Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The attack of the SuperFakes

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 69 posts

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#31

Post by grawprog »

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've found this same thing to be true with almost anything from clothes, to outdoor gear, to phones. The cheapest things usually wear out so fast you spend too much replacing them but there comes a point where spending more doesn't usually lead to any kind of increase in quality and you're probably just paying for a brand name.

I've been happy with pretty much every midrange purchase I make. I usually regret spending the money when I buy the most expensive thing and learned a while ago not to waste my money on the cheapest.

As far as cars, I know a guy with a Mercedes and it sounds like nothing but trouble. He can't work on it himself, only authorized dealers are allowed to work on it, parts are ridiculously expensive and in the end he uses it for the same thing I use my much less expensive car for, going to work and other random places we need to go. He does have a really nice stereo though...

There's some exceptions. Musical instruments really do get better as the price goes up. You can feel and hear the difference between a $500,$1000,$5000, and $10000 musical instrument. Most tools and equipment used by professionals tends to be that way too. But, I suppose as far as professional gear goes there's probably less of a 'luxury' or 'status' market for those things.

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#32

Post by empath75 »

mikestew wrote: post #30
at-fates-hands wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?…

> I dunno, maybe phones and computers are the only exception

I'd argue that the iphone and apple products in general are really the apotheosis of this. They are thoroughly mid-ranged mass-market products that are so well designed that there is almost no room for a 'luxury' segment.

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#33

Post by FooHentai »

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…

>the high end Magura hydraulic disc brakes squealed constantly

Pretty standard for the pads that are designed not to fade out on you under prolonged, heavy use. Sound is not a factor for race-performance gear.

You probably also found their performance pretty crap when they were cold. Performance pads on cars have similar characteristics.

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#34

Post by danielhooper »

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.

There are people who would slap you in the face for talking about their work like that. You're completely ignoring the immense R&D costs that go into creating innovative, original products.

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#35

Post by SamReidHughes »

foobarrio wrote: post #24
at-fates-hands wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 brandin…

The Rolex does have a better bracelet than the SARBs. I bet the chapter ring on your SARB033 has inconsistent spacing between its marks.

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#36

Post by DarronWyke »

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…

A fair caveat here is a lot of this will depend upon what field you're buying from. A lot of what you've said is true. There are plenty of others where a "luxury" name carries far more weight with regards to reliability and longevity as opposed to a no-name brand.

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#37

Post by _ph_ »

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.

No, that is wrong. Fakes are cheaper for two reasons: they are less well made - which may not show on the new item without a lab. Like how do you check the quality of the metal compounds used? And of course it infringes on all the IP of the creator. The fakers don't have to spend any R&D expense, they carbon copy.

Yes, there is a large markup on luxury items, but in most cases when you buy fakes, you don't get the same quality and of course, you are just pirating the original design. This is as legit as "buying" software for $1 a piece.

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#38

Post by _ph_ »

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…

Well, isn't it quite simple? The original watch was made and sold by the company which constructed and designed it. At a minimum, buying a fake is equivalent to buying software on the black market, afterall, the bits are the same...

But of course, the fakes usually are cheaper, because they are not as well made as the originals. That is ofte not visible by an outside inspection, but might contain different qualities of metal used, different production processes, less care of assembly. Have you seen how much know-how goes just into making the main spring of a Rolex? They invested a lot of R&D into it. Of course you can just use a standard spring. But it won't be the same quality.

If you don't appreciate that extra bit of quality in a Rolex (or any other comparable brand), then there are excellent original mechanical watches at basically any price point, starting at $ 100 up.

Finally, I don't think it is legal to sell or resell fake watches in many places, in some countries even owning them can be a felony. If you don't disclose that the watch is fake, it is clear fraud, and even if you do, it is still a misuse of copyrighted and trademarked material.

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#39

Post by foobarrio »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #35
foobarrio wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 brandin…

The Rolex does have a better bracelet than the SARBs. I bet the chapter ring on your SARB033 has inconsistent spacing between its marks.

That's why I put mine on a snazzy leather strap ;-)

I wonder how low in the price range you have to get before you have visibly uneven chapter ring marks. I think I can print a perfect one on paper on the laser printer here at work. Although the ring on my sarb is not perfectly aligned.

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#40

Post by undersuit »

_ph_ wrote: post #37
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.

No, that is wrong. Fakes are cheaper for two reasons: they are less well made - which may not show on the new item without a lab. Like how do you check the quality of the metal compounds used? And of course it infringes on all the IP of the creator. The fakers don't have to spend any R&D expense, they carbon copy. Yes, there is a large markup on luxury items, but in most cases when you buy fakes, you don't get the sa…

How do we know the original is more well made than the fake?

You trust the brand.

Post reply on HN