Why are so many people trying to sell Harbeths?

Some member needs to post a thread asking to list which speakers are in their honest opinion a rip off and possibly why so. Even a venerable company like Harbeth seems to be moving toward this list based on some of the responds I have read here.

I think such a list would help potential buyers rethink spending over $6000 and beyond for speakers. In addition, I think it is fair to ask manufacturers how manufacturing costs and residuals costs compute to the determine the final retail price of their speaker or speakers

Please don't insult the intelligence of some members like myself by floating the tired theory of "perceived value" Personally, I think that is crap and a spurious argument at best to empty ones bank account. Lastly, in mounting the above criticism, I don't think anyone who agrees is trying to tell you how to spend your money.

Sunnyjim,
You may not want to hear it, but most purchases are about "perceived value". There is no question that the prices of Harbeth speakers have spiraled toward the heavens in recent years. I recall an older review of the Model 40 from Enjoy the Music some years back when those particular speakers were less than $7k. Now they are more than double the price.
I think they are worth the current asking price in comparison to other similarly priced speakers on the market, and apparently so do other listeners, or Harbeth wouldn't be selling them at that price.
The fact that I can't afford them does not make them a "rip off".
Your proposal is silly.

@Sunnyjim

You can feel free to ask manufacturers about their input costs, but you are no more entitled to know manufacturing input costs than I am to know how many times members on this forum are fornicating with their partners. When you bought your last clothes dryer, did you request the input cost of the rotating tumbler used in that particular machine?

As for the "tired theory of perceived value", that's known as the Austrian school of economics which basically espouses that an item is worth whatever someone will pay, for the value/utility/enjoyment derived from that item, taking into account the cost of possible substitutes for that item. Which contrasts with what I suspect you are espousing, which is basic Chicago school theory that the cost of an item should be directly correlated with its input costs, largely irrespective of perceived value. I won't get into a debate about both camps here (unless you want to), but suffice it to say that it's very easy to shoot holes in the input-cost model, i.e. just because someone puts two hours of time @ $15 per hour into carving a toothpick doesn't mean toothpicks should cost $30. And it goes both ways - if the manufacturing cost of a plastic comb is 4 cents but you're about to walk into a job interview and you need a comb and don't have one you may pay $20 for one.

Be careful before you dump on the concept of perceived value - we all pay it, in all walks of life for products from every category. You yourself will pay "perceived value", in some department store or supermarket, before this week is done.

Roxy54 is right - if Harbeth speakers weren't "worth" the money, people wouldn't pay it and they wouldn't sell anything. I don't own Harbeth, never have, but I appreciate their place in the market and their position in the minds of music lovers.

Roxy, I hardly feel it is appropriate to state my proposal as being silly. So, in your vaulted opinion, where does the glass ceiling end. You mentioned an older review of the Model 40 in ETM listing the speakers 7K which jumped to approx. $13,000 to $14,000. Geez, how did that occur, did Harbeth workers get an unexpected and large per hour raise. Elevated and run away costs of new materials; engineering design changes priced out in terms of hours of research and development, and special personnel.....or was it just old fashion " what the market will bear" or to say it another way, we need to dramatically increase profit margins by say 50-60% instead of a reasonable increase of 25%-30%

I don't know what Mr. Harbeth and his Board of Directors were thinking and neither do you. All we know is that the buyer will be required to pay for the item if he/she wants it.

Begator, No we need not get into a debate; I never liked any of the political, social, and this case, economic theories that came out of the Chicago School However, you can go back to Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian theory of value which was one of the sources the Chicago School used. Even Karl Marx in his interesting if not classic essay "Alienated Labor" used a type of romanticized utilitarian theory to argue for the "value" a workman gives (and imbues) to the product he assembles by his labor and craftmanship

Sorry, I read these guy and more when studying for my Ph.d exams in History. Lastly, we are not considering the relative cost of combs, light bulbs, pliers or widgets, but electronically sophisticated products.

No one in his right mind wants to pay retail for audio products, because if that was generally true, many of us would not daily monitor the lists of used products on Audiogon. Cheers.

Sunnyjim,
I apologize if I caused offense; I didn't mean to. The way I read your comments though seems tilted far to the economic side of the subject, even citing certain schools of thought which I readily admit I have never even heard of.
I think it is easy to get lost there. The point is that this is all about individual perception of value based on the enjoyment the user receives from their purchase.
I thought that your use of the term "rip-off" was over the top because, after all, none of these companies are forcing us to buy their products.
In the end, we all speak with our wallets, and the reasons for price increases (which are usually profit based) are not really that important to the argument. If the item is priced too high relative to (dirty words) "perceived value", it won't sell.
It's just about having fun.