Confused about price / value

So I decided to get serious about my hobby, at the same time invest into some nice home decorative sets.... one I had planned for myself and one for my son.  The idea was to get the "less expensive" set for him and keep the nicer one for me.  I got the HOS Zagreb 59 with Ebony for him and the Sultan 4" for myself (also ebony).. I then got him the Veneer ebony and maple board and myself the solid wood burl maple and african rosewood (palisander) board..

Then there is this set which costs 10x as much as the Sultan... how? what are you getting over and above is my primary question..

http://houseofstaunton.com/Store/product_name=The+Golden+Collector+Chess+Set+and+Board+Combination/exact_match=exact/user-id=/password=

Now with regards to the board, I can see how the $300 veneer board isn't anywhere near as nice as the $800 board.. but I can't for the life of me see how the Sulton set is worth 3.5x as much as the Zagreb...  yes, the Knight is a bit more detailed, and the queens crown looks to be a bit more labor intensive but 3.5x?   Is there something I'm missing? such as wood grade (looks the same to my eye)? or made in England vs India?

Educate me! (please)..

*It's worth mention that I'm extremely satisfied with both, but I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the value/price ratio vis a vis Staunton chessmen.

The time invested in carving the knights is not inconsequential at all.

Add to this extra time spent in finishing more finely the set in general and maybe you find a justification for a bigger price tag. Look down into the rooks turrets, for example. In the more expensive set is this all smooth and in the less expensive one you see/feel tool marks?

Look for tool marks elsewhere.

Is there a difference between the fineness of the finished wood between the sets. Does each feel as as buttery smooth as the other?

Is the boxwood as uniform in shade and grain in both sets?

Also, sometimes the feel to the balance and weighting requires more craftsmanship in some sets. In my Collector the weighting is greater and the feel is superior than in my Collector II, and there is less space to achieve that than in the bulbous bases of the Collector II. I assume that it is harder/more time consuming to achieve this.

Are the pieces in one set all well-turned on center but not as much the other?

Those are a few characteristics of chess sets that come to mind.

Well, lets put it this way... for the most part I can see the improved quality but it's not spectacularly better...  I suppose it's more a positive statement on the $300 Zagreb than a negative one on the $1049 Sultan...  To be honest however, I prefer the rook on the Zagreb... more substantial and there are no noticeable tool marks to speak of.

I suppose this is a bit like the fine wine or dunhill pipe vs. corncob discussion.... the finer aspects are subtle and the marginal cost of 1% quality is 10 fold in $$..  

This set is 4.4" That adds to the cost.

The knight is more refined. In fact the whole set it. That costs more (hundreds often)

The gold collector has english leather under each piece. That addstoo.

This set is "antiqued". That must cost something...

That being said, I like the Collector series more for 1/2 the price.

If you look at them side by side, you can see the differences. It all comes down to "is it worth it for YOU".

Here is the collector and the golden collector. Difference is over twice the price for the golden:

How many sets were made also makes a difference. (More sets made, less per set)  At the HOS the set that I like best for the money is the Professional (about $200).  I really like the design.

I think both knights are pretty damn ugly.  Bishops are cool though.

ok thanks for all the info fellas... I must admit I do like the look of the Sultan Knights a lot...