Re: Why serious collectors should own fakes
- From: "Mooron" <mooron@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 Aug 2005 11:19:13 -0700
J. David Anderson wrote:
<snip>
> People are lumping together all manner of fakes and treating them as
> having the same effect. They don't. The majority of fakes fall into the
> first category. I am quite sure that Rolex would be far more concerned
> about the second category than the first. The first category could not
> by any manner of imaginative manipulation of data, be considered a lost
> sale by Rolex. The second, costing between $500 and $1000 would very
> likely mean the loss of a quality watch sale, although not necessarily
> to Rolex.
<snip>
I hate to tell you, those $500 to $1000 "swiss-made replicas" are
a scam. As far as I can tell, the legitimate value of a fake watches
tops out around $60, if they even have a legitimate value.
- Mooron
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why serious collectors should own fakes
- From: J. David Anderson
- Re: Why serious collectors should own fakes
- References:
- Why serious collectors should own fakes
- From: Bob Fry
- Re: Why serious collectors should own fakes
- From: jj
- Re: Why serious collectors should own fakes
- From: A J Horus
- Re: Why serious collectors should own fakes
- From: J. David Anderson
- Re: Why serious collectors should own fakes
- From: Mij Adyaw
- Why serious collectors should own fakes
- Prev by Date: Re: Why is there so much negativity towards the owners/wearers of fake watches?
- Next by Date: Re: Why serious collectors should own fakes
- Previous by thread: Re: Why serious collectors should own fakes
- Next by thread: Re: Why serious collectors should own fakes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading