kanerich

Do you assert then, that you know more about reps or have been into the hobby longer than RB? Have you written a book on the subject? Opened and run your own forum? It's unbelievable that even after a moderator of this board acknowledged RB's contributions to the rep community, you pretend like that's a subject for open debate. Between who, you and yourself? You're right, I don't know you. But not knowing what you're talking about sure didn't keep you from going off on RB. Turnabout's fair play chumley. You dish out a lot better than you take it.

Richard Tracy's rant is quite remarkable. It's like a newbie who just learned how to adjust his watch bracelet telling The Zigmeister not to ruin the board with his "unwanted" comments about watch repair and operation and accusing him of stealing information from other "experts like himself" on the board. I make no claims of being an old hand, but I've been a member of TRC and RWG for a couple of years, during which time membership on the boards, particularly RWG, have positively exploded. Rest assured RB was an expert on reps back when the Richard Tracys of the world (and the me's) didn't know Eddie Lee from Sara Lee.

You can't really go wrong . . . I have a 118, 177h, 005, 183 and 212 and love them all. I couldn't really say there is a definitive "one" among them. Personally, it's all I can do to keep from getting more. If I must say one thing, I would not recommend the 183 as while it is accurate looking, it has a crown/tube issue and I just don't find the cushion case as comfortable on the wrist.

Counterfeiting in China is a $16 billion industry. Maybe it's not our dealers, but somebody sure the hell is getting rich.

OK, Kenberg settled that issue. Let it never be said again that fake watches (or at least moderators of related forums) never caused anyone harm.

I asked him for the Asian girl but he wouldn't give me the standard 10% western union discount, so I got him to send me two replacement bezel inserts for free instead. In retrospect that was probably the wrong call. By the way, I'm not dissing abay . . . he really did send me two free replacement bezel inserts. Unfortunately, shaking my new and improved YM at women and screaming "SEE, THAT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE, NOW LET'S F***!" doesn't seem to be impressing them so I still claim harm.

I beg to differ, the bezel insert fell off my abay YM while I was on a date, totally cost me getting laid that night.

It is true that buying reps is morally ambiguous to begin with . . . but I think most of us believe that selling reps as reps and selling reps as genuines are not the same thing. I think it's clear from Eliott's own statements and acts that in selling his "TC Dirks" he fully intends for people to think his Dirks are the genuine article, and he is absolutely not selling them as replicas, in homage to Dirk or whatever. And since most members seem to agree that they can live with repping while the passing off as gen constitutes fraud (and I'm not saying that's a legally defensible position per se, it's just how people clearly feel), it's not surprising that a distinction can be made by members of this forum. But I absolutely agree that this forum is a slightly awkward place to take the moral high ground when it comes to IP issues.

IP infringement is not about keeping other people from doing anything, it's about using other people's rights without permission. By your logic, essentially everything that is not registered with the government is in the public domain. Whatever one's opinion may be on the subject, that's not how the law works.

Under the laws of many countries including the US and Japan, you do not have to register your trademark to show ownership. Registration simply creates a presumption of validity and ownership, and allows certain federal remedies that are not otherwise available. You can prove the mark is yours by introducing evidence that you used it first in commerce, have not abandoned said use, the mark is distinctive, and that the mark is associated with a good or service in the appropriate marketplace. I would imagine Dirk could do all of these things. TC Straps' rationale -- that he's done more for the Dirk name than Dirk has, while seeing little of the profit -- is not a defense. Does the fact that Wal-Mart sells more Crest toothpaste than P&G does in direct marketing give it a right to the Crest trademark over time? If Tower Records sells more 50 Cent CD's than he does out of his trunk, does that give Tower Records 50 Cent's copyrights in the album? Of course not. A retailer makes the choice to market something under someone else's brand or copyright. He doesn't like the result, he ends or renegotiates the deal. He doesn't steal the IP. The argument that other people including Dirk have "stolen" his strap and buckle designs is equally irrelevant. It would be very difficult for TC Straps to prove that there is something so distinctive and original about its design of a strap or buckle that there is a protectible design right or trade dress. Before TC straps did no one make straps in the same size, material, stitching, shape etc.? Can consumers look at a TC strap and say "that's a TC strap, not some other company's"? If I make a paper crane out of origami paper it's not "my design" just because I made it with my own hands, it has to actually be original. I would like Eliott to show exactly how his strap and buckle designs contain completely original design elements -- especially given that "his designs" inherently are closely derivative of somebody's else's product's design -- i.e., Panerai straps in 24 and 26mm with stainless steel or titanium tang buckles. The argument "he stole something that wasn't protected under the law, so I stole something protected under the law, even stevens" might sound good to the infringer, but it is unlikely to influence a court or jury.

River's in Taiwan.

You're right, if you want this watch now he's the only game in town. But I don't see how saying "these watches are well-made and expensive to produce" justifies additionally marking up the watch. Ken sells them at $620 at a healthy profit in his home country, and thus is just gauging his international customers. Unnecessary since he ships all these watches from China anyway, even to his customers in Japan. So it adds little to his overhead or risk. I'm not questioning your right to buy the watch at whatever price you deem fair. But if I think a price is unnecessarily high, I certainly have a right to say that. Especially considering honpo's spotty service. What's the deal with aspire? Isn't paul supposed to be Mr. I've sold 440,000 watches? He can't meet the minimum order for the 187?

I doubt these are moving quite the way he hoped. When I contacted him a while back he said he had only a few. Then again, he's asking big money for an asian 7750 watch so that's not surprising. For $300 this would be a no brainer, but at 3 times the price people are going to balk. Not to say it's not worth buying (that's a personal call obviously) but no way can you call it a bargain. I do think that a $200+ markup on what is already a very pricey rep with a cheap movement is unwarranted. In Japan he charges 750,000 yen. Does he guarantee delivery or something? What does that extra money buy?

You're not telling the whole story. The Panerais on PC that do use synthetic sapphire crystals ALSO are described as synthetic sapphire crystals. Unless you are suggesting that every Pam Josh sells in fact uses mineral glass, I think this indicates at most laziness in posting specific descriptions, not an example of the supposed broad dealer conspiracy to call mineral glass "synthetic sapphire" and synthetic sapphire "sapphire" as was originally asserted. Aspire also is the bad habit of putting the same description for every type of watch (Rolex, pams, etc.). Even honest dealers make errors, but that's very different from what was originally asserted, which is "synthetic sapphire" is a broadly used code word for mineral glass. Most of the time, it means what it means. I appreciate finepics saying it's something to watch out for, but IMO all that you can really conclude is that on some occasions when a dealer says a watch has synthetic sapphire, he is either genuinely mistaken or lying and the watch has a mineral glass crystal. That is a problem, but a different one from what was originally asserted. In any case I realize this is not germane to the central discussion so this will be my last comment on this point.

I completely agree. This is a fun hobby no matter what, I am not denigrating on that at all. Just to be clear, I really enjoy rep collecting and futzing about as a hobby . . . but I do not consider my watches heirlooms or investments and I firmly disagree with people who seem to think their reps are going to last 50 years just because the movement is ETA. Obviously I don't want to buy crap as that would detract from the hobby, but I understand that there's going to be a certain amount of tinkering and some watches that have to be written off sooner rather than later. If I enjoy the hobby now, it's worth a grand or two a year to me regardless of what happens to these watches in 5 or 10 years, so that doesn't trouble me. But that doesn't mean I have to fool myself about how great they are. They are what they are.

I think The Zigmeister's review says it all -- the modification to put the running seconds at 6 fundamentally puts too much stress on the movement, such that you cannot expect a long happy ownership experience with this watch.

That doesn't make any sense. Synthetic sapphire means lab-made, not fake. All sapphire watch crystals are synthetic and thus only an uninformed or dishonest watch seller would make a distinction between "synthetic" and "not synthetic" sapphire crystals. Mineral glass is not synthetic sapphire any more than it is steel or water. While people with less than good English skills might make this mistake, many of the dealers on this board would have no excuse. I have never seen EL, River, Joshua etc. use something other than "mineral" to describe a mineral crystal, and I am curious as to who these dealers are that you say misleadingly use the term "synthetic sapphire" for mineral, because your post suggests that it is a common practice on this board for dealers to mislead people by misusing the term "synthetic sapphire." I'm not sure that is the case.

