Thin Crowns And Other Assorted Problems.....i Ask Why?

[chad]

I am curious if anyone knows anyone in the business that can answer why reps are made sometimes with such careful details to one thing but such sloppiness to others...

The thin crown on the pams is one thing....I mean just measure the gen and make then that thick....it is not brain surgery nor more expensive.

If the gen says L swiss L and the rep says T swiss T..............my question is why?

Even the lume stuff......everyone wants stronger lume......on every watch it seems.....hey makers.....put strong lume on there....in bulk it will cost a dollar a watch at most.

If the reps were not so good i would not ask but what is the deal with stupid mistakes?

[KB]

Stupid mistakes or delibrate mistakes?

Ken

[Highflyingclive]

Chinese mentality. It is not the same as the western mind-set.

Chinese quality control = If you are prepared to accept this, we are happy to sell it to you.

So kudos to the manufacturer who, a couple of years ago, turned the rep world upside-down whith the release of the first half-way decent Pam 111.

We owe that guy... big-time.

[Pugwash]

Stupid mistakes or delibrate mistakes?

Please, don't tell me you actually believe the whole Deliberate Mistake billiards. I had you down as fairly smart.

[archibald]

Please, don't tell me you actually believe the whole Deliberate Mistake billiards. I had you down as fairly smart.

Pugster, I had you down as fairly smart... although you're still a noob so we'll let you slide.

Aside from the existence of intentional flaws being obvious on its face(the Chinese are too dumb to make a 1.9mm, 45 degree beveled crown, and require westerners to get it right on try #3?), numerous "in the know" people with direct connections to factories have confirmed numerous times that numerous high reps have at least one deliberate mistake.

This was a hot button issue back when the first super accurate reps started coming out-- dozens of threads back on the old RWG. Go read them.

[Craytonic]

Please, don't tell me you actually believe the whole Deliberate Mistake billiards. I had you down as fairly smart.

I'm going to bet that "shitzerland" and some of those errors are a deliberate mistake. Same bet on MBW having "POLEX" instead of "ROLEX" on the case.

[Pugwash]

numerous "in the know" people with direct connections to factories have confirmed numerous times that numerous high reps have at least one deliberate mistake.

There's deliberate mistake and deliberate mistake, though.

One is putting Polfy on your cases so they don't get seized and the other is placing the Omega logo less than a mm too high so people will buy the next gen as well. One of those is likely, the other is plain conspiracy theory.

[TJGladeRaider]

There's deliberate mistake and deliberate mistake, though.

One is putting Polfy on your cases so they don't get seized and the other is placing the Omega logo less than a mm too high so people will buy the next gen as well. One of those is likely, the other is plain conspiracy theory.

I gotta side with Pug on this one - and I happen to know a little bit about trademark enforcement, patent infringement and the whole gamut of stuff the legal beagles refer to as "IP," or "intellectual property," the fruits of the brain to which designers have internationally enforceable rights.

To understand, first you need to understand the difference between a patent, and a trademark. The best example that comes to mind is this. Let's say you invent the internal combustion engine and your name is "Ford" (he didn't inevt it - but bear with me) so you apply for a patent on your engine and you start to build your car -- but what to name it . . . "Hey. let's call them Fords" So you trademark the name.

Nobody else can build that Otto Cycle engine for the duration of the patent, but one day, everybody will be making them. Although everyone can one day use the technology you first patented, nobody will ever, never, ever, ever, never, ever be able to call their car a "Ford." Unless, of course, you sell them the rights.

Ford does not "own" the name however. They own the right to avoid consumer confusion as it relates to their products. That's why you may very well see "Ford" Potato Chips, or "Ford" cosmetics as no consumer is going to associate them with "Ford" motor company unless they try to copy the "DESIGN" of the way Ford spells "Ford" -- which is a trademarked "Logo."

If a guy named Joe Ford wanted to market Ford potato chips, he would have to make very sure that he did not write "Ford" on the bag in such a way that a consumer could think they were related - and I do mean VERY sure, because if it appears that the sales of his products are in any way attributable to that confusion, Ford Motor Company is going to get that money.

I can tell you, as a matter of absolute fact, that the notion that rep manufacturers can incorporate some minor little glitch into a design of a counterfeit watch and be "home free" is horse [censored]. Read some IP cases and get a feel for the issues - the question invariably boils down to the question of consumer perception.

