Everything is Homage

Different types of homage.

I'm fine with a company homaging their previous hits, or the "inspired by" type but not "clomage's" that are just a copy but with a different logo.

A subject that's endlessly debated on here 🤣

Problem, again, is how we use that word. We mean "direct design copy" instead of homage. Now I have to state true homage to differentiate from direct design copies I actually have no problem with.

I've alluded to this before.

A better example would be the new Seiko 5 Field GMT in white.

Yes it has a 24 hr scale, and yes it's in orange.....

But c'mon, we all know what Seiko was giving a nod to. And I'm fine with that.

But I find extreme amounts of irony in how googly eyed peeps, especially the talking heads, will yammer on about aesthetics, wear-ability, design, heritage, etc...

Then turn around and put cheaper brands on blast for being derivative and "clomages". And I'm not talking the Ali brands. Baltic, Lorier, MkII, Monta, et al. This came up in the #microtournament quite a bit actually.

Especially if the clomages actually have the specs those same heads DEMAND in their "affordable" watches. Namely sapphire. YMMV. 🤔🫣🤐🤨 (Speaking to the Seiko Field GMT)

And for my $, after hearing @AllTheWatches arguments, to me, I'd buy the Monta Skyquest over the new BB GMT now 😂.

I know, I wish Rolex and Tudor stopped copying Steinhart and Squale. Clearly, Rolex and Tudor are slow learners, because their copies cost 10 times as much. The gall!

This kind of discussion comes up a lot as people learn about music.

"Hey, that Green Day song has the same 3 chords as this Beatles song, they stole it!"

Well - sort of, but also, there are only 7 notes in a major scale, and only so many permutations of those notes. At a certain point you have to accept that and move on to evaluating things based on the more subtle + intangible qualities.

Tudor was the og clomages brand in 1926, selling watches that were 1:1 Rolex copies except with another logo slapped on the dial (and movement, but who cares about the insides). 😉

At least the BB has a nicer typeface on the bezel, less text on the dial and, as you pointed out, no crown guards so they improved on the original design this time around. 👍

Since they are $4000 watches, they are allowed to copy Rolex models. But not Steinhart or Pagani Design, booooo, bad brands! Bad! 😜

For me, it is all about value for money. That is why I own several Orients and Citizens. I also own a San Martin and a couple of Pagani Design pieces. I bought a STOWA rather than a Laco, Sinn, or IWC. I own Vostoks and Sea Gulls. The point is, buy and wear what you want. As long as it isn't an outright fake or misrepresentation, who cares?

I don’t see the Tudor as an clomage, since it’s updated the new BB with a nicer case shape, new bracelet and no crown guards. The master chronometer in-house movement is a huge winner. Personally, I like this iteration better than the modern 6-digit Subs.

It's not bad if it's still expensive and exclusive. We just don't want the proletariat to even pretend to enjoy something that is made for their betters. 🧐🎩💰🛥👑

Also, I might be a bit biased about homage acceptance.

When it comes to anything, you can only have so many differences. Eventually everything becomes an homage to something else, or at least aspects of it will. I mean come on Hollywood stopped making new movies 15 years ago, and just makes remakes of older movies. Watch companies are just making modern versions of other past hits.

One thing that I don't hear come up much in discussions like this is the fact that many enthusiasts (esp. when they are just getting into the hobby) might not even KNOW about the famous watch that is reportedly being ripped off. When I bought an Invicta, I had literally never seen a Rolex so I had no idea that it was copying something else. I just thought it looked great.

When you are dealing with an object as small as a watch, with the inherent limits for such an object, there almost have to be common elements throughout a large portion of the offerings. I'm not condoning fakes at all. But of course many watches have similarities. Isn't that true of most objects in a given category?

Anyway, my point is that some, maybe many, people are blissfully oblivious to the fact that the watch they liked because it looks cool is deigned "just a copy" by people who have gone down the rabbit hole. On the journey through this hobby, I think lots of folks have that pendulum swing from initial interest to some bit of watch snobbery. Hopefully, most of us find somewhere in the middle where we buy what we like to wear and wear it without worrying what a bunch of talking heads or strangers on the internets think of it.

I agree with you. Besides, I think the homage "haters" are a vocal minority. Look at the best selling watches at any price point wether it's from microbrands, independants or even big brands recycling their catalogues. Homage sells.

