The attack of the SuperFakes • Hacker News Board

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#21

Post by at-fates-hands » Mon, Dec 04, 2017, 7:51 PM UTC

foobarrio wrote: post #6

cantrip wrote: post #3

If a high quality watch is made from the same materials, in the same conditions, with the same brand logo, what does the term fake even mean? From the article: "Historically, less than 5 percent of the watches that we authenticate are fake,” said Powell. “At one point this number was as high as 10 percent.” However, the numbers are growing." Is it possible that the number of "fake" watches was always going up but tha…

A lot of the advantages of the "better" construction aren't seen until the watch is older. An acrylic glass vs saphire glass crystal on a watch both look the same when new. Over 10 years, they will look much different. Heat-treated blued steel watch hands supposedly rust much less compared to the chemically treated blued hands. I am not sure if this justifies the price difference of a $50 fake vs $5,000 Rolex. I've n…

> I am not sure if this justifies the price difference of a $50 fake vs $5,000 Rolex.

I owned a five year old Rolex Submariner and had it for about three years. You could tell it was a solid, well built watch. However, after the first six months, I found it was not keeping very accurate time. Sent it back to Rolex and they fixed it and sent it back. Was fine for another six months, then it started again. Sent it back and was charged $300 for the repair. After another four months it started again and I finally gave up on it and sold it for a fraction of its worth.

This is pretty much par for the course on the high end stuff I've bought over my lifetime. High end (not pro stock) hockey stuff just falls apart and isn't durable. Soccer stuff? Same thing. Dress shoes, suits, clothing? Same thing. High end mountain bikes? Same thing. I had three high end mountain bikes (all different manufacturers) and the derailleurs needed adjustment constantly, the high end Magura hydraulic disc brakes squealed constantly and the Fox forks all leaked after a few months. I was a single track guy so its not like I was doing Red Bull contests either. I got a middle tier Cannondale and have had it since 2006 with little or no issues.

I found that after so many years of being disappointed with "high end" expensive stuff, your best bet is to not get the lowest cost thing or the most expensive, but the middle tier stuff I've always found to be not only durable, but far more dependable.

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#22

Post by derpaderp1 » Mon, Dec 04, 2017, 7:52 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #20

derpaderp1 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all knowingly support software patents with the businesses we work with. This is no different. These brands were there first and did the research and development pursuant to establishing what is a good user experience and most-desirable in a handbag, watch, et cetera.

No, those handbags and watches are bought simply because they allow the buyer to signal 'status'. If people with less money also get to signal that same status then the original loses its value. That's really all there is to it, a good user experience doesn't come in to play at all (most of that stuff is unusable anyway) and the 'most desirable' bit is exactly that: status.

Your company doesn't use AWS, GCE, or Azure? Which brand are you into to maintain your status?

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#23

Post by foobarrio » Mon, Dec 04, 2017, 8:05 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #19

In the Swiss watch business, many movements are made by outsourcing firms. Some of the fakes have the same movement as the real item. It's all about the branding. If you want to know what time it is, get a solar-powered Casio G-Shock that corrects from WWV and similar time sources. Costs $89.[1] Requires no user attention. More accurate than any mechanical watch. [1] https://www.amazon.com/G-Shock-AWG-M100-1ACR-Tough…

+1 for G-Shocks. Even though Casio rates the accuracy of it's $8 FW91 quartz watch at "only" around 1 second per day[1], many people observe 1 second per month with others observing 0 seconds after 2-3 months. This makes it more accurate than almost all mechanical watches in any price range.

[1] http://support.casio.com/storage/en/manual/pdf/EN/009/qw593....

I love my mechanical watches but I bought them because they look cool not for their time keeping ability.

