Poorman's, lookalikes or just "drawing the long bow"

Davidt · Apr 12, 2016

CajunTiger
As you can see in the photo I posted above, the cases are identical. Even the reference number stamped on the case is the same 73343

No they did not...but since the case is using the Heuer reference number it tells me that Heuer made this watch.

I don't mind which way the truth actually lies, so I'm arguing on this side, to play Devils advocate.

Is it known for certain that this is a Heuer reference, and not a reference designated to this case by the case manufacturer and subsequently adopted by Heuer as well as other makes.

ConElPueblo · Apr 12, 2016

CajunTiger
As you can see in the photo I posted above, the cases are identical. Even the reference number stamped on the case is the same 73343

No they did not...but since the case is using the Heuer reference number it tells me that Heuer made this watch.

I'm only asking as I do not know that much about Heuer's history as watchmakers, neither do I know much about the workflow procedures of yesteryear. I guess most of the companies outsourced case building then - who knows who did exactly what? Lovely watch, Benrus, Zodiac, Heuer or whatever 👍

Hmm, should Omega's ref. 174 (the 2541) be called the "Rich man's Lemania"? 😁

gatorcpa · Apr 12, 2016

Here's a little bit of a different direction when it comes to a "homage":

vs. this:

Seiko has been doing these for maybe 40 years or so. I think they still make a similar watch.

W West Slope
I love the look of the top time but it looks familiar....obviously a different case but I agree you only have so many options regarding the layout.... ]

Since you are using my picture, a couple of interesting things about that Gruen. The inner bezel is the same part (not a replica, I mean the exact same part) as used on the Heuer Carrera:

The hands are also the same as another Heuer model, just painted in different colors. Since the two watches are contemporary to each other, I don't think this was so much a homage, as is it was a parts sharing arrangement to save some cash during the quartz crisis of the 1970's.

cicindela
FOLKS PLEASE BE CAREFUL IN THIS THREAD. WATCHES THAT THE STAFF FEEL ARE TOO CLOSE TO KNOCK-OFFS WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT WARNING . AS USUAL , FORUM STAFF WILL BE THE SUPREME JUDGE IN THESE MATTERS. WHICH MEANS IF WE DON'T LIKE IT, IT'S GONE.

I'm with you on this, but to me, if it says "Rolex" on the dial and is not a real Rolex, it's gotta go. If it says "Folex" rather than Rolex, it's OK for the forum, so long as it is ID'd as a fake.

Anything else should be OK as well. I'd hate to see the Seiko above disqualified because the colors are similar to a Rolex.

The distinction between an "homage" and a "knock-off" is very fine sometimes.
gatorcpa

CajunTiger · Apr 12, 2016

Davidt3449
I don't mind which way the truth actually lies, so I'm arguing on this side, to play Devils advocate.

Is it known for certain that this is a Heuer reference, and not a reference designated to this case by the case manufacturer and subsequently adopted by Heuer as well as other makes.

I don't know the answer to your question, I always assumed it was Heuers numbers as its engraved in the case on one end and the serial on the other and they look like the same engraving. Not sure why a case manufacture would add a number to a case, it doesn't make any sense as the number is the reference number of the completed watch, not the case.
But the bigger question would be why is the movement a Heuer marked movement in most of these "poor man's" Heuers if it wasn't produced by Heuer?

CajunTiger · Apr 12, 2016

BTW- The reference number is a formula that identifies the color of the dial, the movement, etc...so to answer your question...No its not a random number adopted by the watchmaker.

Davidt · Apr 12, 2016

CajunTiger
BTW- The reference number is a formula that identifies the color of the dial, the movement, etc...so to answer your question...No its not a random number adopted by the watchmaker.

Ah right, so just like a 145.022 Speedmaster fits with the known Omega reference system (1-gents watch, 4-manual chronograph, 5-water resistant etc), the case ref on some of these poor mans heuers also matches the known heuer ref system.? Coupled with a Heuer signed movement and caseback that's hard to argue against.

So whilst it's likely some were manufactured by Heuer, it seems like there are two distinct types of watch that are described as such.

1. Watches with identical cases and movements signed by Heuer but with a different maker on the dial. Such as @CajunTiger's above. Very possibly made by Heuer.

