Where does 'rep' end and 'gen' begin

[mbjoer]

According to Rolex (& the US federal law), any watch fitted with a single non-Rolex part is a 'fake' & infringes on their trademark. So, while 1 may be more difficult to spot than the other, in the eyes of an AD, a franken is a rep & a rep is a franken. Period.

The only possible exception may be a true (gen) Frankenstein watch - A 100% gen Rolex watch that was cobbled together from 100% Rolex parts, but that did not leave the Rolex factory together (in the same watch).

Has this ever been tested in a court room? I could imagine that Rolex' lawyer might make such a statement, but it sounds unlikely that US law should be so fundamentally different from other legal systems.

Even if it is the law, it sounds rather uninforcable. Where would you draw the line? Not OK to franken a watch, but OK to franken a car?

I would agree though that a full disclosure of any non-gen parts will have to take place to avoid claims of fraud and forgery.

[slickdick]

Has this ever been tested in a court room? I could imagine that Rolex' lawyer might make such a statement, but it sounds unlikely that US law should be so fundamentally different from other legal systems.

Even if it is the law, it sounds rather uninforcable. Where would you draw the line? Not OK to franken a watch, but OK to franken a car?

I would agree though that a full disclosure of any non-gen parts will have to take place to avoid claims of fraud and forgery.

Its all about control, one thing Rolex SA has, is control. Over service, parts, dealers, prices. Pratically anything. Therefore- like freddy has stated- they can and will refuse service or warrenty when the watch is tempered with by anyone or anything other then rolex.

but it is the same with any manufacturer, if you modify your car in any way or form, you will lose the warrenty unless otherwise described or agreed upon.

Edited October 2, 2009 by slickdick

[Bike Mike]

Its all about control, one thing Rolex SA has, is control. Over service, parts, dealers, prices. Pratically anything. Therefore- like freddy has stated- they can and will refuse service or warrenty when the watch is tempered with by anyone or anything other then rolex.

but it is the same with any manufacturer, if you modify your car in any way or form, you will lose the warrenty unless otherwise described or agreed upon.

True only if that modification effects that part of your car that has failed. In the States anyway there are laws that protect the consumer.

I have heard that Rolex goes as far as replacing bracelet links if the bracelet droops Xmm over Xmm distance when it is placed on its side.

[freddy333]

Has this ever been tested in a court room?

Yes, a number of times since about 1963, but you will need to search out the particular case laws that resulted.

Even if it is the law, it sounds rather uninforcable. Where would you draw the line? Not OK to franken a watch, but OK to franken a car?

I am only guessing here, but I would imagine that when we start seeing Canal Street quality Ferraris, 60" Panasonic plasma TVs & Dom Pérignon flooding every street corner & rep website for 1/20th the cost of the gens, & the gen makers bring enough law suits againsts the makers/sellers, the same laws (that currently cover Rolex watches) will be expanded to cover other items as well.

[Brightight]

Generally speaking, we are not talking about watches (or cars!) still within their warranty period. I have no reason to doubt what Freddie says, therefore I believe it, about the US legislation which gives Rolex preferential treatment. If anyone knows these things, for sure Freddie does. I very much doubt Rolex would get away with such treatment of customers in tbe EU though. They must be quaking in their boots after the car servicing and warranty legislation. Imagine if you could take your brand new Rollie to a Mom and Pop watch shop and have it serviced, including the fitting of pattern parts (as long as they were of merchantable quality and the service was carried out to the Rolex schedule) and Rolex would still have to honour the warranty!!

I must say I have a dichotomous view of Rolex. I admire them greatly for their history, design, search for perfection, and their past marketing strategies which have made them the most desirable of watches to the majority of people. On the other hand I think they are now stuck with old fashioned marketing strategies and their refusal to change will be the end of them eventually. Not to mention that dreadful abortion, the DSSD! (In my humble, but correct, opinion!) They put me in mind of traditional Insurance Companies who stuck with the Insurance Broker model when all about them were going to direct phone and online selling, the latest manifestation being the Insurance comparison sites, which one or two dinosaurs, even ones who were first in the direct selling format, still refuse to support.

