I think the thing to remember is that there is a significant difference between not liking something because of it's high price tag, and not liking something because despite it's high pricetag, it has obvious flaws and doesn't even get close to meeting the hype that has been put out there.
Let's take the Sebenza as an example. Certainly there are hundreds of followers in the Sebenzanista movement. For them, the knife is well worth it's $300+ price tag because they use it daily, and it represents (to them), the pinnacle (no pun intended) of production folding knives. These people use their knife daily, instead of sticking it in a sock drawer and only cutting air with it. They've found it works - through direct experience.
Of all the time I've been on the forums, the only complaint I've heard about Sebenza's are it's price tag and the occasional (very rare) chip. When there are problems, there is immediate customer service and problem solving, and no hostility or talk of abuse, or anything silly excuses as to why the problem occured. This is the way that things should be done.
Yet, there are still those who don't like the Sebenza for one reason or another, the cheif among those being, yes, price. That is their choice, they don't have to buy it. Lacking solid evidence otherwise, it seems that there really isn't a problem with the product itself, but the price tag associated with it or the person's unwillingness to meet that price, or something similar. Before anyone gets offended, that comment is not directed at anyone in particular, it's just a generalization.
What astounds me, however, is those who will ignore all evidence that there are problems with their product, and continue to proclaim that theirs is the finest item in the land. I'll put forth an example of this, but instead of offending any particular knife maker, we'll use car's in this analogy. Draw your own parrallels.
Let's say that there's this semi custom sports car manufacturer out there. We won't give them a name...
This company has built it's reputation on the "performance" of it's products through superior materials and construction, as they are "supposedly" the choice of extreme drivers who absolutely have to have a car that will not fail them. They are even named in several adventure racing novels. The company has a "If it breaks, we'll replace it" warranty, saying that you could essentially drive the car off a cliff and they would fix it without a problem.
The cars are chosen by the Secret Service for their defensive driving capabilities, and many of the dealerships for this company wave this award as a reason why the customers *must* buy these cars over all others. Suddenly, though, 2 years later, the Secret Service holds a new batch of tests and chooses another car. The previous "official issue" car isn't even included in this testing.
Then things start to leak out to the public about these cars not living up to their claims. Rumors have a shipment of cars supposedly having their seats fall out into the roadway from rust working it's way up from the wheels, causing an immediate ban on purchasing any more of this product. In addition, the manufacturer is found selling the cars at a local car show instead of filling the Secret Service contracts in place, causing the government to be even more upset, resulting in the contract being pulled.
Things start to come out about the owner of the company as well - his background can't be verified, and his bona fide's are lacking (at best). While continually talking smack about the makers of import cars, he refuses to test his own cars against them. He doesn't even show up at the car shows... saying he's too busy for them...
The shadowy reputation of the owner of the company is suppossedly detailed in his "biography", where he's said to have worked for Lockheed Skunkworks - and winning awards there, inventing processes for Darpa, and the Q branch of MI-6, and had made an internal combustion motor at age 3 out of tinkertoys; this is also used to lend credibility to the reputation of the products, though nothing can be verified, and the book is never actually printed. It turns out he was never a scientist at DARPA, but was only a welder. His Ph.D isn't in a "hard" science, and no Masters or BE can be found on him. Skunkworks has no personnel folder on him, and none of the staff of the company has ever even heard of him.
This doesn't deter the drivers though, they love their cars, even though they only take them out on Sundays, when it's dry...
In a seperate event, a scientist at Consumer Reports does testing on the car and discovers something shocking - during low impact crash tests, when the car's rear bumper is hit, the engine and the front half of the car falls off! Suprised, he sends the car back to the maker, who replaces it. Stess testing is done again; and again, the car falls apart under light stress. Suddenly, the scientist is branded as being a liar, out to "besmirch" the "good name" of this "respectable" car company. The "If it breaks, we'll fix it" warranty is suddenly changed to "If it's owned by the original driver, and isn't abused*, we'll fix it".
More testing is done. Stories start to come forward about this car losing engine power even when just sitting in the garage. The paint, though while very scratch resistant, doesn't work well against corrosion. Parts of the car fall off when on level and smooth roads, during routine driving... which the manufacturer claims was due to a batch of scrap cars being stolen and completed by employees, then sold on the gray market.
Yet, despite all of this, the car buyers say that these aren't flaws, they are features! Several car owners admit to experiencing their cars break down on them, but blow it off saying "Who cares if it throws a rod or a valve falls off, a little bondo will take care of that..." More than a few leave "family" altogether, choosing other custom car makers...
You get the gist of my story.
Some people can't be convinced, no matter how many facts you throw in their faces. It's like gun control - some people are absolutely convinced it will stop crime, despite all the evidence proving otherwise.
Now, given all of background in the above parable, would you trust products from a car company like this?
In summation, don't confuse dislike for a product because of it's price, with dislike of a product because of actual real documented problems with it.
Spark
------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com
Insert witty quip here