2. Watches such as the Hamilton panda 7730 which is often called a poor mans heuer but doesn't share a case with the Carrera 7730 and has a Hamilton signed movement. Is it fair to say these were manufactured by maker noted on the dial and not Heuer?

gatorcpa · Apr 12, 2016

CajunTiger
But the bigger question would be why is the movement a Heuer marked movement in most of these "poor man's" Heuers if it wasn't produced by Heuer?

Heuer merely purchased complete movements from another company (Valjoux, Lemania, ETA or "The Consortium"), then put their name on it. Heuer also purchased cases, dials etc. from other companies made to their specifications and assembled them all together.

Many other watch companies did exactly the same thing, although they are nowhere near as famous as today's TAGHeuer. So some think these are all "made by Heuer", when they were only assembled by them.

The Consortium (my name for it) was a group of companies which included Breitling, Heuer, Hamilton and Buren, among others, who designed and produced the cal. 11 movement and its later derivatives used in the Gruen and the Heuer Carrera above. All of these companies produced watches using these movements under their own names.

Those were the facts of life for many watch companies in the 1970's.
gatorcpa

ConElPueblo · Apr 12, 2016

CajunTiger
But the bigger question would be why is the movement a Heuer marked movement in most of these "poor man's" Heuers if it wasn't produced by Heuer?

That's a good point.

gatorcpa
Heuer merely purchased complete movements from another company (Valjoux, Lemania, ETA or "The Consortium"), then put their name on it. Heuer also purchased cases, dials etc. from other companies made to their specifications and assembled them all together.

Many other watch companies (like Gruen, Zodiac and Elgin) did exactly the same thing, although they are nowhere near as famous as today's TAGHeuer. So we think these are all "made by Heuer", when they were only assembled by them.

An even better one 😀

Anyway, all this talk about what's a "poor man's whatever" and what's not is somewhat silly. It's not as if it's an industry standard or anything. It's even more irrelevant than the deployment/deployant-issue ::stirthepot::

I'm off to bed now, tomorrow morning I'll be strapping on my Tissot Seastar, which is a poor mans IWC Cal. 89, as I I'm too poor to afford one of those 😁

Thanks for an interesting read, all.

gatorcpa · Apr 12, 2016

W West Slope
Interesting to learn about the Heuer connection. I do like many of the so called pre-Tag Heuer models and have considered buying one and that may help explain why I felt the need to buy the Gruen when I saw it.

IMG_20160412_124733561.jpg

Yours has a Valjoux movement inside, not sure of the caliber. The same caliber was probably used by Heuer in some 1970's model.
gatorcpa

West Slope · Apr 12, 2016

gatorcpa
Here's a little bit of a different direction when it comes to a "homage":

vs. this:

Seiko has been doing these for maybe 40 years or so. I think they still make a similar watch.

Since you are using my picture, a couple of interesting things about that Gruen. The inner bezel is the same part (not a replica, I mean the exact same part) as used on the Heuer Carrera:

The hands are also the same as another Heuer model, just painted in different colors. Since the two watches are contemporary to each other, I don't think this was so much a homage, as is it was a parts sharing arrangement to save some cash during the quartz crisis of the 1970's.

I'm with you on this, but to me, if it says "Rolex" on the dial and is not a real Rolex, it's gotta go. If it says "Folex" rather than Rolex, it's OK for the forum, so long as it is ID'd as a fake.

Anything else should be OK as well. I'd hate to see the Seiko above disqualified because the colors are similar to a Rolex.

The distinction between an "homage" and a "knock-off" is very fine sometimes.
gatorcpa

Small world, I found your image using a google search, here is my actual watch:

and I do find myself wearing it frequently and learned a lot regarding the Heuer connection from this thread.

West Slope · Apr 12, 2016

gatorcpa
Yours has a Valjoux movement inside, not sure of the caliber. The same caliber was probably used by Heuer in some 1970's model.
gatorcpa

Good to know, I did buy it on a whim but it has served me well and functions like it should. I have seen some pretty poor examples as well as some sellers trying to get a lot more than I paid for the same watch. One keeps getting listed over and over on eBay for more than double the price I paid but remains unsold.

