3 ms·
> likely cared less about authenticity than we do today. I’m not so sure that folks care that much about “authenticity,” these days. There’s an enormous knock
by ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
> likely cared less about authenticity than we do today.
I’m not so sure that folks care that much about “authenticity,” these days.
There’s an enormous knockoff market. Many folks buy fakes, knowing full well, that they aren’t the real thing (the “Times Square Rolex” is pretty much a meme), and some of the fakes are good enough, that regular people have no idea they aren’t real.
I have also heard that “premium fakes,” often produced by the same factories that make the originals, are fooling even experts.
- nkrisc 1y ago> I have also heard that “premium fakes,” often produced by the same factories that make the originals, are fooling even experts. Because they aren’t fake in any physical sense, they’re fake only in an abstract legal sense. Unauthorized.
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y agoActually, they are often made with "leftover stock," or stock that was rejected by the real manufacturer. I suspect that's a big problem, with fake chips.
- nkrisc 1y agoYes, that’s what I said.
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y agoSo they are not “only different in a legal sense.” They are actually lower quality. I could see this becoming a real issue, in things like climbing carabiners.
- nkrisc 1y agoItems may be rejected for all kinds of reasons that may not directly affect the quality, if they’re even rejects at all.
- margalabargala 1y agoYes, may. Or may not. There's no way to know. And that concrete uncertainty means they are different more-than-legally from the legitimate artifact, which generally has some sort of quality floor.
- verisimi 1y ago> Because they aren’t fake in any physical sense, they’re fake only in an abstract legal sense. Unauthorized. And this is an example of fake thinking, citizen. Legal boundaries define reality, right?