YM and Jimmy Green Settle their differences...

[Neeves]

Toad, your undoubted skills are wasted, you should become an editor.

It obviously was not an 'idea', just badly interpreted, my fault - a good editor would have sorted that one out.

Jonathan

 

[vyv_cox]

I left the industry when we still talked tonnes tensile so I am not sure what a KN is in real units. But if 30kn translates into 20tt as I suspect then you are right - it would be the mildest of mild steel and un heat treated as indeed would be the 40kn spec. If the manufacture was from arc steel rather than BOS its likely that the 30kn would be exceeded by some margin, possibly to above the 40kn minimum. But these days my brain is more rusty than my anchor chain so dont rely on my comments.

I'm with you there, a 40 ton steel means a lot more to me than a 500 MPa one!

That's an interesting suggestion. 30 kN is almost exactly 3 tons force, 40 kn = 4 tons. With one exception all the Chinese chain came in at well over 4 tons, even though rated at Grade 30. I suggested to myself that the reason is that there must be a huge amount of construction steel in China, with a higher carbon and manganese content, whereas to buy in billets of dead mild steel might be problematic. It is therefore cheaper for them to manufacture Grade 30 using a Grade 40-type steel. It had not occurred to me that the steel process might be responsible. Unfortunately I don't know much about their steel industry now, should try to find out.

 

[macd]

...a thread about Journos failing to check their facts. You couldn't make it up.

...yet perhaps you just did. It's merely one point of view that this thread is about journalists failing to check facts. One might equally describe it as a thread about retailers wriggling out of an embarrassing situation. Neither case is yet proven.

Vyv can speak for himself, although he clearly and understandably feels it prudent to restrict himself to discussing matters of general concern rather than the specifics of this case, other than his brief comments in post #21.

I haven't seen the article in question (YM doesn't seem to get out here very often), but other than relatively trivial matters such as whether Beer is in Devon or Dorset, the main issue seems to hinge on whether or not JG did indeed know to what purpose the chain in question was to be put. Vyv states that they explicitly did; JG say not. I know who I believe. I also wonder whether JG asked the question of every one of their staff at the time who might have had telephone dealings with Vyv. Vyv further states that a certificate accompanied the chain sample. One wonders whether such a document would normally accompany such a morsel of chain unless it was known to be destined for some sort of evaluation. People forget things, staff move on. Clearly someone's mistaken or fibbing.

If JG (or any of their staff) were aware that the chain was to be evaluated then the responsibility was absolutely theirs to inform Vyv when they discovered that it was in some way unsatisfactory and no longer representative of their stock. (As Neeves has repeatedly suggested, they might equally have thought it proper to inform anyone who'd bought the stuff.)

It's true that the time delay between ordering the chain and its testing helped no-one. That's unfortunate but scarcely culpable.

 

[BERT T]

I'm wholeheartedly with Vyv on this!

The industry behaves as the worst of the old british dinosaurs and does neither itself nor us its customers any favours. My experiences buying chain for my current boat are illustrative:

First chain supplied by the (British) builder. 60m of 9.5mm short link. No idea if Grade 30 or 40, no CofC, manufacturer and country of origin unknown (even to the boat builder). Galvanising lasted 3 seasons.

Bought replacement chain. Bradney often recommended so contacted them, but they only work by 'phone and took ages to give me the email quote I wanted. Checked with Jimmy Green but their salesman couldn't say if it was 30 or 40 chain, nor where it came from. Local (Mylor) chandlery quoted less than the Bradney quote to me for my specific order of grade 40 and of european manufacture with CofC. No complaint so far, but did I get a CofC? Like heck I did, and as for proof that it was tested or grade 40 not 30 I can go whistle.

Recently bought new riser assembly from GaelForce. Extremely helpful people and doubtless it's all to excellent quality. But again, no CofC until pushed and reminded, and none at all for the chain itself. No spec supplied except dimensions, some confusion as to the factor of min break strength / WLL (is it 4 or 5?) I guess the specs from William Hackett's web site, but have no idea if it came from there originally.

