# A cast of characters - Rocna plot continues



## cupper3 (Jun 30, 2010)

Just when we thought all the twists and turns of the characters involved with the Rocna debacle was done, here is a new article about Mr. Grant Norman King, a former Rocna principle.

Who would believe such a scrip_t if screenwriters tried to sell it to a producer?

New Zealand Herld article


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Holy crap. I've been following this all pretty closely over at YM - and going back and forth with Grant on the RINA bribery issue (which to me is a much bigger story than the Rocna thing).

Seems there's plenty of sleaze to go around in this whole debacle.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Drifting slightly, but curious to know if anyone had a Rocna fail (break) under actual anchoring conditions?

Dabnis


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

Wow. Just ... wow.

(Disclaimer: we have a NZ Rocna, circa mid-2009, before the debacle. And its totally our best sleep-well-no-worries anchor)


----------



## LinekinBayCD (Oct 19, 2009)

dabnis said:


> Drifting slightly, but curious to know if anyone had a Rocna fail (break) under actual anchoring conditions?
> 
> Dabnis


Being the owner of a 2009 33lb Rocna most likely manufactured in China, I was following the info being posted on a variety of sailing sites. My Rocna was purchased through West Marine. As it is hard to judge what is fact and what is fiction on the internet I contacted West Marine directly through email and asked whether they had any Rocna's they sold being returned because of damage or failure of any kind. Their answer was that did not have any Rocna's returned because of any structural failures. Their only returns were attributed to poor fits on customers bow rollers, a few tips that were losing their galvanizing material and some returned because of their cautionary announcement relating to the steel used in some of the China made Rocna's.

That is the only first hand knoweldge I have. For you, it's just more 2nd hand internet verbage/gerbage so you might want to confirm with West Marine yourself if you have any concerns. My guess is that they would not continue to sell them if they really believed there was a problem.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

My guess is that they would not continue to sell them if they really believed there was a problem.[/QUOTE]

Agree, but after all the uproar about the quality aspect I was just curious?

Dabnis


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

LinekinBayCD said:


> My guess is that they would not continue to sell them if they really believed there was a problem.


Psssttt...wanna buy a Pinto?

My guess is they'll sell anything people will buy. They sell all manner of cheaply made short lifespan hardware, for example. As far as disclosing why anchors were returned, in this litigious day and age I imagine there is no retailer on the planet who will divulge WHY items are returned if there is any possibility of liability.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

The "best" and most exhaustive thread I've found on this is over on YM:

Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific - Yachting and Boating World Forums

And now the dude he burned in that article is posting - mad as hell.

If you have the next 2 years off, you might want to read it. It is entertaining and eye-opening to see how people get to a point where they want to believe something so badly in order to maintain an agenda, they disregard all common sense.

It seems that's where we are now in the whole Rocna thing. But what a freakin' soap opera!


----------



## cupper3 (Jun 30, 2010)

LinekinBayCD said:


> Being the owner of a 2009 33lb Rocna most likely manufactured in China, I was following the info being posted on a variety of sailing sites. My Rocna was purchased through West Marine. As it is hard to judge what is fact and what is fiction on the internet I contacted West Marine directly through email and asked whether they had any Rocna's they sold being returned because of damage or failure of any kind. Their answer was that did not have any Rocna's returned because of any structural failures. Their only returns were attributed to poor fits on customers bow rollers, a few tips that were losing their galvanizing material and some returned because of their cautionary announcement relating to the steel used in some of the China made Rocna's.
> 
> That is the only first hand knoweldge I have. For you, it's just more 2nd hand internet verbage/gerbage so you might want to confirm with West Marine yourself if you have any concerns. My guess is that they would not continue to sell them if they really believed there was a problem.


Interestingly enough though, West Marine posted this recall on Rocna anchors, much to their credit, BTW.


----------



## LinekinBayCD (Oct 19, 2009)

cupper3 said:


> Interestingly enough though, West Marine posted this recall on Rocna anchors, much to their credit, BTW.


It was not recall. It the "product specification notice" referred to in my original post. Big difference. WM has many recalls listed on their site.

I guess West Marine could have been lying to me but that does not make sense to me as it would greatly increase their liability from what have been nothing to whatever a boat and possibly lives would be worth.


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

Don't really have the time to waste anyway, but that link of yours to the Yachting & Boating forums gives me a "permission denied" result, smack.

*Edit:* Looks like the mods over there are taking it down temporarily to sort out some rules issues. Goes to prove the debacle continues even to this very minute!


