Harrods to sell Monster 18k gold headphones for £20,000 a pair

7 Mar 2013

Monster Diamond Tears Sally Sohn Edition headphones

It's all happening down at Harrods in London today: not only is it the UK launch of LG's £10,000, 55in OLED TV, but Monster is unveiling its Diamond Tears Sally Sohn Edition headphones.

So what, you may ask? Well, they cost an eye-watering £20,000 a pair. Yes, you read that correctly - £20k! They're made from 18k gold and encrusted with black diamonds – you can't get much more bling than that.

Monster collaborated with Korean artist and jewellery designer Sally Sohn on the creation of the Diamond Tears headphones, which incorporate Pure Monster Sound technology. They were tuned by Head Monster Noel Lee.

Monster Diamond Tears Sally Sohn Edition headphones

Also available are the special gold Diamond Tears heapdhones (below), which have been made in a limited edition of just five pairs.

Monster Diamond Tears gold

Harrods also has an exclusive on the new White and Black Tuxedo Monster DNA headphones, created in alliance with Viacom.

Noel Lee says: "The creation of the Diamond Tears Sally Sohn Edition was truly a labour of love for us, and being able to work with such a talented, ahead-of-the-curve designer as Sally to create such a special, museum-quality work of art was really the icing on the cake."

Written by Andy Clough

Follow whathifi.com on Twitter

Join us on Facebook

  • Digg

Comments

@StanleyAV

“I say that StrappedForCash is entitled to have his say here without it being stripped bare for an absolute truth with regard to these richly priced headphones.” – Why exactly would he/she have that entitlement? I think I must have missed the fundamental right of saying anything you like without fear of someone else being able to debate it, especially when most of the things that were said were highly disputable. If you disagree with anything I said please feel free to debate it. I very much doubt I’m correct in every point I made.

If someone says something silly to you face to face you’ll correct it or challenge it. If it’s online you have the further luxury of elaborating a bit more. I reserve my right to pick apart anything anyone says on a public forum to expose what are not “absolute truth”s and I encourage you to do the same. Reason can be a very powerful tool against ignorance, and none of us are free of that.

Also, this was in the news section rather than the review section. I wouldn’t expect to see reviews there.

 

Quote:
I don't recall any Monster product being reviewed in WhatHifi.

Not so, Stanley AV, we have reviewed many pairs of Monster headphones. Clickety

@daniel berwick,

I say that StrappedForCash is entitled to have his say here without it being stripped bare for an absolute truth with regard to these richly priced headphones.

I would expect that those subscribing to or purchasing WhatHifi  largely fall into the enthusiast market for Hifi, AV/Home Cinema etc where reviews play somepart in product selection.

Monster's designer headphones when subjected to such analysis could well fall short of WhatHifi's testing for subjective sound quality and value for money.

I don't recall any Monster product being reviewed in WhatHifi.

Would they be brave enough to be tested even, whatever the product??!

Let’s break down what you’ve said:

“I honestly think the headphones look horrible and that anyone that owns a pair has an extraordinary lack of taste.” – This is a matter of taste which is subjective. One person’s ugly is another’s beautiful so all this mean is you personally wouldn’t want a pair based on their looks and materials but someone else may.

“If someone handed me a pair I'd sell them and channel the money back into more useful causes.” – That’s your choice, but this is a hypocritical argument that so many people bring up about other people’s money whilst not giving all their own spare cash to “useful causes”. People spend the lion’s share of their disposable income on stuff they want and not “useful causes”. Instead they put a smaller proportion towards charities and keep the rest for themselves (including to buy expensive headphones). People that say this generally (not always) claim that other people should give the money away whilst justifying to themselves why they can spend what they like. You may be incredibly noble, but the odds are you’re not.

“In my view, anyone likely to own a pair will have purchased the headphones for bragging rights rather than functionality.” – Maybe, is that really wrong? How many people from every level of society does this? Whether it’s how much they drunk/ate, who they slept with, a new set of alloys for their car, a new TV, customised PC, expensive trainers, football team they support, etc ,etc ,etc… Just because it’s more expensive doesn’t change the underlying motivation which is acceptance in your social group.

“Their value clearly lies in the materials attached to the exterior” – Anyone who wears jewellery made of any precious metal or stone or part of this. More money = bigger, less money = smaller.

“which makes them emblematic of a culture/philosophy/ideology that celebrates superficiality, vacuity and offensive demonstrations of wealth (I expect all owners to be appropriately shallow and vacuous).” – There’s assumptions here on the personalities of people you never met. I will go back to jealously or envy as it’s make people feel better to belittle people they believe is socially, financially, intellectually above them. It’s better to make out it’s others who have the problems, then you don’t have to look hard at yourself and question what you’ve personally gained in life.

