I wonder if anyone has weighed the different items? A subtle 10% reduction in density can a) reduce the raw materials by 10%, and b)very considerably reduce the production time (injection moulding time is not cheap!). Who is going to be comparing them in 25 years time when the cheaper ones are failing? Or even in ten years?
I’m not saying they were of cheaper production, but that is what I would be checking, before assuming all things are equal.
Thrones sell second quality hives in timber and they are usually fit for purpose, but occasionally require some remedial work - like screwing rather than just nailing, due to slight warps of some rails . We know they will have a rougher finish and/or dead knots, if nothing else (unlike their first quality product). Their seconds frames will have a small percentage of rejects, too. It is up to the user to sort the parts and reject those that are substandard. Slots may be slightly out of position and need careful selection or remedial work. Timber may be mixed offcuts recovered from rejected material in the first quality lines. All good to re-use rather than throw away, mind.
Seen it all, but was never put off by their seconds. Many might not even notice some of the slight defects. One thing is certain - they are not perfect as are the first quality offerings, so the savings are less than a simple price comparison yields.
