Clomage, homage, or original?

Baltany S5033 gained popularity as a budget-friendly military-style chronograph with quality specifications (10 bar WR, sapphire with AR, good lume) and a Seiko's VK61 quartz movement with a mechanically geared chronograph with sweeping hands and instant reset (and a ghost date, but nobody's perfect) so much so it got an even cheaper copy by Militado (sterile dial).

The design is based on a Vietnam war-era US military-spec hand-wound field watch, which was famously made by Hamilton, but Baltany added a chronograph. Hamilton sell the reissue in 38 mm as "Khaki Field Mechanical", as well as a considerably costlier off-shoot with an automatic 12h chronograph movement. For completion's sake, Militado also make a 12h chronograph with a Seiko VK67.

So, is the Baltany (and as am extension Militado) a clomage (copy without am original idea), a homage (a tribute to a classic with an added design value), or would you consider it basically original? Or something else? Please, comment in any case.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
57 votes

I think, since it is not an EXACT copy, it would be an homage.

ZiggyS

I think, since it is not an EXACT copy, it would be an homage.

I may be wrong, though. I'm not an expert on US field watches or the Hamilton current and back catalogue.

D) A nice looking watch

foghorn

D) A nice looking watch

No doubt about that!

I'd say a proper homage - an original design inspired by the past 馃憤

I can't fully tell w/o seeing the watch from the side, but most of these watches are not that close to a Hamilton Khaki from a case perspective. I would simply call it a field watch.

hbein2022

I can't fully tell w/o seeing the watch from the side, but most of these watches are not that close to a Hamilton Khaki from a case perspective. I would simply call it a field watch.

Yeah, I would still call it a field watch. Differences in the case are subtle, but they are there. It's just hard to call something a homage in a field of watches, similar to Flieger watches, if the general design isn't attributed to a specific brand.

Hamilton does not own any rights to the Mil-W-3818B and GG-W-113 mil-spec designs. Nor were they the first manufacturer to produce them for the Military in the 60s.

Military specifications are, by definition, fair use and can not be trademarked. Thus, the Baltany is no more an homage or copy of the Hamilton than the Hamilton is an homage or copy of the original Benrus DTU which was the first watch produced with this aesthetic. Hamilton is simply known for this style because it has become their niche. It is not their design.

Image

1964 Benrus DTU 2A (Mil-W-3818B)

Beanna

Hamilton does not own any rights to the Mil-W-3818B and GG-W-113 mil-spec designs. Nor were they the first manufacturer to produce them for the Military in the 60s.

Military specifications are, by definition, fair use and can not be trademarked. Thus, the Baltany is no more an homage or copy of the Hamilton than the Hamilton is an homage or copy of the original Benrus DTU which was the first watch produced with this aesthetic. Hamilton is simply known for this style because it has become their niche. It is not their design.

Image

1964 Benrus DTU 2A (Mil-W-3818B)

I agree, but how much do they take from the mil-spec designs and does the Hamilton chronograph - which is Hamilton's own, because there weren't any milspec field chronographs, to my knowledge. Chronographs were specialist watches mainly for aviators. - play into it?