Homage and its Discontents
[This is a long read in which I explore some thought on the meaning of ‘homage’ in the watch industry and beyond. Consider yourself warned.]
Recently I have heard the term ‘homage’ appearing in some unlikely places. One prominent YouTuber looked at the colorful and overly exuberant Breitling Superoceans (yes, the ones with the blocky square on the minutes hand and dial colors last seen on 1950s Ford Thunderbirds) and declared that to his eyes the watch was an homage to a prior generation of Rolex Sea Dwellers. This strikes me as a forced connection as one would be hard pressed to come up with two watches that look more different, both in terms of overall appearance and even the spirit of the design. The Rolex reference in question is nothing if not a “very serious tool watch.” The Super Ocean is just as clearly here for fun in the sun, their shared love a wider than average chapter ring notwithstanding.
One often hears similar assertions in watch related discussions. Some references are clones, or very close copies, of more desirable models. Others don’t really share that many visual similarity to their claimed source of inspiration. More often than not, the individuals deploying the term seem to imply that because homages lack originality they also fall short in the “authenticity” department. These watches are at best a “value proposition” and buying them demonstrates a lack of taste and financial self-discipline. It is something we are warned to avoid.
The really fascinating thing is that in the last week I have heard this same exact argument leveled at watches costing a few hundred dollars but also time pieces from respected houses costing the same amount as a luxury car.
“Authenticity” is a multi-faceted and complex concept, yet its use in these sorts of situations seems to reduce to an ad hominin attack on people who spend their money differently than I do and therefore challenge the hierarchy of values that I as a consumer of luxury goods hold. Most of us wish to display our identity and cultural sophistication through the objects that we surround ourselves with. In that sense watches are no different than clothing, cars, travel or other embarrassingly expensive hobbies.
At the end of the day there is no single way build a really good watch. It seems to me that Omega, Rolex and Vacheron Constantine, to name three well-known brands, are each striving to build the perfect watch. And yet their visions of perfection are varied and wonderful. The delightful thing about being a collector is that I get to take part in this conversation without having to take a side. I can understand and appreciate all sides.
Likewise, there is no single way to appreciate time pieces. I know some individuals who only care about what happens within the movement, others who collect only “icons” of industrial design, and more still who are amazed by the competitive quest to do more with less. How much watch you can get for how little money? Just as we don’t have to agree on a single definition of what would constitute the perfect watch, we don’t have to assume that all consumers have the same values that we do, or that those who choose to spend their money differently are somehow broken.
Yet the psychological need to justify our own dubious spending decisions is so great that this is exactly what I often hear. It is not enough for me to look at a watch that does not speak me and say “I think I will pass.” Instead I need to justify that choice in terms that continue to demonstrate my own cultural sophistication or economic values.
All of this makes me uncomfortable. Still, I am not willing to give up on the notion of “homage” when thinking about watches. If we look at this idea more critically, I think it could help us to understand important trends in the watch industry, and even teach us a thing or two about how creativity functions in the wider world.
To do that I would like to put forward three of my own pieces. The first is a panda dial Tudor Black Bay Chronograph. The second is the Seiko SPB 237 “Grey Birch” Captain Willard. Finally, I would like to discuss my (yet to be delivered) RGM 222-Rail Road.
In what sense are these three watches homages? More importantly, how do they navigate what literary theorist Harold Bloom called the “anxiety of influence,” referencing the past while doing something creative in the present? Finally, do we as a community have a singular definition in mind when we use the term homage? Most likely we do not, and this complicates our understanding of how creativity emerges in areas like watch making and industrial design.
When looking up the word “homage” one typically runs across two definitions. The older meaning is a display of loyalty that a vassal pays to their liege in a feudal setting. To pay homage is literally to bow before the crown. The second, more modern reference, is some characteristic that “attests the influence of another.” It is precisely that sort borrowing which everyone seems to be most concerned with in the watch space.
I am not so sure, however, that we can ignore our relationship with the Crown in any conversation in which Rolex is so deeply implicated. One of the reasons why I personally purchased a Black Bay Chronograph was that in a world of similar looking three register dials, its case profile and face were striking and visually distinct. This is a watch that you can spot at a glance from the other side of a room. And on closer inspection nothing else looks quite like it.
