Calling Chinese homage watches "fakes" or "shitters" is just financial copium to justify overpaying for a Swiss logo.
Let's be completely honest: the aggressive hate directed at affordable, legal Chinese homage watches isn't about protecting "horological integrity"—it’s pure financial cope. It is a desperate attempt by luxury buyers to justify why they spent $5,000 to $10,000 on a brand name when a $200 Chinese microbrand offers 90% of the same physical hardware specs (sapphire crystal, solid steel, reliable automatic movements).
The "design integrity" argument falls completely apart the second you look at Swiss history. Watch design has always been entirely derivative:
AP dropped the Royal Oak in '72.
Patek Philippe made the Nautilus in '76.
Rolex made the Oysterquartz in '77.
Vacheron Constantin** made the 222 in '77.
Tissot made the Seastar/PRX in '78.
The Swiss "Holy Trinity" shamelessly homaged a design trend to save themselves from the quartz crisis. Furthermore, by the logic of the anti-homage crowd, basically every dive watch on earth today is a "fake" because they've all been copying the layout of the 1953 Blancpain Fifty Fathoms and Rolex Submariner for the last 70 years.
There is a massive structural difference between an illegal counterfeit (which steals trademarks and lies about what it is) and a legal homage. If a Chinese brand like San Martin or Specht & Söhne offers incredible specs using existing case geometry, that isn't a "shitter"—it's just a great value proposition that exposes how inflated luxury Swiss margins actually are.
If you need to gatekeep jewelry and call legal watches "fake" just to feel secure about your bank account, the problem isn't the Chinese watch. It's your own fragile ego.