I guess it's a matter of semantics. It's only 'overpriced' if people won't pay those for it. It's only overrated if folks something based on its ratings or hype, then find it doesn't live up to expectations.
Guitars like the 1984 EVH jobbie, the copy of Clapton's Blackie, Harrison's Gretsch reissue, Andy Summers' tele... they sold quite a few copies of all of them.
If something is priced beyond what YOU want to pay for it, well... it's just priced out of your comfort zone.
Ferrari's for example. They sell pretty much every one they build, and in many instances, the entire production run is sold before the first one leaves the factory. They are expensive and they are extravagant, but they are not overpriced. On the other hand, for a number of years while Ford still owned Hertz, they would intentionally build more of the Taurus model than they were going to sell to actual customers. They knew this and intentionally did it anyway so they could claim the Taurus as the #1 best selling car. They'd sell the leftovers to Hertz then a few months later, would clear them out as last year's model for a little over half off the sticker price. That means the Taurus was overpriced and Ferrari's are priced properly.
It's just economics.
So, is something introduced at a high price and then discounted over its lifecycle to be considered overpriced on launch or not?