I hate to be the dissenting voice in this, but it's a complete crap shoot. The fact is, what often goes wrong with a rep has nothing to do with the movement, crystal or case. Too often I hear someone say confidently "it's got ETA so it'll last just as long as gen!" Yes, the movement will. But you don't wear a movement, you wear a watch. The tube/crown is a weak point for many watches, including rolex reps and the Panerai 183. This can happen within literally months with regularly worn 183's. If your tube/crown strips, you will need to buy a replacement. This may be easy or hard depending on where you live and how resourceful you are. For Rolex reps, not such a problem. However, no one has sourced 183 tube/crown assemblies. The Navitimer's weakness is that the painted bezel insert sometimes bubbles and peels within a year or so. If you don't mind wearing a Navitimer that looks a little more fake than most, that's OK, but it's going to bother some people. Again, no reliable source of parts. The VC Overseas reps suffer from bad clasps and bracelet screws. Hope you're friends with a watchsmith if something goes wrong there. I bought an eta sub and spent good time and money modding it. Unfortunately, it also had hands that were not properly installed, and eventually they scratched the dial. Hard to wear a Bolex with a gouged dial. The dealer was kind enough to send me a new dial, but it didn't fit -- the Chinese factory had ever so slightly modified the case and dial since I had bought my rep. So there went that watch. Pam reps often need reluming within a year or two, as the cheap lume put on at the factory become uneven and even cracked and discolored. This is something many members have done anyway, but again it's an issue. How long any specific rep lasts depends entirely on parts availabilty, your luck in having got a good one in the first place, and resourcefulness in making fixes. So I don't think any blanket assurance of reliability of reps in general (as opposed to specific models known to be reliable and/or have good part supplies) can possibly be made.

To me, arguing the "superiority" of quartz v. mechanical is like comparing California sparkling wine and French Champagne. If someone really wants to argue that the former is "functionally superior" to the latter and backs it up with alcohol content, cost-performance ratios and blind taste test results that show 97 out of 100 people in Texarkana can't tell the difference, I respect his right to do so. But he will have to respect my right to spend my time doing something more productive than listening to him.

I'm not exactly sure what a lack credit or faith has to do with what's being said. Some of these members have no doubt given Joe hundreds of dollars to fix up their watch. As someone in a service-oriented profession, my reality is that once I take someone's money in exchange for promising them a service, I do it right and on time or I haven't properly done my job. Further, I will get heat for that from my employer and client, and no reasonable person, including me, will consider that unfair. That's a childish and irresponsible attitude. Lecture in personal responsibility aside, from what I can see, no one is calling Joe a crook, no one is saying that he does a bad job or acts in bad faith. No one saying anything untrue. So the lack of faith and credit claimed is a nonissue. People are simply legitimately irritated about not getting their watches back in a timely fashion or hearing from him, after giving him watches and money. If he's overreached he apparently hasn't done the best job letting people know of that, so people on this board are getting it out in the open. Seems not only fair, but a public service to me.

It doesn't matter that much . . . once you start buying reps you'll have more watches than days of the week. What few seconds my reps lose during the couple days a month I wear most of them is inconsequential.

Personally I think the date window things is a legit gripe. I buy reps mostly because I enjoy owning them, and not primarily to fool people. If that was my only goal I would buy a $100 datejust rep and call it a day. It detracts from my ownership enjoyment if I have to stare at an ugly flaw like a misaligned dial every time I look at the watch. If you get into the "who cares it passes the sleeve test with most people" slippery slope, then we'd never get decent reps since most people don't know Panerai from panna cotta, but I still want mine (Panerai, not panna cotta) 1:1 with a nice CG and crown and AR on the crystal.

Wow, water-resistant to 3ATM! A proud achievement for a maker of divers' watches. How in god's name would those subdial needles work?

Looks OK at first glance, but cobbled together at second. I'd rather have Joshua's new non-chrono Overseas. A lot more accurate and cheaper too.

My first six or seven reps were from abay (back in 2004 when there weren't so many dealers), and I don't really have any issues with Paul. I always got my stuff, and if I had problems he fixed them. However, it has been stated many times that abay Paul sold out his business. If nothing else, you wouldn't know he's still around. A while back, he used to post on RWG and TRC all the time. Then only to say "I don't care what you say, I'm rich [censored] and you rep geeks are a pittance of my business," then he busted the crazy sale that [censored] off a lot of people, then for the past year, basically nothing. It just seems easier to deal with EL, River, Angus etc. as actively participate on the site and promptly respond to emails. And Paul's watches are like Asian 7750's -- maybe they aren't as universally problematic as some people claim, but there sure are a lot more complaints about them. Where there's smoke there's fire . . .