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

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#61

Post by grkvlt »

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…

Not necessarily. 'Honest John's Genuine Rolexes and Used Cars' could well provide support and warranty for the watch they sold me. It may even be in Honest John's best interest to fix at least minor issues, to prevent me discovering I bought a fake. It's only Rolex who are not bound to provide any services.

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#62

Post by grkvlt »

goialoq wrote: post #27
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.

> cellphones with fake specs

but, don't you just need to show off any old cellphone, and then say something like 'this baby has twenty-three ARM IXXIX cores, running at one hundred point six gigahertz, with forty terabytes and a double AMDXOLCiD display!' to fake the specs?

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#63

Post by grkvlt »

FiatLuxDave wrote: post #10
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.

I've always wanted to start a luxury brand called TAKEN. "Wow! What kind of watch is that?" "I got TAKEN!" The ultimate Veblen good.

Actually, 'Veblen Watches' sounds really good... I wonder if the name is available?

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#64

Post by bfuller »

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 have a collection of phony watches and some of them are spectacularly done.

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#65

Post by bfuller »

undersuit wrote: post #40
_ph_ wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it really depends on what you value. I get proportionally more value from a $50 Rolex knockoff than the genuine 10k one, even if the knockoff is pretty shitty. I am sure to some people it is different, but to me it isnt

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#66

Post by at-fates-hands »

sliken wrote: post #58
at-fates-hands wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You probably also found their performance pretty crap when they were cold. I did find this to be true. We tried "baking" them several times at the shop. It did help some for a few days and then went back to squealing. I just put up with after a while. When I finally switched over to SRAM I didn't get any more squealing.

There's a reason why $8-$10k bikes switched from the boutique brake brands to almost entirely SRAM or Shimano.

Yeah its crazy how far SRAM has come. I remember all the guys in our shop thought SRAM was a joke, who could compete with Shimano, right?

The rep all gave us full S9 (which I think now are the X line) setups and said, "Test it out, run into the ground. I'll be back in two months and see what you think."

Two months later, most of the shop was riding SRAM.

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#67

Post by makomk »

sdrothrock wrote: post #57
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…

> Some of the fakes have the same movement as the real item. Not just "some," many of them do, in fact. A lot of low end "luxury" watches don't even have custom movements, just standard ETAs. Chinese factories can produce clones of the ETA 2824 and 2836 movements, so you can get a fake watch with the exact same movement for a fraction of the price. If you ever decide you want COSC-level timing, you can just buy an ET…

Last I heard, the fake G-shocks lacked the more exotic features of the ones they were cloning and kept much worse time. China doesn't seem to be that good at producing accurate quartz watches for whatever reason. There are some reasonably-priced analog watches with imported movements, but that's not an option for digital. There really doesn't seem to be any better option than genuine Casio right now.

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#68

Post by dclowd9901 »

dreamfactored wrote: post #50
jacquesm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's about design, and design is inherently about quality and value. It's the reason you might choose to pay more for a handmade Italian shirt made in a small workshop that has been running forever compared to a mass-produced one made with the cheapest labour in Myanmar (though functionally equivalent at a basic level). The Italian shirt will have better fabric, stitching, a more expensive split-yoke that hangs bette…

When something is actually made well, you can tell and it is worth it. But a Coach bag is made in Myanmar just like everything else. If you get a knockoff Coach bag, it’s impossible to tell, probably because it was made in the same damn place by the same damn people.

That’s what I’m talking about. Not old world craftspeople making one-offs.

Re: The attack of the SuperFakes

#69

Post by smn1234 »

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.

Well, you either buy "art" to appreciate it, to transfer value into an asset, or to show off. Can be all of the above. You're saying this guy just wants to show off. Shame to use watches for such. They're a marvel of form and function.
Post reply on HN