They're all your posts have warranted so far. For example: your comments about Leica using the same equipment to cast parts for modern cameras as they used for older issues. That's not "hommage," man. That's re-issue. Furthermore, I have actually been pretty verbose about this. The fact that you're only focusing on the posts where I got a few licks in on your sorry argument doesn't mean I haven't.
I'll just ignore the flaming parts of this comment. Not really sure why you seem to bent on riling, but hey, internet.
Previously you said homage, tribute, evolutionary, six of one... Now, I'm not trying to be a snarky ass, as seems to be your wont...engage me here.
Where, in your opinion, does the line get drawn between homage/tribute and reissue? I mean, a Leica that uses original blueprints isn't an
exact replica of a 1959 camera. They're going to use newer materials for a longer life shutter curtain, the latest lubricants, CNC'd gears, etc.
Can a reissue be an homage? Can an homage be a reissue?
Omega came out with a watch in the late '90s called the 1957 Speedmaster Reissue. It looked kinda like a 1957 Speedmaster, but there were tons of major differences. But no one questioned that it was being called a reissue.
What if Apple did actually stuff new bits into the old style 2G bodies and called it The iPhone Classic? Would it be an homage? A tribute? A. reissue? By Omega's standards, it could easily be called a reissue.
What's the point here? That you and I don't decide what's an homage or tribute or reissue is. The person or people or company who made the original get to call it that. And in some cases, a third party who makes their own version of something can use one of those terms to describe their own creation.
The best anyone else can do is have an opinion. You are welcome to have the opinion that the iPhone 6 a tribute to the first iPhone. But the only people who can state it as fact are Apple.