I hate to do this...but

jamesjermain said:
I'm just thankful this tedious, circular drivel has finally been put to bed, hopefully for good.
Click to expand...

James, I'm surprised at you. I realise that you're probably a sailor first and a journalist second, and that anyway your writing focus doesn't principally concern itself with the business end of the boating industry. But the thread you deride has thrown up more real news than many magazines can manage in an issue. Given the weight of allegations and counter-allegations, some of them very serious, most of them not yet proven, if I were still in the business I'd be champing at the bit to get to the bottom of it.

P.S. I've just re-read this and realise it could be construed as critical of your writing, which is very much not my intention. I've always found you a mine of useful info.
 
Last edited:
Selling product

Nostrodamas,

You are more than correct - people should not be peddling their wares to you - but then maybe you should not suggest you are looking for a new anchor!

But - If a manufacturer is involved with libel, misrepresentation etc - how do you know that the anchor someone bought 6 months, 2 years ago, is the same as the one you might buy today - based on that persons comment. If you suspect the manufacturer might have lower values of integrity than you - why do you trust him, when there are equally good choices from manufacturers who are appently more honest.

If the anchor of debate were outstanding in its field, I might lower my moral standards (but might not) - but this is not the case. Manson Supreme, SARCA, SARCA Excel, Spade, Fortress are all exceptional product (some might be a bit bottom specific, some might not fit your bow roller, some might not be 'attractive') but they are all made by companies that have transparent testing methods, a decent press, seem honest, do not result to libel and insult

Not sure there should even be a debate, but maybe I'm biased.
 
Anything Sailing

Thanks MacD

Just checked over at Anything Sailing, might YBW lose a few brownie points on this one if they do not quickly get the original back on the ether? After 750ish contributions to pluck it in full flight, just as threats of concrete information were about to come about seems odd - especially as this clone looks to be developing just as the original.
 
Djbangi said:
Thanks MacD

Just checked over at Anything Sailing, might YBW lose a few brownie points on this one if they do not quickly get the original back on the ether? After 750ish contributions to pluck it in full flight, just as threats of concrete information were about to come about seems odd - especially as this clone looks to be developing just as the original.
Click to expand...

Maybe they're planning to run a feature article about it? :D

Seriously, they got burnt badly once and are probably fearful of the same again. Anything Sailing has a lot less to lose and is harder to get at. UK libel laws are one hell of a cosh (and libel insurance very much leans towards withdrawal/early settlement). That's probably as pertinent as the integrity of either forum.
 
macd said:
Seriously, they got burnt badly once and are probably fearful of the same again. Anything Sailing has a lot less to lose and is harder to get at. UK libel laws are one hell of a cosh (and libel insurance very much leans towards withdrawal/early settlement). That's probably as pertinent as the integrity of either forum.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that YBW is responsible for what is written on the forum and that YBW once lost in a libel suite as a result of that?
 
Mark-1 said:
I assume by 'best' you mean 'best setting and holding', so is that list sorted by weight, by cost or by physical size? Or to put it another way are you saying the top one is the best anchor for a given weight, the best anchor per £ or the best anchor of the dimensions?
Click to expand...

I was not considering cost, only performance. Performance includes setting and holding, coping with direction changes and ability to perform well in a variety of bottom types etc.. As size increases obviously holding power increases and you need to take into account both dimensions and weight when comparing anchors. I place more emphisis on dimensions.
I sail a long distance cruising boat, anchoring over 300 days a year. I encounter all sort of substrates. Its not practical on a large boat like mine to change the anchor frequently so I need an anchor with good all-round performance.
I base my decision manly on observing anchor behavior especial when diving on anchors and watching them in real world conditions. I also note which boats drag or have a lot of trouble setting their anchor (assuming adequate technique)
I also respect the view of other cruisers, particularly in face to face discussions, but also the reported performance in forums like these.
Lastly anchor tests need to be considered, but many are using very unscientific methods.
Personally I have little faith in promotional tests or videos published by anchor manufacturers.

My list is obviously from my personal experience and others will have a different view, although I have noted many of the respected anchoring Gurus have opinions that are broadly similar..
Some anchors did not make my list simply because I have only seen them occasionally making it impractical to form any accurate conclusions.

One anchor I did not mention was the Fortress. IMHO not ideal as a main anchor, but it has many unique attributes and all boats should consider having an appropriate Fortress to back up their main anchor
 
Sybaris said:
Are you saying that YBW is responsible for what is written on the forum and that YBW once lost in a libel suite as a result of that?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that they were badly stung in a libel action (which happened to concern statements made in print). In a libel action both the defamer and publisher are usually defendants. In the legal sense YBW shares responsibility for what appears on the forum since in English law they are deemed to be the publisher of same. "Publish" has a very narrow sense in UK law.

