jmb Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Sometimes when I have too much time on my hands I start thinking about stuff, and that often gets me in trouble. Last night I started wondering (I don't know why) why these watches are referred to as "replicas". I think maybe what started the gears grinding was all of the recent comparisons between reps and gens, the multitude of of versions (that are almost too numerous to keep track of) of certain items that still aren't perfect, and comments like, "it's a rep, what do you expect?", to people complaining about this or that flaw. According to strict definition by Webster a replica is "a copy exact in all details". We all know that none of our copies is, or is ever likely to be, 100% correct in every detail. We also use the term replica to denote vintage and/or antique items. Having (at one time) been quite active in automotive restoration when a "copy" was made of an obsolete part, or of something else that was no longer produced, it was referred to as a "reproduction". A reproduction can be defined as "implying an exact or close imitation", notice it's still not perfect. What we currently refer to as a replica is not a 100% exact copy in every detail but a close (some closer than others) approximation. I would define that which the majority of us sport on our wrists as a "facsimile". Facsimile coming from the original Latin "fac simile", or to make similar (again, not perfect). It would make more sense to me to refer to our the currently available objects of our interest (which reflect currently manufactured products) as "facsimiles" and the vintage items as "reproductions". I would think the term "replica" should be reserved for that/those possible future item(s), that when inspected and scrutinized in the most critical light, should prove to be indistinguishable in form and function from the original item. I really don't know where I'm going with this, and it probably doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, it's just something that popped into my head and made me start thinking about it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4GTR Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 "its a FAC!" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. Reproduction could be more correct I guess. At least we could keep saying rep. Don't take it too seriously, the factorys definitely don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmb Posted October 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 I take very little "seriously", look at some of the cheap reps I've bought! I just wonder about stuff, sometimes... But, speaking of serious, my eurotimez V5 DSSD is in the local "sort facility" so I should get it tomorrow!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastrmindalliance Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 I agree jmb, and thave thought about it since joining here. While it's not to be taken too seriously, language and the written word is what I work with. Reproduction is more accurate descriptor for the watches we buy. Bonus, we can still call "rep" for short. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 A long time ago.. some would call 'fake" as outrageously inaccurate.. and "Replication" as more accurate to the genuine piece.... semantics really.. imo.. depends which side of the fence your on.. customs or AD's would not deviate from calling them a "Fake".. with a strong inflection on the word !!! if you look at the $$'s worth of the "words" it makes a difference.. Outside of Our community people would not understand the passion most have for timepieces in general.. So most of the knowledgeable horologist here build "Frankens" still not the real deal but closer to anything else.. So it is what it is.. neither genuine nor fake.. but a replication of the real deal.. still not genuine in any respect.. and at times a labour of pure love and enjoyment.. A Porsche 356B fiberglass shell with a VW or even a real twin carb Porsche engine with Solex or Zenith carbs is still not a genuine.. but enthusiast.. would call them a "replication"...of the real deal.. All this is also semantics.. cause in the end .. it's still not genuine.. but for me it gives joy.. so whatever you want to call it.. I just wouldn't call someone else's rep a fake, to offend .. this can be debated ad infinitum ..politically correct or not.. dun matter in the end.. whatever makes you happy.. AC Lani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Sometimes I lie awake at night pondering just this question, then I think "fug it" and go back to sleep. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demsey Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Sometimes I lie awake at night pondering just this question, then I think "fug it" and go back to sleep. Ken I know what you mean Ken. You have to get over the 'little stuff' in life. It's like, now that President Obama is in seat, and the world once again 'likes' America, I can stop tossing and turning over what I feared the good people from the Principality of Liechtenstein thought of me. Could we discuss something a little mor important in life? Like boxers v briefs? Life is two short(s). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trailboss Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 "Replication" is certaily a closer term. "Reproduction" I feel is more used for a rep of something no longer available so would be oke for vintage stuff. In general usage it also implies 1:1 however as in reproducing an item NLA. Ahhh, semantics! Col. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmb Posted October 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 I agree that a reproduction would apply better to a vintage piece (any copy of an old no longer made part is a "repop", or reproduction part, in the auto restoration hobby) but replica "bothers" me in that it implies a perfect copy which we all know does not exist at this time... I'm not really hung up on this but I just wonder about things sometimes. Like I use to tell the kids when they were growing up, "Words mean things". Well, enough of this - time to head out to the shop and see how the epoxy mod that I did to my cheap no-date last night turned out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trailboss Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Hey, semantics, nomenclature and grammer are fun to discuss/debate. We speak the most fractured language of the lot after all. I may not be able to spell to save my own life but I actualy did very well in english at school and quite enjoy it. One of my pet rants is that newspapers and other publications don't proof read any more. Col. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxman Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Sometimes I lie awake at night pondering just this question, then I think "fug it" and go back to sleep. Ken I want to personaly thank you for your words of wisdom. When you think about all the worlds mysterys and all the questions and wonderments (Is that a word?) It can be quite overwhelming. Now I know that all I have to do Is say "fug It" and go back to sleep, I thank you sir. I think I will have a T shrit made up that says just this, thanks Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I had a local "rep-friendly" watchsmith work on a Panerai Replica. On the bill/service envelope he wrote: "Imitation Panerai". So Imi or Gen? Like most crab meat, out watches are imitation.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.