The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Of course the Forum does...
When I saw My Cockpit....I came here to see what people said about it.
I went to all Watch Forums to see what they said.
If it had been negative...I may have not bought it.
This is a "Consumer Testing" forum, as is some others.
I bought my Breitling because of the stellar integrity of this group.
I felt that the people here spoke the truth and more important knew their stuff.
I wouldn't ask the AD! I ask the "Forum"
I do not say all exist to sell watches....but they do help sell watches.

_________________
"In the end there can be but one"

Yes, but we are all here because we enjoy Breitlings and enjoy talking about watches. To my knowledge, this site wasn't developed to help Breitling increase their market presence. There is a popular forum, who receives large sums of money from major brands, to promote and speak positively about that brand....that does not happen here. We all speak our feelings about watches, good or bad, and as long as we don't attack each other (as I've been made aware of) we are free to speak our minds and our posts aren't edited or deleted because of a negative tone.

Has Roff or Driver ever been given a personalized one-on-one tour of the Breitling facility and then come back to bsource and posted a glowing review of how incredible everything is and how amazing the history is...blah blah blah like some other forums have done? What is the purpose of that other than to PROMOTE the brand to the members. That garbage doesn't happen here, we love some lings we hate some lings, we criticized their flaws, and we marvel at their brilliance; it's a mix bag here.

Back on the fake topic, let the fake people enjoy their fake watches, as long as they don't try to sell me one I don't care what they do or their reasoning for buying a fake.

_________________
"I don't own any watches, I just lease them"

Steal from the rich, give to the poor, how is that unethical?

To be serious, I think to a degree fakes contribute to the image and legendary status of the originals. Objectively, all they say is the original is pretty desirable.

Especially if you consider what a watch is to its wearer, fakes are by no means substitutions. How could one ever feel the love one has for a Pam or a Ling or whaterver else for a fake?

They are a bit like a literary quote in this regard. In copyright, quotes are fine (granted, as long as they are scientifically necessary). So having said that, why can't there be quotes in trademark law? After all, it is IP just the same and there is a legitimate interest to keep as much of a use on the clear side of the law as possible.

For example if I post this:



Which, I am afraid, I just did, I am technically infringing on Breitlings trademark. That logo is protected and I have used it shamelessly to promote my idea.

And yet, no one seems to care because all I've done is express I like Breitlings.

And that leads me to my question: how are fakes any different?

Yes, granted, it would have to be clearly recognizable who you're trying to quote an why, while it also has to be clear you're not trying to fool anyone into thinking you're the real thing, which is where it all gets fuzzy.

And yes, granted, passing off a fake on ebay to scam some poor fool out of his hard earned money is a bad thing.



Exactly!

But if there were to be obvious fakes, sold as fakes and looking like fakes for price of a fake? Aside from being a little pathetic, wouldn't they just say: "I know, I can't really afford one, but I really like Breitlings and had to have something that looks a little bit like one"?



In this light, what I really have a problem with is homages... These pieces that haven't got the original's name (and that's where one clearly threspasses on the quote analogy) on them. They pass as somehow legit, steal the recipe, ripp off the designs and don't by any means pay the honours to the real thing.

Granted, legally, many of them are fine. Old designs like the Submariner, the Luminor or the Navi have long since outlasted their design's legal protection. So one is free to copy, which gave us every piece of utter rubbish from the Sinn to the Magrette.

That to me, is really stealing... Taking someone's work and making it your own. A fake is like taking your neighbour's car from his garage and writing "my neighbour's car which I liked so much I took it" on the doors. Homages on the contrary are like taking the car and stenciling "my car, which is pretty wicked is it not?" all over it.

I get that it has to be allowed, I get that it makes sense from a free market perspective and I am the first to be an advocate for less IP protection. But just because it is allowed, doesn't mean there is any pride in doing it.

If we are really going to go into ethics here, I think this is where the real baddies are.

_________________
Cheers from Switzerland,

Fred

We did a thread on homages recently, a few actually. Some people here are ok with homages, and some people are not. I for one HATE them and have been vocal about my displeasure for companies like Steinhart that just take other people's designs and slap a Steinhart logo on them. Some people have made very valid points that buying a fake watch is similar to supporting criminal activity while Homages companies are legit tax paying enterprises. I understand that, but I don't think companies should be allowed to rip off other company's designs. IMO a Steinhart Sub looks like a fake Rolex.

_________________
"I don't own any watches, I just lease them"

I think it'd be rather polite to write Rolex on them then, would it not? To give credit?

Then again, here in Switzerland one can have one's design registered and protected for 25 years. One could make the argument that past that, by force of the voting public, our highest instance of (self)government, it's fine to rip off whatever you want. After all, why not? It is good for competition and the free maket.