----------



## LinekinBayCD (Oct 19, 2009)

bljones said:


> Psssttt...wanna buy a Pinto?
> 
> My guess is they'll sell anything people will buy. They sell all manner of cheaply made short lifespan hardware, for example. As far as disclosing why anchors were returned, in this litigious day and age I imagine there is no retailer on the planet who will divulge WHY items are returned if there is any possibility of liability.


There are two possibilities: 1. West Marine was telling me the truth when they said they had no failures or 2. The were lying and actually had Rocnas returned because of structural failures.

Forgetting about any altruistic motives, I don't think that scenario #2 makes any business sense. After their announcement they probably had very little risk of liability. They laid the facts out about the steel spec issues and offered to accept any returns as they would probably have done prior to the announcement.

Now assume they actually had many anchors returned because of structural failures. If that were the case they would more likely would have issued a recall of the anchors (as they have done with other products) rather than just an announcement as they did.

Further assume they lied to any customer that asked about whether there were any failures. You really think they are going to increase their liabilty risk by lying? Now when there is a high risk of failure and liability for property damage and maybe personal injury and loss of life you think they are going to lie when in all likelyhood they could go after Rocna and recover their costs for returned anchors, when this is one model of many, many anchors they sell?

All companies are in business to make money but the successful ones usually take a long term approach in their business model.


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

Wow, a big company wouldn't LIE to you would they?
Oh no. Of course not. They will misinform, obfuscate, fudge, restate, hedge, disclaim, disavow and befuddle, but never, ever lie.
Tehir employees, might. Hence the commonly used phrases "That's why ____ doesn't work here anymore," " ____ wasn't authorized to divulge that information," and "I don't know what you're talking about, _____ doesn't have anything to do with that department."

West marine has dozens of stores, hundreds of salespeople and all sorts of info that either doesn't get sent to their head office, or is lost in the info deluge sent to their head office, so a blanket denial from a head office voice on the phone doesn't hold much credibility.
In fact, they may not know why anchors are returned. The staff at the store level either may not include that information on the return ticket, or the return ticket may not be sent upstream, or if the system is computerized utilizing dropdown menus and limited choice options, the store staff may not be able to specify "didn't meet steel spec" in the "why was item returned?" box.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

dabnis said:


> Drifting slightly, but curious to know if anyone had a Rocna fail (break) under actual anchoring conditions?
> 
> Dabnis


Anyone?

Dabnis


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

dabnis said:


> Anyone?
> 
> Dabnis


I've never heard of that happening. Just bending. Also, if I recall correctly, someone mentioned that the bending difference between the suspect and spec'd steels was about 48%. In other words - the highly spec'd stuff would still bend - with not all that much more force applied.

I think the bottom line is that Craig pissed off the whole sailing world for a long time, then when everyone found out about the skullduggery with the specs, those folks in the sailing world decided that only complete annihilation of the brand would be enough to satisfy them. And now the skullduggery has shifted to them.

Plenty of blame to go around.


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

smackdaddy said:


> The "best" and most exhaustive thread I've found on this is over on YM:
> 
> Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific - Yachting and Boating World Forums
> 
> ...


155 Pages. Holy Sh!t 

How do you guys find the time to keep up with all these forums?


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> I've never heard of that happening. Just bending. Also, if I recall correctly, someone mentioned that the bending difference between the suspect and spec'd steels was about 48%. In other words - the highly spec'd stuff would still bend - with not all that much more force applied.
> 
> I think the bottom line is that Craig pissed off the whole sailing world for a long time, then when everyone found out about the skullduggery with the specs, those folks in the sailing world decided that only complete annihilation of the brand would be enough to satisfy them. And now the skullduggery has shifted to them.
> 
> Plenty of blame to go around.


You may be right, mad at Craig and took it out on the anchor. I wonder if any other similar anchors have been bent under actual anchoring conditions?

Dabnis


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JimMcGee said:


> 155 Pages. Holy Sh!t
> 
> How do you guys find the time to keep up with all these forums?


I'm 11 years old and don't go to school because my parents are drunks. I just eat Twinkies and surf the web all day.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Just posted by Grant:

BYM Product and Industry News

Good to see CMP doing the right thing.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Once again, its time to decide if I'm upgrading the hook during Spring commissioning.. So where are we now on Rocna quality? ( I have no interest in the scandals of the past )

It seems the new owners have upgraded their warranty against bending, in addition to breaking. I'm not sure if anyone else does that. It is still a little unclear to me whether the RINA certification is suspect and it seems additional certification is still underway.

The bigger question in my mind is whether I can be satisfied that an anchor I buy today was made under the new owner's watch or old inventory? Or whether the new owner is considered trustworthy. It's clear to me that even old inferior inventory isn't going to fail unless under heavy stress, but that's not when I want to find out.

