Thread: Another heads up on an Escher ???

Referring to Item number:380239932191, I've been watching this here and was looking at it more carefully tonight when I noted that the label says use water or oil and it doesn't say Escher on it anywhere. Compare the photos below with those in the auction. These are pics of a bona fide Escher label. It and all of the many I have seen say to keep the hone away from oil. They also say to beware of imitations and to make sure the trademark and the signature are on the label. The hone in this auction may be a perfectly good one, and may even be an Escher, but if it is I'm surprised there is no Escher signature on the label.

If you look at the very last picture it says Eirgetr Schutzmarke Registered trade mark. So unless Escher sold a different line of stones with a similar label I would also assume this to not be a true Escher.

The listing has been removed, so which one of you guys bought it before I could get my hone porn?!

Still showing up in my ebay watched items Kelly. Try an item # search for 380239932191. The seller is the one who must have sold a dozen coticules and other hones and always says about her father, "He had this one wrapped in a barber towel in his sanitizer cabinet and only to be used by him!" That fellow must have had more hones than a quarry wrapped in towels in his barber shop.

Dang, nice catch, Jimmy! I almost plunked down some good money on that one. It's a copycat stone and might be worth something just for that fact alone, but it definitely does not look like an Escher, now that I see the differences. Wow.

I've never seen an Escher label extend over the side of the hone. I've never seen an Escher label with four languages on it. It might be a great hone. It's just not an Escher. The manufacturer did not commit any fraud as using similar color schemes is common. The seller has sold enough hones to know better. The seller was simply hoping to capitalize on ebay buyer ignorance.

I wonder how many Escher labels are counterfeit? That's a market waiting for a scammer.

Actually, using a similar color scheme to cause confusion IS illegal -- it's called trade dress infringement. For example, you can't put together a hamburger restaurant that looks exactly like a McDonald's but is missing the word "McDonald's" and the Golden Arches. I work in this area, so please take my word on this.

If this was a product that was in production today, I'd say that the company selling it would have some real liability for trade dress infringement. It's not just the colors -- there's also the drawing style, the typeface of the words, the words themselves.

And of course it might be an excellent hone too! It's just funny to see old products having to fight off pirates just like new ones.

Well that is no doubt why the bona fide Escher label stresses that the signature denotes the genuine article. As far as labels, I have some Eschers, and have seen others, where the ends of the label extend over the ends of the stone. I've not seen one extend over the sides. The labels are usually even with the sides of the stone IME.

Originally Posted by JeffE

Actually, using a similar color scheme to cause confusion IS illegal -- it's called trade dress infringement. For example, you can't put together a hamburger restaurant that looks exactly like a McDonald's but is missing the word "McDonald's" and the Golden Arches. I work in this area, so please take my word on this.

If this was a product that was in production today, I'd say that the company selling it would have some real liability for trade dress infringement. It's not just the colors -- there's also the drawing style, the typeface of the words, the words themselves.

And of course it might be an excellent hone too! It's just funny to see old products having to fight off pirates just like new ones.

This is a vintage item from Germany. The laws there and at the time may have been different.

Of course -- and all of these companies have gone out of business or been acquired by others long ago, so it's not like there's an actual legal dispute here. I was just saying that, if these were two current products sold in the US, there would probably be a claim here for trade dress infringement. It's a cool area of law, if you get a chance to look into it a bit.