This is for those among you for whom money's a concern, but aren't averse to spending when it's worth it.
I'm at the planning stages of my kitchen remodel, and I'm really torn on which style of range to choose. In my last house, I had a 30" GE Profile Performance range that was really great in every way (especially in the customer service I needed when its ignitors broke a month out of warranty). It cooked far more evenly than my mother's expensive Thermidor, and cost approximately one quarter as much. Its only drawback was the light-gray enameled grates, which were impossible to clean completely. If it had had cast-iron grates, it would have been the perfect range.
In this project, I don't want to scrimp if I'll really get the results I want out of the Wolf or Viking models I'm eyeing (the 36" dual-fuels). Last fall, Consumer Reports pretty much said they're simply not worth the prices: $6 - 7k vs. around $2k for the 30" Bosch and GE models they said generally outcooked the "pro" companies' offerings.
I don't care one whit about it looking like a magazine. I want a range that will be a pleasure to cook with. And I also realize a home Viking has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the ranges they sell to restaurants. But at least the Wolf has electronics, like the integrated probe and timers that I found invaluable on my GE before.
So you serious cooks: Did you get your $7,000 worth, or do you kind of wish you'd left that extra 5 in the bank?