The market for $100K turntable is not for people who hang around these forums and read such posts. It is made up of wealthy individuals who want to buy things that are the best.
Right. The problem is, how do you define "best"? Too often, they seem to rely on one of two metrics:
1) the most expensive, or
2) the one that some "authoritative" source says is the best, viz. the people who will settle for nothing less than Stereophile Class A components, never mind that Stereophile's recommendations are put together by people with their heads up their a$$es. (See also the slick operators who put the word "best" in the name of their website.
The point isn't to have the best. The point is for everyone else to know that you have the best. So what matters is that it's recognized as the best, not that it outperforms everything else on the market.
Now, to be fair, I'm sure there are some people in the economic stratosphere who take the time to educate themselves on audio matters as much as people here have—maybe more so, if they're in the leisure class. But if you really want the best turntable on the market, the very last thing you should do is listen to the borderline psychopath who covers analog for Stereophile. If you can afford a $100K turntable, then you can afford the time and equipment necessary to learn how to actually measure the performance of turntables. And I really, seriously doubt that too many $100K turntables are sold to people who have done that.
The unfortunate thing is that this mindset—using price and phony authority as metrics—filters down to those who need to be much more careful about where they put their hard-earned dollars.