My biggest problem with homages is the creative bankruptcy they expose. As it is, there are too many watch brands with too many models and too little difference between them, and if a brand—micro or major— can't even come up with a fresh design, what's the point?

We don't need more "vintage-inspired divers," "chronographs that call back to the golden age of motorsports," "pilot watches with aviation heritage" or "field watches that evoke the dirty dozen." We have enough of those. Let's move on...

Considering aging standard, 1 meter then.

It is not the romance or sentiment, it is the law unfortunately.

So the Tudor isn't a copy because it doesn't have Mercedes hands or crown guards?

My point is that this is all pointless, a lot of wasted energy for disdain or hate for things that are not the same and aren't fraud. They're similar. Than San Martin is more similar than the Tudor, but it's an arbitrary line being arbitrarily drawn so that people can be arbitrarily upset.

Once the patent ends there is no law about design only opinion.

The tudor can be a copy if it wanted to, as its profits go back to the company which owns it, Rolex.

Your previous assertion was the difference between a copy and an homage. Not a question of whether or not it is allowed to be. It was whether or not it is.

By your logic, the Tudor is an homage and not a copy (although if it wanted to it could be) because all other things being similar, it doesn't have crown guards or a Mercedes hand.

---

What level of parts difference is required to pass this homage/copy line in the sand? My point is that there is no objective point. It's subjective and completely arbitrary. So why get worked up about it?

I'm not worked up. Having been a designer, I know when your designs are out in the streets not being where it should be, it feels like shit, like you've been stolen from.

That is the end of my part in this conversation. Good luck.

Yep, 20 years if I am not mistaken and they could extend it for a small design update to keep it alive. That is why I said a copy homage is if it is still in production by the brand owner, a proper homage if it isn't. The blancpain fathoms is the first dive watch that utilize rotating bezel that rolex pay "homage" to, yet both sub and fathoms can be easily identifiable.

If you design it for a brand, than it is the brand problem. If you patent it, than it is an infringement to you, but most of the time, chasing them is like chasing ghost.

I believe Longines was the first manufacturer to use the rotating bezel and Blancpain first to used it in a diver. I also view Homages of vintage models very differently to those still in production but I think "easily identifiable" is incredibly subjective. Making a close copy to a Sub but using different hands and markers can look a lot more original even if it has an identical case and bracelet than one that's completely different but just so happens to use the funny shaped cathedral hands used by Rolex.

Funny shaped cathedral hand, now i know what it is called. Hands, dial, indices, or even offer in the colour that the conservative brand aren't going to offer, orange sub, if rolex follows it, than it becomes the copy homage. As I said, 1 meter away, perhaps hands and logo require more personal space infringement distance.

Mercedes hands aren't a million miles from the original cathedral hands. 😉

Sorry didn't mean to imply you getting worked up specifically!

I was trying to circle back to my original post/purpose. In general why get worked up about homages when everything is a homage?

I see where you're going with trying to further distinguish copy vs homage. But to me (also as a designer and engineer) unless it's a fake trying to pass as the real thing, or stolen trade secret, it's all very arbitrary to draw the line between homage vs copy. It's why all products tend to converge to look the same until there is real innovation in a market.

Definitely feel for you having your work stolen!

I don’t think him struggling with design is the issue… if you read through his sentiments he clearly has the design chops and desire to produce originals or proper homages, the issue he outlines is that his customers want the Rolex, Omega, Grand Seiko, Seiko, etc copies, not the San Martin designs, as good as some of them are; the man himself clearly isn’t happy producing the copies but that’s what’s selling and he needs to keep his business afloat. This is also why I sometimes think it’s a pointless debate because as clear as the difference is, the customer base is so committed to them that goalposts will move, even when the brand owner says plainly exactly what and why these copies are.

Anyway, first world problems …

Again I disagree that everything is an homage. While in design circles *functional* design can be standardized (for example someone else said something about not every dive watch with a bezel is a Sub homage, which is true), blatantly copying *aesthetic* design is still frowned upon (the operative word is ‘blatantly’). Many things can be functionally identical (and in that regard, can be argued to be an homage from that standpoint) but not everything is aesthetically an homage, and certainly not a copy. I employ and manage designers and developers and can guarantee you that if a designer showed up to an interview with a portfolio that was mostly copies of someone else’s easily recognizable work with little to no originality the interview would not get far. On the contrary, if there were a couple of well executed homages to existing designs amid some original work, that would spark a conversation. The two are not the same thing.