Reps vs fakes

[kernow]

I was asked by a friend yesterday,  who has just started to collect a few reps, what is the difference between a 'fake' and a 'replica' watch. 

Are they one and the same? I had to question it myself and after a while the best we could come up with was that a replica watch was one that looked and performed like the gen whereas a 'fake' would clearly be something that vaguely resembled a brand name manufacturer but did not function like a gen. 

This still leaves questions and a very grey area around high end copies that look close (identical?) to the gen but don't have the functionality - Daytona's with frozen seconds at 6. Or how about a Speedmaster with incorrect sub dial spacing..... We eventually gave up and just agreed to call expensive copies 'reps' and cheap ones that look like generic watches with poorly applied brand names or logos 'fakes'. 

Agreed?

[SSTEEL]

Agree, fakes are what one finds on holiday, and Canal Street, Replica's are from TD's.

[indywatchguy]

I just had this same discussion with another member. He seems to think reps and fakes are the same. I agree with OP! There is a huge difference however the average uneducated joe will think and assume they're all the same. Anyone watch youtuber Urban Gentry? He just smashed a fake canal st rollie on his channel and believes all fakes are the same. He's uneducated and has no clue of the real replica world.

 

[panerai153]

I agree with you, as that has always been my point of view. From a genuine watch collector, as well as the law, there is no grey area. Any item which is manufactured to deceive by emulating a copyright or patent protected item by using trademarks, well recognized emblems, logo, etc. is a counterfeit and thus a fake. While we as WUS don't necessarily agree 100% with the above, it is the law. So no matter what we use to differentiate they are all fakes in the eyes of the law. Having said that , from my point of view from "WUS World" it all boils down to construction, quality and functionality. A "replica" should replicate all functions as well as the correct construction of a genuine.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sogeha]

I think it comes down to semantics and image. If you are an enthusiast and collector of the genuine pieces, then you will be more inclined to call our watches fakes. If you collect our kind of watches you will be more inclined to call them replicas. On both sides some of this is self justification. 

 

Looking at the dictionary meaning of the words:

 

Replica - an exact copy or model of something

Fake -  not genuine, imitation or counterfeit 

 

Well if we are totally honest with ourselves, we all know both terms apply to our watches. Those with an interest in reps will tend to favour calling them replicas, while those who despise them will prefer to call them fakes. Actually I don't much care. I find this a fun hobby and while I accept there are likely some distasteful practices in the business of manufacturing and supplying them, I do not believe it is either unforgivable to buy them, nor that the business is much worse than many totally legitimate businesses.

 

For a long time now if asked out of the blue about my watch by someone I don't know, which is very rare, my stock answer if someone says a "nice watch" is a simple thank you. If they ask anything more I am most likely to say "it's a fake mate" whether it is or not. I don't really care what anyone else thinks about my watch, they are for my pleasure and I certainly don't want mugging and loosing the watch and possibly my arm.

 

Lighten up a little, be confident in yourself and your decisions and enjoy the hobby for what it is.

Enjoy your fakes (and gens) brothers

[sgtguk]

Couldn't agree with you more I've got a good mix of gens and 'reps' in the watchbox but imo none are 'fakes' I've seen lots of crap and I mean really crap fakes out there and if they are trying to pass as a gen piece they have zero chance of doing so, on the other hand a decent std or modded 'rep' will pass most people's cursory look


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[malilis]

Hello !

There is another viewpoint .. a replica is not meant to cheat .. when a fake is built to cheat the buyer .. and to present itself as being gen ...

[Sogeha]

I sympathise greatly with the views that these watches function and are therefore real watches, that there are different qualities of replicas and that we are not in the hobby to defraud others. However the dictionary definition of the words still mean both replica and fake apply equally to our watches and it is a matter of personal view point as to which term one chooses to use. 

 

I will give another example of two totally correct views that seem opposed: since all elements save hydrogen, helium and deuterium are created by the death of a star, then everything that contains other elements, including humans are either made from stardust or are nuclear waste depending on how you choose to describe exactly the same thing. Again, one may sound romantic and the other disparaging and again both are totally factually correct.

[Nanuq]

[swdivad]

LOL Nanuq ^^^^

 

It's a chick...

