GrantKing
New member
420/620/800
Lets make one clear again for those who doubt.
The move to China in late 2008 was the point at which 420 was used exclusively for the shanks.
Late 2009 was the time that the 620 was introduced into the production because of bending failures and fears of massive claims against them.
From late 2009 until early 2010 there was a mix of 420 and 620 shanks in almost every order placed. From the production sheets Steve Bambury initially stated on the forums that only some 300 were affected and these all went to Canada for sale through WM. This has now been upgraded by Peter Smith to 700 however they omit to detail the rest of the world during that period.
The production delivery and order sheets for this period of time specified the shank material for each order as they were initially different prices for each material. These are the sheets that HF and Rocna are referring to when they claim that only a small number were ever shipped in 420.
They omit to the fact that all prior to that time were 420 and nothing higher.
When I negotiated for the price of the 420 and the 620 to be standardised to one price for all then there was no longer a need to have them seperated on the production sheets.
Details of each shank material are however listed in emails between factory , myself and HF management.
Every country in the world received 420 shanks at some period during the manufacture from China.
Through huge numbers of PM's I have identified those for forum members who have asked about a specific purchase and timeframe.
On the 8th of July 2009 the previous agents, Linox of Australia, posted comments on sailnet forum announcing that the rocna anchors were not of the material claimed.
They also announced that they were taking legal action for recovery of outstanding monies owed to them by Rocna.
They also announced that the rocna stainless steel anchors were not of the material claimed.
It then became my responsibility to get those posting removed, which I did after communication with the sailnet moderators.
This occurred at the same time that the "Venice" anchor became knowledge and I then discovered that the 420 was being used and had been since day 1.
It then took several months to find the 620 and to get Bambury to accept use of it despite him not wanting to pay a higher price for that grade.
It was then agreed by Bambury that the remaining huge numbers of 420 would not be scrapped but would continue to be used and when they ran out in each size they would be replaced with the 620.
Smith's were lied to and told everything was 800 equivalent because the specifications signed by Bambury and Smith in their license agreement staed no less than Bis80 equivalent.
The savings in using the lower grade were not small and the profit more than salved their conscience particularly when Steve Bambury was also on a commission of sales over and above his salary.
The promotion of the product as a high spec steel continued regardless and did not change until there was no weay around the lies this year and they had to change their website.
How is CMP going to recover this brand, the answer is simple:
BE HONEST and accept that you have not been told the whole truth by Bambury.
It is no good trying any more spin doctoring of the truth when there is hard evidence in circulation and available to shoot down all of the misinformation and half-truths.
Every purchaser of a Chinese Rocna since 2008 has a consumer's right in every country in the world to demand a refund because they did not get what was advertised. There is no way out of that one regardless of Peter Smith stating that the current metal is "fit for purpose" and he can accept the lower grade as ok. Of course he will say that otherwise future sales will still be hurt.
It has already been reported back to me exactly what has been said on the WM stands at the USA shows that the rocna roadshow is currently attending and they need to stop the bS , stop trying to blame it all on me, and lay the blame exactly where it belongs. Then try to recover the brand.
A full list of clearly identifiable 420 shank anchors for the period late 2009-mid 2010 will follow over the next few days. CMP will be able to confirm those numbers from the production sheets they should have.
Lets make one clear again for those who doubt.
The move to China in late 2008 was the point at which 420 was used exclusively for the shanks.
Late 2009 was the time that the 620 was introduced into the production because of bending failures and fears of massive claims against them.
From late 2009 until early 2010 there was a mix of 420 and 620 shanks in almost every order placed. From the production sheets Steve Bambury initially stated on the forums that only some 300 were affected and these all went to Canada for sale through WM. This has now been upgraded by Peter Smith to 700 however they omit to detail the rest of the world during that period.
The production delivery and order sheets for this period of time specified the shank material for each order as they were initially different prices for each material. These are the sheets that HF and Rocna are referring to when they claim that only a small number were ever shipped in 420.
They omit to the fact that all prior to that time were 420 and nothing higher.
When I negotiated for the price of the 420 and the 620 to be standardised to one price for all then there was no longer a need to have them seperated on the production sheets.
Details of each shank material are however listed in emails between factory , myself and HF management.
Every country in the world received 420 shanks at some period during the manufacture from China.
Through huge numbers of PM's I have identified those for forum members who have asked about a specific purchase and timeframe.
On the 8th of July 2009 the previous agents, Linox of Australia, posted comments on sailnet forum announcing that the rocna anchors were not of the material claimed.
They also announced that they were taking legal action for recovery of outstanding monies owed to them by Rocna.
They also announced that the rocna stainless steel anchors were not of the material claimed.
It then became my responsibility to get those posting removed, which I did after communication with the sailnet moderators.
This occurred at the same time that the "Venice" anchor became knowledge and I then discovered that the 420 was being used and had been since day 1.
It then took several months to find the 620 and to get Bambury to accept use of it despite him not wanting to pay a higher price for that grade.
It was then agreed by Bambury that the remaining huge numbers of 420 would not be scrapped but would continue to be used and when they ran out in each size they would be replaced with the 620.
Smith's were lied to and told everything was 800 equivalent because the specifications signed by Bambury and Smith in their license agreement staed no less than Bis80 equivalent.
The savings in using the lower grade were not small and the profit more than salved their conscience particularly when Steve Bambury was also on a commission of sales over and above his salary.
The promotion of the product as a high spec steel continued regardless and did not change until there was no weay around the lies this year and they had to change their website.
How is CMP going to recover this brand, the answer is simple:
BE HONEST and accept that you have not been told the whole truth by Bambury.
It is no good trying any more spin doctoring of the truth when there is hard evidence in circulation and available to shoot down all of the misinformation and half-truths.
Every purchaser of a Chinese Rocna since 2008 has a consumer's right in every country in the world to demand a refund because they did not get what was advertised. There is no way out of that one regardless of Peter Smith stating that the current metal is "fit for purpose" and he can accept the lower grade as ok. Of course he will say that otherwise future sales will still be hurt.
It has already been reported back to me exactly what has been said on the WM stands at the USA shows that the rocna roadshow is currently attending and they need to stop the bS , stop trying to blame it all on me, and lay the blame exactly where it belongs. Then try to recover the brand.
A full list of clearly identifiable 420 shank anchors for the period late 2009-mid 2010 will follow over the next few days. CMP will be able to confirm those numbers from the production sheets they should have.
