If you don't believe in the validity of the High Times "best of year" list, then why did you cite it as proof of the quality of Greenhouse se-eds?
I won't beat this to death, other than just to repeat my opinion that I don't think that particular distinction awarded by that magazine means *ANYTHING* (positive or negative) with respect to the quality of the strain in question.
Regardless, stipulating that GHS genetics are "not bad" doesnt' exactly make me want to buy them. Do you want genetics that are "not bad" or do you want genetics that are "excellent"?
In my opinion, its perfectly reasonable to refuse to do business with a particular outfit purely because you question their ethics or business practices, even if their product seems to be OK. That's not "childish" at all.
I fall into this category myself. I don't know how good/bad GHS genetics are from experience, and I'm never going to know, because I refuse to purchase their product. I've seen plenty of accounts and allegations of Roskam's sleazy behavior, including having had two High Times magazine cannabis cup wins revoked after being caught bribing judges, line theft, wild rants against competitors, not settling his local debts, etc.
Its not a question of me being envious of his "success". Honest, I couldn't care less how many beans he moves, how much money he makes, or how he makes it. Just in a business dripping with sleazy characters, with so many excellent breeders out there, ones with great products and great reputations, I see no reason to give this particular sleazy one my business. (He's not the only one I won't do business with, by the way).
Now, if GHS really had genetics that were better than everything else or even just unique strains that couldn't be obtained elsewhere, then maybe I'd consider holding my nose and buying on that basis.
But so far as I can tell, not only is this not true, I have good reason to believe that most of his lines are mediocre and several are lousy. Even the ones that defend GHS don't claim the lines are excellent, they're saying things like "they're fine for the money". And speaking of. . .
"Not bad for the price" is good, but its not a reason for me to choose a company.
Why should I settle for "not bad" when for the same money (or less) I can get "excellent for the price"? Or maybe even pay a few bucks more and get "absolutely excellent"?
There are 50+ breeders out there, with se-eds available at a wide range of price points. At $4-10 each, GHS' beans certainly aren't the cheapest out there, and seem to fall somewhere in the middle of the price range.
Nothing really wrong with that, but to name one example, Sannie has at least half a dozen lines that are outright fire for under $4/seed, and there are quite a few other breeders with better than average genetics at better than average prices. See here for some ideas:
https://www.rollitup.org/seed-strain-reviews/552173-sleeper-strains-cheap-strains-turned.html