So at no point were any the chains supplied by anyone accompanied by the information I'd have hoped for:
- Grade
- WLL
- Min Break Load
- Galvanising spec (eg Zinc thickness or any other outgoing QC factor)
- Original manufacturing company (required for traceability)
- Country of origin.

It's pretty poor really, so good on YM to start to champion this.

After all that what else do you expect, as the TV program suggests RIP OFF BRITAIN once again. Why do we put up with it?

 

[jdc]

The issue is not the price

After all that what else do you expect, as the TV program suggests RIP OFF BRITAIN once again. Why do we put up with it?

Well, I wasn't actually complaining about the price. Mylor Chandlery did me a good deal on what turned out to be chain from Bradney, and GaelForce's price was fine also and the service excellent so I paid up happily. My complaint is that I didn't get any confirmation that what I ordered and paid for had been delivered. Since I only dealt with highly respectable and trust-worthy companies, doubtless it was all exactly as expected, but nonetheless it's stupid behavior on the part of those suppliers; it seems that good companies who give excellent service and rightly pride themselves on quality fail to act in their own interests.

If one always got a credible and informative specification with each delivery, which would cost only the photocopy, all of 5p say, then many of us would be quite happy to pay a premium over the cheaper but unbranded stuff, happy because we'd be secure in the knowledge that we and our families could sleep sounder and safer. That we'd be confident of getting that quality and the associated guarantee and CofC would be part of the vendor selection process.

But in the absence of such information we might as well buy unbranded stuff of unknown origin from whoever is cheapest on the internet as there's no evidence that it's inferior. This causes a 'rush to the bottom' so far as price and thus service and quality are concerned, thereby (i) putting the decent brands out of business and (ii) serves us yachtsmen worse. It's absurd, and as I said a failure to act in their own interests. It's almost as if British firms seem to think it's beneath them to demonstrate, monitor or report quality metrics.

(I admit I'm maybe a bit over exercised about this: just putting ISO 9001 processes into my company at the moment...)

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

the main issue seems to hinge on whether or not JG did indeed know to what purpose the chain in question was to be put. Vyv states that they explicitly did; Clearly someone's mistaken or fibbing.

The two accounts are consistent so I reckon they're both telling the truth. YM asked for a free chain sample for a comparative review, which they got. GJ can't be disputing that otherwise how are they explaining the free 1.5M of chain they sent to YM? Equally, YM couldn't have mentioned that the Grade 3 Chain from 2010 was going to be retained and represented as JG's current chain offering in 2013, because when they requested the sample they couldn't possibly know. So JG must also be telling the truth.

As Neeves has repeatedly suggested, they might equally have thought it proper to inform anyone who'd bought the stuff.

Inform them of what? The only person accusing JG of selling product out of spec is Neeves and he's provided no evidence for that at all. In contrast VC has stated that the chain was labelled Grade 3, and he has no reason to mislead us.

It's true that the time delay between ordering the chain and its testing helped no-one. That's unfortunate but scarcely culpable.

Culpable? I'm not suggesting there should be any blame at all, "unfortunate" things happen & there's no point in blame-storming. I still think it's worth noting in the hope that a) 'unfortunate' things happen less frequently in future and b) People will know to double-check what's actually been tested before making a buying decision on the basis of a magazine comparative review.

 

[Neeves]

Toad,


Yachting Monthly Chain Article

The chain that the author tested came from a batch which we were unhappy with ourselves and which prompted an immediate change of supply in October 2010 due to quality and certification concerns.


Overall, we would like to take this opportunity to assure all our customers that we never accept anything other than top quality grade 40 Chain. We believe that the extra safety margin provided by Grade 40 is essential for peace of mind. Please feel free to contact us with your thoughts.
Many Thanks
Jimmy Green[/QUOTE]

You posted the full version of this, maybe you would like to read it again.

Now correct me if I'm wrong. JG are approached by Vyv to supply a sample of Grade 40 chain. This is what Vyv asked for, this is what JG say they supply. Someone cut 1.5m of chain from a batch, sent it to Vyv. Separately Vyv receives a certificate advising its Grade 30 (even though JG do not appear to want to sell that quality).