[freddy333]

Generally speaking, we are not talking about watches (or cars!) still within their warranty period.

Good point. But ask any gen Rolex owner with an aftermarket crystal, bezel or end link what they got back from their local US RSC (Rolex service) when they sent their watch in for service or repairs? Answer - they will either receive their unserviced/unrepaired watch back along with a disclaimer on the service ticket stating that non-Rolex parts were found on the customer's watch & Rolex will not repair or warrant a watch with aftermarket parts, or, depending on the part or parts in question, they will replace the aftermarket parts with gens & add the parts to the customer's bill (the customer will not receive any parts back).

On the other hand I think they are now stuck with old fashioned marketing strategies and their refusal to change will be the end of them eventually. Not to mention that dreadful abortion, the DSSD! (In my humble, but correct, opinion!)

Points well taken, but (if you replace 'DSSD' with 'LV' or 'Daytona' or 'Milgauss', etc) I have heard all of these complaints before (many times) in the time that I have been collecting (more than 25 years). Yet, for the past 50 or so years, Rolex has been (& remains) the largest luxury watch maker in the world. And by a good margin. The only possible chink in the Rolex marketing armor I can see might come by way of their new, larger watch models, which they are bringing to market about 5 years too late (since the big watch fad peaked in the early 00s). But every other time their demise has been foretold, the foreteller has ended up with egg on his face & Rolex has continued, unswervingly, on their merry way to the bank.

[mbjoer]

Perhaps we are discussing a range of issues here.

One is the extent to which you can retain rights towards the holder of the brand, such as warranties. I do not think that was what was intended with the question.

The issue I am focucing on is the brand holders rights towards others. To what extent can they prevent you from altering their producs or even copying them.

Here I doubt that there are specific laws governing watches. So I would suggest that there is a sliding scale ranging from copying (illegal) to repair (legal - even with non gen parts). In between is the point where a franken moves from illegal to legal.

Assuming that there is an attempt to sell the franken (with full disclosure of the work performed), I would suggest that the manufacturer does not retain rights beyond the point of the original sale unless any aspect of the product which is covered by copyright has been illegally copied. They can refuse you service, but not the right to sell it on.

The problem Rolex might face in this context is the extent to which a part (say a watch case) is sufficiently distinct to be covered by those rights.

I certainly do not think that changing the movement on its own would be enough for a case to be succesful for Rolex.

I do think that a rep dial with the Rolex name and crown would be enough.

In between is a huge grey area to be tested by the courts.

[freddy333]

Again, you can do whatever you want with your own watch. Issues only arise if you want RSC to service it or you want to sell/represent it as a 'genuine Rolex'. US courts have consistently upheld Rolex's claim that any Rolex that contains a non-Rolex part is both not a Rolex watch &, further, an infringement on their trademark since Rolex trades on its (perceived) quality & non-Rolex/aftermarket parts damage that perception of quality.

[lanikai]

A little bend in the topic

legal or illegal.. imo this is what the heart of this hobby of ours is about..

The Hunt for the genuine parts .... the research into the proper parts to get it to spec.

It took me a liitle over a year for some of my projects and only for a good member friend did it come to fruition

My Ubifranken Tudor Snowflake is the pride of my vintage collection ..

I still would not wear it into an AD ... they would not appreciate it for what it is..

I have bought genuine vintages but they don't give me the same satisfaction as actually sourcing each part myself.. the reward is wearing it .. there is a difference in the joy of a franken vs. a genuine ..imo

I may be off base compared to the previous thread.. but to me there is nothing illegal about a franken.. I bought the genuine parts without criminal activity .. the case is a replicated version .. but in my mind set.. it's a bit different from a replicated brand dial.. etc..

then again I am prejudiced in my frankens..

Hope I didn't hijack your thread..

AC

Lani

[Brightight]

I totally agree with you on the enjoyment of sourcing the parts Lani, but I'd add to that putting them together to make something worthwhile that actually works as god and nature intended! I am still relatively new to reps, just a few years, and I have now stopped buying reps altogether as I buy them, wear them a short time, then into the watch drawer they go. Stuff I build from parts is different, I have a lot invested in them in terms of effort and hours spent scanning ebay, maybe buying a movement with problems and fixing it, and this give me a great deal of pleasure and I tend to wear such watches regularly.