The very, very worst replica of a Rolex watch that ever existed was an absolute, clear cut violation of their trademark - not their patent on the sub style watch (Everybody is making them), and not their "Mercedes Hands" (Everybody is using them) - but the NAME and the LOGO, and it wouldn't matter iof they called them a RALEX either. It is every bit as illegal to counterfeit badly as it is to do a wonderful job.

I know that many people believe many things - especially when it comes to the law. I bet half the hookers in this Country believe that if they ask a prospective "date" if he's a cop and they lie about it, they are protected. No matter how widely or fervently [censored] is believed, it's still [censored].

As for the pervasive glitches and errors in counterfeit watches, frankly, I think this little group sometimes forgets their place in the grand scheme of things. People have a natural tendency to see themselves as the center of their universe, but I gotta tell ya boys and girls, it's a damn good thing that we are the tip, rather than the iceberg - we're not even the tip, more like a chip on the tip.

Counterfeit watch sales are BIGGGGGGGGGGG business - sales estimates are extraordinary. In the grand scheme of things, these little groups of connoisseur collectors don't have any significant impact on the market at all. For every watch that's sold to anyone on all these forums put together, a shipping container load sells elsewhere - and the buyers of those watches don't know, or care, about the flaws we talk about here.

Remember the last great "Rolex Roundup," where the hounds of the swiss watch industry decended upon the various forum dealers, rounded everybody up, and carted them off to jail . . . as people furrow their brows trying to figure out what I am talking about, that's my point - it hasn't happened.

Ask yourself, "Why not?" Surely you don't believe it's because we are the world's best kept secret? Noobs stumble in here every day for Heaven's sake.

The bottom line is, we are an insignificant little niche in an enormous market, that neither the gen manufacturers, nor the counterfeiters, care about. Be grateful - the last place you ever want to be is caught between those two.

That's what I know, offered to you for whatever it's worth. I also have various speculations and suspicions, but those I shall keep to myself.

Bill

[leitztozeiss]

and it wouldn't matter iof they called them a RALEX either. It is every bit as illegal to counterfeit badly as it is to do a wonderful job.

Ditto what Bill said. I'll add in summary that the issue on trademark infringement always involves the factual analysis of whether the allegedly infringing mark 'creates a likelihood of confusion, mistake and/or deception with the consuming public. The confusion created can be that the defendant's products are the same as that of the plaintiff, or that the defendant is somehow associated, affiliated, connected, approved, authorized or sponsored by plaintiff.' See HERE.

Ralex, Bolex, Pollx, Polex, etc. - it all falls into that 'likelihood of confusion' gray area, i.e. it doesn't matter that the allegedly infringing mark doesn't use the idential word in the mark.

[Craytonic]

I'm going to bet that "shitzerland" and some of those errors are a deliberate mistake. Same bet on MBW having "POLEX" instead of "ROLEX" on the case.

I want to note that I wasn't saying these errors actually achieve anything, but only that they are intended to be there. The people who can make a MBW case take OEM parts can't spell "ROLEX" right? I highly doubt that.

[savage_here]

This is most likely a very naive question, but I'll ask it anyway. Do the makers of reps have enough conscience that they include the flaws to make sure that the reps don't get sold as gens?

[lovepanerai]

Chinese mentality. It is not the same as the western mind-set.

Chinese quality control = If you are prepared to accept this, we are happy to sell it to you.

So kudos to the manufacturer who, a couple of years ago, turned the rep world upside-down whith the release of the first half-way decent Pam 111.

We owe that guy... big-time.

100% agreed and with us only being "a chip of the tip of the iceberg" that will not change....

[TJGladeRaider]

One more thing I'd like to add - just because it's a God's honest truth reality that you never see on TV, and it's a good thing to remember in day to day life. Some famous law professor was quoted as putting it thusly, "Never, ever [censored] with anyone with a higher capacity for pain than you've got."

The point, perhaps better out, is this.

Invicta can make a watch that looks just like the Submariner, and clearly label it "Invicta" stamping "Invicta" into the side of the case . . . but when Uncle Rollie says, "I'm going to sue you if you don't knock that off," it doesn't matter for spit that Uncle Rollie should lose that case - next think you know, Invicta's most popular seller is only available with a scalloped bezel and a weird, winged seconds hand.

