Have you read the reviews, not only by our "consumer grade" testers but
@ScotsSkier who has a pretty well earned reputation in our racing community? All have been pretty stellar and IMHO the obsession is well deserved.
No I haven't read any reviews, and I don't plan to. I have my own reasons, why I think reviews are waste of time to read in today's world when there's review, and next to it manufacturers add. It has a little bit to do with objectivity but that's my thing, so I'm cool with anyone thinking different. But I have actually ski with some of their GS skis from WC stock first year they were out, and then some 2 years later, and especially with those 2 years later, I was anything but impressed. Main reason, because contrary to most of other manufacturers, they didn't change much
I’m also guessing that
@Primoz ’s criteria for relevance is whether athletes are using the skis on FIS WC racing, whereas most people here are looking for recreational skis and Master’s skis, uses for which Augment and Blossom have been superb.
Thing is, all the testing and all the development is done by WC athletes, not by recreational skiers or master racers. There's maybe 3 guys on world between recreational skiers and master racers, that can help develop skis and test them properly, while with resources, technique, and personnel involved in WC skiing, you have slightly more chances to properly test and develop product. So manufacturers without proper WC team, simply have no chance to test, develop and produce better then average product. It can go for a few months, if you snatch head designer from different company, who brings all the data along, but it goes only as long as those old data are still current. As soon as things change, old data doesn't help much, and lack of testing doesn't help either. That's main relevance if manufacturer has proper racing team or not. It's not about photo on podium, but about all the testing and development behind this, which on the end sooner or later end in recreational and masters skis.