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 that even experts can't tell the difference any more?
And lastly, is it legal for watch sellers re-sell fake watches themselves? If they do, what incentive does a watch seller have for telling you the watch you want to sell to them is authentic?
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 never owned a watch for more than 5 years so none of this is personal experience! However the recent wave of smart watches made me look into watches now and I have a couple of nice dress watches I researched a bit before I purchased.
> 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.
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.
Like most things, different companies bring different things to the high end market. Companies bring different things to the high end bike market. So you can choose from lightest, best race team, flashiest, most durable, best service, best suspension, best design, etc. If you are lucky sometimes more than one. I recommend you take a trip to the most serious trail near you. I think you'll find the popularity of bikes that you actually see on the trail is unrelated to marketing, unrelated to what you see in the bike magazines, and unrelated to what you'd guess by visiting bike stores.
If at all possible I'd look at a more famous place like the popular trails around Tahoe, Downievilla, Moab, North Shore, etc.
For my last bike my wish list was: lifetime frame warranty, threaded (not pressed) bottom bracket, and boost. Other than that I just wanted the one that felt the best. Took me 3 demos of 2 hours each to finally decide.
If you are looking for most reliable I'd check the rentals. If the bike survives a season of rentals without a prohibitive amount of expensive maintenance and parts it will likely last you a life time.
I can assure you that fox forks can last over 5 years without maintenance, but the recommended maintenance schedule is somewhere around annual or 100 to 1000 hours of riding or so.
Current high end disc brakes from SRAM or Shimano can be squeal free under most conditions, which is one of the reasons a large fraction of the high end bikes have switched to them.
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?).
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
My sarb035 has uneven marks. The minute marks are clearly made in a separate step from the subminute marks, but they're also inconsistently spaced between (different amounts of space left and right of the minute mark, but it's different for each minute too). It's almost like there's somebody manually turning a machine and eyeballing the angle. That might in fact be true... The same is true of every high-res picture of a sarb033 and 035 I've seen. I have a vague memory you can see chapter ring problems with some more expensive models, but it looks like the new 41mm Presage has a perfect chapter ring.
My rule at this point is to avoid Seiko chapter rings, unless it's a Grand Seiko or I can see it in-store.
I'd bet Casio has perfect chapter rings at every price.
I've never noticed an uneven chapter ring! You're going to make me obsessed with staring at my watches. I'm honestly staring at mine and it looks fine. I think I can now see some lines look closer to the minute slashes than others but I don't know if that's because I am looking so hard for unevenness or what. I'll pull out the jeweler's loupe and compare it to my other watches when I get home. I think the watch would work a bit better without a chapter ring at all or at least without the sub-minute hashes. The chapter ring adds sportiness to a watch that otherwise looks a bit dressy.
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.
> 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?
That doesn't quite sound like it's the case here though. That's what happens with other products and after-hours, unofficial production runs though. In that case, there is no difference and the issue is really just a legal one. It sounds like these watches, while difficult to determine as fake, aren't quite the same quality as the real things.
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.
An iPhone knockoff will not function as well as an iPhone. Whether material used or engineering of components or assembly of the end product.
It’s not about simple, straightforward metals either, but very specific, proprietary, researched blends.
Some watch brands use metals that make the watch incredibly light. Others, based on clients’ preference, make the watch very heavy.
Particluarly, in a high end watch, not only do you pay for the craftsmanship and artistic design, form and function, but also for accuracy (e.g. +/- seconds lost per day, how certain tilts and the effect of gravity on influencing loss in accuracy) and power reserve and level of complications all working together. No disruption from magnetism or other natural forces.
A lot of refinement goes into a high end watch. A fake becomes pretty obvious.
You also have to appreciate the scale. All that mechanics. Went from grandfather clocks to pocket watches to wrist watches. Getting smaller, more complicated (day, date, moon phase, alarms, etc.) and days of “natural” power reserve.
I think the problem is these fakes are better than bad, but not good, quite. Swiss watch prices are partly inflated by hype, but the quality of many of those movements, and having been assembled by professionals, is worth quite a bit. Where a cosmetically good knockoff will have a less fabulous movement, and may or may not have been built by a skilled watchmaker. Selling them upfront as "homage" or "replica" watches seems fine to me, though. Presumably the incentive the jewelers and watch-sellers have to avoid participating in the fiction is loss of reputation. Once one buyer comes forward to say you sold them a fake, the floodgates would open.
