Losing my faith: Forstner’s new Knock-off Bulova watch

Different things get at people differently.

This one gets at me.






Also, did Fratello and Forstner strike a joint venture? Or does Fratello always write such marketing-disguised-as-journalism? Even for reproduction watches?

https://www.fratellowatches.com/forstner-a-12-watch-bullet-bracelet-review/

In case there’s any confusion, my post is intended as emphasizing the disappointment in Forstner (and Fratello, for that matter) in line with the intended spirit (and rules) of OF:

“Is discussion of fake / replica watches or clocks permitted?

A: Absolutely not, in the strongest terms. Fake watches or clocks have no place here, and neither do people who wear fake watches, sell fake watches, or pass off fake watches and in most case fake parts of watches. While some topics may cause anger from one or more parties, this one will earn you the wrath of everyone on the board that owns a realOmega or other high end watch. The only exception to this is in pointing out a fake as a warning to other members, orassisting members in avoiding fake watches.”

In case anyone is unaware, with apologies in advance to the owner of this watch/photo (who I believe will be accommodating), here is just one example of the watch Forstner is copying




Besides the branding and age, note that the other distinction is that the “real” watch has a second hand - not the least of reasons being that the real watch was a pilot’s watch

Appreciate the view, and we simply disagree about the relevance of semantics in “fake” vs “whatever-makes-one-legal-by-needle-threading.”

OF has from the beginning disallowed the inclusion of this sort of legal-needle-threading “homage” watch; many such “homage” brands aren’t discussed here for the same reason this watch shouldn’t be. There is not a “Streinhart” forum here, intentionally.

The legality of the watch should be obviously irrelevant to its acceptability. I’m not sure how how else to put an end to this responsive regurgitation of the legal definition of “counterfeit.” Nobody is confused about what is an illegal watch (eg if they’d put “Bulova” on the dial), and what is a legal watch.

The Fratello article is titled “Shades of Bulova.” The article contains the following sentence: “Now, of course, the original watch was made by an entirely different brand (Bulova), which means there has to be one very obvious visual difference: the wordmark.” This doesn’t even feign a degree of “wink wink, nudge nudge” that is usually the tell-tail sign that “homage” is really just a marketing term for “as fake as can be while avoiding prosecution under the law.”

The fact is, we shouldn’t need to be constantly distracted by the irrelevant legal semantics in order to separately discuss whether the watch is socially acceptable.

Here on OF, unless rules are changed (and I hope they are not), this Fratello watch is socially unacceptable. There are other forums for these types of watches.

Im with you.

For a segment of the collecting community, Forstner had been given a narrow pass for its “homage” 😀rolleyes😀 bracelets (separate from the JB etc.).

I went to the site to look for a JB bracelet for my UG; when I saw this “coming soon” watch at the top of the page, I reconsidered.

No loss to Forstner, as there will be plenty of folks who either don’t mind or even look for these types of watches - just see the effusive Fratello article almost convincing us that it’s a technological innovation to be quartz and to lack a second hand.

Does it say “Bulova” on the dial? Obviously not - I’d think we can all move on past that immediately.

Is the watch obviously and intentionally attempting to directly replicate the Bulova up to and without crossing the line of being illegal? Of course. In this context and sense, it is “trying to be something it isn’t.” To suggest otherwise seems an equivocation.

No doubt, opinions differ widely on knock-off/homage watches and watch parts; and there are probably good arguments for why someone shouldn’t care that a watch is a knock-off. But to instead equivocate that it’s in effect not a knock-off in the first place seems an odd maneuver.

Courses for horses…


I’ve seen mentioned several overlapping rationales for keeping OF a replica/homage free community. Among them, that such watches are distasteful to some (raises hand), they are a slippery slope toward grey areas of illegal/counterfeit watches and lines must be drawn somewhere with some arbitrariness unavoidable, they’re largely not very interesting (after all, that’s why they’re trying to be something else), and there are other communities where people can go to scratch that itch and OF need not overlap/compete in that space. There are probably others.

As for trademark/IP, one need not worry about getting to or losing in court to still prefer to avoid even the spectacle of the threats and leveraging that precede litigation. Should citizen take offense to this watch, both Forstner and Fratello will likely receive letters that are uncomfortable. Letters that will, as we say in the disputes world, make clear that “you may beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride.” Alone, this possibility of litigiousness may not be reason enough to view dabbling in the space as a net negative, but combined with other independent reasons (like those mentioned above) it just seems to pile up.

Incidentally, all of these considerations against dabbling in this space must have also been on Forstner’s minds - and I could imagine another “homage” watch that might have made it all “worth it,” to them - but this sure isn’t it.