Invicta should have been able to survive and win the battle, but they could not stand the pain.

I don't know how many of you know the Marcello C watch, but they have a real cult followinf, and I'll be curious to see if they last. There is no way (IMHO) that Rolex has any claim against them, but they are the bully boys of 42nd street and I'm wondering if they are going to slam litigate them out of business.

Bill

[Alextor]

Bill, Thank you for an painting an extraordinarily accurate picture of the situation, bringing clarity and your legal expertise into the mix. I can barely add anything to this...you said it all.

Best regards

Alex

This post should be pinned!

I gotta side with Pug on this one - and I happen to know a little bit about trademark enforcement, patent infringement and the whole gamut of stuff the legal beagles refer to as "IP," or "intellectual property," the fruits of the brain to which designers have internationally enforceable rights.

To understand, first you need to understand the difference between a patent, and a trademark. The best example that comes to mind is this. Let's say you invent the internal combustion engine and your name is "Ford" (he didn't inevt it - but bear with me) so you apply for a patent on your engine and you start to build your car -- but what to name it . . . "Hey. let's call them Fords" So you trademark the name.

Nobody else can build that Otto Cycle engine for the duration of the patent, but one day, everybody will be making them. Although everyone can one day use the technology you first patented, nobody will ever, never, ever, ever, never, ever be able to call their car a "Ford." Unless, of course, you sell them the rights.

Ford does not "own" the name however. They own the right to avoid consumer confusion as it relates to their products. That's why you may very well see "Ford" Potato Chips, or "Ford" cosmetics as no consumer is going to associate them with "Ford" motor company unless they try to copy the "DESIGN" of the way Ford spells "Ford" -- which is a trademarked "Logo."

If a guy named Joe Ford wanted to market Ford potato chips, he would have to make very sure that he did not write "Ford" on the bag in such a way that a consumer could think they were related - and I do mean VERY sure, because if it appears that the sales of his products are in any way attributable to that confusion, Ford Motor Company is going to get that money.

I can tell you, as a matter of absolute fact, that the notion that rep manufacturers can incorporate some minor little glitch into a design of a counterfeit watch and be "home free" is horse [censored]. Read some IP cases and get a feel for the issues - the question invariably boils down to the question of consumer perception.

The very, very worst replica of a Rolex watch that ever existed was an absolute, clear cut violation of their trademark - not their patent on the sub style watch (Everybody is making them), and not their "Mercedes Hands" (Everybody is using them) - but the NAME and the LOGO, and it wouldn't matter iof they called them a RALEX either. It is every bit as illegal to counterfeit badly as it is to do a wonderful job.

I know that many people believe many things - especially when it comes to the law. I bet half the hookers in this Country believe that if they ask a prospective "date" if he's a cop and they lie about it, they are protected. No matter how widely or fervently [censored] is believed, it's still [censored].

As for the pervasive glitches and errors in counterfeit watches, frankly, I think this little group sometimes forgets their place in the grand scheme of things. People have a natural tendency to see themselves as the center of their universe, but I gotta tell ya boys and girls, it's a damn good thing that we are the tip, rather than the iceberg - we're not even the tip, more like a chip on the tip.

Counterfeit watch sales are BIGGGGGGGGGGG business - sales estimates are extraordinary. In the grand scheme of things, these little groups of connoisseur collectors don't have any significant impact on the market at all. For every watch that's sold to anyone on all these forums put together, a shipping container load sells elsewhere - and the buyers of those watches don't know, or care, about the flaws we talk about here.

Remember the last great "Rolex Roundup," where the hounds of the swiss watch industry decended upon the various forum dealers, rounded everybody up, and carted them off to jail . . . as people furrow their brows trying to figure out what I am talking about, that's my point - it hasn't happened.

Ask yourself, "Why not?" Surely you don't believe it's because we are the world's best kept secret? Noobs stumble in here every day for Heaven's sake.

The bottom line is, we are an insignificant little niche in an enormous market, that neither the gen manufacturers, nor the counterfeiters, care about. Be grateful - the last place you ever want to be is caught between those two.

That's what I know, offered to you for whatever it's worth. I also have various speculations and suspicions, but those I shall keep to myself.

