Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

Yep, the guy in the article came on here and got very personal and unpleasant and eventually got asked politely to leave!

Grant has admitted that his past may not be whiter than white, but the facts he presented still remained as facts, despite any issues he's had with a customer on a totally unrelated business!
 
Erm.....I don't see your point.

A totally seperate issue which had it's nail in the coffin months ago, about one of the characters involved in the story, has a new piece in the press.

This is nothing to do with anchors, this thread should have been left dead...
 
FishyInverness said:
Erm.....I don't see your point.

A totally seperate issue which had it's nail in the coffin months ago, about one of the characters involved in the story, has a new piece in the press.

This is nothing to do with anchors, this thread should have been left dead...
Click to expand...

There is some value in it to the extent that it does raise the queation as to just why he was hired to a position of trust by Rocna. However I agree he has not hidden the reality from us, and it is interesting that neither Rocna or the new owners has as far as we can see taken any action to stop his releases of quite damaging information.

Also we only need a 150 or so more posts to hit the 2000 post mark
 
maxi77 said:
There is some value in it to the extent that it does raise the queation as to just why he was hired to a position of trust by Rocna. However I agree he has not hidden the reality from us, and it is interesting that neither Rocna or the new owners has as far as we can see taken any action to stop his releases of quite damaging information.

Also we only need a 150 or so more posts to hit the 2000 post mark
Click to expand...

After all these discussions here and in Yachting Monthly, it appears that the majority of Rocna owners are entirely ignorant of the substandard materials they were made from.

Now only 151 posts to go;)
 
wotayottie said:
It has everything to do with anchors when the main protagonist on one side of the argument was Mr King.
Click to expand...

Equally Mr King's past, over the last decade or more, was no secret. it was all on public record and Auckland is hardly a large city. One might question Mr King, but presumably Mr Bambury et al thought he had the right qualifications for their company and the role he was to play.
 
Neeves said:
Equally Mr King's past, over the last decade or more, was no secret. it was all on public record and Auckland is hardly a large city. One might question Mr King, but presumably Mr Bambury et al thought he had the right qualifications for their company and the role he was to play.
Click to expand...

Very much the point first why did Bambury hire him, and equally why has Bambury not apparently taken action to silence him legally.
 
maxi77 said:
There is some value in it to the extent that it does raise the queation as to just why he was hired to a position of trust by Rocna. However I agree he has not hidden the reality from us, and it is interesting that neither Rocna or the new owners has as far as we can see taken any action to stop his releases of quite damaging information.

Also we only need a 150 or so more posts to hit the 2000 post mark
Click to expand...

Actually most of the information is available from sources other than Grant King, there would be no point in Canada Metals Pacific (CMP) shutting him up, unless you shut up the others as well.

A decision was made before mid Oct, 2008, to change the Rocna shank raw material for manufacture in China, confirmed in an email from Brian Bambury to Linox. It was confirmed that the shanks would be Q420 (typical yield of 455 mpA) at a meeting early Dec 2008, information available in both the Linox and Pangtong files (the latter, the Shanghai factory). The first 844 anchors shipped from China, detail in Linox and Pangtong files, were meant to be Q420 shanked but one that was sold in France, I have the invoice and owner's statement, in Feb 2009 tested as 355 mpA yield. It had bent. I had it independently tested. It bent in the summer of 2010 and was replaced from America with a 420 shanked anchor, I had it tested as well, it had also bent. Grant King did not start work with Holdfast till Feb 2009 - so he had no input to the use of the Q420 - and its anyone's guess how much of the 355 was used, bit it was shipped and sold before he took up employment.

But the anchor tested was a 25kg model, the 20kg, 25kg and 33kg models are all made from the same thickness of plate and it is more than likely all of these anchors, 20, 25 and 33kg are made from the 355 material.

Of the 844 anchors, some (or all?) of which used the 355 steel, 300 came to the UK. The Venice Lagoon anchor was a 25kg mode (and another part of the 844 anchors) - look what happened to it (if you can find an image!). it is possible the 355 steel was used for shipments later in 2009.

Grant alluded or posted some of this from his (Holdfast) files but the same information is in other files, which corroborates what he said. But as I said at the outset, not much point in silencing Grant King.


The information is damaging, but it is correct. As someone has pointed out the detail is simply not available to the many who were taken in by the lies and deceit. CMP and Peter Smith seem to think the problem will go away and I assume they think having anchors on bow rollers with shanks made from a steel of 355 mpA yield stress instead of the 790 mpA originally specificed is quite acceptable.
 
Neeves said:
Actually most of the information is available from sources other than Grant King, there would be no point in Canada Metals Pacific (CMP) shutting him up, unless you shut up the others as well.

A decision was made before mid Oct, 2008, to change the Rocna shank raw material for manufacture in China, confirmed in an email from Brian Bambury to Linox. It was confirmed that the shanks would be Q420 (typical yield of 455 mpA) at a meeting early Dec 2008, information available in both the Linox and Pangtong files (the latter, the Shanghai factory). The first 844 anchors shipped from China, detail in Linox and Pangtong files, were meant to be Q420 shanked but one that was sold in France, I have the invoice and owner's statement, in Feb 2009 tested as 355 mpA yield. It had bent. I had it independently tested. It bent in the summer of 2010 and was replaced from America with a 420 shanked anchor, I had it tested as well, it had also bent. Grant King did not start work with Holdfast till Feb 2009 - so he had no input to the use of the Q420 - and its anyone's guess how much of the 355 was used, bit it was shipped and sold before he took up employment.

But the anchor tested was a 25kg model, the 20kg, 25kg and 33kg models are all made from the same thickness of plate and it is more than likely all of these anchors, 20, 25 and 33kg are made from the 355 material.

Of the 844 anchors, some (or all?) of which used the 355 steel, 300 came to the UK. The Venice Lagoon anchor was a 25kg mode (and another part of the 844 anchors) - look what happened to it (if you can find an image!). it is possible the 355 steel was used for shipments later in 2009.

Grant alluded or posted some of this from his (Holdfast) files but the same information is in other files, which corroborates what he said. But as I said at the outset, not much point in silencing Grant King.


The information is damaging, but it is correct. As someone has pointed out the detail is simply not available to the many who were taken in by the lies and deceit. CMP and Peter Smith seem to think the problem will go away and I assume they think having anchors on bow rollers with shanks made from a steel of 355 mpA yield stress instead of the 790 mpA originally specificed is quite acceptable.
Click to expand...

A fitting summary of the dreadful state of affairs. Lets hope that there are no horrible consequences.

YM etc should continue to Publish articles to make people aware of the potential problems and dangers.
 
Chris_Robb said:
A fitting summary of the dreadful state of affairs. Lets hope that there are no horrible consequences.

YM etc should continue to Publish articles to make people aware of the potential problems and dangers.
Click to expand...

Succinctly put - my response yesterday was because a post to say "Grant King has been tasked to community service due to failing to honour a building contract" has NOTHING to do with an Anchor company who intentionally misled their customers, distributors and retailers - it's completely Chalk and Cheese and appears to have been posted by a new forum user (again) and so smacks of a personal interest in trying to attack Grant again, which again is a seperate issue from this thread....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top