MB&F Turtle Automaton: Originality Debate

Joepny · 2017-12-12T09:34:12Z

Explore the 2017 debate on design originality in independent watchmaking, focusing on MB&F's turtle automaton and its perceived similarity to Raul Pages' work. A deep dive into horological ethics.

Joepny

WPS member · Horological Meandering forum

17 replies4343 views8 photos

Joepny's thought-provoking post from 2017 delves into the ethical considerations surrounding design inspiration and originality within the independent watchmaking world. He examines the perceived similarities between an MB&F turtle automaton and an earlier piece by independent artisan Raul Pages, sparking a debate on attribution, innovation, and the 'unwritten rules' of homage among living artists. This discussion remains highly relevant for collectors navigating the nuanced landscape of horological creativity and collaboration.

17 collectors discussing this on the WatchProSite forumJoin the Conversation →

So I've been spending way too much time lately on IG but it's better for my wallet than going to watch boutiques. Yesterday, there was a little brouhaha that brewed up over a turtle automaton series released by Max Busser & Friends (MB&F). The problem had to do with the fact that there was similarity to a blue turtle automaton made by someone else about 5 years ago, Raul Pages. Both MB&F and Raul Pages have been covered on PuristSPro in the past. The world of mechanical animals - automatons - is a strangely fascinating one and I'm not an expert in it.

I've never met either Busser or Pages and I don't own anything from either of them. But I felt great sympathy for Mr. Pages because he is a small workshop guy who is apparently trying to do something he loves. Max Busser is by all appearances one of the good guys, but let's be honest, he is the much bigger player here with decades of experience and economic resources gathered from working at JLC and Harry Winston and many contacts in the industry.

So I was disappointed to see MB&F's response (see below) that was threading a fine needle and made mention of the fact that (1) turtle automatons have been done by others; (2) Mr. Pages' automaton was a unique piece and cost overwhelmingly more than what their automatons represent. I think it is disingenuous. I don't think anyone with half a functioning brain is claiming that MB&F should not be allowed to do their version. The history of horology is pretty much about every watchmaker re-using/re-discovering-/tinkering with what some dead watchmaker already did. Give credit to MB&F for adding the hidden bird.

But the visual similarity is disconcerting to me and Max Busser knew about Mr. Pages well before. Look at the turtle automaton made by Asprey a few decades ago. When Mr. Pages made his turtle, his version did not look anything like the Asprey one. The point that a few of us are making to MB&F is that if you are going to come out with your take on something done by someone else living, then make it truly your own and let the other living artist have his/her due. At minimum, they could have shown Mr. Pages some respect and not have done the blue color one. I don't believe that MB&F is going to have trouble paying their rent & their payroll if they cannot sell 10 pieces of something. Whereas it is likely a very big deal to Mr. Pages to get that kind of income.

We have this parallel in watches with the Gerald Genta designs (Royal Oak -> Nautilus -> GP -> Hublot -> Piaget) and the Rolex oyster case among the famous examples. I feel there are grey areas of course. When should the brand/manufacture completely avoid doing something that is a reproduction vs. an innovation? When one person out of 10 tells the brand/manufacture it is a reproduction? Or when 5 persons out of 10?

Raul Pages work, pic credit Quill and Pad

MB&F version, pic credit MB&F

pic credit MB&F

Asprey turtle from 1989, pic credit Sotheby's

MB&F response below

Mr. Raul Pages response below

Key Points from the Discussion

MB&F's team is known for high ethics, integrity, and transparency within the watch industry, fostering a loyal following through innovative products and consistent communication.
The concept of design similarity is common in horology; comparing the MB&F/Pages situation to Patek Philippe's World Time (similar to Louis Cottier's original) or the Nautilus (similar to Audemars Piguet's Royal Oak porthole design) suggests that such 'repetition' is part of the industry's evolution, not necessarily infringement.
Joepny argues that MB&F's unique marketing story emphasizes collaboration with and honoring independent watchmakers, creating an expectation that they would acknowledge a living artist like Raul Pages, especially given the visual similarity and blue color choice of their automaton.
Historically, turtle automatons predate both MB&F and Raul Pages by centuries, with examples dating back 200 years. MB&F's public response clarified that neither party originated the concept, and Raul Pages' response was noted for its humility.
While acknowledging MB&F's right to create their automaton, Joepny suggests that a 'gentlemanly gesture' would have been to give a nod to Raul Pages, perhaps by showcasing his work at the MADGallery, especially since MB&F's website already credits Jaquet Droz as an inspiration for automatons.
The core issue for Joepny is the impact on a small, original creator when a larger entity releases a similar, more accessible product, potentially diminishing the uniqueness and value of the original artist's work.

The Discussion

Spangles - Dr. Tabby

Dec 12, 2017

"Tempest in a Tortoise Shell?"

Would make a good title. If they had given a nod to Mr. Pages, then that would have drawn interest to his work, making it a win for all, since they are not competing at price points, etc.

cazalea

Dec 12, 2017

Yes, mountain out of a molehill

In my opinion, it’s not our problem to solve or our place to provoke. Pages made one, MB&F made ten, the designs are different, the legs are different, the singing bird animation ... etc. Cazalea

Joepny

Dec 12, 2017

But I think the general parallel is so pertinent to PuristS on HoMe

We hear about this scenario so often: (1) you see a watch you like and it’s made in a small qty and you buy it for various reasons; (2) another brand subsequently releases a similar style watch with a slight difference and it’s cheaper but more are made. There are at least two sides to every story: (a) watch lover in #1 is probably a little miffed that his watch is not so unique anymore; (2) watch buyer #2 is happy to get the nice style watch at a more affordable price. Usually as PuristS we don

foversta

Dec 12, 2017

I thank you for having launched this thread

It is the reason why we are on Purists and not somewhere else. You are rising good questions. I have a lot of respect for Max and his team, I have a lot of respect for Raul. I know them both. I saw Raul's tortoise in March for the first time, I hope to see Max's one soon. Despite some aesthetic similarities (I would say that a tortoise remains a tortoise), I also find them very different. I feel the same about their behaviours what is the key point for an automaton. So for me, there is no specif

Joepny

Dec 12, 2017

thanks Fx

For sure I hope that Raul Pages finds a good outcome through this MB&F event. 👍 I like to root for the little guys more often than not.

patrick_y

Dec 13, 2017

It's important to stand up for the little buy... But it's also important to step away and not stand with anyone when nobody did anything wrong.

Nobody did anything wrong. Nobody stifled anyone else's creativity. Nobody infringed. If nobody infringed, we have no victim to protect. If we accuse MB&F for making something too close to Raul Pages' tortue, then we need to complain to Patek Philippe their WorldTime watch is too similar to the original by Louis Cottier that was originally intended for Vacheron Constantin. Some would even say, the concept of a watch with the design of a ship's porthole was repeated by Patek Philippe when they ma