Bill

[narikaa]

I inwardly winced when I started to read this thread.......here we go again, long distance armchair officionados of the trade waxing on about conspiracies....

but

kudos to you TJGladeRaider

more sense than has yet been applied to the subject

.

[Highflyingclive]

I gotta side with Pug on this one - and I happen to know a little bit about trademark enforcement, patent infringement and the whole gamut of stuff the legal beagles refer to as "IP," or "intellectual property," the fruits of the brain to which designers have internationally enforceable rights. .....

Bill

Bill... I have been told that IP legislation is different in China. In the markets (when the police are active) you will see thousands of watches branded "CK".. (i.e Calvin Klein), whilst the good stuff is under cover.

When I asked why this was, I was told that (a) the watches on offer bear little resemblance to any known CK watch (although some come close) and ( as long as they are only marked "CK", not "Calvin Klein", the police can't touch them.

This may be entirely untrue, of course... but the fact remains that while the better reps remain hidden, thousands of cheap quartz "CKs" remain in plain view.

[TJGladeRaider]

Bill... I have been told that IP legislation is different in China. In the markets (when the police are active) you will see thousands of watches branded "CK".. (i.e Calvin Klein), whilst the good stuff is under cover.

When I asked why this was, I was told that (a) the watches on offer bear little resemblance to any known CK watch (although some come close) and ( as long as they are only marked "CK", not "Calvin Klein", the police can't touch them.

This may be entirely untrue, of course... but the fact remains that while the better reps remain hidden, thousands of cheap quartz "CKs" remain in plain view.

Absolutely true - and for the time being, China is pretty much thumbing their nose at the rest of the world on the IP issue - what is the world going to do, sanction them? They are the fastes growing consumer market in the world, and they are the home to more production than one would imagine.

Frankly, and I know I will get flamed for this, I cannot condemn them - where you stand on issues is largely dependent upon where you sit.

The Chinese have an enormous, industrious, hard working population of very, very ingenious people - living at third world poverty levels. If my brother, unable to find work, living marginally and desperately trying to survive, could sit in his basement and crank out remarkably good Rolex replicas, competing with them head-to-head and make money, the IP arguments wouldn't mean squat to me either.

It will change as politics change. One day, China will agree to adopt the internationally recognized standards and enforce them - when they get concessions that make this worth while.

It doesn't compare, but consider Nigeria and their scams. The Nigerian government makes a token effort to crack down, but the average Nigerian has got to believe that if people have so much money, and they are that stupid, they deserve to lose it. When crime plays a big part in the national economy, national politics reflect that.

Bill

[archibald]

There's deliberate mistake and deliberate mistake, though.

One is putting Polfy on your cases so they don't get seized and the other is placing the Omega logo less than a mm too high so people will buy the next gen as well. One of those is likely, the other is plain conspiracy theory.

This, I agree with. The intentional mistakes tend to transcend versions and models. The Omega logo is a perfect example of a mistake mistake.

[archibald]

Excellent post, Bill, but maybe a slight clarification is in order: Granted, there's a 51% chance I was hung over when they covered international trademark law, and as you point out the central violation of infringement is creating potential confusion between a trademarked product and a product not manufactured or licenced by the holder of the trademark, but that being said, in real life trademarks are protected far more agressively than your explanation would indicate. A recent favorite of mine is the 25-year-old fight between between the Beatles and Apple computer.. The Chinese know this, and there is probably not a person in China who would argue that "officne" gives anyone relief from any international trademark issue.

As I have posted numerous times, I have it straight from the "horss's" mouth (not a rep dealer, but a former colleague who makes her living trying to convince the Chinese to protect intellectual property, although many dealers will tell you the same thing) that the "intentional" mistakes have to do with the relationship between the rep makers and the chinese government. The chinese government insists upon some sort of deniability, even though it is utterly implausible deniability. Why? Because they're smart.

When the Americans, or the French, or the Swiss send someone over to [censored] at some chinese functionary, a LV Sub, heremes bag, or pair of Jeans in tow, the functionary in front of them invariably says "replica? I see no replica..." They know all about trademarks. They just don't care because enforecement of trademarks is one of their wild cards in trade negotiations. When concessions are made, they'll admit the problem. When more concessions are made: they'll make known their intent to enforce, and so on and so on.