I probably would have just gone with Manson Supreme by now, but neither anchor is a beauty. I think the Rocna looks cleaner than a Manson, as picky as that is.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Minne - from everything I've read on the forums, things are improving on the Rocna front, but there are still some issues. They seem to have greatly expanded their warranty coverage to include bending, etc. But from what I've seen, they're also still using the "weaker" steel (620) instead of the higher-strength stuff that was originally spec'd and marketed.

So, if it were me, I'd look at the cost difference between the Manson and the Rocna, and the steel specs of each. Then evaluate the warranty of each in light of that.

As for the RINA certification - that all just seems to be a mess...especially with Grant's claim that he bribed RINA officials to move the process along. Who knows what to believe on it at this point?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Smack,

They intend to keep the lower grade steel? I know I can go look it up, but do you know if Manson uses a higher grade than 620, or is Rocna just not living up to its original spec and they've determined it isn't necessary?

How can I tell if I'm getting old inventory?

As you can tell, aesthetically, I would prefer a Rocna. But that's a pretty slim margin. If I went to a shrink, they would probably say I just don't want to part with the grand.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I'm as confused as anyone - but from what I've been reading in the forums, it seems that Rocna is sticking with the lower than originally spec'd 620, and Manson has been and is still using the bis80 (or whatever, I can't remember all the terms), which was the original Rocna spec. But you really should check for yourself - because it's hard to know what to believe.

The best resource I've found on the whole story is at YBW here:

Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific - Page 170 - Yachting and Boating World Forums

The poster "neeves" is a journalist who has done a story on them for some mag. He seems to have the most accurate info on the steels and warranty issues. It's a crazy long thread with the typical crap slinging - so just start at the end and go back a few pages to find out what's up.

At this point, to me, it just comes down to price and confidence.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

When it comes right down to it, why would anyone pay more for a Rocna? I considered it once but that was before Craig Smith's trash taking got on my nerves to the point I saved money and got a manson Surpreme instead. And this was before all the stuff about the metal came to light.

I feel the Rocna is probaby still a good anchor. But just don't know anyone would buy it instead of a Manson Surpreme.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Don0190 said:


> When it comes right down to it, why would anyone pay more for a Rocna? I considered it once but that was before Craig Smith's trash taking got on my nerves to the point I saved money and got a manson Surpreme instead. And this was before all the stuff about the metal came to light.
> 
> I feel the Rocna is probaby still a good anchor. But just don't know anyone would buy it instead of a Manson Surpreme.


I think the Rocna looks cleaner on the bow, albeit by a small margin. I also like the idea of a single cast fluke, rather than two side welded pieces for longevity. That's probably also minor. I do not like the big blue sticker on the Manson, nor the long slot in the shank. Again, aesthetics.

I have no interest in Rocna's past, as the free market seems to have settled the score. I'm only interested in whether the new Canadian owner is going to make a reliable product. Their upgraded warranty speaks to their confidenc., We'll see.

Admittedly, I'm still struggling, but I want the Rocna. I just want to know it will be reliable.

If one wants to make emotional decisions based on the behavior of prior owner's relatives, that seems nullified by the new ownership to me. The fact that the Manson is a knockoff will never change. I don't hold it against them, but would certainly understand if someone did.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

The Manson Surpreme isn't a knockoff. It's been pretty well established if you do your homework on something other than the Rocna hype site.

And I didn't make an emotional decision based on Craig Smith. What CS did was get me to look harder at the Ronca and and Manson Surpreme and in the end there was no reason to pay a premium price for a Ronca just because they had a stronger group of marketers to spin their story. I got a Manson Surpreme because I believed it to be at least as good if not better an anchor than the Ronca and got a 60# Manson Surpreme for less than a 45# Ronca than we now know didn't even meet spec.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> I think the Rocna looks cleaner on the bow, albeit by a small margin. I also like the idea of a single cast fluke, rather than two side welded pieces for longevity. That's probably also minor. I do not like the big blue sticker on the Manson, nor the long slot in the shank. Again, aesthetics.
> 
> I have no interest in Rocna's past, as the free market seems to have settled the score. I'm only interested in whether the new Canadian owner is going to make a reliable product. Their upgraded warranty speaks to their confidenc., We'll see.
> 
> ...


Michael on Sequitur has been using a Rocna and he sure seems to like its performance in some pretty challenging places. Though I seem to recall he might have lost it recently in some sketchy anchorage. I can't remember for sure.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Michael on Sequitur has been using a Rocna and he sure seems to like its performance in some pretty challenging places. Though I seem to recall he might have lost it recently in some sketchy anchorage. I can't remember for sure.