It is hard to come up with a truly new design and Tudor’s offering had a unique presence that worked well on my 8 inch wrist. It is also interesting to note that while the watch has a familial relationship with the Rolex Daytona (especially the more vintage ones), absolutely no one would mistake them from the other side of that same rhetorical room. And that confusion would become even less likely if you were to put them on. These are strikingly different watches.
How different? The Tudor is a two register design while the Daytona always has a three register layout. The Tudor is a somewhat impractical diving chronograph with a depth rating on the dial while the Rolex is a dedicated racing chronograph. The Tudor is slab sided and features a date complication while the Daytona is famously svelte and forgoes the date.
There are certainly some similarities. Both feature an external tachymeter scale (an innovation pioneered by the Omega Speedmater), though on the Rolex it is in ceramic while the Tudor makes due with a more vintage looking aluminum execution. And both have similar screw down pushers, though the visual effect is somewhat different as the Tudor lacks the crown guards seen on more modern Daytona’s. Aside from the fact that the Black Bay Chronograph is offered in mono-chromatic color ways, I would say that the screw down pushers are the main visual feature that really show the family resemblance.
Given the many differences, in what sense is the Black Bay Chronograph an homage to the Daytona? I think that this is where the medieval definition of the term needs to become more central to our understanding how watch design, and marketing, functions in the modern era. It is clear that the designers of this watch went out of their way to make it visually and functionally distinct from the Daytona in most respects. They succeeded in creating a watch that has its own look and feel. It is one that would appeal to a different (and potentially broader) group of consumers at a price point designed to cut Omega and Breitling off at the knees.
Yet the few hints of family resemblance that have been preserved undeniably bend the knee to the Crown. In so doing the Black Bay Chrono further promotes the mystique of the Daytona without producing a watch that shares much in term of wearing experience or visual DNA. Homages done well are not copies. The Black Bay is such a different watch, yet it’s very existence serves to promote the notion that the Rolex Daytona is somehow the monarch of all chronographs and well beyond the grasp of mere peasants or the minor nobility.
In some cases the apple falls much closer to the tree. This is where we must turn our attention to Seiko’s SPB237. This ostensible reimaging of the iconic Captain Willard is meant to evoke the visual appeal of the original in ways that the Tudor chronograph simply does not attempt. The aged lume and textured dial suggests that we found this watch in a drawer that once belonged to a family member. At first glance it looks and feels like a relic. It is that perfect vintage Willard we always wanted to find on Ebay but never did.
At least that is how it feels until we take a second look at the watch. When we do that we notice that Seiko is paying homage to its own past, but it is also displaying some anxiety about the original reference. The creativity of this watch emerges from an almost tacit admission that the original Willard was on the right path, but it took a couple of wrong turns and Seiko is the only house that can interpret this classic for the modern era.
The SPB237’s case has been reduced in width and length, brining it more in line with modern expectations about what vintage watches should have been. The faulty crown locking system that inevitably leaked has been replaced with something modern and actually capable of doing the job. Similar concessions to modernity have been made within the movement and in fitting the watch with a sapphire crystal.
Back when Seiko first produced this watch they had no idea that American servicemen in Vietnam would adopt it in mass as an ersatz field watch and the dimensions of the originals (wonderful as they are) never really fit that task. The SPB237, on the other hand, seems more purpose built for the mission. Rather than paying homage to the creation of another brand as we saw with the Tudor (“the Shield protects the Crown”), here very intentional homages are being deployed to alter our collective imagination of the horological past and the role that Seiko played in it.
The third homage I want to propose for consideration is the RGM’s 222-Railroad. It is a somewhat obscure reference by the independent American watchmaker Roland Murphy who (importantly) is located in Lancaster PA. I suspect that many people might see it as homage (which it is) but entirely miss the point of the exercise. The 2 O’clock crown and offset numerals are superficially similar to a number of other watches, but the only one of those you are likely to have seen on Instagram is the Vacheron Constantine Historiques American 1921. Even the reference number “222” seems to have a VC echo to it.
