I'm aware of all of those things (although, again, no personal firsthand experience with Emerson). But it really only serves to validate my point. Is ZT not selling the model pictured above? Is Emerson not selling their model? We have a ton of interesting and not so interesting discussions on the whys and hows of the cost of knife A and knife B. But as amazed as we are, it's really the most simple thing in the world.
Do you believe Emerson (for example) would continue to use the exact same methods of production and tactics of advertising or lack thereof if what they were selling at the prices for which they were selling them didn't, in fact, sell? I'm confused as to why you are taking issue with what I said at all, if I'm honest. It was simple, yet true, statement, one that didn't take sides (which I objectively can't do, never having handled or used an Emerson knife).
Beyond receiving one as a gift, I doubt I'll ever own an Emerson. I feel they are overpriced. Having said that, I wouldn't own a ZT but for the fact that I did receive mine as gift. Having used the ZT, I don't feel it is overpriced, but it would have been over my budget, therefore I would never have purchased it. Apparently there are enough people in both markets that feel the knives are not only overpriced, but very likely underpriced for what you get (I feel this way about the ZT despite it being over my normal budget).
Would it be nice to see Emerson update their knives and maybe advertise a little? Sure. But Emerson isn't "at fault" for not doing that. And won't be, until people get tired of buying his knives, at which point change will be required. If what he makes is working for the market in which he makes it, the onus is on the customer to say "we want change." He has no real reason to innovate until such a time. I personally feel a good company should strive for innovation regardless of need, but I can also understand why he isn't. Sometimes you don't feel like fixing what ain't broke.
Last edited:
... CPM 154. 