“As far as I'm concerned, the money spent employing a clearly inept designer and on the headphones themselves could be put to far better use.” – Like what? What if Bill Gates bought them? It’s nothing to him, he’d think less about that amount than we think about pennies. He has the wealth to do it, but he’s given more than most people put together in his foundation. He’s given nearly $30 billion of his own personal money into it and they plan on putting in 95% of their personal wealth into this foundation. They’ll still have a few billion change after this, are they not allowed to do with this as they wish?! No one’s perfect, but I think you’ll find philanthropy runs rampant in these rich circles you find so revolting. Some people of course will be vulgar and selfish, but that’s no different to the people who have little! There are some darn ugly people in all parts of society, and similarly some very lovely ones.

“We're in the middle of the worst financial crisis for almost a century. Disability benefits are being slashed. Some of the most vulnerable members of society are being demonised, ostracised, and degraded by a culture of austerity, while a tiny elite minority is handed tax breaks and allowed to continue cheating the system. The gap between the obscenely wealthy few and the increasingly poor majority is widening all the time. We're sold this sorry state of affairs through claims that money trickles-down from the top; yet the reverse is true. In real-world terms, those at the bottom are worse off now than five years ago, while the activities of a plutocratic elite continue unencumbered.” – Ignoring the Daily Mail comments section style of writing; Money can’t trickle down from the top if people don’t spend money, the worst thing that could happen is for rich people to stop wasting their money. Buying expensive things help to redistribute it, a lot will go to more rich people, but not all of it. Each time they spend, some falls down lower and that’s good. Use of the earth’s resources are another concern of course, but expensive small items like this are better than lots of high material equipment that costs a lot less (like your TV whatever size that may be, assuming you own one).

“So, to reiterate, I find these headphones vulgar to look at and in terms of what they represent more broadly.” - That’s an opinion, like before you may not like it but other may. Taste is one’s own opinion and not necessarily shared by others. The motivation for vanity is the same reason people only spending £20 on jeans still pick ones they think are fashionable, someone with a spare £100,000 for headphone equipment will buy what they think are fashionable. It’s just it’s based on their social axioms, their expectations level higher and lower based on their means. There isn’t a better or worse form, it just is. Again seeing more than you have as vulgar, I’d wager this DOES come from a feeling of jealously/envy.

The social issues on wealth are real, but rich people shouldn’t hide their money just because others are not. The source of the wealth needs fixing, and some of the criminal and immoral sources of that wealth. Being rich in itself is not something to be ashamed of, it’s what most people still strive for. It’s why people play the lottery with hopes to make it easy. Stopping people being rich and spending their money on what they want ends up with a far, far worse social outcome than where you think we’re headed.

 

@danielberwick

I'll be clear about the philosophy underpinning my outrage, which has nothing to do with jealousy. I honestly think the headphones look horrible and that anyone that owns a pair has an extraordinary lack of taste. If someone handed me a pair I'd sell them and channel the money back into more useful causes.

In my view, anyone likely to own a pair will have purchased the headphones for bragging rights rather than functionality. Their value clearly lies in the materials attached to the exterior, which makes them emblematic of a culture/philosophy/ideology that celebrates superficiality, vacuity and offensive demonstrations of wealth (I expect all owners to be appropriately shallow and vacuous).

As far as I'm concerned, the money spent employing a clearly inept designer and on the headphones themselves could be put to far better use. We're in the middle of the worst financial crisis for almost a century. Disability benefits are being slashed. Some of the most vulnerable members of society are being demonised, ostracised, and degraded by a culture of austerity, while a tiny elite minority is handed tax breaks and allowed to continue cheating the system. The gap between the obscenely wealthy few and the increasingly poor majority is widening all the time. We're sold this sorry state of affairs through claims that money trickles-down from the top; yet the reverse is true. In real-world terms, those at the bottom are worse off now than five years ago, while the activities of a plutocratic elite continue unencumbered.

So, to reiterate, I find these headphones vulgar to look at and in terms of what they represent more broadly.

Why would it make you angry? If people with the money to spare can afford it let them buy it, it doesn't hurt you. If you can't afford it you can't buy it, the same goes for everything else.

Personally I'm fed up with people crying disgusting at everything far out of their price range. It screams jealously.

Nothing in your entire life will change as a result of these existing or not, other than your self created outrage simply at their existence. Anyone buying these will not even know you exist so your opinion on it will go nowhere.

EDIT: Edited to correct typos and flow.

Anyone that buys a pair has lost all touch with reality and should feel ashamed.

£20,000 for a pair of headphones is obscene. Unfortunately, such absurd extravagance fuels some peoples' ego. 

If you're reading this and you bought a pair, you're a ****.

That perhaps seems an extreme form of commentary, even for me, but such a product's existence makes me angry.

 

That spider thing makes me doesn't want to touch the gold even with a bargepole.

Hilarious. These arty types are full of EDITED.... special, museum-quality work of art

Ideal for a footballer with an IQ of 20!

WAGwear.

 

Was trying to work out who would possibly want a pair of these monstrosities, then it struck me ...Mario Balotelli. 

Let's hope that nobody is so stupid as to buy such overpriced nonsense

Lets hope they do not sound like the Dre's