toad_oftoadhall
New member
Well, West Marine say this: Our returns for defective Rocna products are almost non-existent. The defective rate is as low as any other anchor we sell, and way, way less than most.
Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
- Thread starter Laura Nineham
- Start date
Well, West Marine say this: Our returns for defective Rocna products are almost non-existent. The defective rate is as low as any other anchor we sell, and way, way less than most.
Storyline
New member
I think you read his post too fast and missed the key words .... 'other than a publisher'
macd
Active member
No he hasn't. He's refused to offer corroborative evidence.
I can confirm I'm in Mindelo. Do you require written evidence?
Rigger Mortice
N/A
You have a remarkable ability to interpret things to suit whichever one of your latest theories you have dreamt up.
A general point about warranty claims is made, with no specifics as to when they are alleged..... then you claim " Warrantry claims increased to a significant degree when the spec changed" .
Incredible.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
You miss my point.
I was told he'd verified facts in this case. In fact he has no current plans to do so. So I'm guessing he hasn't in the past.
Storyline
New member
Considering that many purchasers only anchor in fairly benign conditions for less than a few dozen nights during the sailing season and the Chinese anchor has only been around for a very few seasons then it is not surprising at all.
If the truth about the 420 anchors turns out to be true then sadly it is only a matter of time .....
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I'm not sure now if you are arguing that there were lots of warranty claims or next to none and, to be honest, I doubt if you now know what you are arguing.
Maybe you just see yourself as some kind of devils advocate with no real purpose other than to be argumentative?
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Most people hereabouts recognize that Neeves has gone to considerable lengths, wherever possible, to verify his facts. He is not always able/willing to disclose his information or sources and that is obviously not good enough for you but it doesn't alter the fact that he is setting about things in a professional way.
Once more you are making guesses and assumptions but basing them on nothing more substantial than fresh air.
Storyline
New member
errr - I think he does want verified facts. If I did not have a charitable heart I would take your statement to be a slur on his professional integrity but as it comes from you I just realise you have not read what he has said.
Bosun Higgs
N/A
If you dont think that Grant's past history is relevant to the accusations he has made, then you're the only one on this thread.
avb3
New member
Character counts, and it is clear the Grant King has certain character traits most of us would not want to be associated with.
Now, knowing that even a broken clock is right twice every 24 hours, there may be some semblance of truth in King's statements, but which of those statements are the truthful ones?
Character counts.
avb3
New member
Maybe it should be called "Angkor What?" (yes, spelled that way on purpose)
Stork_III
Well-known member
Have you finally realised the truth?
macd
Active member
Toad old bean, you're either terminally obtuse or desperately thick. Neeves has never said he won't verify information. What he has said is that he won't do it on this forum.
He's a working journalist, ferchrissakes. The verification is his stock in trade, his livelyhood. I certainly don't expect him to give that up here just because we'd like it.
But don't worry mate: you'll be getting an e-mail from Coca-Cola any minute telling you their formula.
Laura Nineham
New member
Hi everyone,
It's taken a while for me to go through this thread in order to put it back online.
I have removed links pointing to Letterman's website - the forum is not the place for personal vendettas. I have also removed bits of posts that I feel pose some difficulty for us legally.
It's important that we keep this thread up so everyone can discuss the Rocna issue. If this thread is used to further personal vendettas or abuse users, it will be pulled until we can re-post it.
I shall be dealing with Letterman shortly.
Thanks for your patience,
Laura
It's taken a while for me to go through this thread in order to put it back online.
I have removed links pointing to Letterman's website - the forum is not the place for personal vendettas. I have also removed bits of posts that I feel pose some difficulty for us legally.
It's important that we keep this thread up so everyone can discuss the Rocna issue. If this thread is used to further personal vendettas or abuse users, it will be pulled until we can re-post it.
I shall be dealing with Letterman shortly.
Thanks for your patience,
Laura
Colvic Watson
Well-known member
Thanks Laura, there's not many 1500 post threads that stay interesting, but this one's a regular pot boiler!
estarzinger
New member
I do think after all that side tracking, it would be useful to state what we know with independent confirmation. I will attempt a crisp summary:
1. We know that when Rocna moved to china they made anchors from 400 and 420 steel and that some of these bent. This has been admitted and confirmed directly by rocna. We do not know how many of these anchors were made or sold, but authenticated shipping invoices suggest more than Rocna originally said. As an aside, this took place before grant was even involved with Rocna.
2. We know Rocna currently make their anchors from 620 steel, again confirmed directly from Rocna and by metallurgical tests done by independent labs. This is a lower spec steel than the designer's original spec, less than they advertised for many years, less than Manson, and less than Craig and Peter specifically said was essential for the anchor design.