Yes, I think he couldn't get it to release and had to cut it off due to some oncoming danger. Although, I thought he returned for it.


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

Minne
I think you are right. I seem to remember that he dropped the rode with a buoy attached. Not that rare an event; I have even done it. Could be a case of the anchor holding too well (well probably not), likely jammed under a rock. Those can be very hard to get out without a diver at times.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> The Manson Surpreme isn't a knockoff. It's been pretty well established if you do your homework on something other than the Rocna hype site.- Don 0190


Sounds like you have an ax to grind with your obvious bias against the Rocnas.

I did my "homework" when the ROCNA originally came out I bought one. It wasnt about the hype. There was no Manson Spreme to buy. Magically 6 months later the Manson appears. Company making them/ designer were geographically close to ROCNA of new Zealand whwere my anchor was imported from. Looks kind of similar doesnt it, ROCNA came first...hmmmmmmmm. Poor argument on your part. It was a knockoff.



> I saved money and got a manson Surpreme instead


.

Go figure the knock off is cheaper. Knockoffs almost always are cheaper. Another specious statement

Not withstanding the idiot who ran the company into the ground with his boastfull arrogant nature, not withstanding the idiot who cheapened the steel, or who attacked othe anchor companies which have since occured...at the time the ROCNA was the only one and was the premier new design anchor.

I still remember Mainesails tests, and since I have purchased one I can unequivically say it has been the best all round anchor I have ever had. ( Bottom conditions dictate that some anchors are specifically better in specific conditions, but if I was to carry on main on it would be this design). I sleep well at anchor now.

Would I buy on now with its technical issues...no I would proably get the Supreme although I have never liked the hole in the shank.

Please do not try and come with revisionist history, as history is just that...a record... not a fantasy to prove a point.

Dave


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

chef2sail said:


> Sounds like you have an ax to grind with your obvious bias against the Rocnas.
> 
> I did my "homework" when the ROCNA originally came out I bought one. It wasnt about the hype. There was no Manson Spreme to buy. Magically 6 months later the Manson appears. Company making them/ designer were geographically close to ROCNA of new Zealand whwere my anchor was imported from. Looks kind of similar doesnt it, ROCNA came first...hmmmmmmmm. Poor argument on your part. It was a knockoff.
> 
> ...


IIRC, from reading Rocna's site, they approached Manson with an offer to have Manson manufacture Rocnas under License. The offer was rejected and shortly after the "Manson Supreme", that looked a whole lot like the Rocna, appeared on the market. Looks like a copy to me? Does anyone know of a case where a Rocna, of either vintage, broke during actual anchoring conditions? Has anyone had a damage claim rejected or received poor customer service from Rocna?

Paul T


----------



## cupper3 (Jun 30, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> Sounds like you have an ax to grind with your obvious bias against the Rocnas.
> 
> I did my "homework" when the ROCNA originally came out I bought one. It wasnt about the hype. There was no Manson Spreme to buy. Magically 6 months later the Manson appears. Company making them/ designer were geographically close to ROCNA of new Zealand whwere my anchor was imported from. Looks kind of similar doesnt it, ROCNA came first...hmmmmmmmm. Poor argument on your part. It was a knockoff.


Not sure if it was on this board or another sailing board, but about 2 months ago a poster showed that the Manson design was in fact registered in NZ before the Rocna one, hence it could not have been a knock-off.

. 


> Not withstanding the idiot who ran the company into the ground with his boastfull arrogant nature, not withstanding the idiot who cheapened the steel, or who attacked othe anchor companies which have since occured...at the time the ROCNA was the only one and was the premier new design anchor.


No one is saying that the Rocna _design_ is substandard.

Their steel in the shank is, and even today, with the new owners, they will not build it to original specs.

Manson, BTW, is using 800+ MPA steel, which was also called for with Rocna. One wonders why Peter Smith, who originally claimed that only 800+ MPA steel would do the job, now says, hey, less is OK too?

Do you now see an issue with that?

The original non-Chinese Rocna's are great, and no one has an issue with them. Hopefully yours is one of those.


----------



## svdesire (Feb 27, 2012)

hi all, this is my first time on this site. just wanted to say thanks for all the info. i've picked up in under an hour. very informative.