To corroborate the warranty issue: There's a temporary exhibit at Winterthur in Delaware [0] on the topic of counterfeits. They had a fake Birkin bag next to a genuine article, and apparently the fake had been through an official Hermes cleaning without detection.
> 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 I buy an identical item (as close as possible) to a high priced luxury watch, made by a counterfeiter, are they going to provide me support for the item I bought? Do they stand behind the counterfeit? No. That's the consequence of it not being authentic, it doesn't come with any of the other substance behind it.
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.
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]
There seems to be at least some differing cultural values. I've had experiences with tea houses in TW/CN where the tea that is served is not really what I ordered and instead of being embarrassed or apologetic about it, they are impressed that I can even tell the difference! My friend had someone brew the same tea in different ways and try to sell it to him at different prices. When called out the guy seemed delighted at the challenge!
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.
> 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 ETA and swap it in.
Factories are also producing high-quality replicas of in-house movements such as the Rolex 3132 -- I say "replicas" because they can take the same parts that you'd use to repair a genuine movement. Once you're at that level, you need a loupe and a mental encyclopedia to be able to figure out what's going on and which is real.
Edit: Replaced "China" to clarify that it's not a national aim or anything like that.
> G-shock
Ironically, the fake industry doesn't just apply to mechanical watches -- even G-shocks are faked quite well. You can buy them from $5-10 quite often because the base parts are just that cheap.
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.
+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.
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.
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.
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 better on your body - real tangible things. Design only denotes status via knowledge of this value, not by having the money to afford it per se. So it's more a marker of education and sophistication. That does mean moving up Maslow's hierarchy so there is an economic element but that's not the essence of it. Sure I would need more money to buy the handmade shirt from the Tuscan workshop, but I would also need to know about it in the first place and why it might be worth paying more - it's really more about knowledge than money. So are Adidas any better than low cost no-name trainers or knockoffs? For a kid the answer is unequivocal and you are socially dead without the original; I hover between the two personally.
Design is not about 1%er luxury or fashion fads - it's really important at a national level. Obviously there is soft power with its indirect effects, but there is also the direct economy. Good design eventually tends to become commoditised and so there is economic value in being able to create new design - this is actually a vital process for every developed economy not to be crushed by whichever country is offering the cheapest labour.
An example is suitcase manufacturer Rimowa. If you look at their website it's a history of innovation in their field for the last 100 years, from aluminium trunks in the 1930s, to watertight luggage in the 70s. Still if you want a super expensive very high quality aluminium suitcase, they don't have competition, I guess due to that requiring pretty specialised production and expensive raw materials. If you buy one from them, they will repair it and knock dents out for free for lifetime (likewise Hermes will clean and press their ties for free, a difficult job which can easily ruin a silk tie) - so very high quality and standards. Maybe one day you will be able to buy a near-enough Asian copy for very cheap, but until then, this German company has the whole world's business for really nice aluminium cases. Rimowa also made a materials innovation in 2000 with polycarbonate suitcases - extremely lightweight, flexible, and near unbreakable from impact. For quite a while they were the only ones to make them. Recently however, that's been commoditised and you can buy cheap knockoffs which are fairly close to the original at a functional level. So now Rimowa have to find the next innovation as the cycle repeats to find a new USP for their products (e.g. now they are starting to get into trackable luggage with electronic airline tags).
That's Rimowa, but each company in a developed country within a global economy cannot compete on being cheapest, and instead needs to follow this process of competing on intellectual capital to stay in business. It requires at least a society with high levels of education in design, and a functioning legal system covering IP. China are now also starting to face this reality as they cease to provide the cheapest labour globally and have a growing middle class to support - and you'll therefore see increasing focus on design, innovation, quality, and finally IP even.
To your original complaint, you do sometimes hear of flashy gaudy things which are supposed to signal status via cost (tacos made with gold leaf and caviar, diamond-encrusted phones, gold-plated ferraris etc) - but you'll notice that those are considered poor design, never get taken up and commoditised, and only have economic value as marketing tools to get gawpers in for lower price items. They don't ever represent real IP in the way that the ipad, or high quality luxury goods do, but are instead held up as anti-patterns (which is why we hear about them).