[automatico]

My Canal Street 'submariner' is a fake.

My MBK 5512 'submariner' with 1570 is a replica. 

[Sogeha]

I will accept that a Canal Street fake is possibly not a replica in that it is not "an exact or very close copy"

However even with a genuine Rolex movement an MBK case is still "not genuine, imitation or counterfeit" I know you well enough to know you would never pass replica parts as genuine so I put it to you that at some level you accept they are "not genuine, imitation or counterfeit", which is the definition of fake. 

 

To an extent i am playing Devil's Advocate here. I am a Mod and therefore firmly entrenched in the rep world, but I do believe in accepting reality and any attempt to claim our watches are not fake involves unilaterally changing the definition of fake. There may be connotations of the word we dislike and it may be used disparagingly by those who are vitriolic in their hated of replica watches. Our watches are not genuine, we are all very clear on that, they are imitation in that they are specifically created as copies of high value watches. Counterfeit, well we all know what Customs' view of that is. By trying various devious ways to deny the fact that they are fake, we just make ourselves look insecure and rather laughable. I believe that generally we have a greater appreciation and understanding of horology than many of the collectors of genuine high end pieces who hate us. Many of us also own and love the genuine article and it is that love that fuels our passion for replicas. We have nothing to feel insecure about. Accept the fact that fake is an accurate description of them even if we prefer not to use the term.

[automatico]

Edit:

My Canal Street 'submariner' is a fake.

My MBK 5512 'submariner' with 1570 is a fake.

...but it's a damn nice one.  

 

 

[indywatchguy]

I would never call any of my super reps or frankens fakes! When you add gen parts that changes the dynamics. They're not completely gen but at least deserve the title of replica.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sogeha]

3 hours ago, automatico said:

Edit:

My Canal Street 'submariner' is a fake.

My MBK 5512 'submariner' with 1570 is a fake.

...but it's a damn nice one.  

 

 

 

Amen to that brother?

[indywatchguy]

Rep vs Fake.....who wins?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL Nanuq ^^^^
 
It's a chick...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sogeha]

I have a very bad track record on that game Indy, so I'm saying nothing until the experts call it, then I will nod and agree and look terribly clever. I will say that I'm not very bothered, I'm happy to put good reps and gens side by side in my watchbox and treat them much the same.

 

As to the other matter:

 

 

[KB]

Ok I haven't read all the replies but I have read enough to know that my view is a bit different from others.

 

A replica is a copy of a genuine, that can be anything, watches, jewelry, furniture, cars etc etc....There are good reps and bad reps but as long as they operate in the manner one expects they cannot be fakes.

 

Fake can only be 2 things 1. Derogatory term used by one who owns a genuine. 2.Something that looks like the item (for example watch) but is in fact nothing more than a paperweight.

 

Ken

[panerai153]

I own both genuine and replicas as do most of the folks here. We will, never change the minds of genuine (purists) who brand everything as a fake that is not a 100% genuine. Which brings us to another discussion, when is a gen a gen and when is it a fake? As we all know especially with vintage watches, a lot of folks are forced, either by economics or shear unavailability, to use aftermarket parts. If you replace a Rolex 1665 superdome with a Clarks rather than a 30+ year old Rolex Crystal, does that make the 1665 a "fake"? This in itself will become a bigger and bigger factor with old vintage watches where original parts are becoming scarcer and prohibitively expensive. So, to me the lines between genuine and replicas will become more and more blurred over time.

A case in point between fakes and replicas: I have a 1665 that is all genuine except for the MBW case. Is my 1665 a fake? I think not, but to a purist, it is. There are fantastic Rolex Daytonas that our members have built here that are in the same boat, midcase is not Rolex, but everything else is.

Honestly., I enjoy my replicas, wear them as much or more than my gen watches, and frankly could care less what their "classification " is by others. They are mine, I enjoy them, and should anyone ask, I will gladly tell them what parts are original and which are not.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Sogeha]

1 hour ago, KB said:

Ok I haven't read all the replies but I have read enough to know that my view is a bit different from others.

 

A replica is a copy of a genuine, that can be anything, watches, jewelry, furniture, cars etc etc....There are good reps and bad reps but as long as they operate in the manner one expects they cannot be fakes.

