Green:
In my experience, all one needs to know is what a well made watch looks, sounds and feels like. Having a loupe, one can look at the finishing of the contact edges of the visible cogs, wheels and pivot points to gauge how well made the movement is.
I cited those two articles because, unlike you, my Mandarin isn't good enough to discuss watches, particularly fake ones, in that language. I need to be able to look at it, hold it, if possible open it and figure out for myself whether what I'm looking at is any good or pure junk. If the watch were authentic, I wouldn't need to do that because I'd know what the specs are and what role they play in making the watch a higher or lower quality piece. Or, I could rely on the maker's reputation and not worry too much about the details if that be appropriate to why I'm buying the watch.
For example, with authentic pieces, if I just happen to see a stainless steel watch I think looks cool and the name on the dial is, say, Hamilton, I don't really need to wonder how high quality the watch is. I just like the look and I know Hamilton make a decent enough watch that it's not going to let me down, so I'll buy it. If instead I'm looking for a watch that has lots of ultra-smooth, inside edge beveling and other decorative effects, I'm not going to look at a Hamilton or a fake.
Orange:
I'm not sure what you mean by the "details were completely inaccurate." If you are referring to the accuracy with which a fake maker mimics the appearance of the corresponding authentic watch, okay. I don't see that as a good reason for buying a fake. IMO, a good reason for buying a fake is because it performs -- mechanically and physically -- in accordance with one's expectations.
I'm not naive enough to fail to realize that comparisons -- mechanical and physical -- between/with the fake and the genuine article aren't inevitable. Indeed, doing so is entertaining and informative, but be that as it may, it's but an academic pursuit. A fake watch, and whether one wants to buy one, depends on the merit of the watch itself, not its fake branding.
Regardless of what other folks think or do, my indifference toward fake watches and whether one wears one issues from the fact that I don't consider, say, a fake Rolex to be a substitute for an authentic Rolex. I consider a fake Rolex to be a substitute (economic principle) for a variety of watches that are (1) priced lower than Rolexes, and therefore (2) are not Rolexes. The idea that I'd buy a fake watch as a way to get the substance of the genuine article is preposterous; that's just not going to happen, no matter how good the fake is.
As for what I can or can't get for $100, well, I'm in a better position to attest to that than you. Suffice to say that ETA's patents on its basic movements have long since expired, which is why Selitta, Soporod and various Chinese makers can clone them. At retail, Chinese made ETA-clones are inexpensive; at wholesale, in the PRC, they are very inexpensive, especially the standard grade clones. (
http://www.perrinwatchparts.com/cat_...movements.aspx)
Purple:
Where? Search here and you'll be able to find out where:
https://members.awci.com/AWCIWEB/AWC...berSearch.aspx . If push comes to shove, you can send it to Roland at RGM; he restores vintage pieces made by long defunct makers. There's no question he can do the job if one is willing to pay him to do so.
A duly certified can service any watch. If there's going to be an "issue" it'll have to do with parts availability. Now if push comes to shove, the watchmaker can fabricate the needed part from scratch; that's part of their training. For the consumer, it's not actually a question of whether one can get it serviced, but rather how much one wants to pay to have it serviced/repaired. I personally wouldn't spend a large sum to have a watchmaker fabricate a part for a fake watch, but somebody else might. I didn't buy a Pet Rock or Chia Pet either, but millions of people did.
All the best.