My opinion still stands - whether so and so disagrees.
i don't know why you would say such a thing and then double-down on it, when it's instantly/provably incorrect? maybe based on your extensive experience and horological research over the last several decades?
an original is "the first instance or source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is or can be made." an original seth thomas regulator 2 is a clock that was made up to 150 or so years ago... desirable to collectors as a piece of art and in no small part because of it's originality.
a ST #2 reproduction is a copy made to look like the original... a counterfeit, if you will. if it's correctly identified from the start as a reproduction, it's nothing more than that. when someone tries to pass off a reproduction as an original it becomes a fake.
a counterfeit or fake is an exact imitation of something valuable or important made with the intention to deceive or defraud.
Reproduction, Original, or Counterfeit are different words and mean different things... even reproduction and counterfeit are not interchangeable. not all clockmakers patented every piece of their clocks. infringement has nothing to do with it.
you are welcome to your opinions, but might want to re-consider them if/when not a single person agrees with you... truly hope that's not your final answer...