DesignAddict Forums


	> Edit your post


	title of this thread your message One of my biggest peeves about knock-offs comes more from this issue of desire; the pervasive idea that simply because one WANTS something, one should be able to HAVE it. Except most people only want the LOOK of something - not the quality and craftsmanship (and therefore, pricetag). What most people want is the status a designer item brings. (would anyone knock off the canvas tote bags you get at the bookstore?) Quality is important, and it takes time, money, and effort. My father and brothers are very fine carpenters. One is a stained glass artist as well. Two uncles are a painter and a designer. My grandfathers were a construction foreman and an opera singer. My own training is in sculpture and bookbinding. Creativity, knowledge of materials, and specific craft seem to run in my family: I see a very direct link between that knowledge and a high quality piece. So there is this desire for the status and look of these iconic pieces, for which people are willing to spend money buying knockoffs. That money goes to something that can only ever be a ghost of the original. Example: A shop near wor sells a "retro ball clock" which has the standard Nelson colors: blue, orange, & green. Someone has also seen fit to add lavender and pink. The result is an atrocious approximation of a real Nelson clock. In the same way you can approximate a Jaguar by building a kit car - it doesnt mean that you HAVE a Jaguar - you have some object that only LOOKS like a Jag. Styling aside, the kit car lacks the engine, the horsepower, the inherent value (for resale, inheiritance, etc)of the real thing; all of those things that MAKE it a Jag. Some approximations get closer than others. A friend (I previously mentioned her buying a horrible knock-off starburst clock) bought the Ball Clock from AllWorld. When she got it the dimensions were very close to the real thing. But 11 of the balls were matte finish - one was high gloss. Also, the hour hand was brown - not orange. Despite being very close, it was still an approximation. Every time someone asks about the clock she'll have a choice: be dishonest and call it a Nelson clock, or acknowledge that its a fake. I can see the argument about decorative items not being inherently harmful. The basic function is to provide aesthetic appeal (and in this case: tell time) I offer two counters: One, the approximation can never be the real thing. No one will think the Mona Lisa in your bathroom is anything but a poster - however, a knock-off Nelson clock is meant to be dishonest. It's sole purpose is to lie about its origins. At best it's a halfway decent copy, at worst it tarnishes the brand identity of the original. Second, the money spent on a knock-off could very easily be spent towards an actual good design by a lesser known designer. There are plenty of great mid-century clocks that tell time equally as well, and can provide a similar aesthetic appeal. Just ask Aunt Flo. associated web images (optional) associated web link (optional) your email your password create a forums account \| you forgot your password?