JG further say the sample came from a batch they questioned and they were so sceptical of the supplier they have not bought from them again - to me this demonstrates real concern on the part of JG.

However the fact remains that JG say they sell Grade 40, JG send a sample requested as grade 40 (but turns out to be Grade 30). JG make no attempt to underline with Vyv why they send Grade 30, or outline their suspicions about quality - to me this is sloppy.

If JG only sell Grade 40 why are they sending Grade 30 samples to reputable magazines for testing. Why do they have Grade 30 at all (its outside their spec, it should be binned, or returned to the manufacturer.)

I note JG have not taken the opportunity to advise they binned the lot (of Grade 30) and it has been melted down to make Toyota body parts. It would have been easy to do, and impossible to check. But they have been studiously quiet over what happened to the Grade 30 (that is below their own specifications).

My guess is customers, in general, ask of the chandler for Grade 40 (or whatever). They assume they get what they pay for. I also note that obtaining certificates of quality is not easy. So I wonder how many people who asked for Grade 40 obtained a certificate and how many buying Grade 40 from JG actually received Grade 30 (because ostensibly no-one will check.) The fact remains JG had some Grade 30 chain that they sent to Vyv, presumably representative of current product in store, even though they claim only to sell Grade 40)

The 2 year delay is messy, but does not alter the, apparent, facts.

Please advise if I have drawn the wrong conclusions.

I note that your concerns are for JG, the accusation of 'sloppy journalism'. I have studiously ignored this issue - I think JG and YM are big enough to sort out their own problems (and certainly do not need my advise). However I am concerned that individuals might be using Grade 30, thinking its Grade 40. I am concerned that JG made no attempt to contact Vyv and explain. I do wonder how much Grade 30 was sold as Grade 40. Sadly the debate on the questionable sale of product seems to have taken second place to your agenda - but it is your Thread, so I respect your focus.

Have a great day,

Jonathan

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

The chain that the author tested came from a batch which we were unhappy with ourselves and which prompted an immediate change of supply in October 2010 due to quality and certification concerns.

Ok, so that's your evidence. Personally, I think it's a bit of a leap from 'certification concerns' to 'not the grade stated' but it certainly does seem an odd word to use if the chain was of the type they said they were selling. Anyone confirm either way?

Much of the the remainder of your post was total fiction carefully protected from contradiction/legal action by the caveat: 'Correct me if I'm wrong'.

But we're digressing. The time to publish a story about anchor chain sold in 2010 is in 2010. If (for perfectly good reasons) YM want to publish a story in Jan 2013 about Chain sold in 2010 they should simply say that's what they've done. (As I said and you partially diasgreed with earlier.)

 

[macd]

The two accounts are consistent so I reckon they're both telling the truth.

You do?
JG: "We were not made aware that the sample sent 2 years ago to a customer was going to be tested."
VC: "I phoned JG and explained exactly what I was going to do and asked for a 1.5 metre length of their product."

Culpable? I'm not suggesting there should be any blame at all, "unfortunate" things happen & there's no point in blame-storming.

You're not? You were happy to throw around blame for not checking facts. Whether JG knew or didn't know that the chain was to be tested goes to the heart of whether they had a (self-interested) obligation for advising about change of chain spec/manufacture.

 

[TiggerToo]

WARNING: FRED DRIFT!

...Unfortunately I don't know much about their steel industry now, should try to find out.

Vyv, have you read "Wild Swans" by Jung Chang? I know it is a bit out of date (20 years or so) but inside it you get a very interesting glimpse about a remarkable (and tragic) phase of the Chinese steel industry... I am pretty sure things have moved on just a tad, so it is probably not relevant to chain purchased today in the UK.... but it makes for a chilling reading.