@Freddy - yes I guess you're right about prematurely forecasting Rolex's end. I just have a thing about the Deepsea, something I've never felt about previous 'new' models. It's as if they said, let's build a big watch, we needn't bother making a bigger dial, we'll just put in a spacer with some printing on it. I know it's causing quite a stir on the rep forums with people fighting over themselves to get the next version, but to me it is a watch only its mother could love!

[Ronin]

I think the car analogy is most fitting, and even supports Rolex's position.

I used to race cars in the SCCA and saw similar manufactures claims, as related to warranty / service. So you can go out and and buy a Porsche. You can chip it, replace the exhaust, change suspension components. Porsche will void your warranty on the spot. (In fact VW did this a few years back at an import car show. A rep was walking around taking VIN numbers to VOID their warranty).

So, to the point. Do you still own a Porsche. Yes.

To your specific example. ETA in a Gen Datejust because you can't/won't replace the defective 1570. Is it still a Rolex? I won't argue with you. Rolex will.

Lets get philosophical now. If you have an organ transplant-- liver (like Steve Jobs did recently). Because Steve Jobs has an aftermarket liver-- Is he no longer Steve Jobs? Will God (if you believe) void his warranty.

If you really want to get into the philosophy side of when something is gen or ceases to be itself check out: The Ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus's paradox, is a paradox that raises the question of whether an object which has had all its component parts replaced remains fundamentally the same object. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Enjoy,

[Nanuq]

I saw an ad on Ebay, it was for George Washington's axe, the very same one he used to cut down the cherry tree!

The ad stated that it's had the handle replaced 3 times, and the head replaced after the original rusted away.

But it's THE SAME AXE!

[Nanuq]

If you really want to get into the philosophy side of when something is gen or ceases to be itself check out: The Ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus's paradox, is a paradox that raises the question of whether an object which has had all its component parts replaced remains fundamentally the same object. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Along a similar note, every cell in our bodies is replaced every 7 years. So I'm a rep of myself!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_often_are_brain_cells_replaced

[Brightight]

I think the car analogy is most fitting, and even supports Rolex's position.

I used to race cars in the SCCA and saw similar manufactures claims, as related to warranty / service. So you can go out and and buy a Porsche. You can chip it, replace the exhaust, change suspension components. Porsche will void your warranty on the spot. (In fact VW did this a few years back at an import car show. A rep was walking around taking VIN numbers to VOID their warranty).

So, to the point. Do you still own a Porsche. Yes.

To your specific example. ETA in a Gen Datejust because you can't/won't replace the defective 1570. Is it still a Rolex? I won't argue with you. Rolex will.

Lets get philosophical now. If you have an organ transplant-- liver (like Steve Jobs did recently). Because Steve Jobs has an aftermarket liver-- Is he no longer Steve Jobs? Will God (if you believe) void his warranty.

If you really want to get into the philosophy side of when something is gen or ceases to be itself check out: The Ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus's paradox, is a paradox that raises the question of whether an object which has had all its component parts replaced remains fundamentally the same object. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Enjoy,

I think the analogy as relates to warranty is fine, though as I said earlier, Manufacturers in Europe would not get away with as much nowadays, but I'm talking about watches that are long out of warranty and whether having non Rolex parts which are not marked as Rolex or purport to be genuine Rolex parts makes the Franken counterfeit. Yes Rolex could and would argue it was no longer a Rolex and would refuse to service it but I doubt legally it would be in any way counterfeit and therefore illegal.

