I didn't like its 'digital, metal-less feel' compared to more traditional, 'analog' skis with metal...
I am not playing Devil's Advocate at all; rather, I am looking for a spot in my current quiver between a Kastle MX88 and a Nordica Vagabond that is a 'more supple Bonafide' that is engaging on groomers, damp in crud, and serviceable in a foot or so of pow.
Interesting that somehow metal has become traditional and analogue, while wood, which has been used in skis for oh, say 4,000 years, is now digital.
As far as spots in quivers, I wonder if you're trying to slip in something large into a very narrow hole. Obviously, the 88 is a different ski than the Vagabond. But it handles crud really well, and is nice in larger bumps. The Vagabond has a foot of soft snow covered, and also is nice in bumps. Seems as if the ski you're describing - which could be something like a E100 or a Supernatural 1-0-whatever, will end up being the ski you use most of the time, given that most days conditions are variable, with maybe a few inches of soft snow or maybe some light crud, and maybe some scrapped off bits. So why then bother with either of the others? Particularly the MX88, which is an expensive piece of hardware to save for days when things are too firm for the 100-ish ski. And without badmouthing the 88, which I love, any better 70-something carver - I can think of a dozen off the top of my head - will leave it gasping on ice. Yeah, it's an amazing ski, but not that amazing.