In fact this watch, like all of Roland Murphy’s creations, is deeply enmeshed with references to the watch making legacy of Lancaster PA, once one of the most important horological centers of the modern industrial age. Hamilton had its original factory just up the road from RGM’s workshop and everything from the “box car” numbering on the hand fired enamel dials to the heavy blued hands is an intentional reference to the railroad pocket watches that were painstakingly crafted to exacting standards that modern watchmakers still struggle to meet. The “222” is a highway that runs through the area.
The watch itself is powered by a vintage Hamilton movement that has been entirely rebuilt and hand polished in an effort to remind people of the achievements of the now largely forgotten US watch industry. The off-set crowns were a common feature on small pocket watch movements that had been converted to wrist watches in the first decades of the 20th century. The entire thing is a true artistic homage to brands that no longer exist, who made products that are no longer used. Yet the tools that they created were both beautiful and shaped the modern world.
What Roland Murphy offers us is simultaneously the most concrete and most abstract homage. In a sense his work is more historically grounded than the VC 1921 in that he is actually using a movement from that era restored to dazzling condition. This is not a recreation or a reissue. The watch is exactly what it claims to be.
Yet while VC is basically homaging itself in a brand building exercise very similar to what we saw with Seiko, Murphy hopes to turn our attention to a set of memories and emotions that transcend the current watch market. He is not entirely alone in this romanticism. Every time we talk about a watch “having a great story” we are looking at the way it is employed as a symbol that points to something that transcends the watch space. When we examine how homage as a technique works in the realms of literature and art, there is no requirement that the thing being signified needs to be the same type of object as the symbol pointing the way.
Homages within the watch world exist along an entire spectrum. At one extreme we have copies that are designed to be uncreative and to create confusion. These are the clones. In a sense these aren’t really true homages as they are not elevating, or entering a dialogue with, their original inspiration. They may even dilute its design language in an attempt to gain market share. I am not going to say that people should not buy these, but I think that maybe we should call them by some other term.
In other cases a single brand or reference so totally dominates the popular imagination that they create a design language that other brands are forced to work within to express their own creative vision. When a Grand Seiko GMT has a fixed steel bezel is it in some senses an homage to the Rolex Explorer II? Certainly.
It is a copy? Probably not. It is a competing vision of what a travel watch can be. Both companies have their own vision of what the ideal watch should be. While Grand Seiko may reference certain design elements that Rolex has made ubiquitous, the end products are likely to be unmistakably different, and even opposed in their basic philosophy.
Yet as I hoped to show above, I think that the concept of homage goes well beyond these two, more widely understood, possibilities. Corporate groups and brands may create homages to themselves in an effort to build an interest in their own vintage pieces or to attempt to reshape our memory of their past. In some cases the narrative power of an homage may transcend the brand itself and ask us to consider a more fundamental story or set of values. That too is an homage.
While I am ambivalent about the way that the term homage is used as a means of delegitimizing certain brands or classes of watch collectors, I think that it remains a fundamentally important concept for understanding the types of stories that we as consumers are trying to tell about ourselves, and the material objects that help us to do that.
A student of time and space with a watch on his wrist.
First off I really appreciate longer format posts so Thanks for that!
Secondly I'm pretty immune to being triggered by how another person spends their money. My life isn't any different whether the other guy is wearing a clone, homage or the real deal. I might feel a little bad for the guy wearing a bad clone just as I would for someone sporting a bad toupee but if it makes him feel like he's on top of the world then go get 'em tiger.
Lastly I welcome the opportunity to learn more about MY preferences from posts like this. What's right for any collector isn't universal yet I keep encountering "enthusiasts" who can't pass up an opportunity to invalidate the choices of others when no one is asking, especially when no one is asking.
Thanks for expressing your take without telling others how they should or shouldn't roll.
Looking forward to more posts.
First off I really appreciate longer format posts so Thanks for that!
Secondly I'm pretty immune to being triggered by how another person spends their money. My life isn't any different whether the other guy is wearing a clone, homage or the real deal. I might feel a little bad for the guy wearing a bad clone just as I would for someone sporting a bad toupee but if it makes him feel like he's on top of the world then go get 'em tiger.