 

[Neeves]

Toad,

The article in YM states

'Grade 40 samples supplied by JG came with test certificates although the one from JG (I assume this is the sample) showed a breaking load of 32 kN . consistent with Grade 30, contrary to claims on its website.' I assume this, the claims, refers to the fact that JG say they only sell Grade 40.

My further understanding is that Vyv says that separately to the sample he also received a certificate suggesting the sample was Grade 30 (which, again, JG say they do not sell).

JG in the quote you provide suggests:

'The chain that the author tested came from a batch which we were unhappy with ourselves and which prompted an immediate change of supply in October 2010 due to quality and certification concerns.'

As a Grade 30 sample the piece supplied (by JG) that Vyv tested, meets Grade 30 specs - there is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with it - it exceeds Grade 30 specs, its a 32 kn sample with a min spec of 30 Kn. So why were JG unhappy? Why on earth change supplier 'immediately' for a product that exceeds specification? According to the information, as per JG, they supplied a sample to Vyv, they sent a certificate for Grade 30, which Vyv tested as to exceed Grade 30 - yet JG was so unhappy they changed the supplier 'immediately'. Excuse me if I wonder what exactly was going on.

All you are worried about are dates of supply and the date of the article. In fact my interpretation seems to be a complete fiction to you and not meriting any attention.

I find the information slightly inconsistent. You have gone out of your way to comment, negatively, of YM (and journalists in general, or particular) and on your most recent post have highlit the absence of comment of date correlation. Have I completely missed something.

I know its your thread, but is not the inconsistency that YM have uncovered (and its implications) be slightly more important than a jihad on dates? Are the sensitivities of a corporate body (or an attack on YM, who provide you fodder) more important than a defense of the public?

Maybe you could humour me? I fully accept that my literary skills are mediocre (and I cannot spell) and my interpretative powers weak but you are questioning, young and intelligent (though with a hankering, with which I can sympathise, for fast cars) so explain to me in simple English how this sorry sage all works.

Its late down here, 11.30pm (and the weather has been pretty grotty), so you have all afternoon for this one.

Have a great afternoon and evening.

Jonathan

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

The article in YM states: 'Grade 40 samples supplied by JG came with test certificates although the one from JG showed a breaking load of 32 kN . consistent with Grade 30, contrary to claims on its website.'

Contrary to claims on its website at the time of the sample, or contrary to claims on its website after they switched to Grade 40 in 2010?

You do?

I do. For the reasons I stated.

You're not? You were happy to throw around blame for not checking facts.

I'm not blaming anyone, magazine budgets are tight, mistakes happen.

 

[Neeves]

Toad,

You seem to be running away from one of the questions

Why did Vyv get a sample of Grade 30, when he asked for Grade 40. (They have Grade 40 in stock, that's what they, say they, sell.) Why did he get a sample of grade 30 when JG say they sell grade 40 (ie why did they have Grade 30 in stock, at all). What happened to the rest of the Grade 30 (that they do not sell).

JG have had ample opportunity to provide and answer, the article was published late December, the comment that is fully documented there:
'Grade 40 samples supplied by JG....showed a breaking load limit of 32 kN consistent with Grade 30, contrary to claims on their website' has been glossed over in favour of an attack on 'sloppy journalism'. You are equally more interested in the 'sloppy journalism' than the inconsistency.

If I buy a product advertised as a certain quality, say double braid halyard, I do not ask for a test certificate. If I buy an anchor specified as being made from a certain type of steel, I do not ask for a certificate. If I buy a yacht with a triple layer of 750gm double bias in a specific section, I do not ask for a certificate. I suspect most people who buy anchor chain advertised by a reputable company as Grade 40 do not ask for a certificate, some might, most, no. In all the cases I mention it is very unlikely anyone is going to check, core sample from the hull?, take a section of halyard to be tested, test a chain - no, people trust and rely on supplier integrity. There is a very worrying inconsistency in Vyv's illuminating article and that is outlined: he asked for Grade 40, it was advertised as Grade 40, he got Grade 30. Yes JG have covered themselves, they sent a Grade 30 cert, but why did they want (or provide to) Vyv to test a product they do not sell? What happened to the rest of the drum of chain -that they do not sell?

I am sure Ratty told you early on that one of the prime rules of being at sea is offering support to fellow travelers. You seem to have forgotten this cardinal rule in favour of supporting the Chandlers. Motivation, dislike of YM, dislike of journalists, a fetish for chandlers, dislike of fellow sailors?

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

The March, 2013, issue of YM arrived today. I quote 'JG now accepts there were inaccuracies in these (their counterclaims on their website, the words in brackets are mine, JJ) and that Mr Cox's conduct has been diligent and fair'. Odd this - rantings over 'sloppy journalism' from UK contributors to this thread contemporaneous with the March issue that has been available to them for days - yet now it seems JG are saying Mr Cox's conduct has been diligent and fair. Funny this never came over?

I also note that 'this sample of chain (from JG that performed poorly), 'was part of an old batch that JG had decided not to sell at all, due to concerns about quality'

We had accusations of sloppy journalism - can you imagine anyone making a mistake of sending a sample to a media organisation for testing from a batch they had not decided to sell - sloppy does not come into it! Why was it even in their yard, its so far outside their spec as to be unreal - it should have been condemned immediately (and scrapped or sent back to the supplier) Having sent a sample, they were not going to sell, they then did not bother to contact the media company, sloppy, really sloppy (maybe its arrogance?). Being that sloppy: how much did they sell prior to taking the sample, they did not bother to tell the media company (Vyv) so what happened? It was implied JG are the aggrieved party - beggars belief.

There are some awfully interesting questions on credibility here, and I do not refer to YM et al.

But no wonder the thread lost its passion.

Mr Cox you conducted yourself with professionalism, all credit. JG seem to have a fair bit of ground to make up (and a few explanations or excuses to provide and if these are on their website - some people would prefer a more open venue), some contributors to this forum appear to lack some fairness and balance, but I guess that's par for the course.

RocnaOne - JG need you, give them a ring.

YM, keep up the work. Keep looking under the stones. Keep them as fair as possible.

 

[Shorn100]

I've done quite a lot of testing and writing for magazine articles over the years and know just how careful one needs to be and how sensitive suppliers and manufacturers are about their products. Most accept fair criticism and indeed will often make changes to improve the product following advice from the article. But some take criticism very personally indeed, which isn't surprising since their livelyhood depends on it.

If I had received a sample for test that purported to be Grade 40 but then received a certificate that said it was Grade 30, I would have gone back to the supplier to confirm exactly what he had sent me. This doesn't appear to have happened.

There seems to be human error on both sides here. Wrong to send out incorrect sample, wrong to not check that sample was correct when certificate received.

I think too that after two+ years I would have gone back to check that the samples previously sent were still current.

If you believe in your test results, then there is no harm in letting suppliers see a copy of the article before going to print. Far better to ensure that neither side has made a mistake before accidentally misleading readers. Not quite sure why YM doesn't do this. Other boating magazines used to, and may still do so.

As Alexander Pope said 'To err is human; to forgive, divine'

Shorn

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

If I had received a sample for test that purported to be Grade 40 but then received a certificate that said it was Grade 30, I would have gone back to the supplier to confirm exactly what he had sent me. This doesn't appear to have happened.

There seems to be human error on both sides here. Wrong to send out incorrect sample, wrong to not check that sample was correct when certificate received.

I think too that after two+ years I would have gone back to check that the samples previously sent were still current.

If you believe in your test results, then there is no harm in letting suppliers see a copy of the article before going to print. Far better to ensure that neither side has made a mistake before accidentally misleading readers. Not quite sure why YM doesn't do this. Other boating magazines used to, and may still do so.

As Alexander Pope said 'To err is human; to forgive, divine'

+1

Having sent a sample, they were not going to sell

The evidence that Grade 30 chain was sold in 2010 is strong (beyond doubt really) we just don't know if it was sold as Grade 40 or not.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

The March, 2013, issue of YM arrived today. I quote 'JG now accepts there were inaccuracies in these (their counterclaims on their website, the words in brackets are mine, JJ) and that Mr Cox's conduct has been diligent and fair'. Odd this - rantings over 'sloppy journalism' from UK contributors to this thread contemporaneous with the March issue that has been available to them for days - yet now it seems JG are saying Mr Cox's conduct has been diligent and fair. Funny this never came over?.

