Re: Why do people buy fakes and what does it say about them?


"dAz" <dazb@zipDOTcomDOTau> wrote in message
news:42f2e031$0$21701$afc38c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
>> "dAz" <dazb@zipDOTcomDOTau> wrote in message
>> news:42f19031$0$28996$afc38c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>>well you might be, but if someone makes a watch to sell, and they do not
>>>own the rights to the trademark, then that item is a fake, counterfeit,
>>>copy, whatever and deserves nothing more than a large hammer applied,
>>>clear now!
>>>
>>
>> I understand and agree in principle, but not in practice. For me a,
>> counterfeit has to be a "forgery", e.g., a counterfeit $100 bill, and has
>> to bear a very close resemblance to the original. AFAIAC $20 Canal Street
>> job brings forth a :-) and not a :-(.
>
> I give up, it like talking to a fucking wall, no matter what name you give
> it, its the same thing, doesn't matter if it cost $20 or $1000 or given
> away for free, if someone makes something and does not own the rights to
> the name used on the item then it is a fake/counterfeit/forgery/copy.

I give up as well, talking to the same type of wall. Sporting a $20 toy
watch, *regardless* of what is written on the dial; Rolex or Shmolex, is the
same type of forgery/counterfeit as walking into your bank to deposit
Monopoly money. It's gotten to the point that whatever expensive brand watch
you are wearing happens to be noticed by a member of the cognoscenti, you
are immediately suspect and are obliged to explain that it's the real thing,
as if I cared one way or the other whether they believed me or not. I myself
own fake Rolexes and a real Rolex, and I bought the fakes AFTER I got the
real thing. Women's handbags or watches, there are more fakes out there than
the real thing, and the latter is taking business away from the former. It's
just a fact of life and not accepting it is akin to sticking your head in
the sand.


.

Loading