----------



## LinekinBayCD (Oct 19, 2009)

dabnis said:


> IIRC, from reading Rocna's site, they approached Manson with an offer to have Manson manufacture Rocnas under License. The offer was rejected and shortly after the "Manson Supreme", that looked a whole lot like the Rocna, appeared on the market. Looks like a copy to me? Does anyone know of a case where a Rocna, of either vintage, broke during actual anchoring conditions? Has anyone had a damage claim rejected or received poor customer service from Rocna?
> 
> Paul T


As of a few months back West Marine had never had a Rocna of any size returned because of damage. They put that in an email that I still have.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

chef2sail said:


> Sounds like you have an ax to grind with your obvious bias against the Rocnas.


I have no axe to grind or use otherwise and could care less about what anchor you decided to buy or why. And even IF the Manson is a knockoff (that I don't believe based on my research when I went to buy an anchor last year)........who cares! uke


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> When it comes right down to it, why would anyone pay more for a Rocna? I considered it once but that was before Craig Smith's trash taking got on my nerves to the point I saved money and got a manson Surpreme instead. And this was before all the stuff about the metal came to light Don0101





> I have no axe to grind or use otherwise and* could care less about what anchor you decided to buy or why* Don0101


Trying to figure if you wrote this about your previous post post or you just dont think others have a right to their opinions and you should post in a vacum.

When you post on a site like this hopefully you will understand and respect others opinions and that yes others dare to post them. On this site none of us is the "captain" of the site. We all get opinions and quite frequently they are not the same, thats how some of us learn and interact. Try not to come in here as the authority on things and shuting down others opinions or you will become the preverbial tree falling in a forrest with no one there...meaning that if no one is there...no one hears your sound. The object here is to play in the sandbox with others...not try and own the sandbox

Dave


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Don0190 said:


> ........who cares! uke


This kind of sums up my current viewpoint on this whole Rocna thing too.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

dabnis said:


> Does anyone know of a case where a Rocna, of either vintage, broke during actual anchoring conditions? Has anyone had a damage claim rejected or received poor customer service from Rocna?
> 
> Paul T


Depends how you define "broken", I suppose...


----------



## T37Chef (Oct 9, 2006)

cupper3 said:


> Not sure if it was on this board or another sailing board, but about 2 months ago a poster showed that the Manson design was in fact registered in NZ before the Rocna one, hence it could not have been a knock-off.


I believe that was the case, BUT the Rocna was designed prior, the company just didn't submit their trademark/registration in time/before Manson. I cant document this but I know someone will check in and provide the link.

Never in my life could I have imagined an anchor and its designer and company could create such controversy :laugher Its just so comical at this point I cant help but read all about it...oh the Internets


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

chef2sail said:


> Trying to figure if you wrote this about your previous post post or you just dont think others have a right to their opinions and you should post in a vacum.
> 
> When you post on a site like this hopefully you will understand and respect others opinions and that yes others dare to post them. On this site none of us is the "captain" of the site. We all get opinions and quite frequently they are not the same, thats how some of us learn and interact. Try not to come in here as the authority on things and shuting down others opinions or you will become the preverbial tree falling in a forrest with no one there...meaning that if no one is there...no one hears your sound. The object here is to play in the sandbox with others...not try and own the sandbox
> 
> Dave


I have no real idea of your point. You quote me and basically say I'm wrong and you are right. And when I push back this is your response as to trying to shutdown others opinions, so ..................

My OPINION is that in the current market that the Rocna is an overpriced anchor who in the past has has been supported by marketing lies and shading the results of tests as they want, and just in general making statements that are untrue. This does not mean I believe the Ronca is a bad anchor and I even wonder if the whole steel mpa thing is a unless item to talk about in the real word of anchoring and if it had never come up no-one ever would be have questioned it.

It is also my OPINION that I could care less about what anchor someone else decides to get as long as it doesn't result in their dragging into me!


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

cupper3 said:


> Just when we thought all the twists and turns of the characters involved with the Rocna debacle was done, here is a new article about Mr. Grant Norman King, a former Rocna principle.
> 
> Who would believe such a scrip_t if screenwriters tried to sell it to a producer?
> 
> New Zealand Herld article


Just to go back to the start of this thread: when you combine this with the other related statements on the Rocna "issue" that we can not really believe anything anything the the "old" cast may have said. :laugher


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> Depends how you define "broken", I suppose...


Have I told you about my shank supplement: "Vianchra HTFU"?


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

JonEisberg said:


> Depends how you define "broken", I suppose...


I wonder if that has ever happened to any other manufacturer's anchor?

