Replying to Opinions on durability

I see a lot of folks here harp on durability of some brands or models (LINE) and I don't really get it. Obviously build quality is something that can't be as easily disputed. The Amer brands are all made in a cutting edge factory in Austria and so one can reasonably expect a very consistent build and good quality control department. LINE is manufactured in China so there's different expectations there. It's not like they're built in some underground sweatshop but one can expect the equipment and quality control to not match the standards of huge brands like Atomic or Salomon. But this is reflected in the prices as most LINEs are $50 to $100 CAD cheaper than comparable Amer skis with some exceptions of course. The thing I feel is totally ignored when when talking about durability is the kind of ski you're actually talking about and how good of a skiier you are. LINE skis are mostly buttery, playful skis with softer, lighter wood cores (thinking SFB, Chronic, Vision, Sick Day). If you're a sick skiier who is doing fat disaster gaps or buttering like Henrik at Knuckle Huck last year, they just won't hold up for long. And even if you're an average park rat, they're just not going to last for years and years. Same goes for something like the Bent Chetler 100 or Nomad 95. Stiffer/heavier skis will always be more durable because more durable materials usually have those characteristics. I guess what I'm saying is just think critically about how important durability is along with your skill level when thinking about getting a ski that is cheaper, softer, or lighter.