A Mon, 19 Jul 2004 09:42:44 -0400, Dan Logcher
> escribió:
> >>>>With skin-off filet, pretty hard to tell.
> >>>How about by taste? texture?
> >>>I suppose if you can't tell by taste or texture, who cares?
> >>Except that they charge you snapper price for a cheaper fish.
> > Why isn't the cheaper fish more expensive, again assuming
> > that it is a perfect replica of the rarer fish's taste and
> > texture?
> A few reason are the cheaper fish are more abundant, easier to
> fish, more wide spread fishing grounds.

Argh. Let me try to take this from a different direction.
We're not collecting these fish. They're not getting
stuffed and mounted. They're not even presented on the
table so as to be able to tell them apart. Given all that
(and no one has disagreed with those assumptions yet), what
is the difference in the value proposition offered by the
two products, to justify the price difference?

Let's consider an analogy. The only situations where fake
diamonds are less expensive than real diamonds is where
diamond pedigree matters. Industrial sources care not one
bit about where the diamonds came from if they provide the
same utility. So the difference is solely psychological,
which is somewhat justifiable since diamonds are sold as a
fashion item anyway, and they're durable so the value
proposition from the assertion of their being rare continues
to pay dividends over a long period of time. I don't see
how that could be paralleled in the fishy situation we're
talking about here.


--
bicker®
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/D...ry_040602.html