Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[youen]

Do you know if Rocna will be at Paris or London Boatshow in the next months?

 

[maxi77]

The material spec is irrelevant for an anchor purchaser. What matters is how well it anchors you. Which is not to say that advertising a spec and then quietly changing it isnt stupid - of course it is. But what we havent seen in all this argument are examples of Rocnas failing in use in larger numbers than for any other anchor.

To put it another way, if the idiots had not advertised a spec in the first place, I and an awful lot of others would still be happy with our Rocnas just as Fortress guys are happy with theirs and Spade owners the same.

The material spec was critical to the performance as I read it.

I agree there seem few examples of them failing, but they once said the high quality steel was essential.

 

[GrantKing]

liquidation

Well there will not be any hope of there being any compensation coming from Holdfast as Bambury put the company into liquidation on October 28th. see here: http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/960729

It follows the same theme of previous companies that are on public record here:http://www.business.govt.nz/compani...roups=ALL&addressKeyword=&advancedPanel=false

And this: http://www.business.govt.nz/compani...roups=ALL&addressKeyword=&advancedPanel=false

Owners of substandard anchors who want a refund have to go back to the chandler they purchased from who will have to go back to the Master distributor in their country and the distributor has to back to Holdfast. Thats where the buck stops so the distributor will be the one who misses out.

Just how much the distributor misses out will be decided by CMP.

In the meantime CMP still have Bambury employed and his partner replying to customer emails and telling them there anchors are not below specs.

Simply changing the specs does not change the past details promoted or change the contracts entered into at the time of purchase.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

In the meantime CMP still have Bambury employed and his partner replying to customer emails and telling them there anchors are not below specs..

This saga gets even more remarkable as time goes by. The man who would be liable for the cost of replacement is the man who is advising customers about whether their anchors are up to standard??????
With Bumbury's track record for integrity I wonder how likely it is that people will get a straight answer?

 

[GrantKing]

STRAIGHT?

This saga gets even more remarkable as time goes by. The man who would be liable for the cost of replacement is the man who is advising customers about whether their anchors are up to standard??????
With Bumbury's track record for integrity I wonder how likely it is that people will get a straight answer?

In all the postings he has made on all forums about this saga there has never been a straight answer given.

Had straight and honest answers or statements been given earlier then no doubt things would be different now and everyone would have a clear understanding of what to do.

 

[Hoolie]

This saga gets even more remarkable as time goes by. ... ... ...

Perhaps the forum should apply for television rights - it would make a great soap opera

 

[Djbangi]

The reason Rocna specified the steel in their shank, as Bisplate 80, was becuase they needed to in order to engender customer confidence. The shank is thin meaning the steel you buy that is 'useful' (the fluke) is a greater proportion of the whole. If they had used the sort of steel most anchor makers use the shank would have been twice as thick and they would need more weight in the fluke to get the balance right, with a heavier shank it would not have been self righting. Manson with their Supreme and Anchor Right with their Excel have exactly the same philosophy. But to give comfort to the customer you need to demonstrate that such a thin shank will be strong engough, hence Bisplate 80.

Other anchor makers have thick shanks on their anchors - the shanks look beefy and the same as other anchors on the chandlers floor - the question of shank strength does not arise (though perhaps it should?)

A big problem with Rocna was that, according to Grant King, on moving to China they replaced the Bisplate 80 with Q420, which has about half the strength of Bisplate 80 and they used the Q420 from 2008 till sometime in the first half of 2010. The owner of Holdfast and the CEO, father and son Bambury, were the ones instructing use of Q420 (and the son is now a leading light in the CMP Rocna team). So the levels of integrity we saw of Holdfast from 2008 is being rewarded, I think you can meet up with Rocna and maybe young Mr Bambury at METS (they will be in the NZ stand, not far from Manson).

