pubus Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 I just read recenlty a Polish website dedicated to gen watches of all brands and some polish freaks have just lunched an action so called "spot the fake" in order to spot fakes, take them from their owners and smash them with big barrel during the july meeting. And that got me onto a clue... Do you really feel that buying reps is stealing money from gen brands? I mean, I cant personally afford a gen Panerai, dunno if I would in years so it means that I wouldnt buy any gen Pam evetually. So am I really stealing gen manufacturers money? Please, discuss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 I mean, I cant personally afford a gen Panerai, dunno if I would in years so it means that I wouldnt buy any gen Pam evetually. So am I really stealing gen manufacturers money? Yes, you're devaluing the brand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratedzeus Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 But also promoting it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshtpa Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 Of course it is theft. It is the same thing saying that you invented a product. A company copies the exact same product and says, "well we are helping you advertise now". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 But also promoting it How are you promoting it? Were you asked to promote it? How many people here would not buy a Rolex because everyone would assume it's a rep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b16a2 Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 I don't think we are taking money away from genuine brands. If people can afford gens they will buy them. I never thought of purchasing an expensive watch until I started buying reps. I am now considering the purchase of my first Breitling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratedzeus Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 If I walk along with my Ralph Lauren Shirt with the big logo on the chest, I am promoting the brand. When the shirt is fake I am still promoting it. I wasn't asked to, but that doesn't matter here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pubus Posted March 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 my idea was in general due to ppl that could buy one gen instead of 10+ reps but they simply dont do that as they dont really care about the gen manufacturer. Ppl that cant afford gen, wont buy one ever so they simply do not couse manufacturers to lose a customer against the rep dealers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 Replicas do dilute the brand exclusivity and cache of their genuine counterparts... But, at the same time, how many of you bought a genuine based on a replica of the same watch purchased? I bet there are a few of you that fall into that category. I am sure that there are also some that have gone from gens to reps as well (or buy both concurrently). I am sure that the genuine market for watches isn't exactly suffering as a result- Those brands will always have their customers, regardless. And, I for one would still buy a Rolex, regardless of what others might think of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshtpa Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 Leave it to us, a bunch of people that are buying illegal goods to find the good in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 If I walk along with my Ralph Lauren Shirt with the big logo on the chest, I am promoting the brand. When the shirt is fake I am still promoting it. I wasn't asked to, but that doesn't matter here. You paid to promote it. If you're the kind of person that buys RL, you're a good advert. If you're the kind of person that buys fakes, you're devaluing it. Yes, I'm generalising a lot, but I hope my point isn't lost. I am sure that the genuine market for watches isn't exactly suffering as a result- Those brands will always have their customers, regardless. And, I for one would still buy a Rolex, regardless of what others might think of it. I agree, as I too would buy a Rolex, but how many times are people on these very forums steered away from buying a Rolex as it'll be assumed to be fake. And yes, the market isn't suffering, but how much better would it be without as many fakes as there are out there? I suppose I'm saying that we, like people who pirate movies and music, should at least admit we're stealing a little. Don't try to hide the fact we're ripping these brands off, because we are. Having said that, I'm looking which company to steal brand value from next. I can live with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 I don't think we are taking money away from genuine brands. If people can afford gens they will buy them. I never thought of purchasing an expensive watch until I started buying reps. I am now considering the purchase of my first Breitling. Noooooo! Don't do it don't do it! /Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beanyboy Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 Noooooo! Don't do it don't do it! /Tim Yes do it! I always liked Breitling. At any rate, we've been through this all before. Trademark infringement doesn't appear to be a big deal, until it's YOUR trademark that's getting ripped off. The "promotion argument" is the best one that pro-rep people can make. However, after you've seen a really, really bad Canal Street Breguet rep with zircons and a slinky "torbillion" movement, you can understand why the folks over at Breguet get a little miffed. Also, Rolex and Cartier spend a lot of money each year attempting to police their respective brands. (Other watch companies appear less interested in policing.) That's money in the profit side of the ledger if nobody were knocking off thier watches. Now, the foregoing isn't going to get me to stop adding to my most excellent and fun rep collection, but I still understand their position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshtpa Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 Anybody that can honestly think that we are "helping" the company by buying fakes of their products are insane. Morals aside, none of us are going to stop, but that is the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephane Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 I don't think we are taking money away from genuine brands. If people can afford gens they will buy them. I never thought of purchasing an expensive watch until I started buying reps. I am now considering the purchase of my first Breitling. I fully agree with you: I will soon stop reps for a while and get my self a gen Sub 16610 pre-owned. I would never have spend 3k in a Sub a year ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hambone Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It raises the awareness and makes the genuine ariticle more desirable. If the