Lastly I welcome the opportunity to learn more about MY preferences from posts like this. What's right for any collector isn't universal yet I keep encountering "enthusiasts" who can't pass up an opportunity to invalidate the choices of others when no one is asking, especially when no one is asking.
Thanks for expressing your take without telling others how they should or shouldn't roll.
Looking forward to more posts.
Thanks for the feedback @FlatteryCamp. Glad you enjoyed it!
Great post but it took me awhile to get back on track after I read "prominent You Tuber".
Great job, nice read on a Sunday night. I’m in the bang for the buck category right now, movement wise while still getting the look I’m after, if that makes sense.
Last two watches I bought were Smiths/Timefactors, so definitely in the homage group. Both of military watches, but with good and accurate movements for the price. Like 1/2 of what others charge.
Anyways Benjamin thanks for your great post. Have a great evening!✌🏻
Thanks so much @RustyTheSinnMan !
It all boils down to money ...with everything. If you only have a hundred bucks and you want a good looking watch there are options. Luxury looks in the bargain basement if you will. The posters here are all over the map on the money scale while some just can't figure out why the others do what they do. It's Kind of the city mouse / country mouse quandary.
Very nice job explaining your perspective on this and thanks for taking the time to write it up. I think in each of the cases you make, the two brands can stand on their own.
Thanks for the post Benjamin, a really well thought out treatise. I feel like you covered a lot of ground and I really enjoyed all of it. I’m with you on this idea that the term “homage” is thrown around a bit too loosely. In most cases (but probably not all) someone is referring to an affordable watch that looks a lot like one that is not so affordable, in this case a term like “clone” might be more accurate. I have thought about this sense of homage/clone quite a bit, and it is a really tough topic. In my early days of collecting I was completely unaware or simply just didn’t care one way or the other. Over time, and being exposed to so many different watches, I became aware and started to care. What I mean by that is it started to influence the watches that appealed to me. What it didn’t do though was change my opinion of others desire for these watches. We all have our own journeys, and each is as valid and rewarding as any other. Whether we use homage or clone or any other term, the key I think is to unpack any negative connotation and embrace the fact that the joy someone gets out of a watch you don’t care for, feels the same for them as it does for us and the watches we enjoy. For me that has been the ultimate joy in this site, getting to relish in others joy in obtaining a new watch. As well as getting to explore ideas like these with others who I know are feeling that same joy I do.
Cheers my friend! Enjoy the journey!
Magnificently argued.
Just relax. With a Relax, then tell haters to read your 6 o'clock subdial.
I think we are, for better or worse, stuck with the word "homage" in the watchworld. Trying to attribute motivation to the maker/wearer of a homage watch is tricky. The "try to deceive" accusation in particular is pretty much never accurate, outside actual fakes: which normie recognizes watch designs? On watch nerd social media people do, but a wristshot of the thing with the other brand name on display does not deceive anyone, let alone the experts.
You were talking about the high end. There is also a low end: take this Wwoor I just ordered from AliExpress. It is a $10 cheapo. Its looks derive from a Patek Philippe Golden Ellipse. Outside watch nerd circles nobody would recognize the design, and even within this is not a common look. Wwoor saw a design they liked, thought probably something along the lines of: "that looks good, we can make something like that, that'll sell", and in a way that is homaging the original too.
Major part of the issue: 1) people don’t understand the words they are using and 2) people really don’t understand that in most cases a basic concept or element of a watch doesn’t belong to one brand and that design always feeds from the creative ether if you will . . . Is often in conversation with other watches and traditions and styles and time periods and trends etc. I see this shit a lot in my field where people don’t understand that originality in storytelling is almost always about the nature of execution and reimagining of the conversation and not necessarily about some specific content.
I don’t really care what people do with their $ and think various entries to types of watches is a good thing. But how people go on about these things (“that watch has a dive bezel so they are a Rolex wannabe”) makes my eyes glaze over 😂
Thanks for the interesting read.
It's good to come across something of substance outside of traditional watch media.
Cheers.
Great article - really enjoyed it.
