Real versus perceived value of high-end products

[jtr1962]

I started discussing this topic in this thread in regards to the price of color checker charts but it quickly took on a life of its own. Since it is highly off-topic for both the thread and the forum I decided it deserve its own thread since I didn't want to further pollute an otherwise interesting thread. Here are a few things I mentioned:

Not much difference in price between the two size charts. As much as I think something like these charts would be very useful, it goes against my grain to pay the better part of a C note for a piece of cardboard. Granted, this isn't a standard item you could make on any old printing press, but I still think it's grossly overpriced. $10 would be more like it. In the meantime if anyone is interested in printing there own, see here. Not as accurate I'm sure, but possibly "good enough" for many applications. I did one on my CLP-510 and it looks pretty good to me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by precisionworks
Does anyone else find it funny that the Pantone color checker seems expensive to some people? Most everyone who posts in this section has at least $400-$500 invested in their McGizmo, with some members (not to mention names like Yaesumofo) investing much more.

Well, in my world where I qualify for EIC $70 dollars represents 70 frozen pizzas or 350 packs of Ramen soup, so yes it is a big expense considering it's something which I would admittedly find useful but which isn't absolutely essential. And I'll add that with nearly everybody these days owning a digicam there might be a huge market for color checker charts among serious amateurs if the price were closer to $10. I know the R&D to make these isn't trivial. I also know setting up the manufacture isn't trivial, either. However, once that's done it doesn't cost a whole lot more to bang out 100 million of these instead of perhaps half a million. The incremental cost of making another is well under $10 I'm sure. I guess it depends which business model you prefer to follow as a company. Some prefer to deal in small quantities of products which a high profit margin. Others prefer to mass market products and make money on volume.

BTW, I personally don't buy $400 lights because I just don't see the value, and frankly couldn't afford them even if I did. Sure, they're definitely better than almost all $12 lights and most $50 lights, but not enough IMO to justify the huge markup. Some people I know have had issues with switches or tints or poor efficiency converters on these expensive lights. Now I almost expect that on a $12 light, might be mildly tolerant of it on a $50 light if it rarely occurred, but things like that just shouldn't happen at all on a $400 light. Isn't part of the high price because you are buying the best that can be made, and having some assurance that it's thoroughly tested before it gets in your hands? In theory yes, but sadly in practice I've seen otherwise. Same thing with clothes. I've looked at $250 pants or shirts that seemed like garbage. The fabric was paper thin. They didn't seem like they would outlast $10 items from Modells. So exactly what are the extra bucks for? Snob appeal because it has a label? A lot of the same thing exists with high-end lights. Hey, it's a (fill in expensive brand name), it must be worth paying more for. I've taken some of these lights apart for examination and believe me, most are nothing special underneath the fancy body. A lot of it is just plain bling but few will say so. Sure, many of them are absolutely worth $75, $100, even $150, but once we start getting into $500 territory most aren't. That being said, I have seen some $1000 lights which easily justify their price.

While I won't quite say exactly the same thing exists for these color checker cards, I think they can do way better on price but they would rather cater solely to a niche market in small quantities and therefore price them accordingly. I really hope the Chinese get in on this business. My guess is they can make something just as good, but sell it for $10 or less while still making a decent profit. They've done some wonderful things with LEDs so long as you're able to separate the wheat from the chaff (of which plenty admittedly exists).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's please continue the discussion here and leave the other thread for its original purpose.

 

[jtr1962]

I I can't stand reading posts like this written by people who just don't know how wrong you are regarding the price of the color checker. (and likley other calibrated standards).

All I know is I've read a bunch of posts on various sites complaining about how much these things cost. On a 100 million dollar motion picture the cost of such a thing is peanuts. For a casual user it isn't. YOUR post reminds me of the attitude of some of my teachers when they would require the students to purchase specific materials. They just couldn't understand it if somebody couldn't afford an item which cost ONLY $15 (equivalent to maybe $60 in today's money given that this was 25 or 30 years ago). More than once my parents had to give such people a reality check. Here's a clue-for some people they have to do little things like eat or pay for housing, and unfortunately when they're all done paying for these things they don't have a whole lot left. While a color checker chart isn't a necessity for 99.99999% of people by any stretch of the imagination, I think there would be a HUGE market for these things among serious amateurs if only they could get the price down to $10 or less. It might also raise the general standard of photos you see on the web since frankly many pictures I see are downright awful (and I have way less discriminating eyes than a professional).