CajunTiger · Apr 12, 2016

gatorcpa
Heuer merely purchased complete movements from another company (Valjoux, Lemania, ETA or "The Consortium"), then put their name on it. Heuer also purchased cases, dials etc. from other companies made to their specifications and assembled them all together.

Many other watch companies did exactly the same thing, although they are nowhere near as famous as today's TAGHeuer. So some think these are all "made by Heuer", when they were only assembled by them.

I understand this...but this is what most companies did. But its still a Heuer, assembled in a Heuer factory and thats what we are talking about here. The "poor mans" Heuer was also assembled by Heuer for another company. I realize they don't make any of the components, very few watch companies did in the 70's. Even Rolex movements were made by Valjoux and others.

CajunTiger · Apr 12, 2016

This might help:
http://www.onthedash.com/poormans.shtml

gatorcpa · Apr 12, 2016

CajunTiger
The "poor mans" Heuer was also assembled by Heuer for another company

Despite what it says on that site, I'm not sure it that was always the case.

Clebar made plenty of chronographs that did not share movements with Heuers. I suspect they had their own assembly shops separate from Heuer. Same with Zodiac.

These were pretty much standard movements.
gatorcpa

CajunTiger · Apr 12, 2016

gatorcpa
Despite what it says on that site, I'm not sure it that was always the case.

Clebar made plenty of chronographs that did not share movements with Heuers. I suspect they had their own assembly shops separate from Heuer. Same with Zodiac.

These were pretty much standard movements.
gatorcpa

of course they did...
we are only talking about very specific references here, not every Clebar or Zodiac made.
The topic is "Poor Man's" put your brand here. In this example a "Poor Man's Heuer" is a very specific reference that was made by Heuer for another manufacture- it is a clone of the same watch Heuer made for itself, the only difference being the name on the dial. Nobody ever implied that every single watch by that manufacture falls under this category.

gatorcpa · Apr 12, 2016

CajunTiger
of course they did...

My rule of thumb is, if the movement isn't signed by Heuer, it isn't one. Not even a "poor man's".

Some of the Sears and Abercrombie watches were signed by Heuer. Most of the other ones were not.

My feeling on the non- Heuer signed watches are that the parts were purchased from the same people who made them for Heuer or from Heuer, but for assembly by those companies.

There really is no way to prove it one way or another.
gatorcpa

Foo2rama · Apr 12, 2016

Does it matter who assembled it? Same case, same movement, same dial maker? In terms of quality that is.

CajunTiger · Apr 12, 2016

gatorcpa
My rule of thumb is, if the movement isn't signed by Heuer, it isn't one. Not even a "poor man's".

Some of the Sears and Abercrombie watches were signed by Heuer. Most of the other ones were not.

My feeling on the non- Heuer signed watches are that the parts were purchased from the same people who made them for Heuer or from Heuer, but for assembly by those companies.

There really is no way to prove it one way or another.
gatorcpa

Well almost.
The A&F are not Poor Mans watches. They were made exclusively by Heuer and branded A&F. Sears on the other hand is a great example of a poor mans Heuer.

A Poor Man's XXX is exactly that...it was made by XXX for someone else. A watch that just looks the same is not a "Poor Man's XXX"

There are a lot of watches called "Poor Man's Heuer's" for example that are not actually. Only very specific references.

CajunTiger · Apr 12, 2016

Foo2rama
Does it matter who assembled it? Same case, same movement, same dial maker? In terms of quality that is.

the term "Poor Man's XXX" refers to a watch that was assembled by the same manufacture, its commonly misused.

Foo2rama · Apr 12, 2016

CajunTiger
Exactly.
A Poor Man's XXX is exactly that...it was made by XXX for someone else. A watch that just looks the same is not a "Poor Man's XXX"

There are a lot of watches called "Poor Man's Heuer's" for example that are not actually. Only very specific references.

This reminds me of the argument what is a muscle car. Most people consider the Mustang and Camero muscle cars. They are not they are Pony cars. Muscle cars are mid size passenger cars with a big engine. Pony cars are smaller with sports car aspirations.

To most people they are all muscle cars. But purists feel there is a distinction.