As some have said I worry the term "homage" has lost all meaning in the watch community so its better left alone.
You raised Harold Bloom and I think his theory (though originally intended to critique poetry) works well - is this a strong design or a weak design?
Did the designer fold under the pressure and stray to close to the original, or more difficult, did they leave out a feature that would have elevated the watch for fear of being called out as copying.
Conversely, did the designer take that influence, master it and transform it into something new.
Here I find myself comparing (say) the Sinn 105 UTC and the CW C63 Sealander GMT. Both designers have clearly seen and been influenced by the Rolex Explorer 2 however to me it feels like the designer at Sinn stood up under the pressure and managed to integrate the Rolex cues into an unmistakenly Sinn watch. The design at CW otoh has strayed closer to rolex and failed to bring enough new, enough uniquely CW, to the design.
Your example fo the grand seiko is also apt, a great instance of taking and transforming but not being a prisoner of an influence.
So rather than call one a homage and the other original, I think a better way to phrase it is that the Sinn design is stronger and has managed to transform the original influenced better/more successfully/more completely than the CW designer.
This brings us to another point - why bother with all this, its just a watch, a piece of consumer oriented design, who cares about all this artsy crap - just buy what you like and be done with it. I guess I cant, I dont see watches as merely crap to be bought, I like to appreciate them like art, whether I or you or no one buys it.
It’s certainly an interesting topic. I think the Rolex/Tudor relationship is a particularly interesting one. It seems Tudor gets a pass where others are often vilified or at least looked down upon.
This is an icon, no doubt and a grail watch for many.
While this is a cheap copy, at best an homage often derided by some.
Why then does this get a pass? Does brand ownership by the same foundation give Tudor a pass? Is it price? Does a price over a certain point get you out of homage territory, or is this still just a lower priced copy?
BTW, the Tudor is mine and I’m currently trying to trade or sell it. The primary reason is the size and weight are just a little too much for me. But honestly, a tiny part of the reason is the homage nature of the watch bothers me just a little bit.
Where’s the line and who sets it? I know it all comes down to personal preference, budget and desire but it makes for an interesting conversation.
Great post but it took me awhile to get back on track after I read "prominent You Tuber".
I wonder who he meant. Perhaps TB?
Wrong GMT Master reference, the correct one makes the reason more apparent: because the Tudor is an homage, the Pagani is a copy. The Tudor is inspired by, the Pagani plagiarizes, almost if not 1:1. There’s a big difference between the two examples, and the distinction is not as difficult to make as some try to say it is — sometimes I think the obfuscation is deliberate because ‘copy’ isn’t perceived to be as respectful as ‘homage’.
Also, Tudor is a different topic altogether: same founder, same parent company, created specifically to offer affordable versions of his more expensive offerings.
I’m with the OP, while it’s not my business how another man chooses to spend his money, homages and copies shouldn’t be lumped in the same category.
That Tudor is visually a near as dammit 1-1 clone of the Rolex
You’re correct, the Pagani as a one to one copy was a poor choice. I really shouldn’t insomnia post. A more appropriate comparison would have been the Timex Pepsi GMT.
It’s not a copy but definitely a Rolex GMT Master inspired homage. Or maybe, is it a Tudor BB GMT inspired homage? Now I am confused. The lines get blurred pretty quickly.😂
I also certainly believe a person should wear what they like, regardless of price or brand.
The Tudor thing though just fascinates me, as part of the company seems to by primarily a homage studio honoring the history of vintage Rolex and Tudor divers, while another part makes some very stylish dress watches and yet another is incredibly innovative with the Pelagos line. They’ve certainly come a long way from the days of being a Rolex case with a less expensive movement.
Lol @ “insomnia posting”, I’ve been guilty of that many a time myself. The Timex Q GMT is a homage; I don’t think the lines are blurred at all — there is an obvious inspiration taken from the GMT Master, but it still has its own identity … same goes for the Lorier GMT, the Baltic, etc. That’s a far cry from factories that wait to see what the latest Patek or humble Seiko is going to be, then copying and simply switching up the logo or dial color.