Now whether or not a lower price is possible I don't know. I suspect the process to make these is somewhat more costly than your standard printing process which is why I said $10 and not $0.50. It's a pity the company doesn't tell us more about how these cards are made, and why they should cost so much. It's something I would certainly do as a businessperson if I had to sell a product which is similar to something else but much more expensive. A good example might a regulator board since my field is electronics. I can bang out decent boards all day long for perhaps $8 to $10 and still make what I consider a decent return per hour. However, if I sold a board for $30 instead, I feel I would owe my customers an explanation as to why it costs so much more. If nothing else, I wouldn't want them to feel as if I wasn't purposely taking advantage of them. I KNOW these color checker charts aren't simply pieces of cardboard. However, I also feel that given that they've been making these for years, and have already amortized the initial R&D among probably hundreds of thousands of card, if not more, they can do way better on price. To me anyway it seems they prefer to cater solely to a professional market, and keep the price fairly high due to small volumes.

If I see a company selling something which is overpriced for what it is, I'm going to call them out on it. I'll give a lot more leeway for individuals who hand produce things in fairly low volumes since that's a totally different business model.

And I happen to know a lot more about standards than you think. There's a huge difference between a calibrated instrument and a reference standard, which is what the color card really is. The former in almost all cases requires quite a bit of human adjustment. If a lab technician has to spend 2 hours getting a light meter calibrated, it's quite easy to see why that should add quite a bit to the price over an uncalibrated meter. On the other hand, mass producing standard weights or lengths or colors isn't as costly. Once you have the manufacturing process set up you can bang these things out all day, periodically pulling a few off the assembly line to make sure your manufacturing process continues to meet the calibration standard. The only exceptions to this are super accurate lab standards such as weights or lengths calibated to parts per million or even parts per billion. However, very few processes require such things. Those that do won't balk at paying the very high price.

 

[xcel730]

More often than not, the higher the price, the better the quality. However, there's a point of diminishing return. For example, a $50 light is many times better than a $10 light, but when you reach the point where the light is about $200, adding an extra hundred or two to that will not make the light that much better. Once you cross a certain price point, the light becomes a luxury item. Sure, a $500 light has both form and function, but realistically a $50-$100 light would fulfill most people's day-to-day needs.

Once you enter the realm of luxury items, most people's buying decision becomes irrational. In the knife world, you have custom knifemakers making a high quality knife that cost $1,000. Many of these knifemakers collaborates with high-end knife manufacturers and make the same model that cost $100. Does the $1000 hand made version perform 10 times better than the $100 version? Very unlikely. Yet, there are many people who has the financial flexibility will still purchase the $1,000 model for their own reasons. Another example is watches. A $30 Casio G-Shock has more functions, more accurate time, and requires less maintanence than a $5,000 Rolex. This example goes on with most items ... from clothes, to cars, etc. But one must realize that high-end luxury items are sold at a significantly less volume with much higher profit margin.

In general, I don't own too many flashlights, but most of the ones I have are relatively expensive, and a few are either custom made or have been modded. Personally, I appreciate the craftsmanship, and the fact that lightmaker dedicated his/her time to conceptualize, designe, test, and eventually produce a flashlight. Also, I enjoy owning something that's more unique. For me, form is almost as important as function.

I've seen many members in CPF owning 20-50 flashlights ... most of which are in the $50-$100 range. The way I see is it that instead of purchasing ten $50 flashlights, I'll get one instead. :candle:

 

[BigHonu]

jtr1962,

Interesting topic.

I think there needs to be a definition of the word 'value' here. You seem to look at it from a cost to performance ratio standpoint, but could there be other immeasurables involved (i.e. happiness, satisfaction, peace of mind, etc.) which are involved and affect what something is 'worth'?

If you involve these other immeasurables, wouldn't perception influence reality?

 

[jtr1962]

I think there needs to be a definition of the word 'value' here. You seem to look at it from a cost to performance ratio standpoint, but could there be other immeasurables involved (i.e. happiness, satisfaction, peace of mind, etc.) which are involved and affect what something is 'worth'?

If you involve these other immeasurables, wouldn't perception influence reality?

The immeasurables are I think the perceived value while the performance is the real (i.e. easily meaured) value. I'll also add that I know it's not quite as black and white as that. For example, the feel of a switch or the appearance of a reflector can cause the user to perceive a real performance increase even if there isn't actually a measureable one, and they then use that to justify to themselves spending the extra dollars. Yes, there is usually a big jump in quality going from a $10 light to a $50 light, and a smaller but still present one jumping to $150 lights, but much beyond that I'd say the difference is mostly one of perception. Exceptions to this are things like titanium lights where the raw materials/machining add greatly to the manufacture cost.

