Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[FishyInverness]

A Press release conveniently scapegoating the fiasco onto the easy-to-blame "Forum community" which says "Holdfast didn't do anything shady" yet, manages to completely avoid the issue that they claimed repeatedly (even after the revelations to the contrary) that the anchor was certified SHHP. (It still isn't is it? How can it be the best performing anchor, when it can't even be certified to the same level as it's competitors?! ) This is laughable.

Also makes me smile how they insinuate that it's the Anchor competitors who whipped up the fervour on the forums, whilst also conveniently forgetting that Smith Jnr was the Anchor Competitor who spent years urinating over others.

When you look at the facts, no amount of marketing speak changes them!

 

[evm1024]

One of the many reasons I returned my Rocna and bought a Manson. Too bad too as the shank of the rocna fits my bow better....


grant get those files released!

 

[vyv_cox]

While creating a single-manufacturer anchoring system is part of its long-term strategy, CMP has been busy trying to repair the damage to the Rocna brand since last September.

Mitchell immediately instituted a policy of transparency

but we had to clearly communicate our confidence to the marketplace,” he says.

I think a great deal of the discussion is now water under the bridge but, more importantly, I see no evidence to support the above statements. YM have taken the lead in UK in exposing the problems but as far as I know they have not been contacted by CMP before or since the destructive testing article in the last issue. How is this 'repairing the damage'?

You have not said whether this was sent directly to you or via another. Do you know whether it has been copied to the yachting press generally? The emphasis of the article seems very much for US consumption, is Europe being abandoned?

 

[Twister_Ken]

That guff from CMP is an insultingly poor snow job.

 

[maxi77]

If you tell the same story often enough then enough of the people will believe you, that's the theory.

 

[GrantKing]

the original is here

https://plus.ibinews.com/2012/04/12/rehabilitating_rocna_the_tarnished_anchor_brand_gets_polishe

 

[Storyline]

I see that CMP state that they are now targeting the powerboat market. Probably a wise move as I cannot imagine any yachties in our marina buying one.

 

[Neeves]

Science fiction?

My sincere apologies.

My post implied that the script was written by CMP and was their latest press release. As Grant has pointed out it was released independently (well, sort of) and I am sure reflects an honest and balanced view of the current position.

Sadly my communications with CMP are unanswered and I am thus unable to enjoy the ability to offer comment on the view expressed by the author. I also regret but I think I might have been deleted from the CMP Xmas card list.

Jonathan

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

I think a great deal of the discussion is now water under the bridge but, more importantly, I see no evidence to support the above statements. YM have taken the lead in UK in exposing the problems but as far as I know they have not been contacted by CMP before or since the destructive testing article in the last issue. How is this 'repairing the damage'?

You have not said whether this was sent directly to you or via another. Do you know whether it has been copied to the yachting press generally? The emphasis of the article seems very much for US consumption, is Europe being abandoned?

I am surprised than anyone expects them do to anything more than they have done.

1. CMP is a commercial business and they bought the Rocna business in such a way that they were not legally responsible for warranties on the stuff sold by Holdfast.

2. Despite whatever we may say here about "moral obligation" that is not the way commerce works, and the shareholders for one would have a lot to say to the directors if the operated otherwise.

3. They have chosen to not engage in "forum frenzy". The marketeers amongst us may have opinions as to whether this is the best course of action, but the choice is theirs. It will be some time before we know whether they made the right choice.

4. In private, they have been replacing old Rocnas with newly manufactured ones, or giving refunds to anyone that pushed for them. I know this as I had a replacement and a friend had a refund. These things however, are a matter between the owner of the anchor and their suppliers so I am not going to say any more on this.

5. I am therefore of the view that we are not going to see anything different in their approach no matter how much paperwork is dug up. Their view seems to be to not engage in discussions about the past and they seem to be sticking to that strategy.

6. The more "forum frenzy" that happens may well actually be detrimental to those who are trying to quietly, privately obtain exchanges and refunds.

Just my view of course.

 

[vyv_cox]

I don't disagree. But surely a statement to the effect that they are using a certain steel that now satisfies the designer's original specification, assuming my sample to be representative of current production, can only be beneficial?

 

[Neeves]

fiction writers

Ex-Solent Boy, I concur - except.

I think there are 450 out of spec Rocna anchors in the UK and a few more bought by UK yacht owners who have vessels in the Med. I further think there is a total of 2,000 out of spec anchors worldwide (which against the 12,000 quoted is almost 20%). I'm guessing most, of the 2,000, are Q420 shanked but some (few, many?) will be '400' shanked.

CMP have no legal responsibility to replace these anchors but as they: conducted 'Due Diligence', employed Steve Bambury for 4 months and still 'employ' Peter Smith they are in the best position to define who bought these anchors and to advise owners (many of whom these forum have suggested are 'serious cruisers') of the potential risks.


There is another view - would you buy an anchor chain from CMP, given current knowledge of the Rocna story?


As I have suggested, I think the story will fester and the longer it festers the more harm it will do to Rocna and CMP (chain, anodes etc). The more often they are involved in gambits like the latest piece of journalism the more the issue will tend toward gangrenous



To suggest Forum comment damages the claims of a customer with a legitimate complaint is erroneous - they have the full force of consumer protection behind them. They have full right to a replacement or refund (Forum hysteria or not).

Given the fiction that CMP wish to promote - then the story has a bit to run and the longer it runs the worse it will get. Their salvation is with them, not the forum.