Considering that, I'd have to say I'm not against the copycats copying.

That is, to me, a watch is, in many regards a piece of art, encompassing both expression and originality. In my opinion then, an equally valid argument can be made for treating watches like statues and protecting them in a way similar to copyright.

Copyright however is equally prone to being criticized and for good reason. I think the jist of it is, as long as we'll have institutions (and by that I mean institutions such as copyright or the protection of designs), they won't "fit" each and every reality they've been created to regulate. It comes with institutions being clunky by their very nature. I guess it is a reality we can't do much about.

Anyhow, the upside is, we don't have to like homages, because we don't have to buy them, so we should be alright in the end.

Btw sorry for the typos, I'm writing this on a phone which is not easy with big fingers.

_________________
Cheers from Switzerland,

Fred

Especially when someone tattletales on them to the forum admins...but......I won't name names.

_________________
End of Discussion.

Who was that then - it wasn't me. What actually happened was that the replica site admin contacted me when he saw your thread - but let's not let the truth get in the way of a good story.

I'm glad it wasn't you, that way we can remain best of buddies.

_________________
End of Discussion.

_________________
"I don't own any watches, I just lease them"

That's fair. To be honest, my comment was a little tongue in cheek. To play devil's advocate, though, the fake industry "does and will no doubt continue to exist" precisely because people are interested in and continue to buy fakes. If they really want to engage in ethical conduct, why don't they just stop buying fakes? But, from a purely practical standpoint, I agree with you: better that they engage in some policing than none at all.

I find the whole fake thing rather intruiging. It begs the question, why someone would buy a fake? I mean, if you want a certain watch, and you can't afford it, then you can't have it, simple. Buying a fake is not going to get you the watch because it is not the watch you want; it is something that looks like it.

However one aspect that makes me smile is when people buy a Breitling with the idea of showing it on your wrist, so it is some sort of status thing; you have a watch that you are trying to pass off as a 'real' Breitling to show in some way you have been fabulously successful! You know, I have three Breitlings, but guess what - I never wear them to show off to anyone. I bought them for me; if someone notices it and asks, then I am happy to talk to them. But to use as a status thing? How pretentous must people be!

Fakes belong in the rubbish bin; the price of them beggars belief as well; some of them cost close to the same price as a real Breitling watch second hand. Then again as I am not the showy type, I am not pretentious, then I suppose I will never understand the appeal...

I personally believe the only times that a 'fake' is acceptable is something like the AC Cobras; the real car is only massively expensive because they are very rare; but the good replicas are basically the same, and critically, exactly the same as the real thing, down to the engine.

And anyway, the trade as far as I am aware is illegal anyway, so the whole argument is academic anyway!

I total agree with almost all of your post, but just to play devil's advocate in response to the bit I've highlighted in red, there are actually fake watches out there that pretty much match the criteria you set out as being acceptable in a replica AC Cobra. Take for example the very well faked SO Steelfish. The *ahem* "best" quality fake SOF, is made of 316L steel (like the original), has double AR coated sapphire crystal (like the original), genuine Superluminova (like the original), and crucially is powered by a genuine ETA 2824 movement..... just like the original! Apart from not being built by Breitling, it's pretty much identical, right down to what's powering it..... which is very much like your AC Cobra analogy.

To my mind, a fake or replica is anything not actually built by the company that makes (or made) the genuine item, irrespective of how closely it matches the original. So in that regard I personally find a replica AC Cobra just as fake as a replica watch. JMHO.

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

Driver 8 is correct

_________________
"In the end there can be but one"

So you wouldn't drive a fake Cobra? I ask because I've often thought that I would have no problem driving a replica Ferrari like the one in Miami Vice.* When I was growing up, I basically wanted to be Sonny Crockett, and the Daytona Spyder was my dream car, and in many ways still is. I could never hope to afford a real Daytona, even if I could find it, so driving the replica would probably be the closest I could come to the thrill I had when watching the show. I wouldn't do it to impress people; I'd just do it because I love the car. (And, as it turns out, I really did love the replica, since that was the car I was actually seeing on the show.) I never actually thought about this in connection with my views on fake watches, but the comparison does raise some interesting questions.

*For those who don't know, in the first two seasons, when Crockett drove the Ferrari Daytona Spyder, the actor and stunt doubles were actually driving replica versions of the real car. Ferrari threatened to lay the smack down, which is why they ditched the Daytona after the second season and went to the white Testarossa. Ferrari actually provided the Testarossa for the show, and made it unique, insofar as white was not a color normally made available to consumers for that model.

Driver makes a good point on the fakes. A replica car is no different than a high quality replica watch, it's still a fake.

As much as my Italian @$$ would love a Ferrari, I'd never drive a fake one.

_________________
"I don't own any watches, I just lease them"