Incidentally, and highly pertinent to web forums, one can't defame nicknames when readers don't know to whom the nickname refers...but I suspect that most of us have a fair idea who the Anchorsmith might be. (On the other hand you can say what you like about macd.)
 
Last edited:
And there was I wanting to catch up this evening with the latest.
Surprised you'r not keeping an open mind Ken now that C is apparently quiet.
My PM reply from Rocna was satisfactory but I'm not knowing now if it was posted on your origianl thread.
If someone would care to PM me to tell me what eventually killed the thread I'd be very interested.
S.
 
parsifal said:
I feel sorry for those who succumbed* to Mr Smith's sales technique and paid out lots of wonga for anchors that are probably not very much better (if at all) than most other popular anchors.

* By the way, I wonder if the word 'sucker' (in the sense of one who has been taken for a ride) derives from 'succumb' :D
Click to expand...


Hi Parsifal, I don't think you should feel sorry at all. I followed the advice of several long term liveaboards who had experience of many anchors throughout their voyages. I looked at other similar anchors and made my decision.
I have had one extremely good anchor for the last couple of years made by this company.
All my experiences with the said anchor, have been extremely successful every single time. I'll be the first to report back to you if my new larger anchor from this company on my 'new' larger boat is a success or not.
I see the new CEO taking the company from strength to strength with the superb anchors that they make.
A great deal of the angst levelled against the company is due to the way that CS has behaved in the past. Not that the company he used to represent made anchors that are poor, just that his manner, claims and remarks to others have been disgraceful.
Mud sticks and there will be some difficulty in making the company 'clean' again, but I'm sure thay will succeed by being open and if confirmation of quality and certification needs to be made I believe they will be forthcoming.
There are factors in the website that have also been critisised and I'm sure also that this will be addressed.
I have confidence that the new broom is sweeping clean and that the workforce deserve a chance to continue to prove what a competitive piece of equipment they make.
If the other anchor manufacturers have a grievance, or if lies have been said about their products, why do they not take it out on the individual concerned, in the courts?.
If they continue to sling mud it will quite easily reflect badly upon them.
 
Last edited:
Scotty_Twister said:
I have confidence that the new broom is sweeping clean and that the workforce deserve a chance to continue to prove what a competative piece of equipment they make.
.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you say but, on a point of information, the Bambury's have been there since 2006. A long, long way from being "new brooms".
 
Attn Steve and Brian Bambury, Q&T 800

As the success of the company, Holdfast, depends on watching the temperature of this and other forums I am sure you are reading this.

I note that on Anything Sailing you are advising that you will be conducting 'holding capacity' tests on the new Chinese model as soon as possible. Sad that you did not bother to advise this forum, maybe the UK market is not important. I might elaborate on these tests later as I have chapter and verse on how Lloyds do it - as a result of about 4 months of email correspondence.

Anyway - many of us anticipate that any holding capacity tests on the new Chinese model will throw up the same results that have been published in many sailing magazines. And in case you have missed it most of us think the Rocna has adequate holding capacity as measured anyway. So it will be 'nice' if you do it but it will not markedly affect the reputation of the product. The biggest problem is that it will take time and time is not currently in your favour.

What would be most advantageous is your making a declaration on steel quaility as this is something you can do now, immediately. Your ex affiliate Mr Smith, junior (the same on that still runs the website?) declared that Rocna's were built (when in NZ) from Q&T 800 (and he might have mentioned the specific product Bisplate 80). I do not think any of us would expect you to buy Australian Bisplate and ship it to China but we might expect you to use locally made, Chinese, Q&T 800, given that Q&T 800 is the quality declared as the shank material by Mr Smith, junior.

It has been mentioned, on this and other forum, that the shanks are not made from Q&T 800 and variuos hardness tests that have been conducted seem to confirm that the shanks are made from a quality lower than Q&T 800 It also appears that your ex Production Manager also made some comment casting doubt on the quality - if his comments are correct (and he should know) it would not be defamatory and threats of defamation are then simply threats. If the comments are incorrect (and thus defamatory) it would take you 5 minutes to draft a reply stating exactly which qualities are being used.

It does not seem too onerous a task for you to re-conmfirm the steel quaility declared by Craig Smith. The absence of a reply might allow some of us to think that the quality is not Q&T 800 and that the old management style of smoke and mirrors is allive and well. The absence of a reply might also allow some of us to think that Whaleboy was correct in his allegations. And this latter comment would then allow us to think that the pulling of the 'original' thread lacked a basis in law - which might really upset us, for a whole new raft of reasons.

Waiting with baited breath!
 
jamesjermain said:
I'm just thankful this tedious, circular drivel has finally been put to bed, hopefully for good - Twister you should be ashamed of yourself!
Click to expand...

Now, now James. All I asked was if anyone had used a Manson. And look what happened. War and Peace. Well, just War actually.

Still, more compelling than any recent yottin' journalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top