The ship of Theseus I know as my grandfather's broom, which has had the head replaced 20 times and the handle replaced 15 times but is still my grandfather's broom. But philosophy on a watch forum? Only if it's Monty Python's Philosophers song And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart, "I drink therefore I am"

[Talexom]

I knew reps were illegal to own in Italy, but didn't realize they were illegal to own in France as well... Interesting

I think it would depend on if the parts were indeed genuine Rolex issue, or aftermarket copies. In theory, I could build my project out of 100% genuine parts, I'm just not comfortable calculating how much I would have to spend to obtain said parts Indeed, rep parts, they possibly could order destroyed, due to their counterfeit nature, but, I would suspect that a compromise of 'sterilizing' the parts, might be accepted rather than outright destruction. Of course, purely hypothetical, as I can't see my project landing me in a court room

This raises an interesting point which probably ought to be an offshoot of this thread, but I will mention it and if there is interest I will start one;-

Maybe it would be useful to have a list of countries where it is illegal to own a rep / buy a rep / sell a rep etc ? After all, with global travel any one of us might inadvertently land ourselves in the proverbial poo. Maybe a whole "legal" sub forum might spring from this ?

[freddy333]

Along a similar note, every cell in our bodies is replaced every 7 years. So I'm a rep of myself!

Well, then that makes 2 things I never change (the other is underwear).

[spooky driver]

I saw an ad on Ebay, it was for George Washington's axe, the very same one he used to cut down the cherry tree!

The ad stated that it's had the handle replaced 3 times, and the head replaced after the original rusted away.

But it's THE SAME AXE!

no Nanuq your getting confused with triggers broom

(sorry for getting of the subject)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk24RdfXWcg

[FxrAndy]

A very interesting discussion indeed, At what point does it become a gen,

well the way i see it never as it was not assembled by the manufacture, even if every part was gen. It would be a hard point to prove if every part was the correct year and you had papers for the case but you would be wrong to say it was gen.

Now here is another question, if you had an Oris that used a standard 2824 and you replaced it with another 2824 and put the correct oris rotor on it is that then a franken or still a gen

[TeeJay]

Feast your eyes on the IrishStar! Is this a counterfeit? Not according to the SFWIBB.

Oh man, that is sweeet

Not something I'd likely wear myself, but wow, it looks awesome, thanks for sharing the pic

[TeeJay]

Good point. But ask any gen Rolex owner with an aftermarket crystal, bezel or end link what they got back from their local US RSC (Rolex service) when they sent their watch in for service or repairs? Answer - they will either receive their unserviced/unrepaired watch back along with a disclaimer on the service ticket stating that non-Rolex parts were found on the customer's watch & Rolex will not repair or warrant a watch with aftermarket parts, or, depending on the part or parts in question, they will replace the aftermarket parts with gens & add the parts to the customer's bill (the customer will not receive any parts back).

Essentially, Rolex steals the aftermarket parts the owner has (obviously) paid for, then charges them for installing 'in house' parts. I remember years ago when my dad took a car in for some basic repair (I forget precisely what) and while the car was in the garage, they took the liberty of fitting a few new parts for some slightly worn ones (as Rolex is renowned for doing) (and did so without consulting my dad, or obtaining his consent to do so) I don't think I've ever seen him as angry as I did when he saw the 'extra expenses' added onto the bill. I forget the exact outcome of if he made them replace the original parts, but I know the car never underwent an 'official service' again...

Points well taken, but (if you replace 'DSSD' with 'LV' or 'Daytona' or 'Milgauss', etc) I have heard all of these complaints before (many times) in the time that I have been collecting (more than 25 years).

To be fair though, the Daytona and Milgauss all actually serve a functional purpose. I admit, the LV is slightly different, in that being a commemorative edition, it is a matter of personal taste, but the DSSD, is simply an over-engineered monstrosity of marketing... The only positive thing I would identify about its design, is the glide-lock clasp. Everything else, such as the blue lume, is pure aesthetics. It's not as if the dial itself is even any larger than an LV dial, so from that perspective, a totally missed opportunity to have a genuinely larger (so more visible) dial installed... Of course, I'd like to meet the skin-diver who pressure tested it to maximum rating

A little bend in the topic

legal or illegal.. imo this is what the heart of this hobby of ours is about..

The Hunt for the genuine parts .... the research into the proper parts to get it to spec.

