The issue gets beaten to death-I know. But most of the beating is on new companies or micro brands making watches in “the style of”. Just came across this on eBay - would this be considered a SM300 homage of the time or just a watch by a respected house making a watch in a popular style?
This then begs the further question- if a company resurrects a vintage style from their archives (Hamilton, Certina, Blancpain, Rado) is that considered an homage of themselves? And particularly since the aforementioned companies are not the same companies they were 50 years ago (different ownership, plants, parts etc), wouldn’t they be “fakes”?

And to further the point-is the Technos any less of a SM300 homage than say these modern ones, just becuase it’s vintage?

 

What I see here is a beautifully aged dive watch with a nice appealing patina.
I would not wear a modern homage because in my opinion these watches have no character. They are just copies and they represent a lack of creative thoughts that went in it's development. That means these watches have kind of no soul when you get them from the factory. BUT: I think that any watch, homage or not, can develop it's own character. Patina is one the words here, it makes every watch unique in it's own way, it tells a story about the watch, it makes you think about what it went through, it makes you dream about it's history and let's you forget about the actual brand that manufactured it. In conclusion, any watch that can tell a story without having to depend on its Brand-Name, is it through patina or the history of it's owner or the history of the brand itself, is a true watch for me.

 

I will muddle the waters because back in the day the big name did not make that many things in house:

designer: may even be a subcontracted independent (Genta anyone?)
case made by: CB, HF, EPSA, Squale
dial by : Singer, Beyeler, whatever
bracelet : GF

Keeping the movement separated from the rest, (the client/wearer don't see anything of it), it is hard to say that any brand made an homage/copy of anything... and the homage/who did it first question becomes a bit hard to define.

 

Damn! Welcome @TheBosston ! Can’t recall a newbie’s comment I liked better!

 

Is the modern Speedmaster moonwatch cal 1861 an homage to the original Speedmaster cal 321?
Just asking...

 

Thank you @airansun

 

Is the Daytona a Zenith homage??? Suck on that one Rolex guys!!!
Oh, in the 861- there was a continuum in the Speedmaster line and it was a natural evolution of the model so I wouldn’t think it an homage as it never was a copy of itself, and there was no lapse in production.
The current BP Fifty-fathoms on the other hand is a modern watch made by a company that owns the name of another company that went out of business- so same name, different company.

 

But the Speedmaster was a homage of the Rodania Geometer...

 

Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but when I see people say watches have a "soul" I think you've strayed into metaphysics, and left horology behind. Also, unless you have owned a vintage watch from new, or have a detailed history from previous owners, then patina/degredation/damage (call it what you will) is simply that and its attraction is down to each individual's aesthetic sensibilities. I suppose if some vintage collectors are also versed in psychometry, then some sort of "story" might be discernible, but I've yet to be convinced.

As for homage -v- original (leaving out fakes which are deliberately made to fool people into thinking they are a genuine), all watches to some extent depend on the evolution of movements and design. If you can come up with something distinctive enough, it can be patented or copyrighted, if not then where we are today is down to people "standing on the shoulders of giants".

 

Oops. Watch out!

https://omegaforums.net/threads/anyone-snag-the-rodania-geometer-today.85705/#post-1107348

 

Given the relatively small palette of design features employed in dive watches overall, I'm not sure I would call the OP watch an homage to a 166.024. The bezel is quite similar, true, but the hands are distinctively different, there are enough differences on the dial, and obviously the cases are completely distinct.

 

Yeah, I’m about to get lit up by speedie world.

On a side note though, take the current GMT and BB58 offerings from Tudor. You could make the argument that these pay greater fidelity to Rolex’s heritage (reliable, semi-affordable tool watches) than their more vaunted stablemates. So are they just homages?

 

As far as dive watches go I look at it as form follows function.
A vague resemblance is no big deal.

 

Where does it end? If you look at the large selection of Super Compressor dive watches things can pretty messy quite quickly trying to work out what's what.

 

Observation : folks who buy these 'homage watches' often subconsciously justify their purchases with their POVs.

There are vintage models that shared parts like UG sub and Technos Skydiver, then there are 'influenced by' and then there is 'crossing the line into IP theft' and 'not having an original thought in your head syndrome' and I applauds the mods for discouraging homages/counterfit watches here on OF.

Can someone tell me what this watch is? Somehow part of the image has been blurred out.

 

I think you need to go away a find out a little more on the subject, as you appear to have some wires crossed on IP and copyright's etc.

 

Again, folks who buy these 'homage watches' often subconsciously justify their purchases with their POVs and vice versa.

 

No, it's simply that you don't know what you are talking about, IP has nothing to do with buying or indeed selling homage watches and that's not a POV, it's a fact.

 

Sorry to be blunt but you're challenging to interact with.
You know what the above watch is that I displayed and what watch it is shamelessly copying from.
And you're making it about something else.
You're not fooling anyone.

 

You first asked a question about what appears to be a Helson Sharkmaster 300, you also made a comment about crossing the line in to IP theft.
I've already told you that IP has nothing to do with copyright or indeed trademarks and you seem to be crossing the line of flogging a dead horse with this IP theft nonsense.