Also true what xcel730 said about people's buying decisions becoming irrational once you enter the realm of luxury goods. In that case I suspect much of the desire to pay the extra money comes not because they expect a proportional increase in performance, but rather to become part of an exclusive club guaranteed by the high price/low production volume. In effect, past a certain point it becomes more collecting than buying a tool.

All that being said, what has puzzled most reading about people's collections here is the sheer penetration of so-called luxury goods. I might fully expect a millionaire to make buying decisions this way, but many of the people here with super expensive lights are solidly middle class, in some cases even under middle class. Spending that much on any hobby has to take away from doing something "better" with the money, such as putting it into an IRA, or saving for a home, or paying for a child's school. And I'm not singling out flashlights, either. The sheer number of "limited editions", "anniversary editions", "club member editions" for hobbies as diverse as baseball cards, figurines, guns, knives, even cycling equipment tells me the middle class is spending serious money on goods where most of the extra performance isn't in line with the purchase price, and in many cases are running up credit bills they really can't afford to buy them. Luxury goods were once solely the fare of the well-to-do. The working classes either couldn't afford them, or even if they could, didn't perceive the extra cost to be justified. I'll also add that in the past many standard, day-to-day middle-class items were made a bit better, so maybe the jump to luxury goods didn't represent as great an increase in overall quality as it might today. Then again, many of these luxury goods I mentioned aren't practical items in any sense. Many are collectibles with no worth at all beyond their perceived worth. And when the demand for these goods is gone, the hapless buyer is left with a basement full of worthless but expensive stuff. I guess that's the part I don't understand-buying luxury goods of no practical value at all which almost always end up worthless once the fad dies off. I sometimes watch shows like Suzie Orman. I'll see people in debt for $50,000 because of a collection of Beanie Babies. These are working people. I can't help but wonder what they were thinking. Flashlights at least have some utility beyond also being a collectible, so in a sense it's a little more rational than the other hobbies I mentioned.

None of this is meant to marginalize those who choose to buy luxury goods, either, so please don't take it that way. Rather, it's just something I can't fathom middle class people doing to the extent they do. I come from a poor childhood, and even now am no more than lower middle class in my lifestyle. I know how hard I had to work to get whatever dollars I saved, and how hard it is for me to earn what I do now. I carefully consider all my purchases, even the very small ones. Even if I ended up wealthy by some miracle, I'm 100% sure I would continue to think much like I do now. Somewhere in all this rambling I guess what I'm really trying to understand is how so much of the working class has been convinced to part with enough money to go severely in debt for things they don't need. We even call them "consumers" these days. If anyone can give me a good answer to that, I'm all ears.

 

[Aluminous]

... the middle class is spending serious money on goods where most of the extra performance isn't in line with the purchase price, and in many cases are running up credit bills they really can't afford to buy them. Luxury goods were once solely the fare of the well-to-do. The working classes either couldn't afford them, or even if they could, didn't perceive the extra cost to be justified. I'll also add that in the past many standard, day-to-day middle-class items were made a bit better, so maybe the jump to luxury goods didn't represent as great an increase in overall quality as it might today. Then again, many of these luxury goods I mentioned aren't practical items in any sense. Many are collectibles with no worth at all beyond their perceived worth.
...
None of this is meant to marginalize those who choose to buy luxury goods, either, so please don't take it that way. Rather, it's just something I can't fathom middle class people doing to the extent they do. I come from a poor childhood, and even now am no more than lower middle class in my lifestyle. I know how hard I had to work to get whatever dollars I saved, and how hard it is for me to earn what I do now. I carefully consider all my purchases, even the very small ones. Even if I ended up wealthy by some miracle, I'm 100% sure I would continue to think much like I do now. Somewhere in all this rambling I guess what I'm really trying to understand is how so much of the working class has been convinced to part with enough money to go severely in debt for things they don't need. We even call them "consumers" these days. If anyone can give me a good answer to that, I'm all ears.

This obviously isn't the whole reason for everyone, but I think for many people nowadays (past decade or so), there has been an increased urge to acquire the trappings/appearance of wealth/luxury, even though they haven't acquired actual wealth of sufficient magnitude to go with it.

