reading comprehension; also based on the above exchange, the other 1/2 might be that I don’t meekly absorb and genuflect to your own special brand of insufferable snugness simply because you’re a “watchmaker”?

SkunkPrince · Jan 4, 2021

I just wish someone would "homage" a more attractive watch than Rolex! 😁

cvalue13 · Jan 4, 2021

mzinski
IMO the hate for things like Steinhart is a class thing. Conspicuous consumption demands our purchases indicate something about our status. Anything that diminishes that "value" is an attack on our class and should be vehemently defended.

Appears I might clarify:

(1) I don’t “hate” Steinhart; I’m skeptical of people (or companies) bulls*itting themselves or others with terms like *homage*

(2) my posts on this thread were to point out an apparently burgeoning forum differences RE treatment of *homage* watches (forbidden in all instances) vs *homage* bracelets (companies crowdsourcing their creation using the forum) ...

(3) For me personally, while I don’t “hate” Steinhart or other such *homage* efforts, I’d only wonder if I wouldn’t prefer people spent their dollars with other companies

Which brings me to your point of hate of Steinhart being a “class thing” - doesn’t your argument also cut the opposite direction? Conspicuous consumption causes people to spend $600 on an “homage” Rolex so that it appears they have a Rolex, instead of spending their money on a new Zodiac Sea Wolf or any number of incredible but less “Rolex” options

Roosa · Jan 4, 2021

cvalue13
the paragraph above would be *gold* to an IP/TM lawyer representing Omega on this

Part numbers for the most part aren't trademarked. If you look for appliance parts, you'll find all sorts of generic brands using the same part numbers to make searches easy. For instance, this is a "Model 9709511" gasket but is not a Kitchenaid 9709511. This is well established as not trademark infringement even though the OEM part is still sold.

Even things that are cosmetically similar are very difficult to trademark - IP law is a perilous place, but unless Omega has specifically filed for a trademark on a specific bracelet design (which is doubtful since bracelets are copied or "inspired" back and forth across every brand and it would be incredibly difficult to prove that they invented anything), then this is almost certainly in the clear.

This post is not legal advice.

Forstner 1450 bracelet sneak peek

cvalue13

SkunkPrince

offrdmania

rob#1

SkunkPrince

zwjk

padders

JwRosenthal

Archer

cvalue13

JwRosenthal

cvalue13

SkunkPrince

mzinski

cvalue13

Archer

cvalue13

SkunkPrince

cvalue13

Roosa

Similar threads

Forstner 1450 / Flat Link Bracelet Endlinks for Rolex Explorer 1 / Omega Aqua Terra 42 MM

anybody install an OEM clasp on Forstner 1450 bracelet

Is this happening to your Forstner 1450 bracelet?

20mm Forstner 1450 President Bracelet for Omega Speedmaster 3861

Custom polishing outer links on a Forstner 1450

Omega Forum Forstner Bands Overview & Discount Code for UK & EU ONLY!