"Yacht varnish";- Trading Standards response

G

Graham_Wright

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 Dec 2002
Messages
8,177
Location
Gloucestershire
www.mastaclimba.com
\"Yacht varnish\";- Trading Standards response

I lodged a formal compalint with Trading Standards with reference to the misleading naming of International yacht varnish and publish their response here;-

Complaint reference 130988
Concerning International Yacht Varnish

"Thank you for contacting this service with your complaint concerning the above.

For an offence to be committed under the Trades Descriptions Act, the description applied to a product must be false to a material degree when tken as a whole. Having examined the product, it is not the opnion of this service that the name of this product when read in conjunction with the illustration on the front of the tin and the suggested usage, which includes the phrase 'not suitable for marine use', would be a sufficient cause for legal proceedings.

Therefore, after giving the matter careful consideration, we will not be considering formal legal action. However we have passed your comments to our colleagues in Cambridgeshire who are responsible for advising the company and collating any complaints made against them or their products.

Thank you once again for taking the time to draw this to our attention, we are grateful for your help, and I am sorry the Service cannot assist you personally on this occasion.

Karen Smith

Fair Trading Manager."

So that's the end of that then!
 
Re: \"Yacht varnish\";- Trading Standards response

Erm, what's your beef? Not all yots sail on the sea, as a fair few of our Lakes based forumites will attest.
 
Re: \"Yacht varnish\";- Trading Standards response

OK, so calling it "Yacht" varnish and having a picture of a ship's wheel on the tin isn't going to mislead the public in any way but a company in Wales isn't allowed to market "Welsh Dragon" saussages in case the public thinks they're made from dragons...

...right.

Well, that's fair and consistent then!

I think all we can do (if everyone hasn't already stopped anyway) is simply not buy the stuff. I certainly haven't used any for a good 5 years now.
 
Re: \"Yacht varnish\";- Trading Standards response

I repainted my hull above the waterline with International"Brightside " after carefully preparing and using the correct undercoats.

Amazingly good finish which everyone who walked past commented on.

It turned out to have very little resistance to scuffs etc and a year later I redid it using some wilkinsons own brand enamel.

it was half the the price easier to put on and has stood up better to scuffs and scratches etc.

We buy paint/varnish etc by looking at the tin.If the tin says "yacht varnish" thats what it should be .Disclaimers hidden in the small print are just a legal cop out of their responsibility.
 
Re: \"Yacht varnish\";- Trading Standards response

Would they apply the same logic to "marine ply"? The use of the word marine is not intended to imply that the wood is waterproof - in fact any old plywood can be called marine ply?

What about auto paint for car bodies? Does it have to be suitable for use out of doors?

Does floor varnish have to be suitable for walking on?
 
Re: \"Yacht varnish\";- Trading Standards response

I assume you are referring to the 'International' products you buy in places like B&Q.
The 'International' paints etc sold in chandlers are from a totally different company based in Southampton. I have used their paints and varnishes over a number of years with very good results.

I have no connection with either company.

Steve
 
Re: \"Yacht varnish\";- Trading Standards response

err, is that a definite 100% copper-bottomed guarantee that they are different ? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
Re: \"Yacht varnish\";- Trading Standards response

I thought it was quite common knowledge that yacht varnish doesnt mean marine varnish, though personally I am not clear what yeacht is supposed to signify here. Is it a different colouring, or a deeper shine, or...? but it does seem to do exactly what is says on the tin.. if you read it.
 
Re: \"Yacht varnish\";- Trading Standards response

There is a very valid point here. Why should anybody have to read the small print on the back of a tin of "Yacht Varnish" to discover the words "not suitable for marine use"?
Trading Standards are being pretty pathetic in my view if they do not think it is misleading to call the product "Yacht Varnish".
 
Re: \"Yacht varnish\";- Trading Standards response

Why do you think it is called Yacht Varnish ?

Also what would you call a varnish suitable for Yachts ?

Please do not take this as a personal attack, it's just that I did not know that yacht varnish was not suitable for yachts and would have made the assumption that the original poster did.
 