Paul T


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

chef2sail said:


> Sounds like you have an ax to grind with your obvious bias against the Rocnas.
> 
> I did my "homework" when the ROCNA originally came out I bought one. It wasnt about the hype. There was no Manson Spreme to buy. Magically 6 months later the Manson appears. Company making them/ designer were geographically close to ROCNA of new Zealand whwere my anchor was imported from. Looks kind of similar doesnt it, ROCNA came first...hmmmmmmmm. Poor argument on your part. It was a knockoff.
> 
> ...


Actually there is plenty of data to support the Manson Supreme not being a knock off. I actually owned a Manson BEFORE I owned a Rocna and I still had one of the first Rocna's produced in Canada. When I bought my first Manson Supreme the only way to get a Rocna here was to pay a FEW HUNDRED in shipping costs from NZ, hence my reason for buying a Manson Supreme first....

The Rocna is also a knock off. We quickly seem to forget the Wasi/Bugel anchor that was the FIRST hoop anchor or the fact that Peter Smith himself admitted to "copying" or "knocking off" the Delta shank and Spades fluke shape.....

The only reason anyone believes the Manson Supreme is a knock off is because, like most anything Rocna did, they told some mis-truths..

And how could we forget the Smith's publicly bashing the "rock slot" on the Manson Supreme then COPYING the Manson Supreme's slot themselves..... Hello pot....

When you spend your efforts in hundreds of posts over 4-5 years disparaging the Manson Supreme and calling it a *knock off,* then saying things like this:



Craig Smith said:


> Anyway, Alain, really we can be friends. Like you so eloquently put it, *we also think slotted shanks are a terrible concept.  We have never made a Rocna with a slot*, and suspect the owner of this anchor has. Or was it Mr Photoshop?


That comment was a bash on a guy who was at a boat show and took a photo of a rocna with a slot and CS called him a liar and accused him of using Photoshop...

Terrible idea to copy another product? Or is it just a terrible idea??? Hmmm I guess fisheman are unimportant to Rocna especially if the "rock slot" is such a bad idea......

Image Courtesy Rocna Anchors (LINK)









Hypocrisy & dishonesty at its best....


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

dabnis said:


> I wonder if that has ever happened to any other manufacturer's anchor?
> 
> Paul T


Of course it has.

In fact, I just read on Manson website that bending is specifically excluded from their warranty.

Google something like "bent danforth" and you get dozens of hits.


----------



## T37Chef (Oct 9, 2006)

Thanks MaineSail for setting the record staright...in my post above I was trying to find and recall a post regarding the timing of the registration of the Rocna vs. Manson? What was the actual story there?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

dabnis said:


> I wonder if that has ever happened to any other manufacturer's anchor?
> 
> Paul T


Of course it has, there's not an anchor in the world that is immune to such a failure...

However, your original question was whether or not a Rocna had ever suffered a real-world "breakage", correct?



Maine Sail said:


> The Rocna is also a knock off. We quickly seem to forget the Wasi/Bugel anchor that was the FIRST hoop anchor or the fact that Peter Smith himself admitted to "copying" or "knocking off" the Delta shank and Spades fluke shape.....


What goes around, comes around, in the increasingly incestuous world of New Generation Anchors...

At the same time that Manson has produced a closer clone to the Spade, by eliminating the roll bar...










Spade has "copied" the Rocna/Manson Supreme with a roll bar anchor of their own...










Say, that Black powder-coated Manson Boss is pretty sexy, eh? Hmmm, so how long do you suppose _THAT_ look will last, in the real world? (grin)


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Rocna under the last two administrations has said Manson copied their design; the current administration has been silent on the issue.

Manson says they developed it independently.

Set the Manson Supreme aside and look at every other anchor in the Manson product line. They are ALL copies of another company's IP. So we are supposed to believe that Manson had a sudden surge of creativity that miraculously looks like what an independent designer came up with in the same time frame? I don't think so.

In so far as similarities between the Rocna and the Spade (concave blade), the Delta (shank), and the Wasi/Bugel (roll bar) there is a clear distinction in legislation and judicial precedent world wide between copies and derivations.

In my own head, Rocna failed in its second administration to deliver what was promised. Manson copied someone else's IP and promoted it as their own. Neither company has anything to be proud of here.


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

SVAuspicious said:


> Rocna failed in its second administration to deliver what was promised.


History will show that the real problem lies with an obstructionist congress unwilling to compromise.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

bljones said:


> History will show that the real problem lies with an obstructionist congress unwilling to compromise.


You are close. But, as we all know, anything bad has to be Geauge Bush's fault.

Paul T


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

JonEisberg said:


> Of course it has, there's not an anchor in the world that is immune to such a failure...
> 
> However, your original question was whether or not a Rocna had ever suffered a real-world "breakage", correct?
> 
> ...


