Research in the consumption of counterfeit products has examined market size, consumer perceptions, and buyer characteristics (Nia & Zaichkowsky, 2010; Wee, Tan, & Cheok, 1995). However, little is known about how different kinds of counterfeits are evaluated because the term counterfeit tends to be used as a catch all for “fakes”. By taking a more nuanced approach to defining counterfeits we investigate how consumer’s perceptions of counterfeit products can vary based on the details of the item and its production. Moreover, we demonstrate that perceptions and consumption of counterfeits is not universal across cultures. Drawing from cultural psychology research, we propose that differences in dialectical thinking styles can influence the evaluation of counterfeit products. Prior literature has demonstrated that East Asians are relatively more dialectical. While Caucasians (with European cultural background) adopt a relatively more polarized, less polarized, less dialectical belief system (Peng & Nisbett, 1999). This difference has important implications for our understanding of cultural differences in considering counterfeits. Consider, for example, a “ghost shift” Rolex watch (i.e. an unlicensed copy made in a licensed facility with authentic materials but on an unofficial third shift (Parloff, 2006); compare that with a replica made using slightly different materials in a different facility altogether. Both are classified as counterfeits but may be evaluated differently with respect to authenticity and, as a result, may differ in perceived value as well (e.g. likelihood to purchase). We investigate these issues through three experiments conducted with 406 American undergraduate students by asking them to evaluate a variety of counterfeit and ghost shift counterfeit products. The first study relies on culture (non-Asian vs. East Asian ethnicity) as a proxy for thinking style and investigates perceptions of counterfeit sunglasses and shoes. Our second study provides converging evidence for the role of thinking styles on evaluations of different types of counterfeit shoes and extends our research by moving beyond reductionist cultural explanations through a wholly non- Asian sample by measuring individual differences in dialectical reasoning (Dialectical Self Scale; Spencer-Rodgers, Boucher, Mori, Wang, & Peng, 2009). Our last study investigates counterfeit Rolex watches and, more importantly, manipulates participants’ tolerance for change and contradiction through an established priming task (Peng & Nisbett, 1999). All three experiments revealed consistent results: lower dialectical thinking (more representative of Europeans) resulted in a greater likelihood to purchase the third shift version over the replica version, while higher dialectical thinking (e.g. East-Asian) resulted in equivalent responses between the two types. In studies 2 and 3 perceived authenticity also differed for low dialectical thinkers, but not high dialectical thinkers.