Rolex watch had never been copied do you really believe there would be as much recognition of this watch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 (edited) To me, what you are ripping off is a marketing operation. In very few cases are the original inventors of something the one's who profit the most from the product. It is more a question of who can package the product the best and who gets to market the quickest with the mostest. Panerai. Panerai ripped off an original design from the Officine Panerai, a company which disappeared after WWII. Who originated the idea? Who's design was it and how did it get to where it is today? Apple computer. The original mp3 player was something called the Eiger Labs MPMan. If you look at the desgin, the iPOD was a blatent rip off of the concept. Apple is a notorious offender. Apple back in the early 90's was pressing a case against Microsoft for supposedly stealing its GUI. Did Apple come up with the idea of a graphical user interface? No, Xerox PARC labs developed the concept that Apple ripped off. Yet Apple sits there and says it came up with the idea and owns the "look-n-feel" of the thing. Yet even more, did Xerox PARC develop the GUI? Nope, some guy named Ivan Sutherland who was going to school at MIT at the time. It was his college PhD thesis. The Apple II? A rip off of an IBM (believe it or not) concept and design (IBM 5100); but was that the first incarnation of a Personal Computer? Nope, that goes back to 1950 to a thing from Berkeley Enterprises called a Simon thought up by a guy named Edmund Berkeley. Remember Ivan up above? He wrote the first substancial program for the Simon in High School. What happened to Sutherland and Berkeley? They both died comfortably. Not nearly filthy rich considering the pile of money made by their inventions. So who owns what and who is ripping who off? The concept and design of a wristwatch has been around for how long now? More than what, 400 years? So what is the bits that are being illegally copied today? A name, that's what. A trademark. That trademark represents a corporate marketing effort and that is who we are cheating. A bunch of marketing nit-wits who ought to spend their time doing something more productive in society anyhow. Except it is even worse today since most of the watch brands are now owned by corporate conglomerates. What is a value add for someone like Rolex? Superior technology? Advancement of design? Look and feel of a wristwatch? Nothing? The design can and is freely copied. Invicta, Seiko, how many others with a dive watch similar to the Sub. Is the Rolex any better? If anything this is a commentary on the warped values of our society. Look at me sounding like a Socialist! So yeah, when what you are selling amounts to a barrel of snake oil, you get awfully protective of your reputation -- in other words the cache of your particular brand of snake oil. But you know what? It is still snake oil. /Tim Edited March 13, 2007 by Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pubus Posted March 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 so with every next post from you guys it comes out that actually its not stealing but giving extra credit to gen brands a rep buying is This is really good its far from the topic's original idea but still very good i know a bunch off ppl that recognises panerai trademark, logo, brand, ect just because I have a rep of it, I quess noone would ever stepped by pam AD and thought that these watches are quite well known anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corgi Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 I just read recenlty a Polish website dedicated to gen watches of all brands and some polish freaks have just lunched an action so called "spot the fake" in order to spot fakes, take them from their owners and smash them with big barrel during the july meeting. What? I think only us Polish people could consider the following to be the most economical tool aiding in the destruction of a miniscule timepiece: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swdivad Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 I buy my gens out of guilt LOL Seriously now... I bought my gen PAM 89 because I have tried the rep and liked it so much... Then again, I bought my gen Sinn U1 because there is no rep of it. I still love (some of) the reps I have, albeit the flaws bug me. If I could afford, I would buy only gens.. Rep collecting is more fun than collecting gens IMO, trying to get the perfect one has a lot of appeal to me. Also, this community is great to be a part of, even though you're all a bunch of trademark infingers LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 I don't think the illegal nature of reps was ever a question (at least to me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Tracy Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 If a watch takes between $20 $100 to make, but sells for between $2000, $50,000, then who is ripping off whom ? So to me the issue of them possibly losing a few sales because of us is a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raijor Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Interesting question - I have thought this through and even though I wish I could say no - I must say yes. BUT, I don't care and I will not change my behavior and I will keep buying reps instead of investing in a gen. I am an accumulator not a collector so one gen will never serve me the same way as 20 reps. Made me think. I like that - thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 (edited) mp3 wasn't and isn't a brand. It is a form of compression based on some very clever math. It has, as with all science, been open and transparent for some time. Nit-picker. First, I said MP3 PLAYER, the operative word being player. Second, didn't you just read about the 1.5 Billion with a B dollar judgement entered against Microsoft in favor of Alcatel over the MP3 format? Read the story, you can find it on Google. In essence, Microsoft paid licensing fees to a company that apparently didn't have the right to transfer the license. NOT an open and transparent technology the same as most other technology, contrary to what you assert. Why do you think Apple perverted the ORIGINAL idea and generated the ACC format (which it then promptly patented) which is a bastardization of the MP4 standard? /Tim Edited March 13, 2007 by Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Interesting question - I have thought this through and even though I wish I could say no - I must say yes. BUT, I don't care and I will not change my behavior and I will keep buying reps instead of investing in a gen. I am an accumulator not a collector so one gen will never serve me the same way as 20 reps. Made me think. I like that - thanks Way to avoid stumbling over your principles! Bravo! /Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now