[TJGladeRaider]

Excellent post, Bill, but maybe a slight clarification is in order: . . . in real life trademarks are protected far more agressively than your explanation would indicate. A recent favorite of mine is the 25-year-old fight between between the

As I have posted numerous times, I have it straight from the "horss's" mouth (not a rep dealer, but a former colleague who makes her living trying to convince the Chinese to protect intellectual property, although many dealers will tell you the same thing) that the "intentional" mistakes have to do with the relationship between the rep makers and the chinese government . . .

I can only tell you what I know from personal experience.

My most recent case involving IP was the case where Qwest filed suit against "Ma Bell Michele," that was covered in the Wall Street Journal. You may find it interesting that although this case started with Qwest, the bazillion dollar corporate giant crucifying a Private Investigator single-mom on public assistance for calling herself Ma-Bell Michele, the story ends with THEIR settlement offer to her.

WSJ Article

Then, to see how I was involved, you might want to take a look at the following. In the section entitled "MaBell Lets Fly With A Rock," you will see a link to my Declaration in that case.

The Ma Bell Case Story

If you read that, you will find a sworn document as to my background - I'll leave it you guys to decide the "for whatever it is worth" to apply to my humble opinions.

The case is over . . . Michele didn't accept their $5000 offer, but I cannot tell you due to the confidentialy agreement what she did accept. I can tell you, as some of my friends on here know, I was a single parent with four children for many years -- I did not accept a dime from her.

Finally, while I want to be very clear that I do not doubt what you were told, a basic understanding of the counterfeit industry should make it clear why the deliberate flaw concept is impossible. These people are independent, diverse and disconnected - and the players change from day to day. There is no person, or group, with whom a Chinese Official could work out a deal, or reach an understanding with.

A lot of people fervently believe that "deliberate flaw" theory to be true, but I do not, for a lot of reasons.

Respectfully,

Bill

[kanerich]

Regarding the various posts by Bill:

I too have an IP law background and I don't argue with your interpretation of US law or the reality of the US market. You obviously know your stuff.

However, as you rightly point out the reality of the Chinese market is quite different. This is a country that insisted Chevrolet hire Chinese executives and engineers in order to enter the market, and those people turned right around, started their own company and sold the IDENTICAL car (clearly stolen from tires up) as a "Chery." Chevrolet, as in the US is better known in Asia as "Chevy." The Chinese court ruled that the two names weren't that similar, Chevy wasn't all that well known a brand (in China) anyway, and that you really can't copy something as ubiquitous as a car. So Chevy lost on every count -- trademark, copyright, patent. In the US they probably would have had a slam dunk on all three plus won on unfair competition and trade secret theft. Not in China. In another case, a Chinese factory making fake LV and Gucci handbags was shut down by a Chinese court . . . and the factory and inventory were sold back to the owner in an "court auction" for the equivalent of about $70 if I recall correctly. It was never intended to be more than a fine, the rest was just a dog and pony show for Westerners.

This is the country that has brands like "Hongda" and "Yamaha" (different kanji) that sell motorcycles that are plainly knockoffs of the real Honda and Yamaha. So while "Ralex" may not fly in the US, I assure you that in China, it very well might. The fact is that Chinese authorities and even judges are the opposite of American authorities. Many of them, especially outside the main cities, are LOOKING for pretextual differences not to bust their own people. So there is no reason to believe a spelling error here, a cosmetic error there makes no difference in China just because that's the law in the US. Go to China and you will realize that local law enforcement is about as genuinely interested in shutting down counterfeit production as Vegas casinos are in weeding out and banning people who can't control their gambling. Even the Hu Jintao has admitted that the problem in China is not the law on the books or the central government's repudiation of IP laws, but the corruption of government authorities at the ground level that makes enforcement a joke. Yes, that might also be a pretext in this country where pretext is everything, but take it for what you will.

TRIPs, the Hague Convention and other international treaties notwithstanding (which are mostly just political anyway), IP law remains local and domestic outside Western Europe and the US. Even Japan is somewhat protectionist compared to the US or the EU. Ken, who you all know as the RXW (RoleXWatch, get it?) guy, sells watches 98% identical to Rolexes under his Rockx (gee, no similarity there) brand here in Japan. So while the law is what it is in the US, to Chinese businessmen the US Trademark, Copyright or Patent Acts matter about as much labor regulations, the Clean Air Act or the Anti-Discrimination Act.