There is a big difference between the new Boss and the Spade in that the Spade relies on a lead filled tip, like the CQR & Delta do for proper set orientation. The Boss does not rely on a lead filled tip and the shovel does not even remotely resemble a Spade.

Alain Poiraud tried for years to come up with a "Spade" without the lead filled tip that worked as well but never did hit the pot of gold and had at least three iterations of it the Oceanne, the Sword and the Raya.

I'll be curious to see if Manson has the bugs worked out of a non lead filled tip anchor without roll bar..


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

SVAuspicious said:


> Rocna under the last two administrations has said Manson copied their design; the current administration has been silent on the issue.
> 
> Manson says they developed it independently.
> 
> ...


Ohhh c'mon the only real similarity between the Manson Supreme and the Rocna is the hoop. I own both and side by side they are quite different though perform similarly..

Let's not get caught up in the who copied who muck & mire because the truth is that the Rocna has as many similarities to the Bugel/Wasi who claims that Rocna "copied" their design. The concave fluke was copied from Spade and Alain Poiraud complained they "copied" his design for their fluke to which Peter Smith admitted he thought it was "the way to go"..

Peter Smith the designer of the Rocna once said:
_"I developed the Rocna after using a Delta. I had seen early versions of the Spade, and decided the spoon shaped concave fluke was the way to go." _

So by your own definitions the Rocna is a COPY of the Bugel/Spade/Delta and the Manson Supreme is SIMILAR to the Rocna and you consider it a "copy" in the SAME way I consider the Rocna a COPY of the Wasi/Spade/Delta. I guess stealing IP directly from three competitors makes it ok?

I still fail to see where the Manson Supreme "copied" the Rocna. According to Ned Wood that anchor was in development before they ever laid eyes on the Rocna and the hoop idea came from Wasi the SAME place Peter Smith stole it from. Rumor has it that it was Peter Bruce who designed the hoop and Wasi stole it from him...

Fortress "stole" their shape from Danforth but I don't hear many complaints about that...?  In fact many Rocna owners I know who bought a Rocna because they bought into Craig's BS about not buying a "knock off" own Fortress anchors too. So a knock off of a Rocna is bad but not a knock off of a Danforth...

If Manson "stole" IP it was not from Rocna but rather Wasi. But, then Rocna STOLE that "IP" from Wasi as well...

The Wasi came WELL before the Rocna or Manson Supreme making BOTH copies of IP..









Besides all that the Manson Supreme is not a "copy" of a Rocna. It is rather drastically different but shares "similarities".... The only reason people believe it a copy is because some of the biggest liars in the marine industry maligned the product as a "copy" and also an "abysmal" product. We now know those claims were pure rubbish and the "abysmal" product actually became the Rocna (compared to the designers original specifications). The Manson Supreme is STILL built with 800mpa steel, the Rocna is made with......well "good enough" steel....

Let's look at the anchors:

*FLUKE =* The fluke is different with the Manson. It is differently shaped in a rolled form vs. a folded and creased shape closer to what the Spade was. It is constructed very differently and the Manson Supreme uses a laminated tip and the Rocna is cast. The tip shapes are also very different with the Manson Supreme being shaped like an arrow head that is considerably sharper than the Rocna. The rear of the fluke on the Manson Supreme is also NOT upturned like the Spade or Rocna are. Other than being "concave" they really share ZERO in common. Fluke, not a "copy"....

*SHANK =* The Rocna shank is an admitted copy of the Delta shank. The Manson Supreme shank is a unique design and not at all shaped like the Rocna or Delta. It has its own unique shape with an added "rock slot" (not a knock off invention as far as I know) and the shank is also shorter and fatter/taller to keep the strength when the rock slot is added. Shank, not a copy.

*Hoop =* Yep both anchors have a hoop just like the Wasi/Bugel did and WHICH CAME FIRST making both the Manson Supreme and the Rocna copiers.......

*CONSTRUCTION =* After years of Rocna maligning the Manson Supreme as an "abysmal product" and stating how the Rocna was built to the utmost in high standards they cut their standard rather dramatically and sent the product to China to be built? Manson, fed up with all the lies, challenged them to a "put up or shut up" head to head strength test to which Rocna declined and chickened out.:laugher

Manson then cut up two anchors, one of theirs and one of Rocna's, both bought off the shelf at local chandleries, and the Rocna was not built to anywhere near the standards Peter Smith claimed they were.

The Manson Supreme is still built in NZ by NZ residents and is still built with 800mpa steel. The Rocna is now built in China with a steel of less than the designers original specification..