 

Fake can only be 2 things 1. Derogatory term used by one who owns a genuine. 2.Something that looks like the item (for example watch) but is in fact nothing more than a paperweight.

 

Ken

With all due respect I think you are being a little disingenuous in disregarding context. Fake is indeed used as a derogatory term by some who own the genuine. However there is nothing intrinsic in the definition of the word that makes it's use automatically derogatory. As to your second point, well if I say "a fake door" for example, you might very reasonably conclude it isn't a real door and does not function. However if I say a fake fur coat, would you hold it reasonable to believe it isn't a real coat and could not be worn?

A fake watch may very well mean it doesn't function and is a paperweight. However in context it is a grouping of fake Rolex, fake Panerai, fake Omega et al.

In context there is therefore no suggestion that the watch does not tick and the hands do not move, the implication is clearly that it is masquerading as being a brand it is not and in that context it is still fake whether it ticks or not.

 

I am not suggesting we all call our watches as fake at every verse end. I do think that we should accept that the word is valid in describing them. While @panerai153 says, some will never have any time for us, I very much believe that in many cases, simply saying, yes it's a fake although I prefer the term replica and then going on to talk about the watch and the hobby will elicit a more favourable response than ranting on about how of course it's not fake, look the hands are moving. I quoted above the definition of the words fake and replica, which are much the same in all the standard dictionaries. So as a further point, strictly speaking there are no bad replicas, if it is seriously inaccurate, it is not a replica. Perhaps that alone is the best reason for giving preference to the term replicas.

[Nanuq]

Perhaps putting this into words we understand better will help.

 

"Replicas" of the original, with subtle enhancements...

 

 

 

Vs. "fakes".......

 

 

 

[KB]

Actually no, I do feel that the word fake in the replica game is mainly used to loosely mean junk.

 

Even in your description of the fake fur, the manufacturer will state faux, those that label it fake are in fact doing so to point out how cheap the item is.

 

Where-as I do agree with you that the word itself does not have to be derogatory, I have only ever seen it used on these boards coupled with other words like 'knock off' and 'crap'

 

There are even many watches that we have seen that simply do not have a genuine counterpart, they could easily be referred to as fake but we call them fantasies, the best reason I can see for this is that even with all the inaccuracies as long as it works it is still a real watch, maybe a shocking replica but a watch none the less.

 

Again this is just my viewpoint and it is one that has grown mainly out of being a dealer. The number one indicator of buyers remorse is when the customer stops calling an item replica and starts saying fake.

 

Ken

[automatico]

panerai153:

"So, to me the lines between genuine and replicas will become more and more blurred over time."

 

I agree.  While at the same time it makes me wonder if the 'Rolex Purist Rules' will relax a little over time.  Probably not because most of them are cod locked on 100% gen-u-wine. 

 

'Genuine' recased rolex watches with 444 serial numbers are not popular with purists and the cases are supposedly genuine.  Btw, I wonder if you can tell a Yuki 444 case from a 'genuine' 444 case? 

Same goes for laser welded cases if it can be detected (aka weld-o-lex).  The large number of vintage rolex watches with corroded cases (aka corrode-o-lex) is another reason for going the Frankenstein route.  Rolex watches with 444 cases, corroded cases, or welded cases would seem to be more suited for selling or everyday watches but not as keepers.  Imho.

 

I would rather wear a $2500 Frankenstein 5512 with a new aftmkt case than a ratty (albeit genuine) $12,000 corrode-ro-lex 5512 that looks like it fell out of a plumber's crack tool bucket.  

Real plumbers carry tools in 5 gallon sheetrock mud buckets.

[Mike on a bike]

Depends on where you sit sort of you say potato I say potahto.To a guy on the Rolex forum it is a fake to us a rep/reproduction sounds a lot better....................

[Sogeha]

Well call them what ever you like, "a rose by any other name..."

I would much rather have a top notch rep/fake/franken than a substandard genuine at two or more times the price. As for things like 6263 Paul Newman or 5517, I'll take a Phong any day over a genuine that would be worth so much I would be worried sick about it's safety and never take it out of the safe. Where is the fun in that?