3. We know that Rocna was presenting misleading analysis of anchor tests, bad-mouthing any test that they did not win, and providing specifically tuned (and not off-the-shelf) anchors to anchor testers (confirmed by rocna e-mails, which they have acknowledged are true). We also know that they were having holding problems in some anchor tests with some of the out-of-spec production chinese anchors.
4. We know that Craig was on these forums bad mouthing the competitor's construction when in fact at that time he knew the Rocnas were being made in china with inferior steel. We know that Craig and Peter knew China was making out of spec anchors as early as 2009.
5. We know that pretty much everyone involved in this has skeletons in their closet. Anyone who did any due diligence on this found much of GK's history, and he openly acknowledged some of it on one of the pulled threads. If anyone does more than cursory digging, you will also find very hard feelings in NZ about poor ethics related to past business practices of the other two parties.
1. We know that when Rocna moved to china they made anchors from 400 and 420 steel and that some of these bent. This has been admitted and confirmed directly by rocna. We do not know how many of these anchors were made or sold, but authenticated shipping invoices suggest more than Rocna originally said. As an aside, this took place before grant was even involved with Rocna.
2. We know Rocna currently make their anchors from 620 steel, again confirmed directly from Rocna and by metallurgical tests done by independent labs. This is a lower spec steel than the designer's original spec, less than they advertised for many years, less than Manson, and less than Craig and Peter specifically said was essential for the anchor design.
3. We know that Rocna was presenting misleading analysis of anchor tests, bad-mouthing any test that they did not win, and providing specifically tuned (and not off-the-shelf) anchors to anchor testers (confirmed by rocna e-mails, which they have acknowledged are true). We also know that they were having holding problems in some anchor tests with some of the out-of-spec production chinese anchors.
4. We know that Craig was on these forums bad mouthing the competitor's construction when in fact at that time he knew the Rocnas were being made in china with inferior steel. We know that Craig and Peter knew China was making out of spec anchors as early as 2009.
5. We know that pretty much everyone involved in this has skeletons in their closet. Anyone who did any due diligence on this found much of GK's history, and he openly acknowledged some of it on one of the pulled threads. If anyone does more than cursory digging, you will also find very hard feelings in NZ about poor ethics related to past business practices of the other two parties.
FishyInverness
New member
6. Rocna claimed RINA certification to SHHP of the Rocna Original anchor, and did not quantify this as "type approval" for only a certain design of that anchor manufactured in a way that is no longer used in the case of the majority of anchors purchased off the shelf.
At the change of company names, these claims disappeared, only to re-appear about 3 weeks ago. The website with this claim has now very recently been completely changed, but it does read in a very muddled way, and someone reading it without any foreknowledge of this saga could easily go away with the impression that a Rocna they buy off the shelf has RINA SHHP certification which it doesn't....
*clicky*
Last edited:
smackdaddy
New member
Thanks estar. This is definitely helpful.
A couple of points/questions....
As I've said before, on the "tuned anchor issue" I'm not sure there is anything inherently "wrong" with this on its face. If we're to draw the conclusion that this was truly "underhanded", we'd need to know if the testing authority expressly prohibited such a practice - or if all other competing anchors the Rocna tested against were provably "un-tuned". I understand the implication of skewed test results, I would just want to be sure this isn't a fairly common, though unspoken, practice before drawing any conclusions.
On point #3, did Rocna confirm those emails in this thread? One of the most "believable" bodies of evidence Grant ever provided (that I saw) were the emails he said he downloaded without Banbury's knowledge. However, with everything that's happened, I'd be hard-pressed to take them at face value.
Do we know which leaked emails are actually authentic as confirmed by Rocna? Or have we seen emails at least presented with header information to help confirm authenticity?
The bottom line, for me, is that I've seen enough to feel convinced that Holdfast was doing some very dodgy stuff. But who was doing what exactly? Was it Bambury? King? Someone else before King? This is all very murky.
Reading that NZH article, you'll notice the following:
Yes, "he said/she said" - but it has a bearing on all this especially since CMP is being drawn into it and having its brand tarnished by innuendo through its keeping on of Banbury (for reasons I could personally understand).
Therefore, as I said, I think the authenticity of any of these emails is critical at this point. Because if the above is all we really know, any conclusions drawn on Banbury are a bit of a stretch. And, therefore, any conclusions drawn on especially CMP or the Smiths are a huge stretch.
Last edited:
Colvic Watson
Well-known member
Can we also add that stainless steel anchors were made of an inferior grade steel from the first off?