Re: \"Yacht varnish\";- Trading Standards response

My slightly tongue in cheek reply was based on the belief that most people knew that YV was a technical, rather than product descriptive, term like French polish. Clearly most don't.

I don't know what Graham was proposing to use the varnish for. There is a great deal of difference between external and internal use. E.g. the interior of my own pride and joy is covered with Dulux best offerings but I wouldn't dream of using it for external use. Ditto YV, not that I'd want to varnish any exterior part of my craft in the first place /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I no connections to, or interests in, International or Dulux.
 
Re: \"Yacht varnish\";- Trading Standards response

Perhaps a lot of us should lodge formal complaints with our local Trading Standards offices?
 
Re: \"Yacht varnish\";- Trading Standards response

I think that's a good idea. I can think of no reason to call a "paint" yacht varnish if it cannot be used for yachts. French polish, which is a good comparison, may have had its origins in France. Brussel sprouts;- don't know. And so it could go on. But I believe that to call a product yacht varnish is deliberately misleading and the small print really does take a lot of finding.

I may reply and ask if floor polish is not suitable for floors. In my view those two cases are very comparable.

For those who are not aware, this topic has been a burning gripe on many occasions. I've done my bit;- go on, flood your local Trading Standards.
 
Re: \"Yacht varnish\";- Trading Standards response

I think "marine" ply has a particular British Standard with which to comply - otherwise it has to be called "exterior" ply or "WPB" ply.

Perhaps that's what we need for "yacht" (as in the stuff you'd use on one rather than the stuff with a picture of one on the tin!) varnish? There could be some sort of British standard for UV, moisture and abrasion resistance that the stuff had to meet before it could be called "yacht" varnish!
 
Re: \"Yacht varnish\";- Trading Standards response

I do not believe that there is any such standard, and "Yacht Varnish" is just a trade term for some sort of traditional (i.e. non polyurethane) varnish. But if you bought a tin of "Baked Beans in Tomato Sauce" from the supermarket, and on the back it had small print saying "does not contain beans" or even worse "not for human consumption" you would think that an offence had been committed against the Trades Descriptions Act.
Since "Yacht Varnish" evidently does not contain yachts (even very small ones) the average person could reasonably assume that it was suitable for use on the wooden parts of yachts. It is therefore difficult to see how the name can possibly comply with the spirit of the Trades Descriptions Act, though it would take a court case to decide if the name of this particular product actually constitutes an offence under the Act.
 
Re: \"Yacht varnish\";- Trading Standards response

I'd like to know more about these two "Internationals". The stuff I've bought under that name has a propeller, not a ships wheel as the logo. Their varnishes all have different names, but none is actually named "Yacht Varnish".

By the way, I seem to recall that Yacht varnish used to mean the varnish contained Tung oil.
 
Re: \"Yacht varnish\";- Trading Standards response

I agree with all the sentiment here. It's not just International that is the offending brand - there are others. It strikes me there are two things going on here. Firstly, the use of 'yacht varnish' is like a brand - the customer thinks "durable", "good for exterior use", "will withstand harsh conditions". So you think you are buying the best. But the company doesn't want to get sued - so what do they do say - don't use it in those harsh conditions! But of course...in the small print. But on the other hand, maybe there's some people out there who really might buy the Welsh sausages because they think they might have that real authentic dragon flavour - organic of course!
 
Re: \"Yacht varnish\";- Trading Standards response

Err - The term Yach varnish is, I think traditionally applied to a high quality, high gloss waterproof varnish and was developed for use in on yachts BELOW Decks. As any paint company will tell you there is no such thing as a clear traditional varnish suitable for use above decks. This is I believe because nobody has so far invented a good enough clear UV filter. You therefore have to decide if you want a durable or clear finish. I have tried most of the stuff available over the years and reckon even the best varnish struggles to do one season whereas oils (eg Sikkens) do 3-5 years.

Does this mean the 'yacht' varnis is not suitable for yachts? Don't think so as lots of the stuff we buy for the boat wouldn't work on deck - try mounting the cooker in the cockpit, it dosn't say 'only for use below decks'.

Maby they should put 'not suitable for exterior marine use'? which would be clearer.

PS Dulux weather shield seams to works just as well as 'marine paints' and comes in more colours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top