I belong to this school of thought as well.
A homage is still intellectual property theft (minus the logo). It’s less blasphemous than a flat out fake, but it still rides off of the creative property of the mother watch/brand. Unacceptable in my book, but obviously, to each their own.
A replica is a watch with a manufacturer name on the dial that did not make the watch.
A franken started life as a legitimate watch, but over time has had pieces and parts replaced with aftermarket parts to the point where the whole thing is suspect, or it's something that has been cobbled together from various legitimate parts that don't belong together.
An homage is a watch with a (typically) nonsense name on the dial (Parnis, Tandorio, Bathing Ape) that is essentially a copy of a more expensive watch. Many of these homage watches are made of designs that are long past copyright expiration, and effectively the design is public domain.
Now if you really want to get pedantic, a number of the current Swiss companies are producing watches that are effectively homages to companies that are long dead. Is resurrecting a dead brand and buying the rights from someone else really much different when you start making modern Breitlings, Doxa, Le Jour, Nivada, Excelsior Park, etc? They are all profiting off of the work of designers and engineers of yesteryear that are absolutely not being compensated in any way today.
Then you have watches like the Sinn 903 - where do you put it?
Allow me to insert an eye roll here. Damn near every watch manufacturer makes a watch that looks similar to another manufacturer's. Wouldn't a Tudor Sub technically be an homage to a Rolex?
I belong to this school of thought as well.
A homage is still intellectual property theft (minus the logo). It’s less blasphemous than a flat out fake, but it still rides off of the creative property of the mother watch/brand. Unacceptable in my book, but obviously, to each their own.
That’s fine because it’s not intellectual property theft. It’s actually the exact opposite. Breitling willfully sold the design to Sinn in 1979 when the company was liquidated.
That’s fair game in my book.
Then you have watches like the Sinn 903 - where do you put it?
This is why I said there are a wide variety of homages, some more acceptable than others. A watch that clearly is a copy of a relatively current watch, with a nonsense name on the dial from a brand without history... is in the category you speak of.
On the other hand, for sake of argument. the Smiths Everest is clearly a 1016 homage, and they say so, but it is not an out and out copy of a 1016 and is definitely not a copy of anything the crown has made for 40 years. I don't see that watch as trying to pretend it's a Rolex 1016. The brand has the same Everest expedition history as the Rolex brand, just didn't fare the 70's crisis as well.
All IMO, of course.
I agree on the intellectual property theft point. It's sort of like a band doing a cover without adding their own unique sound or style to the song.
This is, to me, confusing a few different things.
Of course designers and engineers are all influenced, even heavily, by other’s works. That’s true in a range of disciplines. And moreover, certain products - like chairs, and watches - are similar in form as a necessity of their use case (watches, like chairs, are going to share a lot of fundamental forms and functions as inherent to their uses).
But from the above, one shouldn’t just generalize that therefore all “copying” should be acceptable or encouraged.
When Vanilla Ice used Queen’s Under Pressure to create a heavily influenced song that rode the coattails of the latter’s musicality, it is different from a band named “Steinhart” putting out its own recording of Under Pressure using different musicians.
Which distinction focuses back toward the real question at hand: is a “tribute” band different from an “homage” watch, in terms of social acceptability - and if so, why?
To me, in terms of social acceptability, a “tribute” band is far more acceptable than an “homage” watch, for a number of (to me) compelling reasons.
My favourtie "homage" watch that hits all the bases...too bad they never made it available...
On the "homage" watches, everyone has a line and we have to accept that we may draw that line at different places.
Sampling, is very different from playing note for note. No one would ever confuse Ice Ice Baby with Queen's Under Pressure…
I’ve seen this style before…I bears a striking resemblance to something, but I just can’t place it…hmmm
not a great example of the point 😁
First, as I understand it, Rolex and Bulova have actually gone round-and-round for several decades regarding the latter’s injuries to the former in creating Rolex “homages.” Rolex has at least once prevailed “on paper” (in 1983), and likely several times prevailed “in practice”
https://casetext.com/case/rolex-watch-usa-v-bulova-watch-co
To say nothing of the fact that Bulova itself is not a good example of a company that does “it’s own thing,” as it has broadly done plenty of flat-out “homage” watches over the years 😗
I understand why some dislike homage/copies and I understand why some like myself purchase these homage watches. For example that WMT subdiver posted a couple posts above is what I have. I don’t know what the original Rolex version costs but whatever it is I’m assuming it’s way more than I’d like to spend on a watch. Would I prefer the original over a homage? Yes. Would I buy an original if offered? Probably not. Same goes with my other recent purchase. I want a Rolex batgirl and one day I will own one. I just couldn’t justify spending more for a watch than I did for my new roof/siding/gutters or even just as much as my car. So instead I bought the Steinhart version which is a well built watch. I don’t wear them “trying “ to be cool and pretend I have a Rolex. The WMT and Steinharts are at least not like these Pagani Design type watches .