Grant instigated the change to Q620, about 90% of the strength of Bisplate 80. As the pragmatists comment, they might not tell the difference between Q620 and Bisplate 80. However Q620 is not as tightly specified as Bisplate 80 - and one hopes they never need to use their anchors in anger. Interestingly they paid the premium price of a Bisplate 80 shanked and advertised product - and you can buy as good from Manson.

Equally the Manson Supreme is fully certified by Lloyds, it is a pity the same cannot be said for Rocna. Another bit of the Bambury spin, claim RINA certification - which was not correct.

I recall RocnaONE suggesting that CMP had no responsibility to replace anchors made by Holdfast, and those it was replacing it did as a result of altruism. Anyone, R1 suggested, with further claims could approach Holdfast (which is now bankrupt) whose CEO is employed by CMP. There seem to be a number of contradictions here. I am certainly glad not to be an importer/distributor nor chandler left with the dirty bathwatar.

 

[LittleSister]

How about organizing a rally of Rocna owners and inviting Bambury along as Guest of Honour?

 

[Delfin]

liquidation

Well there will not be any hope of there being any compensation coming from Holdfast as Bambury put the company into liquidation on October 28th.

Gosh, what a shock. Using bankruptcy court to skate past the responsibility to make customers you lied to whole. Who would have thunk?

The retailers are going to be thrilled that they get to hold the bag and I am sure this is really going to help CM rejuvenate the brand. Not.

 

[Mike_Alpha]

I'm with you on the SolentBoy but where is this offer stated and what are the terms?

My Chinese Rocna 25 was bought in July 2009 and, AFAIK, there has been no offer of replacement because Rocna/CMP/HF maintain that it is a Chinese-made 620.

I am waiting for either a replacement offer or an unequivocal statement that Grant King is wrong is his assertion that my anchor is a 420. So far, I have seen neither of these.

Richard

Hi Richard,

seems like the answer to our common question is in this document:
http://www.canmet.com/content/resources/documents/Rocna November Memo2011.pdf

Doesn't look like an replacement offer, still no "unequivocal statement" ether.

Not good.

Michael

 

[FishyInverness]

So they're still clinging to the apparent fallacy that it was only shanks produced early 2010 which are suspect, despite evidence produced by Grant King to the contrary?

I'm interested to know Grant, what happens to CMP's potentially incorrect assertions when your case is through and evidence to the contrary has been laid in front of the courts?

 

[Hoolie]

So they're still clinging to the apparent fallacy that it was only shanks produced early 2010 which are suspect, despite evidence produced by Grant King to the contrary?

I'm interested to know Grant, what happens to CMP's potentially incorrect assertions when your case is through and evidence to the contrary has been laid in front of the courts?

It may be more subtle than that.
They do not say that anchors made before January 2010 were or were not to specification. It may be that CMP are limiting their liability to replace below spec anchors to just that 6 month period.
Not good news if yours came from 2008 or 2009.

 

[bob234]

Well there will not be any hope of there being any compensation coming from Holdfast as Bambury put the company into liquidation on October 28th. see here: http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/960729

Hi Grant,

I see from the liquidators initial report (in your link) that known trade creditors are listed. I believe you said that you had not been paid for a part of your work. Sadly your name (I believe) doesn't appear on the list. I'm sure you are on to it anyway but I thought I should mention it just in case.

Disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, that all of the figures which should have been supplied by the company for the initial report are shown as 'not known' (or similar wording).

Also, as someone else has commented, it is disappointing that CMP are saying that their initial findings are that shipments before and after Jan-June 2010 are in conformance with the designers spec. They do point out that their enquiries are continuing so they will still be able to recognise your point that none of the shipments prior to 'x date' comply but I would have thought they had seen enough noise, if not actual evidence, to give cause for concern with their statement.

Thanks for all your information on this and other sites which are to the benefit of the yachting community.

Cheers,

Bob

 

[youen]

At the moment no news from Rocna 1, even by PM. I think he has disappeared .I think if we are not happy with our false Rocna we must go to the boatshows with our Rocna under our arms and with some real news from Grant King.Paris boat show is early december.