Jonathan

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

CMP have no legal responsibility to replace these anchors but as they: conducted 'Due Diligence', employed Steve Bambury for 4 months and still 'employ' Peter Smith they are in the best position to define who bought these anchors and to advise owners (many of whom these forum have suggested are 'serious cruisers') of the potential risks.
They may be in the best position, but there is a view that to engage would open them up to liability. They may be staying out of it for that reason.

There is another view - would you buy an anchor chain from CMP, given current knowledge of the Rocna story?
Yes, I would. They bought the rights to a good anchor design. Without seeing the business case I wouldnt want to judge them as a company.

To suggest Forum comment damages the claims of a customer with a legitimate complaint is erroneous - they have the full force of consumer protection behind them. They have full right to a replacement or refund (Forum hysteria or not).
The consumer protection only applies to the seller, and differs from country to country. In the absence of anyone behind the seller it may be hard to enforce

 

[Neeves]

Ex Solent Boy,

Maybe I mis read this:

'The consumer protection only applies to the seller'

But this statement seem to be contradictory. I had always naively thought Consumer Protection laws in the UK protected the consumer but it is some considerable time since I lived in the UK and maybe things have changed.


Jonathan

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

Ex Solent Boy,

Maybe I mis read this:

'The consumer protection only applies to the seller'

But this statement seem to be contradictory. I had always naively thought Consumer Protection laws in the UK protected the consumer but it is some considerable time since I lived in the UK and maybe things have changed.


Jonathan

No, I just wrote it badly.

Consumer protection protects the consumer, but it only really applies to the transaction between the consumer and the final seller. In the absence of an original supplier backing up the retailers and distributors, it will be hard in many instances to get a retailer to refund the whole cost of the product unless he really has to.

 

[maxi77]

There is another view - would you buy an anchor chain from CMP, given current knowledge of the Rocna story?
Yes, I would. They bought the rights to a good anchor design. Without seeing the business case I wouldnt want to judge them as a company.

Mind you as a customer one does tend to judge suppliers by the company they keep.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

I like the bit in that story where they calim that they were going to "find and replace" suspect anchors.........

Mitchell immediately instituted a policy of transparency after acquiring manufacturing rights from Rocna founder and owner, Peter Smith, who licenses the brand to outside companies. The Rocna website told owners CMP would “find and replace” all “suspect” products, add additional controls to the existing manufacturing process, restore confidence in the classification process, invest in inventory so product was plentiful, and set up “timely and accurate communications” about the brand.

There I was thinking that they had refused to issue a recall, had issued no statements about faulty anchors until it was dragged out them, and then lowered the spec so that they could say that most of the anchors were OK.

They are clearly hoping to spin their way out of this mess .

However, I'm glad to see that they now concede that comment on various forums had an impact....at the time they were telling us that it had made no difference!!

 

[Carolwildbird]

ARghhh

Just trying to catch up with this sorry story, but don't know whether to wade through 60 pages to find an answer.

One very quick question.. if I bought my Rocna in spring 2008, do I need to worry and/or do the tests? I thought I was Ok from earlier writings, but jjust need to check....

Ta!

Carol

 

[Rigger Mortice]

One very quick question.. if I bought my Rocna in spring 2008, do I need to worry and/or do the tests? I thought I was Ok from earlier writings, but jjust need to check....

You're OK. The problems started after that.

 

[Storyline]

ARghhh

Just trying to catch up with this sorry story, but don't know whether to wade through 60 pages to find an answer.

One very quick question.. if I bought my Rocna in spring 2008, do I need to worry and/or do the tests? I thought I was Ok from earlier writings, but jjust need to check....

Ta!

Carol

You will probably get a reassuring pm from Grant but your anchor should be a NZ one if you bought it in the UK then. The foolproof way to tell it is not Chinese is to look at the blunt end of the fluke. If it is plain it is not Chinese as they had the name Rocna embossed in the casting. If it is not there you are a lucky owner of a carefully folded piece of steel not some suspect cast Chinese steel.

 

[Chris_Robb]

Ex-Solent Boy, I concur - except.

I think there are 450 out of spec Rocna anchors in the UK and a few more bought by UK yacht owners who have vessels in the Med. I further think there is a total of 2,000 out of spec anchors worldwide (which against the 12,000 quoted is almost 20%). I'm guessing most, of the 2,000, are Q420 shanked but some (few, many?) will be '400' shanked.

CMP have no legal responsibility to replace these anchors but as they: conducted 'Due Diligence', employed Steve Bambury for 4 months and still 'employ' Peter Smith they are in the best position to define who bought these anchors and to advise owners (many of whom these forum have suggested are 'serious cruisers') of the potential risks.


There is another view - would you buy an anchor chain from CMP, given current knowledge of the Rocna story?


As I have suggested, I think the story will fester and the longer it festers the more harm it will do to Rocna and CMP (chain, anodes etc). The more often they are involved in gambits like the latest piece of journalism the more the issue will tend toward gangrenous



To suggest Forum comment damages the claims of a customer with a legitimate complaint is erroneous - they have the full force of consumer protection behind them. They have full right to a replacement or refund (Forum hysteria or not).

Given the fiction that CMP wish to promote - then the story has a bit to run and the longer it runs the worse it will get. Their salvation is with them, not the forum.

Jonathan

Jonathan, having spoken to one of the chandlers in the south that sold quite a lot of them, they are blissfully unaware of the size of the problems; they think it was just a few - with the shipment being identified. Worse is that so few owners realise what rubbish they had bought.

I totally agree that CMP is not obliged to change any of them, however, I do think that they have an obligation to inform, and not ACTIVELY continue the cover up on what is a major safety issue.