This is in line with the recently ballooning house sizes and materials levels (also concentrated in the past decade or so) -- for example, more people wanting 'commercial-grade' kitchen appliances that cost 10x as much as normal good appliances, marble/granite all over, and 5000sqft for three people.

And once some people get into the 'act rich' level of living, it's hard for them to quit and drop back to a less-ostentatious lifestyle even once the bills start catching up to them. Peer pressure / embarrassment makes it harder (for example, "gotta keep leasing Mercedes to look successful to friends/coworkers").

 

[BigHonu]

jtr1962,

I believe that our perceptions of reality are formed by our current reality and our past experiences. So what is 'real' and 'necessary' for a silver-spoon fed millionaire will not be the same for a self-made millionaire and certainly no the same for a lifelong homeless and jobless individual.

When it comes to buying descisions, it would be hard to understand the WHYs of a purchase of a particular high-end item without knowing the person's background and rationale. What may seem logical or important to you and I may not carry the same weight with someone else.

In the end though all accountability stops at the individual. The individual decides to buy or not regardless of the convincing that they receive.

 

[RA40]

Image certainly is a big factor, who desires to go through life when we as the masses look on them a certain way. Pretty much everyone will be compared and such is a "standard". Whether it is here among our flashaholics or another interest forum. We easily lavish praise on those who have the ability to acquire such objects. When others see such, they too desire that recognition. Such is the desire to have a uniqueness as few want a drone image.

With that said, it is relative to ones enjoyment factor. For those, they will pursue the objects which they find pleasure in. If spending an extra amount of money promotes their happiness, that's all that matters. Perceived or real, each one will have a different view. It doesn't matter what we as outsiders think of another's purchasing decisions.

 

[yaesumofo]

Real vs perceived value?
I can buy a car that will get me from point a to point B for $1000.00 or I could spend $500.00 or I could spend 500000.00.
They will all do the job.
I guess it depends on your ability to "buy in" as a bottom line.
One thing to note is that when a "rich" person buys a car like a rolls Royce for $250,000.00 He isn't actually buying a car. He is parking his cash because due to the nature of the vehicle he can sell it for at least and likely more than paid.

A good value to some is more likely to be an "investment".

Many people who buy "high end custom" flashlights end up putting them on shelves and never use them as intended as tools. Their intention is to enjoy the light and then sell the light at a profit. To them this makes for good value since their possession of the light did not cost them anything while they possessed it. In other words it was free ...to them.
I am sure you would agree this is good value.

Some walk through like with only this in mind.

Take shoes for example.
It might be easy to buy 20 pairs of cheap shoes.
It is just as easy to buy a single pair which would out last all of the crappy cheap shoes. The same amount of money is spent.
Which is a better value, the 20 cheap crappy shoes which don't last long or the single pair which outlasts all of them? Same price..

Value is relative.
Yaesumofo

 

[xcel730]

I've asked myself the same question too when I see some members' collection. In general, I think it's okay to indulge yourself and ocassionally get yourself something extravagent to make yourself happy. After all, we only live so long, and we have to look out for number one. . However, we have to be careful to not let indulgence becomes obsession. I also spend a lot of time over at knifeforums.com, and seeing the custom knives some of these people have blows my mind. I cannot speak for other members, but I consider myself to make decent income ... at least enough for me to own the lights that I own without sacrificing on necessities. The non-flashaholics, and even some flashaholics, will definitely think I'm nuts from the amount I've spent on flashlights. However, I limit myself in how much I spend on non-essential goods and make tradeoffs. If I spend $500 on a light, I'll spend $500 less on other things that I might have spent (i.e., cooking instead of eating out, taking the train instead of driving, renting dvds instead of the movies, cheaper vacation, etc). Also, if I see another one that I really like, and I don't want to overspent my budget, I'll sell the ones that I don't like as much to fund it.

<snip snip> All that being said, what has puzzled most reading about people's collections here is the sheer penetration of so-called luxury goods. I might fully expect a millionaire to make buying decisions this way, but many of the people here with super expensive lights are solidly middle class, in some cases even under middle class. <snip snip>

That's very true. It's like clothes ... if you're used to wearing Old Navy clothes, you're fine. But one you start shopping at higher end stores, it's almost impossible for you to go back down and buy Old Navy.