Tangentially — and on the same topic — I also think conflating ‘originality’ and ‘authenticity’ muddies the waters: while you can argue it’s hard to be original these days, it’s not difficult to be authentic even if it’s not a 100% original design. Look at the Christopher Ward Twelve for example: clearly an homage and hardly original, but a FANTASTIC watch, and one of the best releases in recent memory.
Homage is probably the term that gets misused and misunderstood more than any other term in our little world. I’ve seen people call the Formex Essence an Aqua Terra homage on multiple occasions simply because they both have lines cut into the dial. That is the ONLY similarity between the two and people still think that’s an homage. I don’t even bother correcting people on the homage topic anymore because it’s a losing battle. The term has lost all its meaning and is very overused. I’d be alright if we just gave up on the word all together. Once a word becomes whatever an individual wants it to be it’s no longer an accurate descriptor. Words need common definitions so everyone knows what it means. If there’s no common definition we might as well not use it.
That Tudor is visually a near as dammit 1-1 clone of the Rolex
A 1:1 clone? That’s a reach and a half 🤣. Completely different case design. Different dial. Different hands. Different bracelet design. Different bezel insert. Different font use. Different date window execution … I could keep going? It’s clearly inspired by, but also clearly not a ‘clone’ brother. But again, even if it were (which it isn’t) Tudor is different — their relationship to Rolex makes it so, and Tudor does nothing without big brother’s consent.
A 1:1 clone? That’s a reach and a half 🤣. Completely different case design. Different dial. Different hands. Different bracelet design. Different bezel insert. Different font use. Different date window execution … I could keep going? It’s clearly inspired by, but also clearly not a ‘clone’ brother. But again, even if it were (which it isn’t) Tudor is different — their relationship to Rolex makes it so, and Tudor does nothing without big brother’s consent.
And most people will see the bezel and the indexes and assume its a Rolex, or a copy of a Rolex. You're kind of proving the OPs point about brand snobbery.
Thank you for your thoughtful post. It was a joy to read.
My only input is that this is a very personal thing. Some of of us see similarities or differencies not recognized by the next person. There is not an objective truth imo. All is based on the reviewers perception and experience. So for me your arguments are fine but the comparisons might end up differently depending on the observer.
And most people will see the bezel and the indexes and assume its a Rolex, or a copy of a Rolex. You're kind of proving the OPs point about brand snobbery.
Wrong; the ‘snobbery’ argument is a weak catch-all some fans of these factories use to put down any grounded argument. I’d previously said in this same thread that I couldn’t care less what anyone chooses to buy/wear — my issue is with the factories’ practices and the nomenclature. I’d also highlighted a few affordable homages that I salute — so there goes the ‘brand snobbery’ argument (likewise, looking through my collection you’d see I own a few affordables which I love so 🤷♂️). A person’s mistaken assumptions do not change the definition of a thing; you wrongly stated that the Tudor BB Pro is a *clone* of the GMT Master II — respectfully, the only thing our discourse has proven is your poor grasp of the definition of the word ‘clone’, which is what I tried to point out, nothing more.
Clone: a person or thing that seems to be an exact copy of another. Transitive. In extended use: to reproduce (an identical copy) from a given original; to replicate (an existing individual or thing).
I wonder who he meant. Perhaps TB?
Tom Brady??
Tom Brady??
The other TB?
I find "homaaaaaage" sounds silly and a tad pretentious. Especially the French pronunciation which is prevalent in the American English-speaking world. Homage half rhymes with damage.
There's a lot of gatekeeping by fans/owners of particular designs when the reality is that there has always been a lot of sharing/copying/cross-fertilisation.
Thank you for your thoughtful post. It was a joy to read.
My only input is that this is a very personal thing. Some of of us see similarities or differencies not recognized by the next person. There is not an objective truth imo. All is based on the reviewers perception and experience. So for me your arguments are fine but the comparisons might end up differently depending on the observer.
Great point!
There are in fact some that are more adept at spotting similarities without falling prey to the evolutionary phenomenon of seeing patterns even where they sometimes don't exist.
Enduring superstitious beliefs were often a result of making a connection between random events and assigning one of them as causative. The only connection may have been proximity and timing yet many still feel uncomfortable if a black cat crosses one's path.