Edited July 27, 2006 by kanerich

[TJGladeRaider]

Regarding the various posts by Bill:

I too have an IP law background and I don't argue with your interpretation of US law or the reality of the US market. You obviously know your stuff.

However, as you rightly point out the reality of the Chinese market is quite different.

Did the Chinese really rep a Chevy, call it a Chery, and win? I am a Chevy fan, I have been for most of my life, but that's rich - that's just too funny!

I really do believe we are pretty much saying the same thing, especially in one respect - The Chinese are going to do whatever they bloody well choose to do, unless/until the world makes it worthwhile for them to play ball.

Now, if you could just tell me who makes the best Sub . . .

Bill

[omni]

Kudos to the contributors to this thread. It has made the most intelligent and entertaining read I've found in a long time on a lot of rep. forums.

[mhinagoya]

I am an American, currently living and working in Taiwan.

A lot of what is being discussed in this thread looks like cultural differences to me. Taiwan is a democratic country with a free market economy, not unlike that of the United States. Much of Taiwan's government and economy is patterned after the U.S. Yet, even in Taiwan, intellectual property is viewed differently than it is in the West. Doing business is viewed differently as well.

I have a friend (American ex-pat) that owns a furniture manufacturing firm here. He often has to bid against similar companies on the mainland. In more than one case, the mainland Chinese company has bid the contract for the shipping costs. Yes, you read that right. They gave the furniture away. So why did they sell furniture at a substantial loss? Well, it kept people working didn't it? Many companies on the mainland are 'back door' funded by the government and they operate to provide jobs, income, and exports to the west. When they go bankrupt, they change the name on the building (and sometimes the address, but they don't move) and open up again with fresh funding. The change on the building is usually done on the weekend so no one has to miss work. There is no doubt in my mind that some of the 'bankroll' for some of the watch manufacturers comes from the government. China is a COMMUNIST country. One of their top objectives is to see that people have jobs. The watch business is huge because it is a largely 'manual' operation and the Chinese have lots of manual labor available. The product is small, requires very little in the way of resources, and has a fairly high 'per unit' value. Watches are nearly ideal (for production and export) within the constraints of China's industrial base.

In stark contrast, the Taiwanese government is deadly serious about intellectual property and counterfeit goods. You don't get a slap on the hand for making knockoffs here, you do prison time. You can even be sent to prison for selling knockoffs (of anything). The cultural part I mentioned only becomes evident when you talk to an individual about knockoffs or "copies" as they call them. They smile and say 'is copy'. They know the difference and find it amusing that anyone would ever try to pass a 'copy' off as an original. They see a 'copy' as a novelty, sort of a physical characture of the original. I honestly believe that they have no concept of the idea that using someone else's trademark on a 'copy' might harm the trademark owner. In this society, people that can afford the original buy the original. Copies are bought more for their entertainment value than anything else. Point: One of the guys I work with wears a Seiko watch. He could have bought a fantastic Rollie knockoff for about the same money he paid for the Seiko, but the Seiko was an 'original'. This is a cultural mindset that extends to the mainland. You can see kids working in a 7-11 that are wearing a fully diamond encrusted, gold plated, day-date complete with rolly trademark. No one in their right mind would ever believe that the watch was genuine. I asked one of said kids why he bought the watch and he replied "Pretty. Girls like it".

One other thing to consider about China. In a communist country, the government owns all intellectual property. So, intellectual property is available to everyone. Why don't two businesses, side by side, have the same name? In some places they do. In most cases, the business owners agree not to use the same name. It's a 'gentleman's agreement' which is done out of culturally enforced respect.

The cultural differences will always be there. The 'feeling' associated with intellectual property will always be different between the east and the west. From what I have seen, it will always be an uncomfortable truce but the issue will never be resolved using western law. The Chinese just can't relate to it enough to accept it.

Bill.

Edited July 27, 2006 by mhinagoya

[TJGladeRaider]

What a brain trust - an incredible amount of information from people on the ground.

Where does Japan fit into this rep cultural, economic issue? Are reps manufactured in Japan? If so, how do they compare to the Chinese?

Bill