Homage Versus Blatant Rip-Off

[is that my watch]

There's a big difference. The Eterna is quite different besides square case. Dial, lugs, overall aesthetics, whereas this one the guy literally copied the Monaco and changed it enough to be legally 'different'. It keeps the principal silhouette, and even chose the colourways to evoke the same era as the original Monaco.

If the Monaco was extinct, rather than being milked by TAG and currently 'hot' it wouldn't bother me as much. But at the same time the current 'hotness' is why these things are done.

Eterna reissue of their old one:



Vintage one:



Heuer wasn't trying to evoke the memory of these watches in the same way that the Monaco is being pointed at by this one.

There's a problem when the biggest sales pitch is : "Looks like popular model X only cheaper."

well look at the rolex of the 1930's or gallet too all similar so heuer change it up a bit same difference .. and this guy as you put it is a valued member who has asked for input in the past to get what member and none want so tone your responses down thank you

[wschofield3]

Never really had any issues with homages, Fakes are a different matter, but as someone who is producing a Monaco style chrono we spent hundreds of hours to put our own twist on it (quite hard with a square motorsports themed bi compax chrono) so i would love to hear you guys opinions on how we did, Blatant copy? sympathetic "homage"?

Attachment 70697

Attachment 70698
Attachment 70699
Attachment 70700
Attachment 70701
Attachment 70702

There you go with that brown strap again.

[Samanator]

In my terms it is only a homage if it is made by the original creator of the watch or a company that currently owns the design.

A copy has all or at least 75% of the original design minus the Original manufacturers logo.

Fake is the same as a copy, but with the originals marking and/or logo to allude to being the original.

I only own homages as I defined above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[CFR]

A bit off topic:

Since I'm not a native English speaker, I may not realize all the possible meanings of "homage". However, the fact someone (or some institution) is willing to pay homage to an object is quite bizarre - IMHO. Admiration and respect are often due to persons or institutions, for the social relevance of their achievements. To objects? Maybe the wheel or perhaps the reading glasses... Related to watches, "homage" is just a political correct euphemism created to help sell objects. It's like paying homage to Mona Lisa and forget all about Leonard da Vinci. It's a bit ridiculous, isn't it? But does it bother, me? No, not really.

[tribe125]

Yes, homage is usually to a person or to the work of a person. An object can’t really be a homage to an object.

You could, however, pay homage to Abraham Louis Breguet by making a watch in the style of Breguet. The watch wouldn’t be a homage but would represent an act of homage. Your act of homage could be a copy, but it wouldn’t itself be a homage, it would be a copy.

Naturally, you can’t pay homage to yourself - well, unless you’re a narcissist... so those who accept homages by a company to its own past glories are a bit wide of the mark.

Watch enthusiasts aren’t alone in misusing the term. I’ve sometimes seen it said that one film is a homage to another. But watch enthusiasts are the worst.

I dislike the term because its ‘approximate’ use just creates more argument. I can’t swear that I’ve never used it because sometimes I’m lazy, but it’s not the way I usually describe things. If someone asked me about my Hawkinge, for example, I’d be most likely to say that it was a modern copy of an old watch. If it was relevant, I might say it was a modern copy of an IWC made by somebody else.

But if we’re relaxed enough about these things it hardly matters how we use the language as long as we’re making ourselves understood. The real problem is people thinking that their preferences should be applied universally.

[Chicolabronse]

Thing is you wouldn't have made a square chrono of 'acquired taste' if Heuer hadn't done it first and it being trendy.

It's still principally Heuer, your own work was simply to dilute a Monaco so that it's not a pure copy. Taking an original and making slight changes isn't the same thing as starting something original from scratch. "Let's make the Mona Lisa except blonde with a different background."

Could the same not be said of any brand that has made a square watch, Including Heuer with the Eterna that came before it?

"Taking an original and making slight changes isn't the same thing as starting something original from scratch" Is that not describing most of the 3 handed round case watches with a rotating timing bezel?

But it is an original design, the case was designed from scratch and is different to the Monaco case (i've not figured out how to make a square into a different shape yet!) the crown, pushers, crystal, hands, indices and sub dials (round) are all different as well, so to say we diluted the Monaco so that it's not a pure copy is way off the mark, yes we were inspired by the overall aesthetic (and colours) but not to the point of making a "legally different copy" (which i could have knocked up in an hour) as you put it.

[I-B]

i would like to have a Marie Antoinette pocket watch hommage

[Chicolabronse]

There you go with that brown strap again.

3 of the models will have a black strap!

[uchinanchu]

Yes, homage is usually to a person or to the work of a person. An object can’t really be a homage to an object.

You could, however, pay homage to Abraham Louis Breguet by making a watch in the style of Breguet. The watch wouldn’t be a homage but would represent an act of homage. Your act of homage could be a copy, but it wouldn’t itself be a homage, it would be a copy.

Naturally, you can’t pay homage to yourself - well, unless you’re a narcissist... so those who accept homages by a company to its own past glories are a bit wide of the mark.

Watch enthusiasts aren’t alone in misusing the term. I’ve sometimes seen it said that one film is a homage to another. But watch enthusiasts are the worst.

I dislike the term because its ‘approximate’ use just creates more argument. I can’t swear that I’ve never used it because sometimes I’m lazy, but it’s not the way I usually describe things. If someone asked me about my Hawkinge, for example, I’d be most likely to say that it was a modern copy of an old watch. If it was relevant, I might say it was a modern copy of an IWC made by somebody else.

But if we’re relaxed enough about these things it hardly matters how we use the language as long as we’re making ourselves understood. The real problem is people thinking that their preferences should be applied universally.

Never really understood how/why the term has been attached to watches that mimic other watches, it's why I just call my Steinhart/Davosa/Invicta pieces "copy watches" . . .

[CFR]

Yes, homage is usually to a person or to the work of a person. An object can’t really be a homage to an object.

You could, however, pay homage to Abraham Louis Breguet by making a watch in the style of Breguet. The watch wouldn’t be a homage but would represent an act of homage. Your act of homage could be a copy, but it wouldn’t itself be a homage, it would be a copy.

Naturally, you can’t pay homage to yourself - well, unless you’re a narcissist... so those who accept homages by a company to its own past glories are a bit wide of the mark.

Watch enthusiasts aren’t alone in misusing the term. I’ve sometimes seen it said that one film is a homage to another. But watch enthusiasts are the worst.

I dislike the term because its ‘approximate’ use just creates more argument. I can’t swear that I’ve never used it because sometimes I’m lazy, but it’s not the way I usually describe things. If someone asked me about my Hawkinge, for example, I’d be most likely to say that it was a modern copy of an old watch. If it was relevant, I might say it was a modern copy of an IWC made by somebody else.

But if we’re relaxed enough about these things it hardly matters how we use the language as long as we’re making ourselves understood. The real problem is people thinking that their preferences should be applied universally.

I don't disagree with you, Alan. I just find interesting how easily some meanings are captured and transfigured, when adopted by specific groups or micro-cultures.