Dont think Danjaq want anything to do with "deckchair Chic"....!

In general I'm not a huge fan of "homage" pieces, but, as has been said, true originality is very hard to achieve.

And it doesn't stop me liking my Speedbird...

Not surprisingly we have different opinions about the degree of design borrowing we are comfortable with. Fair enough. I don't think the C9 is a blatant copy, but for me it has crossed a line. I agree that as long as IWC don't mind, those who like it need not mind. It is a good looking watch.
I'm surprised by the suggestion that every possible design has already been done. I cannot accept that premise. But I'm not a designer, nor have I claimed to be, so I'll not try to design an original 2 register chrono. We simply have to disagree about that premise.

Mr Rick wrote:

ianblyth wrote:OK then. So how do you make a 2 reg chrono without it looking like any other manufactures 2 reg chrono from the past 50 years?

Exactly. I agree 100%.

+1

Additionally, the chronograph pushers and crown are different. IMO, the Steinhart Ocean line is truly a "homage" line - the Rolex hand with the peace symbol thingy is something I have never liked, and the Steinhart Oceans have the same hand.

I personally do not consider the C9 Harrison line a homage line - I think they are just good looking watches. I would be naive at this point to think the CW C9s do not use similar designs to the IWCs, but I did not buy a C9 because it looks like an IWC.....but I would never buy a Steinhart Ocean GMT simply because people would think it is a Rolex GMT Master....but I have friends with Rolex GMT Masters, and I do not have one friend or colleague that owns an IWC, so no one I know would ever accuse me of owning an IWC homage.

I am constantly looking for people to appreciate my watch habit but have not found a single one yet outside the forums. Sad really.

To the OP - If you think that is close, take a look at the limited edition version of the CW watch as compared to the IWC variant of it. The same face/dial, the same blue hands, etc.

http://www.christopherward-usa.com/men/ ... r-ssk.html

Although the IWC folks won't like it, the reality is that these particular watches ARE doing what they set out to do and that is to offer a good alternative to the VERY expensive manufacturer's (like IWC). In some ways, CW is the watch world's equivalent to Honda back in the 90's. TRUE car mfg's were touting their benefits over Honda while Honda quietly established themselves as a good value for the costs. A better VALUE in fact than most other brands (no matter the prestige). Honda then established Acura to further re-enforce their dominance and to "scale up" their image. Lexus basically took that same model and built itself from "just another Toyota division" to a TRUE premiere brand. CW has that capability here as well.

IWC is NEVER going to like the intrusion of a Honda-style product into their domain. So beit, it is a different product that provides an excellent value for a similar look. No harm, no foul but CW could well (eventually) grow their business to become more and more of a threat.

mickarthur wrote: I am constantly looking for people to appreciate my watch habit but have not found a single one yet outside the forums. Sad really.

I know its off topic but must agree with the above, most friends think its a bit weird to have a watch (and sunglasses) habit but my work colleagues think I am just plain mad. But then I don't understand people who dont like watches, sunglasses, cars etc so perhaps thats fair.

I have never been keen on the c9 chrono but I guess it doesn't matter as I have this:



Sorry, couldn't resist

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk

scooter

nathanclarinet wrote:I have never been keen on the c9 chrono but I guess it doesn't matter as I have this:



Sorry, couldn't resist

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk

They look different enough, right?

ndabunka wrote:To the OP - If you think that is close, take a look at the limited edition version of the CW watch as compared to the IWC variant of it. The same face/dial, the same blue hands, etc.

http://www.christopherward-usa.com/men/ ... r-ssk.html

Although the IWC folks won't like it, the reality is that these particular watches ARE doing what they set out to do and that is to offer a good alternative to the VERY expensive manufacturer's (like IWC). In some ways, CW is the watch world's equivalent to Honda back in the 90's. TRUE car mfg's were touting their benefits over Honda while Honda quietly established themselves as a good value for the costs. A better VALUE in fact than most other brands (no matter the prestige). Honda then established Acura to further re-enforce their dominance and to "scale up" their image. Lexus basically took that same model and built itself from "just another Toyota division" to a TRUE premiere brand. CW has that capability here as well.

IWC is NEVER going to like the intrusion of a Honda-style product into their domain. So beit, it is a different product that provides an excellent value for a similar look. No harm, no foul but CW could well (eventually) grow their business to become more and more of a threat.

I agree with this assessment. At some point, certain designs become 'classic' designs of which many manufacturers will have their own take. I have some Persol sunglasses that were obviously influenced by the classic Rayban Wayfarer (own those too). It's a classic style. There are tons of examples. The Rolex Sub is another classic design. In the end, I couldn't justify to myself spending that much money on a Rolex but still wanted a quality, Swiss made, classic looking watch. CW seemed to be the best alternative. Seems to me the IWC influence would be a similar example.

Wis wrote:

Tyke wrote:Direct quote from CWL website

'The Trident series unashamedly takes its design cues from the iconic 1954 Rolex GMT Master'.

Yes they have tweaked the design to avoid it being a direct copy, but that's just about the same level of tweaking they've done on the C9 to stop it being an IWC.

They have enough differences to feel distinct.