How do you guys delineate between an "Homage" vs. Copy/Ripoff?

[Bradystraps]

Recently, I have found myself getting angry when seeing all of the various Seiko MM300 copies coming out of the woodwork. Something about that specific iconic watch has just struck a nerve with me. That being said, there have been plenty of homage watches that I have really liked. The Borealis Seamaster 300 comes to mind.
So, what criteria do you use regarding this topic and what is your feel on them in general? Does a watch need to have it's own unique difference(s) to qualify as an "homage" in your opinion?I know some won't ever buy an homage while others seem to collect them exclusively.

[rain_maker]

Me, I'd only buy a homage if it was something unobtainable. Meaning its no longer made, and financially unobtainable, such as a MilSub. Personally I wouldn't buy a MM300 homage ... it's still being made and there are reasonably priced examples out there, so save up and go for the real deal.

I do draw a distinction with modding, since its not something your selling, rather just something fun your doing for yourself.

In general many of the homages I see are come out of micros and represent a lack of any sort of creativity. Anyone can make a copy of a Rolex sub. Micros like Halios, Aegir, etc (and you) get it right because they produce original designs.

[dnslater]

I take a harder line on this than most, as I design things for a living and highly value intellectual property and the effort/talent to create it. Most here would take Fred's approach outlined above.... a tasteful recreation of a long discontinued or historically significant watch is "ok". Copying a currently made watch such as the MM300 is a blatant money grab. Trying to profit from someone else's current design/ip without putting forth any effort/creativity on your own.

If you are going to bring a new watch to market, you should bring something original/new to the table. Making yet another sub homage when there are dozens of makers creating them is simply an attempt to make profits with no effort. Any monkey can take a sub design and add a different logo, or change to sword hands and source a Chinese manufacturer.

[Henryj]

I’m in pretty much the same camp. Steinhart’s vintage GMT is quite nice. Steinhart’s copy of the current GMT Master II is blech. And it’s not just price based. Modern redo of discontinued vintage is OK.

[Torrid]

I’m in pretty much the same camp. Steinhart’s vintage GMT is quite nice. Steinhart’s copy of the current GMT Master II is blech. And it’s not just price based. Modern redo of discontinued vintage is OK.

Pretty much where I stand as well. I would buy their Explorer GMT version.

[JBZ]

I’m in pretty much the same camp. Steinhart’s vintage GMT is quite nice. Steinhart’s copy of the current GMT Master II is blech. And it’s not just price based. Modern redo of discontinued vintage is OK.

Pretty much where I stand as well. I would buy their Explorer GMT version.

I agree but, having purchased homages like this, I find that I don't wear them.

The current MM300 copies are not to my taste, as they're one step away (or maybe less) from a rip-off in my mind. I also see a lot of Tudor BB copies - don't like those either.

[jswing]

To me, a homage is a watch like the Tudor Black Bay or the Seiko SBDX019, watches made by the original company that pay homage to a watch or watches from their own past. Another company copying a design is just a copy. I've owned an MKII Kingston, so I'm not against them per se, but I still consider that it was just another Rolex copy.

[Torrid]

I’m in pretty much the same camp. Steinhart’s vintage GMT is quite nice. Steinhart’s copy of the current GMT Master II is blech. And it’s not just price based. Modern redo of discontinued vintage is OK.

Pretty much where I stand as well. I would buy their Explorer GMT version.

I agree but, having purchased homages like this, I find that I don't wear them.

The current MM300 copies are not to my taste, as they're one step away (or maybe less) from a rip-off in my mind. I also see a lot of Tudor BB copies - don't like those either.

Same as well. I had the Steinhart Milsub and that was short lived.

[Bradystraps]

Good stuff gents. Personally, I am fine with an homage provided it has some unique styling characteristic if it is an homage to a current model. If it is one to a vintage model, I can understand no unique features. I have never bought one and more than likely wouldn't. Just my personal preference.

The slew of copies to the MM300 is a different kettle of fish for me though. These watches simply take the SEIKO name off the dial and place their own name or logo in it's place. The model name for all that I have seen is MARINEMASTER. They didn't even change the model name. That is not an homage, it's a cheap ripoff.

[Torrid]

Good stuff gents. Personally, I am fine with an homage provided it has some unique styling characteristic if it is an homage to a current model. If it is one to a vintage model, I can understand no unique features. I have never bought one and more than likely wouldn't. Just my personal preference.

The slew of copies to the MM300 is a different kettle of fish for me though. These watches simply take the SEIKO name off the dial and place their own name or logo in it's place. The model name for all that I have seen is MARINEMASTER. They didn't even change the model name. That is not an homage, it's a cheap ripoff.

Yep, drives me nuts too. I hate it when the same is done with the Submariner and GMTs as well. It just shows no care to use any creativity at all.

[CarloDWC]

It might help to define some words to use in the discussion. Here from the Oxford Dictionary:

Original: Created personally by a particular artist, writer, musician, etc.; not a copy.

Copy: A thing made to be similar or identical to another.

Homage: Special honor or respect shown publicly.

Replica: An exact copy or model of something, especially one on a smaller scale.

Fake: Not genuine; imitation or counterfeit.

Counterfeit: Made in exact imitation of something valuable with the intention to deceive or defraud.

[Bradystraps]

It might help to define some words to use in the discussion. Here from the Oxford Dictionary:

Original: Created personally by a particular artist, writer, musician, etc.; not a copy.

Copy: A thing made to be similar or identical to another.

Homage: Special honor or respect shown publicly.

Replica: An exact copy or model of something, especially one on a smaller scale.

Fake: Not genuine; imitation or counterfeit.

Counterfeit: Made in exact imitation of something valuable with the intention to deceive or defraud.

Thank you, Carlo. This does offer an interesting perspective, especially because any company can claim "homage" to one of it's watches. The other definitions are a bit more "clear".

In my opinion, the various Seiko MM300 watches with other companies logo/names in place of SEIKO are copies. If a watch was not genuine Seiko but had the SEIKO name on it, it would then be Replica/Fake/Counterfeit.

[CarloDWC]

It might help to define some words to use in the discussion. Here from the Oxford Dictionary:

Original: Created personally by a particular artist, writer, musician, etc.; not a copy.

Copy: A thing made to be similar or identical to another.

Homage: Special honor or respect shown publicly.

Replica: An exact copy or model of something, especially one on a smaller scale.

Fake: Not genuine; imitation or counterfeit.

Counterfeit: Made in exact imitation of something valuable with the intention to deceive or defraud.

Thank you, Carlo. This does offer an interesting perspective, especially because any company can claim "homage" to one of it's watches. The other definitions are a bit more "clear".

In my opinion, the various Seiko MM300 watches with other companies logo/names in place of SEIKO are copies. If a watch was not genuine Seiko but had the SEIKO name on it, it would then be Replica/Fake/Counterfeit.

I think you are essentially right. The "Homage" word has been used "liberally" for anything from something similar to blatant copies...

But I guess there is a market for all these...

[ncstate1201]

I pretty much agree with all the points made, I like the 14060 someone modded into a recreation of a milsub (on another forum). I liked it, but then again I am not going to shell out 150k for a real one (and stay married). But yeah I pretty much dislike most "knock-offs" of watches being made today

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[matt.wu]

I take a harder line on this than most, as I design things for a living and highly value intellectual property and the effort/talent to create it. Most here would take Fred's approach outlined above.... a tasteful recreation of a long discontinued or historically significant watch is "ok". Copying a currently made watch such as the MM300 is a blatant money grab. Trying to profit from someone else's current design/ip without putting forth any effort/creativity on your own.

If you are going to bring a new watch to market, you should bring something original/new to the table. Making yet another sub homage when there are dozens of makers creating them is simply an attempt to make profits with no effort. Any monkey can take a sub design and add a different logo, or change to sword hands and source a Chinese manufacturer.

To me, a homage is a watch like the Tudor Black Bay or the Seiko SBDX019, watches made by the original company that pay homage to a watch or watches from their own past. Another company copying a design is just a copy. I've owned an MKII Kingston, so I'm not against them per se, but I still consider that it was just another Rolex copy.

And

[Morethan1]

What about sterile military watches? This is where I'm having an issue. Originals are unobtanium. As long as it is labeled as not original...

[Ruggs]

What about sterile military watches? This is where I'm having an issue. Originals are unobtanium. As long as it is labeled as not original...

It’s probably worth considering that some of the ‘military’ watches are based on designs provided by the MoD or similar. The original SM300 is an example. As such they may be associated with a manufacturer (omega, in this instance), but I’m not sure if you could call it their design.

The stuff I have a problem with is copies of current, in production designs. The MM300 clones fit into that category. As does this:



And this






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jimyritz]

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f74/omega- ... 429-4.html

For all of you Watchuseek fans-- how about Omega PloProf vs Ocean7 LM7.......some long time well respected DWC'rs
are quoted...To me, one of the all time discussions...

Mike

[ncstate1201]

Now that I stepped away for a minute and thought about this more, I think the lines are more blurred than many realize. I mean certain watches like the submariner and datejust have "inspired" designs by other high profile watchmakers. Does the size of the company make it legit? Heck Bulova makes a Royal Oak now...

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[bedlam]

I'm with dnslater.

[59yukon01]

^^^ +1

These make me want to punch the person who ripped off the design. Hate isn't a harsh enough word to describe my feeling about these.

[Bradystraps]

^^^

With you, Dave.

[Joeprez]

Me, I'd only buy a homage if it was something unobtainable. Meaning its no longer made, and financially unobtainable, such as a MilSub.

I'm not against this and actually have bought several over the years (Raven, Steinhart, etc). Funny thing is, they never stick, I think because I tend to always gravitate to the original designs I have. I've always preferred a Seiko / Citizen over micros that copy designs.

Real homage? Hell yeah, planning to add the Tudor BB 58 this year.

[jswing]

Real homage? Hell yeah, planning to add the Tudor BB 58 this year.

I can't wait for the BB58!

[JBZ]

^^^ +1

These make me want to punch the person who ripped off the design. Hate isn't a harsh enough word to describe my feeling about these.

Yes, this is the sort of thing I was talking about. Just terrible. What's worse are the folks who fall all over themselves to gush about them. Saying things like, "it's not a rip-off - the depth rating is different and they used different hands;" "everyone rips off someone else - Rolex ripped off Blancpain." Like fingernails on a chalkboard.