<snip snip>And once some people get into the 'act rich' level of living, it's hard for them to quit and drop back to a less-ostentatious lifestyle even once the bills start catching up to them. <snip snip>

Initially, I thought people purchase expensive lights for the "bling" factor. But if you really think about, outside of CPF, no one would know how much you spent on a light nor do they care. In fact, they'll think you're crazy for spending even $100 on a SF light. I have a few expensive lights, along with a few nice knives and watches. Some of my close friends know how much I spent, but besides that, no one really knows. I'm a pretty low profile kind of guy ... I don't drive a nice car, nor wear anything with big brand name logos on them. I like quality items, and I am fine with only me knowing how much I spent.

 

[Aluminous]

Initially, I thought people purchase expensive lights for the "bling" factor. But if you really think about, outside of CPF, no one would know how much you spent on a light nor do they care. In fact, they'll think you're crazy for spending even $100 on a SF light. I have a few expensive lights, along with a few nice knives and watches. Some of my close friends know how much I spent, but besides that, no one really knows. I'm a pretty low profile kind of guy ... I don't drive a nice car, nor wear anything with big brand name logos on them. I like quality items, and I am fine with only me knowing how much I spent.

To clarify, my post was just a reply to jtr1962's general comment about wondering why there's been an increase in average people who like to buy lots of 'normal' expensive things that they can't really afford... it had very little to no relation to most people who are into things like flashlights (which isn't a 'normal' expensive thing, since most people don't know expensive ones even exist ).

People responsibly budgeting for specific purchases so that they can afford them is totally different from the general 'aspirational hyperconsumerism' effect I had attempted to comment about, but might not have written well enough.

 

[xcel730]

Oh, I know, no worries. I was just quoting you on:

"... And once some people get into the 'act rich' level of living, it's hard for them to quit and drop back to a less-ostentatious lifestyle even once the bills start catching up to them."

and agreeing by saying that it is difficult to go back down once you move up. The example I gave was on clothing ... once you move out of Old Navy to high end clothes, it's hard to go back down to Old Navy.

My other rambling was basically to share with everyone my perspective.

To clarify, my post was just a reply to jtr1962's general comment about wondering why there's been an increase in average people who like to buy lots of 'normal' expensive things that they can't really afford... it had very little to no relation to most people who are into things like flashlights (which isn't a 'normal' expensive thing, since most people don't know expensive ones even exist ).

People responsibly budgeting for specific purchases so that they can afford them is totally different from the general 'aspirational hyperconsumerism' effect I had attempted to comment about, but might not have written well enough.

 

[jzmtl]

Take shoes for example.
It might be easy to buy 20 pairs of cheap shoes.
It is just as easy to buy a single pair which would out last all of the crappy cheap shoes. The same amount of money is spent.
Which is a better value, the 20 cheap crappy shoes which don't last long or the single pair which outlasts all of them? Same price..

Value is relative.
Yaesumofo

You are assuming 20x the price would give you 20x the quality, but that's just not the case. Since you are talking about shoes, I have a pair of ecco sneakers that cost me $200, and it's crapping out after three years or so. I also had a pair from walmart that cost less than $50, I think it crapped out after two years, so 5x the price only gave me 1.5x the quality.

 

[jtr1962]

Take shoes for example.
It might be easy to buy 20 pairs of cheap shoes.
It is just as easy to buy a single pair which would out last all of the crappy cheap shoes. The same amount of money is spent.
Which is a better value, the 20 cheap crappy shoes which don't last long or the single pair which outlasts all of them? Same price..

This reminded me of something very funny which actually happened to me. I needed a new pair of sneakers in college. When I came home one weekend my father proudly takes out a pair of sneakers. I ask how much do I owe you? He says only a dollar. He thought it was a GREAT deal. Turns out in 2 weeks the soles were flat. Normally even cheap Modell's sneakers lasted me a year. However, the Modell's sneakers were about $10 at the time. So much for my dad's "bargains". 1/10 the price for 1/25 the lifetime.

I definitely see the value in avoiding really low end stuff most of the time because of this experience. Nowadays I mostly buy Rocksports. I can usually find them on sale for about $30. I've been alternating between two pairs for the last four years. I walk a lot, generally 2 to 4 miles a day. They're finally starting to wear out, but that still represents 50 times the life for 30 times the price compared to the $1 sneakers.

I also discovered something similar with bike parts. A $20 wheel was no bargain if it lasted 1/3 as long as a $50 one, and for most of that time was wobbly. That's really the problem with a lot of low-end stuff. It never really works right to begin with, and it rarely lasts as long as higher end stuff. Even a person of fairly limited means like myself can understand the point of buying good once rather than buying crappy 5 times.

