> Jim is explaining to Pete (in
so many words) for something to be an "imitation,"
there has to have been an "origininal" to imitate.

Not exactly, I think Pete was explaining to Jim, that for an item to purport to be an original does not require that it be an replica of an original. <g>

And the question raised from your story, is if you can't tell the difference between the original and the imitation how can one be worth more than the other?