> 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 better on your body - real tangible things.
I'd be curious to see if you could tell the difference under blind testing. In just about every other area it turns out that most people can't tell the difference.
I have expensive shirts and cheap ones. Definitely a tangible difference in look and feel, but some of my most functional are a cheap range from uniqlo which don't need any ironing and use good cotton. Unfortunately you are usually paying for a double yoke. It's true that what we think of as designer brands in clothing tend to rebadge and sometimes the only value they add is some visual design element. It's a part of why we see a focus on 'the artisanal economy' - a logo can be reproduced easily but somebody who has had decades of sewing shirt collars or handmaking shoes can't and has scarcity as well as quality. Not scalable individually but collectively very high value in much the same way.
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.
Yes. Until wages are globally normalised that's good news for Myanmar, bad news for Italy. Italy better make something that is more than a product of sheer labour and raw materials - and that's the definition of design.
I think perhaps what you're getting at is that it requires education and buy-in from the consumer and perhaps that we don't live in a world of urban sophisticates who care that much about the stitching of their trousers. I'd offer some counterexamples there - 1. iPhone. Not the cheapest smartphone by any means but has design writ large and running through the user experience - and hugely popular in emerging economies where you may expect everybody to be on cheaper android phones. 2. Adidas, Nike - kids will pay premium all over the world and don't want fakes. 3. Japanese denim enthusiasts. Got to have the old looms for making high quality denim and people are ready to pay huge amounts for that. That has even extended to reviving old ring spun looms to make sweatshirts so they have the right weight and feel. 4. Coca-Cola, Red Bull. 5. Premium alcohol brands. 6. Super expensive premium Spanish ham - huge in Asia now.
This is really closer to a trademark issue than patent, no? Few people are buying a watch for the process by which the watch works, but rather for the quality and status (and price) that the brand represents. To check this hypothesis, think about how mad anybody would be if the internals of a watch were copied exactly on a fake, but the branding, name, logo were totally unique.
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.
We don't "know" it, but that is the usual experience. Why should someone put more effort and cost in making a fake? Typical fakes - and lets not even get started on replacement parts for cars or even airplanes - are not only carbon copies to save the design effort, they are not using the same production processes. And these are very important insuring the quality of the product. Fakes might use cheaper alloys, the production process itself might not be as required and quality control missing. And so a fake bolt can have only the fraction of the load capacity of the original one.
Edit:
And of course, the beauty with a fake is, that if it fails, the blame does not fall onto the producer of the fake, but even possibly of the original brand ribbed of... another incentive not to make overly well built fakes.
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
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.
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.
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?
I've had exactly that conversation with a few. You'd be surprised how many are serious collectors who invest in watches. That doesn't work with fakes. That whole Rolex culture is also a deliberate part of how they sniff out fake people. The examples in the article were terrible, I'm not a watch guy and could spot them a mile off. I can usually tell with bags, wallets, shoes. Very few fakes don't have clear tells if you know the originals, I sometimes wonder if it's deliberate.
If they're poor fakes, yes. But if they're like the ones mentioned in this article, there would be no way of telling without bringing a microscope with you.
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-stores. “If I can get a watch for $15 that keeps perfect time, what am I doing messing around with a Rolex?”
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.)
I beg to differ :). For $30 you can buy a quarz-watch which will be quite accurate and work for some time. For a really well-made and durable basic quarz watch you have to pay a bit more. And far beyond that, you can easily see where the money goes if you handle a more expensive watch.
The question is: what is luxury? Is it anything beyond owning the most basic device that will perform its task for a short period in time? Is wanting a decent robustness and longlevity a luxury? I don't dispute that high-end watches have a high silliness-level as they are extremely expensive for little to no gained practical value.
For all the recent talk of the energy cost of bitcoin, it would seem a far greater amount of energy (money, time etc.) is expended on making things that are slightly worse than other options that are available, but more exclusive and therefore sought after by some part of our monkey brains.
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 that even experts can't tell the difference any more?
And lastly, is it legal for watch sellers re-sell fake watches themselves? If they do, what incentive does a watch seller have for telling you the watch you want to sell to them is authentic?