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#24

Post by foobarrio » Mon, Dec 04, 2017, 8:09 PM UTC

at-fates-hands wrote: post #21

foobarrio wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the advantages of the "better" construction aren't seen until the watch is older. An acrylic glass vs saphire glass crystal on a watch both look the same when new. Over 10 years, they will look much different. Heat-treated blued steel watch hands supposedly rust much less compared to the chemically treated blued hands. I am not sure if this justifies the price difference of a $50 fake vs $5,000 Rolex. I've n…

> I am not sure if this justifies the price difference of a $50 fake vs $5,000 Rolex. I owned a five year old Rolex Submariner and had it for about three years. You could tell it was a solid, well built watch. However, after the first six months, I found it was not keeping very accurate time. Sent it back to Rolex and they fixed it and sent it back. Was fine for another six months, then it started again. Sent it back…

That sucks to hear. I guess this is also similar to high-end cars where they are more problematic than a trusty Toyota Corolla. I've love to own a Rolex Explorer or an Omega Seamaster one day but I am not sure I would ever buy one. I've been happy with Seikos and Casios. I daily wear a Seiko sarb033 on a black leather strap and it honestly as classy as I'd ever want out of watch. I really want to believe that branding isn't the only difference when comparing high-end watches but perhaps this is not the case.

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#25

Post by makomk » Mon, Dec 04, 2017, 8:09 PM UTC

SyneRyder wrote: post #14

RickJWagner wrote: post #7

In a way, I guess this is a form of 'luxury tax'. You can buy an excellent watch for under $30 at any Wal-Mart. It'll come with a no-hassle warranty, will be handsome in appearance and will function flawlessly. But it won't be a 'luxury good' and it never will be.

That reminds me of a quote from the book "The Billionaire Who Wasn't", about Chuck Feeney, co-founder of DFS, who secretly donated $8 Billion to various charitable causes until he was outed: “Since my earliest days I have been frugal, but I am a frugal person in that I hate waste, at any level,” says Feeney, who always wears off-the-peg clothes, a cheap plastic watch, and reading glasses of the type sold in book-stor…

I imagine there may have been some other reasons he wanted to keep the donations to Sinn Fein a secret at least, but yeah... (Their paramilitary wing the Provisional IRA was still bombing British cities back then.)

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#26

Post by goialoq » Mon, Dec 04, 2017, 8:09 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #8

cantrip wrote: post #3

If a high quality watch is made from the same materials, in the same conditions, with the same brand logo, what does the term fake even mean? From the article: "Historically, less than 5 percent of the watches that we authenticate are fake,” said Powell. “At one point this number was as high as 10 percent.” However, the numbers are growing." Is it possible that the number of "fake" watches was always going up but tha…

> If a high quality watch is made from the same materials, in the same conditions, with the same brand logo, what does the term fake even mean? It means made by an entity without authorization to produce that thing with that brand. Not authentic. It's operating without the historical reputation of the brand (company) behind it, which typically applies to things such as quality, customer service, resale value, etc. If…

"Authorization" is not more of a factor in quality than materials and production. Authorization is a proxy for these things.

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#27

Post by goialoq » Mon, Dec 04, 2017, 8:11 PM UTC

ChrisClark wrote: post #13

I know a very wealthy businessman in China, he's expected to wear expensive watches, dress the part, etc. But he just buys fakes all the time. It looks real enough to impress, and he saves a lot of money.

This is reportedly quite common. Supposedly (but I have doubts), there's a similar market for cellphones with fake specs -- the consumers know the specs are fake, but they need the fake exterior to impress their business partners.

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#28

Post by logfromblammo » Mon, Dec 04, 2017, 8:31 PM UTC

derpaderp1 wrote: post #16

dclowd9901 wrote: post #15

I see people crying about high quality fakes, and I interpret it as the initial problem with the luxury goods market: they’re bullshit and overvalued. If your product can easily be replaced by a much lower price knock off, what you’ve made is something of no actual value, and you get what you deserve.

We all knowingly support software patents with the businesses we work with. This is no different. These brands were there first and did the research and development pursuant to establishing what is a good user experience and most-desirable in a handbag, watch, et cetera.

Sunk costs are sunk. A truly competitive market wants you to operate at the marginal cost of production.

The only way to recover R&D costs is through protected IP, with my personal preference being brands and trademarks.