One would need to know the mind and experience of the designer to determine whether some of the most subtle similarities are intentional or independently manifested but even then only if the designer had that insight in the first place.
The designer's "truth" might be that his octagonal bezel came to him in a dream while someone else's "truth" is that it screams Gerald Genta.
Groups of hominids have independently invented similar things and practices without influence from another hominid group half way around the world. These include everything from cooking, archery and percussive musical beats.
Digital exposure to the ideas of others lessens opportunities for truly original thinking but as @pete.mcconvill.watches posits "...did the designer take that influence, master it and transform it into something new?"
I always appreciate it when people like Mike France of CW clearly acknowledge the design influences of their watches and the "upon the shoulders of giants" phenomenon. There is a different yet perhaps equally important type of authenticity inherent in that approach.
Wrong; the ‘snobbery’ argument is a weak catch-all some fans of these factories use to put down any grounded argument. I’d previously said in this same thread that I couldn’t care less what anyone chooses to buy/wear — my issue is with the factories’ practices and the nomenclature. I’d also highlighted a few affordable homages that I salute — so there goes the ‘brand snobbery’ argument (likewise, looking through my collection you’d see I own a few affordables which I love so 🤷♂️). A person’s mistaken assumptions do not change the definition of a thing; you wrongly stated that the Tudor BB Pro is a *clone* of the GMT Master II — respectfully, the only thing our discourse has proven is your poor grasp of the definition of the word ‘clone’, which is what I tried to point out, nothing more.
Clone: a person or thing that seems to be an exact copy of another. Transitive. In extended use: to reproduce (an identical copy) from a given original; to replicate (an existing individual or thing).
You make a great point with "...a person’s mistaken assumptions do not change the definition of a thing..."
All I see is a four legged mammal with stripes therefore it must be a Zebra.
Great point!
There are in fact some that are more adept at spotting similarities without falling prey to the evolutionary phenomenon of seeing patterns even where they sometimes don't exist.
Enduring superstitious beliefs were often a result of making a connection between random events and assigning one of them as causative. The only connection may have been proximity and timing yet many still feel uncomfortable if a black cat crosses one's path.
One would need to know the mind and experience of the designer to determine whether some of the most subtle similarities are intentional or independently manifested but even then only if the designer had that insight in the first place.
The designer's "truth" might be that his octagonal bezel came to him in a dream while someone else's "truth" is that it screams Gerald Genta.
Groups of hominids have independently invented similar things and practices without influence from another hominid group half way around the world. These include everything from cooking, archery and percussive musical beats.
Digital exposure to the ideas of others lessens opportunities for truly original thinking but as @pete.mcconvill.watches posits "...did the designer take that influence, master it and transform it into something new?"
I always appreciate it when people like Mike France of CW clearly acknowledge the design influences of their watches and the "upon the shoulders of giants" phenomenon. There is a different yet perhaps equally important type of authenticity inherent in that approach.
Thanks! CW Sealander is a perfect example of how I see things different than others. Apparently CW themself stated it as inspired by the Explorer, and @pete.mcconvill.watches bring it up as an example of that. I have never seen it as such. For me, the Sealander is more of a GS SBGN003. But then, from where has GS got their ideas from?
Thanks! CW Sealander is a perfect example of how I see things different than others. Apparently CW themself stated it as inspired by the Explorer, and @pete.mcconvill.watches bring it up as an example of that. I have never seen it as such. For me, the Sealander is more of a GS SBGN003. But then, from where has GS got their ideas from?
I see your point, but I personally see them both as Explorer II homages because of the development timeline: CWard had already established the dial, handset and case design with the Trident MK3 by early 2019 I think (everything except the hands was established with the Trident MK2 in 2017, a year before the GS). If you look at the Sealander in comparison to the Trident MK3, the bezel and GMT hand are the only significant updates, and the orange/black GMT hand is a direct reference to the Explorer II 216570, so while I agree that it looks more like the GS than the Exp II, I can see why CWard explicitly said they drew influence from the Exp II. I do agree with your point about people’s perception being different however, and thus having a bearing on this 🍻