 

[GrantKing]

evidence

So they're still clinging to the apparent fallacy that it was only shanks produced early 2010 which are suspect, despite evidence produced by Grant King to the contrary?

I'm interested to know Grant, what happens to CMP's potentially incorrect assertions when your case is through and evidence to the contrary has been laid in front of the courts?

I guess that when that happens they just might have to believe documented proof instead of continuing to believe Bambury and Smith.

Documented proof does not lie.

I have waited over a year now so another few weeks for justice and for the truth to come out is nothing to wait.

 

[Djbangi]

One point of, minor, merit in the CMP statement - they are admitting that the anchors with cast flukes are not covered by the RINA certification. Nice to have CMP confirm that the Smiths and Bamburys were economical with the truth. Sad that CMP feels the need to employ people of such character. I also note that the suggestion is that 'fabricated' anchors are those larger than 40kgs, I was under the impression, in fact I thought that it was part of some historic Rocna documentation, that anchors under 55kg all incorporated cast flukes - any comment Grant?

Noting that the older Mr Bambury has washed his hands of the whole affair in having Holdfast closed down - was there never a corporate body called Rocna?

In terms of refunds of Rocna anchors, there seems no denial from the CMP camp that the advertised quaility was Bisplate 80/Q&T 800 and (from mid 2009) a RINA SHHP certificate. The absence of the RINA certificate has only been denied on the 2nd Nov 2001. The use of advertising of Q&T800/Bisplate was withdrawn about April this year. Anyone with any doubts of the quality of their anchor need take it back to the chandler from which it was bought and demand a full refund. The fact that CMP has no obligation to the retailer is not relevant, the fact the anchor might be made from Q620 is not relevant. It is not of the advertised quality.

My suspicion is that CMP will quietly refund to the distributors/chandlers (they need to keep them on side). So there is no need to feel any guilt (as expressed by some of the people posting). I might guess CMP will never admit that Q420 was used prior to the start of 2010 as a mechanism to keep the number of returns down. They will stick to their story (they now employ the Masters of Spin) and they have the advise of a Crisis Management Consultant. They will all, CMP, hope it dies a death, quickly, and we all give up and forget and start buying again.

If Grant produces some watertight documentation then CMP will appear as bad as the Masters of Spin. I note that the next update from CMP will be early next year but Grant's ability to disseminate information will be around the end of this month. Looks really bad timing on CMP's part - 30 days for anything Grant posts to quietly fester.

Finally now that they do not publish any claims as to the quality of steels used, they could alter it again in the future, to anything they like. Scary stuff.

 

[GrantKing]

..

Hi Grant,

I see from the liquidators initial report (in your link) that known trade creditors are listed. I believe you said that you had not been paid for a part of your work. Sadly your name (I believe) doesn't appear on the list. I'm sure you are on to it anyway but I thought I should mention it just in case.

Disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, that all of the figures which should have been supplied by the company for the initial report are shown as 'not known' (or similar wording).

Also, as someone else has commented, it is disappointing that CMP are saying that their initial findings are that shipments before and after Jan-June 2010 are in conformance with the designers spec. They do point out that their enquiries are continuing so they will still be able to recognise your point that none of the shipments prior to 'x date' comply but I would have thought they had seen enough noise, if not actual evidence, to give cause for concern with their statement.

Thanks for all your information on this and other sites which are to the benefit of the yachting community.

Cheers,

Bob

The report only contains information supplied by Bambury and the liquidators have asked for any other creditors to come forward and fill in a claim form.

As this company was set up by them as a sacrificial lamb to ensure that Rocna were not liable in the case of debt then there will be nothing left for any of the creditors.