Fashion is not protected. That's why it changes so quickly. If you can't come up with new and appealing designs every day, you will die in that industry, because the knock-off copies are being made the day after they ship, at the latest. If you have a valuable brand and poor security practices, there might be copies on the market from the day after your design reaches the factory. But the legal knock-offs will not have your brand labels in them.

The problem is trademark infringement. It isn't copies, but counterfeits. Here's the money quote from the article:

"Detecting and combating counterfeiters is not easy," said Monks. "Many are operating out of countries where prosecution may be impossible, and that gives them the confidence to flaunt their products on image-driven social platforms such as Instagram. Taking action against their accounts is digital whack-a-mole; the counterfeiter generally has dozens more accounts already created and ready to activate in order to avoid disruption to their trade."

So... caveat emptor. Without a global convention on trademark protection that heavily punishes incoming trade from non-member nations, the burden is on suppliers to devise anti-counterfeiting measures that allow consumers to determine at the point of sale whether a product is genuine or not.

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#29

Post by neya » Mon, Dec 04, 2017, 8:32 PM UTC

This is not just limited to watches, of course. I'm an avid collector of headphones. One of my favorite legendary headphones is the Sony MDR V6 [1]. I made about 3 purchases before I could get my hands on a real one. Even some popular retailers sell fakes unknowingly. The fakes are so good that most of the time you wouldn't even know [2]. And they only keep improving.

There was once I spotted a fake in a Sony showroom in Asia and even they were blown away when I pointed out the differences. Thankfully, they took it off the shelf.

It's a really, really a sad thing in the collector's world.

China of course, is where most fakes are made, and you'd be surprised how many fakes are out there on Alibaba, despite Jack Ma claiming otherwise. This is their bread and butter. With all that said, I think it's perhaps a cultural issue, as everything they possess is a clone of something:

Baidu = Google

Weibo = Twitter

Youtube = Youku

.

Even their high speed rails were a brutal rip off of the Japanese trains [3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_MDR-V6

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiGoyNbVDvI

[3] http://fortune.com/2013/04/15/did-china-steal-japans-high-sp...

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#30

Post by mikestew » Mon, Dec 04, 2017, 8:36 PM UTC

at-fates-hands wrote: post #21

foobarrio wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the advantages of the "better" construction aren't seen until the watch is older. An acrylic glass vs saphire glass crystal on a watch both look the same when new. Over 10 years, they will look much different. Heat-treated blued steel watch hands supposedly rust much less compared to the chemically treated blued hands. I am not sure if this justifies the price difference of a $50 fake vs $5,000 Rolex. I've n…

> I am not sure if this justifies the price difference of a $50 fake vs $5,000 Rolex. I owned a five year old Rolex Submariner and had it for about three years. You could tell it was a solid, well built watch. However, after the first six months, I found it was not keeping very accurate time. Sent it back to Rolex and they fixed it and sent it back. Was fine for another six months, then it started again. Sent it back…

I found that after so many years of being disappointed with "high end" expensive stuff, your best bet is to not get the lowest cost thing or the most expensive, but the middle tier stuff

In the contrarian tradition of HN, I'm trying to think of a counter-example and can't. Cars? Toyota > Ferrari if you have to get to work every day (see also: Archer's 308GT that rides around on a flatbed truck). Musical instruments? More expensive wooden stringed instruments sound better because they're built more delicately (read: more hand work). You're not going to hurt a $300 violin. I own a BMW motorcycle now after thirty years of owning less expensive Hondas. Love the bike, but that BMW has been back for niggling warranty work a few times (and so has my wife's). Number of Hondas I've owned that ever saw a dealer after I rode off the lot: zero. Motorcycle riding suits? Klim is eye-wateringly expensive and no better than Aerostich AFAICT. I'll put my Garmin Fenix up against anything Rolex makes if we compare utility, price, and durability. Than there is a whole host of things like appliances where there just isn't a middle ground anymore, and the stuff on both ends sucks (the high end just costs more).

I dunno, maybe phones and computers are the only exception, and I'm not even willing to take a strong stand on that (how much better is a Pixel XL than a $50 no-name Android phone, really?).