I think you can take that as vindication of the position you have taken on this!!!

The reality is that JG is a fairly small operation. They advertise widely in UK and can be seen at just about every boat show and boat jumble, so they are well known in the boating community. Their base in Beer (in Dorset, not Devon!!) is smart but relatively modest and I doubt that they employ more than a handful of people. On this occasion they over reacted a little to Vyv Cox's report but it has obviously been discussed behind the scenes and it looks as if they have done the honourable thing and both sides have kissed and made up.

My point is that I very much doubt that this is anything like the Rocna/Bambury saga which was deliberate and many, many times worse. It's the difference between a cock up (at JG) and out and out missrepresentation (at Rocna)

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I very much doubt that this is anything like the Rocna/Bambury saga which was deliberate and many, many times worse. It's the difference between a cock up (at JG) and out and out missrepresentation (at Rocna)

Too right, bribing Rina cannot have been an accident:

The facts , backed up by emails and other written informations, are that he instructed me to bribe certain officals at Rina and at another manufacturing facility with this cash amount in order to gain certification. Upon my return to NZ he praised me for a job well done and announced to the world that certification had been obtained.

Thank goodness Rocna are safely in new hands.


Since it's been quoted I hope YM won't object to me posting the original Clarification in full:

Hopefully since it's YM's own site copyright won't be an issue.

 

[Neeves]

I suspect everyone now would like it to fade away? I like to say the thread has no future but I'm constantly surprised at their quest for life.

But it raises an issue, so wanting to give the thread the opportunity. Chain and anchors are sold often without certification, chain might be sold to a standard (and you might actually get a certificate) but you need expect everyone in the supply chain to be honest. The punter has no way of knowing if what he paid for is actually what he got. In the case of unbranded anchors I suspect you should expect them to be made so cheap you would never imagine - so I'm thinking brand name, Lewmar, Bainbridge, Plastimo et al

The media (and Forum) can play a role in checking quality as Vyv Cox has done, it can keep suppliers on their toes, reassures the public that someone is on their side, gives the media a real public service role and gives the journos something useful to do. YM did a good piece on seacocks, so another example. Other than chain, sea-cocks and anchors - what else do we buy that could be usefully looked at? I'm not thinking of electronics but the simpler and more mundane items. I had thought stainless fittings supplied as brand name product, shackles, swivels. There is rigging wire, maybe electric cable, cordage. Most items are looked at by magazines every 2 years or so but, for example, I recall articles on cordage (usually repeating the one 2 years earlier) but I do not recall anyone actually checking that what manufacturers say they make is actually what they sell. So I buy Dyneema, it looks like Dyneema - but I have no idea if its actually a blend (for example) and I have no idea how to check it. I buy flares, never use them, retire them - but I have no idea how many might actually not work (properly) when I need them.

Or is this the wrong place to air the thought?

 

[haydude]

In my opinion, jimmy green supply's overpriced chain and the same quality can be bought at half the price elsewhere. I struggle to believe people actually pay those prices.

It is the same problem on every other industry. Items manufactured in Europe and especially Italy for industrial machinery and metallurgic products are of excellent quality, but they cost a fortune to us because of the strength of the Euro.

I know of a UK importer who sells industrial machines produced in Italy and has had to scale down his import business, because of the cheaper competition from the Far East. However he is still afloat, because once customers have purchased Far Eastern products once, and these broke down after only six months use, they go back to him.

Far Eastern products are dumped on our markets at a much lower cost, some European "manufacturers" also import and dump these products on the market but there is no guarantee for quality.

David Cameron did not quite help us too with his irresponsible speech on Europe, because the Pound dropped 12% since and that is the increase that this year we will have to pay on every imported product, just for the sake of pride.