Sigh. OK let's break this down. The car is 12 years old. It has 130K miles. Some manufactures say "replace at 50K". Others say "100K". Some say 5 years. The only way to really know for sure is to take them off (unless you are able to measure tolerances with far greater accuracy than op appears to be able to) and depress them to see if they do in fact dampen the "shock" like they are supposed to. Many times the springs hide the strut failure from the ill informed. If you are going to do that, the struts are imminently going to fail, they aren't going to last 200K miles (setting the obvious internet story that is going to pop up with the one exception from my cousin barney on his 2003 Honda civic who has "400K miles and struts that are as good as new!") Please.My point is that I'm not sure you can "guarantee that you need new struts at 130k" with the information the OP has posted, unless you know that his initial repair estimate was based on a real evaluation of strut/shock condition.
Setting aside my hyperbole in my original quote I also said "Google signs of strut failure". So, good job seizing on my hyperbole. You have added immeasurably to the discussion by anecdotally pointing out two cars, both with substantially fewer miles then OPs, that didn't exhibit any signs of strut failure (tire wear) and didn't have a diagnosis from a mechanic (whether you believe it or not).
I stand behind the statement that the struts are probably failing. I also stand behind the statement that it shouldn't be ignored and that with motivation and work, it can be done substantially cheaper than $1400.