Funny thing was years ago I'm not even sure if the option to buy really lousy stuff existed. Stories from my grandparents suggest that you either saved until you could afford something decent, or you did without. There just wasn't a flood of disposable, cheaply made goods to choose from. The people of the time mostly wouldn't have bought them as they knew it was false economy. So I guess in addition to a flood of luxury goods being bought by the middle class we also have a tsunami of really crappy goods which many unfortunately think are bargains, but which turn out not to be. I still go in dollar stores though. 99.9% of what they sell is unadulterated crap, but you do get some genuine bargains once in a while. I found some nice LED closet lights similar to the Sylvania Dot-Its once. Just as bright, almost as well made (they lacked the metal outer shell).

 

[UncleFester]

I hope I'm not pulling this too far off topic. I have a hard time understanding how things like software are priced. Back when I was employed, we had several seats of a circuit board program but only had a license for one or two. That mostly is because they want $10K a seat... I'm willing to bet that if the seats were one tenth that, they'd get paid more because everyone, even individuals, could afford it. I know I'd buy one if I could...

 

[Aluminous]

Oh, I know, no worries. I was just quoting you on:

"... And once some people get into the 'act rich' level of living, it's hard for them to quit and drop back to a less-ostentatious lifestyle even once the bills start catching up to them."

and agreeing by saying that it is difficult to go back down once you move up. The example I gave was on clothing ... once you move out of Old Navy to high end clothes, it's hard to go back down to Old Navy.

My other rambling was basically to share with everyone my perspective.

Ah, now I see what happened... you typed your replies above the relevant quotes instead of below them (as is customary in message boards to avoid this kind of mixup). I'd also suggest using a few extra blank lines in between separate replies when they're combined in one post.



Good posts from jzmtl and jtr1962 about cost-benefit balance and such.

Even when you do think you're going to get more than enough extra usage out of a more expensive option to make up for the price difference, things don't always go according to plan. I bought a top-of-the-line laptop a while back, with the plan that by getting the best available at the outset, it would hold up better and have enough capability to continue handling my needs longer (get more years of use out if it before it'd be too far behind the times to keep up). However, after working fine for three years, the motherboard committed suicide less than a month after the 3-year warranty expired. :shakehead

 

[adamlau]

Too much reading for me to digest. As I am neither a sociologist, nor an economist, I can only venture to guess as to why consumers are willing to put themselves in debt for items of want versus items of need: It makes them happy now, whereas debt can be taken care of later. It is that simple and comprehensible a human condition.

 

[Stereodude]

The price of an item is set based on what the market will bear, what people will pay for it. It's that simple. It doesn't matter how much it costs you to make, it only matters what someone will pay for it.

 

[meuge]

I own a pair of shoes from Daffy's that cost me $10. I also own a pair of Bruno Magli's that cost many many many times that. But the quality difference, while significant, is nowhere near the price differential.

Why? The law of diminishing returns always wins the day.

Illustrated by flashlights - you can buy a $1 special at a discount store... which will be dim, won't last, and will be loaded with a 3/4 used D-cells and shoved into a random drawer. You can buy a $10 3-AAA cluster light from your local hardware store. It will not have any regulation, but it will give usable light for at least 3-4 hours of burn time. It won't be water-resistant, and a serious fall will break it. So on and so forth. But by the time you get to Fenix's and Nitecores, you will have crossed out most of the performance requirements.

As you go up the quality ladder, each additional step will probably cost you at least 2X as much... and while going from an arbitrary 50% quality to 75% quality will be a noticeable difference... the difference between 95% and 97.5% is largely aesthetic.

That's not to say that you SHOULDN'T buy something that's more expensive, but you have to realize that you're doing it mostly out of desire, rather than out of need. Nothing wrong with that, but there is no need to downplay the quality of the less expensive brands, to justify your expenses.

 

[xcel730]

<snip><snip>
Nothing wrong with that, but there is no need to downplay the quality of the less expensive brands, to justify your expenses.

I agree. I think sometimes people who spent a lot of money on a light is seeking assurance that they made a financially sound decision by spending X dollars on the light. They take it offensively when you even remotely imply that he/she could have purchased something better for cheaper. The opposite is true as well ... and equally annoying. Maybe it's sour grapes, but I've seen many posts where members have put down on an expensive light, even if he/she has never handled it before.

Sometimes I don't get why we can't love our own lights and respect what other people choose. :shrug: