Can anyone definitively tell me how you judge the quality of a scope, other than in mag reviews and pricepoint? From experience, I can certainly see a difference between a cheap quality scope like a Tasco world class and a decent scope like a Nikon monarch. The differences I can see between these two classes are edge clarity and brightness. I'm sure there's also a difference in the quality of the construction and how well they hold zero. However, this isn't where my question lies. I would like to know how you tell the difference between a mid level scope like a Nikon Monarch and a premium scope like the Khales and S & B or Leupold VX-L? Comparing them side to side, I can't "see" a difference. What makes premium scopes cost soo much more when there seems to be so little difference?

Keep in mind that when I reference to mid level scopes, I'm talking about scopes like the Monarch,Elite 4200, Fullfield,& Grand Slam that have fully-multi coated optics, lifetime warranties and have a proven track record for being good scopes.