 

[GrantKing]

companies

One point of, minor, merit in the CMP statement - they are admitting that the anchors with cast flukes are not covered by the RINA certification. Nice to have CMP confirm that the Smiths and Bamburys were economical with the truth. Sad that CMP feels the need to employ people of such character. I also note that the suggestion is that 'fabricated' anchors are those larger than 40kgs, I was under the impression, in fact I thought that it was part of some historic Rocna documentation, that anchors under 55kg all incorporated cast flukes - any comment Grant?

Noting that the older Mr Bambury has washed his hands of the whole affair in having Holdfast closed down - was there never a corporate body called Rocna?

In terms of refunds of Rocna anchors, there seems no denial from the CMP camp that the advertised quaility was Bisplate 80/Q&T 800 and (from mid 2009) a RINA SHHP certificate. The absence of the RINA certificate has only been denied on the 2nd Nov 2001. The use of advertising of Q&T800/Bisplate was withdrawn about April this year. Anyone with any doubts of the quality of their anchor need take it back to the chandler from which it was bought and demand a full refund. The fact that CMP has no obligation to the retailer is not relevant, the fact the anchor might be made from Q620 is not relevant. It is not of the advertised quality.

My suspicion is that CMP will quietly refund to the distributors/chandlers (they need to keep them on side). So there is no need to feel any guilt (as expressed by some of the people posting). I might guess CMP will never admit that Q420 was used prior to the start of 2010 as a mechanism to keep the number of returns down. They will stick to their story (they now employ the Masters of Spin) and they have the advise of a Crisis Management Consultant. They will all, CMP, hope it dies a death, quickly, and we all give up and forget and start buying again.

If Grant produces some watertight documentation then CMP will appear as bad as the Masters of Spin. I note that the next update from CMP will be early next year but Grant's ability to disseminate information will be around the end of this month. Looks really bad timing on CMP's part - 30 days for anything Grant posts to quietly fester.

Finally now that they do not publish any claims as to the quality of steels used, they could alter it again in the future, to anything they like. Scary stuff.

Smith licensed the Rocna IP to Bambury's Company called "Rocna Anchors Ltd" http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/1881041

This Company sub-licensed the rights to Bambury's Company called "Hold Fast Anchors Ltd" http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/960729

The 40kg is the largest size with a cast blade.
The 55kg and above are fabricated from plate.

The seabed test with Rina was conducted using fabricated plate models made in NZ.

The drawing approval was obtained using fabricated plate drawings only.

The pull test proudly displayed on the website was conducted using a fabricated plate 55kg because that is probably the strongest model in the range.
Had ,say ,a 25kg cast model been used it would have blown apart in the blade at a very low tolerance.

I will save the rest for later in the month when I can release details of exactly how the limited certification was obtained , in public.

The best move that CMP can make now is to undertake ALL of the certification process completely and legitimately. That includes seabed tests using cast models, drawing approvals showing the correct metal to be used, factory compliance for the factory that actually does the manufacturing, welders, and finally certified metal stock purchased from a Rina certified supplier.

The other alternative is to just make the damn things with the metal strength they were designed to be made of, market them honestly and then let the end user decide if they want to buy one based on that instead of being mislead about what it is.

 

[Djbangi]

Thanks Grant,

Presumably a Doctor of Spin has told them that saying anchors of '40kgs and less' sounds better than 'less than 55kgs' - as not being covered by the original RINA certificate. It does not seem to make much difference - the bulk of anchors sold, 40kgs and less, - were not covered by the much flaunted and acclaimed RINA certificate. A real classic of 'economy of truth'

To add insult to injury Peter Smith on his website still attacks another anchor maker (he does not name names) for not having 'proper' certification. And CMP claim they have cleaned up his website.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Whilst the latest memorandum purports to address the question of the steel used in galvanised anchors it's interesting to note that everything has gone very quiet indeed on the reports of low grade stainless being used on nice shiney Rocna anchors.

Nothing has been said about this.........

Since some of the details relating to stainless steel production, and other production decisions, have only recently been made known here and in other places, the only information I have for you is that the matter is presently under review at top level.

As soon as I can give a full reply, I shall do so.