What is "Threat of supply" vs actual supply in relation to supply and demand.

 Here's a though experiment. Everyone has a phone, and everyone has a toothbrush. There are maybe ten times as many toothbrushes as there are phones. That's being generous. So why do toothbrushes cost a dollar and phones five hundred dollars? The seems to violate the law of supply and demand. I'm not an economist so here goes. 

See, the trap is thinking that the amount of effort that it takes to produce something is directly related to its value. That is purely not true. It is indirectly related. If you take two objects that are exactly the same in every way but one's production method takes longer than the other, and try selling them on the open market, without telling anyone exactly how long it took, and do not distinguish between them in any way, then they will sell for the same price.

Now I approach the "handmade" modifier. When someone realizes that an object has taken longer to produce and required more effort, then they will be willing to pay more, but because they value the perceived time spent and the quality associated with more effort. If I have a machine that makes ten thousand widgets per minute and a craftsman who makes the exact same widget in an hour of work, the one made with more work will be worth more only if the consumer knows. Thus, we come to perceived supply and perceived demand. 

A consumer knows that phones take more effort to produce. It is obvious. So, even though the number of phones and the number of toothbrushes in existence are not as far apart as their prices would suggest, people are willing to pay more for the phone because the phone is perceived to take more effort to produce. 

Thus, we reach the thesis of this argument: the power behind the discrepancy is threat of supply. If you can threaten to considerably increase the supply of a good in a timely and economic manner, then it affects the price of that good, even if that threat is not carried out. This consolidates the idea of "effort input as value" vs true supply and demand, and removes the misconception that a good's worth is intrinsically tied up in the effort it took to produce. Effort taken to produce an object just reduces that object's threat of supply.

This whole system is an attempt to distance my idea of economics from the Marxist view that an object's worth is directly related to the number of man hours it took to produce. Basic supply and demand, when viewed in a vacuum, does not seem to be able to answer the toothbrush-smartphone question. At least how I understood it. Thus, "threat of supply" is my answer to that question that avoids Marxist theories of economics. 

If an economist reads this and finds something wrong with my thought experiment, I challenge them to explain to me what I failed to understand. Thanks for reading.