Third, while you and other critics are correct in that his prices are beyond what much of the over-all knife market is willing to pay, the same can be said of many other kinds of products that have low, medium,
and high-end values that are miles apart. Today, a $500 stereo system will have audio quality that was impossible to achieve even in systems costing 10x as much 25 years ago, yet there are still $5000 stereo systems out there being bought by the few who can afford them, and who want "the best" even though the much lower end systems are better than they have ever been.
Your most inaccurate criticism however has to do with how much the Sebenza is used by those who own it. It seems there are people who own
knives just for the sake of owning them, and they don't do much more with them than cutting boxes. The Sebenza is indeed very expensive for a box cutter. Then there are those who use their knives a lot, and whose applications sometimes demand the strength of either a fixed blade, or at least the strongest folder they can get. The Sebenza fills that latter niche, and those of us who use it know it does it very well.
Like one of the responses to this thread has said... Once you've held it, if you can't appreciate why it costs as much as it does, you probably don't need it.
: costing 10x as much 25 years ago, yet there are still $5000 stereo systems out there being bought by the few who can afford them, and who want "the best" even though the much lower end systems are better than they have ever been.
I know people who have spent $5k on cables for a stereo system, and others who are content with their walkman. It's unfortunate that Reeves is being singled out as he does seem to make a very high quality product, but it seems to be a common complaint in many areas of interest as there enough demand to create very expensive products.
A few lines from one of my favorite posts on one of the astronomy newsgroups seems to address it nicely:
****************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
From: freeman@netcom.com (Jay Reynolds Freeman)
Subject: Binoculars for Astronomy -- some advice
[ I deleted most of the post for this reply - johno]
Some people pay as much as $1000 for a 7x50 binocular, but cheap and sleazy imports can be had new for as little as $50, and sometimes real bargains show up at garage sales and the like. If you are on a budget, do not worry if you have to buy the cheapest and sleaziest binocular you can find -- it will be lots better than the naked eye --
but expect your friends and fellow net-posters to be critical and condescending. Ignore us: We believe that having fancy gadgets makes us morally superior, we are dumb enough to think that more money always makes things better, and we are too cowardly ever to admit wasting money on something that wasn't worth the high price.
On the other hand, if you like high-tech gadgets, or if you are willing to pay a lot for the best binocular possible, and if you are certain you know exactly what you want, then go ahead and buy a more expensive binocular -- it will give noticeably better performance than a cheap one, but expect your friends and fellow net-posters to be critical and condescending. Ignore us: We believe that using inexpensive technology makes us morally superior, we are dumb enough to think that more money never makes things better, and we are too cowardly ever to admit that our needs and desires have outstripped our
budgets.
5) Now a virtual test: Don't really do this, it's for experts only. Hold the binocular out at arm's length and drop it on the floor.
I say again, don't really do it, just pretend that you are going to. If you have a virtual heart attack, or experience virtual
financial ruin, perhaps you should consider a less expensive model.
The theory here is that if you worry too much about loss or damage, you may end up babying the instrument so much you don't use it, in which case you are a collector of scientific instruments -- a fine and enjoyable hobby in its own right -- but not an astronomer.