It took me a liitle over a year for some of my projects and only for a good member friend did it come to fruition

My Ubifranken Tudor Snowflake is the pride of my vintage collection ..

I still would not wear it into an AD ... they would not appreciate it for what it is..

I have bought genuine vintages but they don't give me the same satisfaction as actually sourcing each part myself.. the reward is wearing it .. there is a difference in the joy of a franken vs. a genuine ..imo

I may be off base compared to the previous thread.. but to me there is nothing illegal about a franken.. I bought the genuine parts without criminal activity .. the case is a replicated version .. but in my mind set.. it's a bit different from a replicated brand dial.. etc..

then again I am prejudiced in my frankens..

Hope I didn't hijack your thread..

AC

Lani

I know my Tudor's not in the same league as yours, as the dial is only a reproduction rather than gen, but I totally share the sentiment there, bro It's going to be a long-term project, possibly as long-term as my GMTIICSubDweller project, but I quite agree, in that I wouldn't wear either watch into a Rolex AD, as they wouldn't appreciate either for what they are...

[kbh]

To your specific example. ETA in a Gen Datejust because you can't/won't replace the defective 1570. Is it still a Rolex? I won't argue with you. Rolex will.

Enjoy,

After the 1570 was removed there would be absolutely no reason to take it to a RSC for service. Who would care what Rolex thinks?

The question was whether it was (a)legal and (b)ethical to sell it with full disclosure? I see no reason to think it not.

[freddy333]

Essentially, Rolex steals the aftermarket parts the owner has (obviously) paid for, then charges them for installing 'in house' parts. I remember years ago when my dad took a car in for some basic repair (I forget precisely what) and while the car was in the garage, they took the liberty of fitting a few new parts for some slightly worn ones (as Rolex is renowned for doing) (and did so without consulting my dad, or obtaining his consent to do so) I don't think I've ever seen him as angry as I did when he saw the 'extra expenses' added onto the bill. I forget the exact outcome of if he made them replace the original parts, but I know the car never underwent an 'official service' again...

According to US trademark law (which sides with Rolex), most aftermarket parts fitted to a Rolex watch sent in to Rolex for service are, like rep watches themselves, considered contraband & an infringement on the Rolex trademark. Therefore, Rolex has the right (but not the duty) to confiscate the parts & replace them with genuine Rolex parts. As I understand it, legally, this is similar to someone who, using a pirated copy of Windows that he purchased for 1/10th the price of a genuine copy, contacts Microsoft support via an online connection only to have them disable his pirated 'Validation' code & requiring him to pay for a genuine copy.

In the eyes of the law, these are simply trademark holders enforcing their trademark rights.

To be fair though, the Daytona and Milgauss all actually serve a functional purpose........Everything else, such as the blue lume, is pure aesthetics.

You actually just answered the question yourself - it is 'pure aesthetics'.

No serious diver (in his right mind) would wear a nearly $10,000 watch to work in the depths of the sea. But alot of people (most of whom have never even worn SCUBA gear in a swimming pool) want to wear a watch that looks like something a serious diver would wear (at least that is 1 of the reasons I like to wear my Subs & SDs).

The point is that Rolex has not produced true tool watches for many years. They are in the business of marketing well-made jewelry that accurately (for a mechanical device) tells the time. And virtually every time Rolex has produced a radically new design (radical for them), uproar & proclamations of their eminent demise have followed. For every WIS that finds fault with the SDDS, there is another that loves it. I suspect that those of us (like me) who hold their noses & pass on the SDDS now (similar to the way Daytonas sat on AD's shelves 30 years ago) will probably be buying them (at 4 times their original price) as rare collectibles in 30 years.

[TeeJay]

According to US trademark law (which sides with Rolex), most aftermarket parts fitted to a Rolex watch sent in to Rolex for service are, like rep watches themselves, considered contraband & an infringement on the Rolex trademark. Therefore, Rolex has the right (but not the duty) to confiscate the parts & replace them with genuine Rolex parts. As I understand it, legally, this is similar to someone who, using a pirated copy of Windows that he purchased for 1/10th the price of a genuine copy, contacts Microsoft support via an online connection only to have them disable his pirated 'Validation' code & requiring him to pay for a genuine copy.

In the eyes of the law, these are simply trademark holders enforcing their trademark rights.

I can quite understand that from that perspective, but what I was meaning, was that, regardless of Rolex opinion that aftermarket modification renders the watch fake (in their eyes) the owner paid to have said parts (be it a crystal, or maybe a new bracelet...) and those parts, (as the watch is not being sold, but only serviced) are not being used to defraud someone, and the owner should have those parts returned to them. The same as how Rolex will update worn out parts on vintage watches with 'clean' parts... What gives them as a company, the right to say that the owner cannot have their watch looking a certain way (vintage) or if necessary, effect repairs with aftermarket sources? Of course, I quite agree, the warranty is broken, so they can always refuse to service it, but on a personal level, I would rather they decline the service to begin with (on the grounds of invalid warranty), rather than get hit by a bill for additional costs for them replacing parts which, by definition, void the warranty, and then keep the parts which I had paid for myself...

You actually just answered the question yourself - it is 'pure aesthetics'.

No serious diver (in his right mind) would wear a nearly $10,000 watch to work in the depths of the sea.

Do you think? Not to be argumentative, but if I was an industrial diver, I'd buy a watch which could meet the requirements of my job (and most likely use dive computers for timing, rather than a rotating bezel and a mechanical movement which could have the potential to fail, with potentially fatal results) but given the kind of money industrial divers make, I'd probably view the price tag as "Well, if that's what it costs, that's what it costs... "...

something a serious diver would wear (at least that is 1 of the reasons I like to wear my Subs & SDs).

That's very true... I have to admit the DSSD comes across as 'trying too hard', which may be why I'm not so keen on it as a watch for 'civilian use'. Sure, a Sub or SD is a tool watch, but they're pretty unassuming, but the DSSD... That's a different kettle of fish entirely

The point is that Rolex has not produced true tool watches for many years. They are in the business of marketing well-made jewelry that accurately (for a mechanical device) tells the time. And virtually every time Rolex has produced a radically new design (radical for them), uproar & proclamations of their eminent demise have followed. For every WIS that finds fault with the SDDS, there is another that loves it. I suspect that those of us (like me) who hold their noses & pass on the SDDS now (similar to the way Daytonas sat on AD's shelves 30 years ago) will probably be buying them (at 4 times their original price) as rare collectibles in 30 years.

I quite agree, but would say that with the DSSD, they've made all the effort to make it a technically viable watch. For me, it is what I would class as a tool watch, if it was owned by someone who actually works on the ocean floor, but as an affectation for any 'land-lubbers' who would never actually put it through its paces...

I suspect that those of us (like me) who hold their noses & pass on the SDDS now (similar to the way Daytonas sat on AD's shelves 30 years ago) will probably be buying them (at 4 times their original price) as rare collectibles in 30 years.

But that would be a case of actually buying one as a genuinely collectible item, rather than simply buying one as it's 'flavor of the month'

[theblueprince]

The only GEN watch is one that is 100% made by the manufacturer. Anything else with gen parts, even if ALL parts are GEN is a custom made after market watch. It can never be GEN.

[vlaletom]

Actually i dont think rolex did the DSSD to have a bigger watch in there range, but rather to recover the record of waterproof deeps.

You have to keep in mind that what rolex market is the "spirt" of diver watch.

That's what they made there reputation on, only few people knows what other inovation they made, but everybody knows that they are THE diver watch...

To come back to the topic focus :

I don't see how a watch, that comes with a true manufacture movement, can be considered as gen if it doesnt have the gen movement, if all parts are gen on a rolex expet the ETA inside, this is certainly not a rolex.

So for most rolex only the pre 2000 chronograph would be arguable (valjoux/zenith).

I, as many watch freeks, olso think that rolex lost his true spirit, and now focus on selling jewelery.

But, they are certainly not going to have any trouble in the near future.

For what i know, rolex main source of income is not even comming from watch, but rather from Asset management.

You would be surprised, to know how much land poperty, the compagny owns, and how many building they have in geneva ....