*HONESTY =* Manson never mislead us about the construction of its product nor lied to us about its Lloyds SHHP certification. They priced the product fairly, built it with 800mpa steel and suffered daily bashings by Rocna & the Smith's..

*Rocna lied to us about certifications well before they had RINA certification as SHHP

*Rocna mislead and heavily massaged the Sail magazine anchor test data and claimed a 40% better performance than their next competitor. This claim has "vanished" but they ran with it for a long while. Rumor is they were forced to remove that data because they super imposed the Sail logo on their "extrapolation" of the data.

*Rocna made "special test anchors" only for submitting to testing authorities

*Rocna stuck West Marine footing the bill with the recall after the metalurgy debacle. Rocna has NOT reimbursed WM for any of the anchors taken back despite the Rocna "written warranty" that guaranteed the anchors met and were built to the "specifications".

*Rocna lied about the metalurgy of their product and only admitted they "changed" the metalurgy after public PROOF came to light.

*Rocna publicly bashed Chinese manufacturing then went and started building anchors in China of a sub standard steel to what the designer himself specified and insisted on.

*Peter Smith INSISTED that 800mpa steel be used in the shanks, now a lesser steel is all of a sudden okay?

*Rocna publicly bashed the Rock Slot as a "stupid" idea and then went and STOLE it and used it on a Rocna making them now the "knock off"...

*
Disclaimer:* I am a Rocna owner and user (BC built) and it is a GREAT design! I can not however bring my self to swallow any more of the Smith/Bambury rubbish & lies. I will no longer sell or recommend a Rocna to ANYONE until the Smiths and Bambury's are 100% removed from the company or anything to do with the Rocna. This won't likely happen... I have nothing against the new company other than the fact that they should have bought only the product and not the baggage that came with it....

I do plan to place my Rocna in "storage" and replace it with a Manson because I am that disgusted with this whole mess.I feel that strongly about NOT advertising for Rocna by placing it on my bow that I am willing to use a "knock off". All last summer I hid the Rocna in my anchor locker unless it was in use.......

I feel bad for the new owners of the comapny, and do hope they can turn it around, but the only saving grace for THIS ROCNA OWNER would be a complete separation between the Smiths, Bambury's and CMP.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> Once again, its time to decide if I'm upgrading the hook during Spring commissioning.. So where are we now on Rocna quality? _*( I have no interest in the scandals of the past )*_
> 
> It seems the new owners have upgraded their warranty against bending, in addition to breaking. I'm not sure if anyone else does that. It is still a little unclear to me whether the RINA certification is suspect and it seems additional certification is still underway.
> 
> ...


Emphasis added.

Trying to get my thread resurrection back on track.  I admit to self sabotage by mentioning knockoff. Retracted, doesn't matter.

How can we know if shelf inventory is made by the new company?


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Good post Maine Sail

I will continue to use my NZ manufactured ROCNA on my bow as I feel it is a superior anchor in MY OWN experience in using it.

I agree with you analysis of the man behind the company (ROCNA).


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

chef2sail said:


> I did my "homework" when the ROCNA originally came out I bought one. It wasnt about the hype. There was no Manson Spreme to buy. Magically 6 months later the Manson appears. Company making them/ designer were geographically close to ROCNA of new Zealand whwere my anchor was imported from. Looks kind of similar doesnt it, ROCNA came first...hmmmmmmmm. Poor argument on your part. It was a knockoff.
> 
> .
> 
> ...


Well are you now going to redo this post where you trashed me so you include MaineSail?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Don0190 said:


> Well are you now going to redo this post where you trashed me so you include MaineSail?


Don, I don't think anything needs to be redone. The debate is endless to the point that many unresolvable threads are often referenced as an "anchor thread".

MaineSail is unquestionably one of the best informed posters on this board. But, I think even he would admit that the Rocna issue became personal to him. He has YouTube vids on how superior Rocna is to a CQR and clearly regrets having been an unofficial spokesman/salesman, given he company's deception. I enjoyed reading the post above, but read carefully how much of it is really on the "knockoff" question between Rocna and Manson. Much of it is superfluous or questions Rocna's character, even though I find those points interesting.

The fundamental question of who invented theirs first and whether the other copied any part of it remains unclear to me. A knockoff does not need to be an exact match, so the precise comparison doesn't do it for me anyway. Either seem to have been capable of it. Certainly Rocnas integrity has been called into question. But look at Manson's website and tell me they don't have a propensity to sell imitations of original CQR's, danforths, etc.

So far, as a juror, I haven't seen the burden of proof met either way.

In the end, I like the Rocna better for reasons I've stated above. I'm just waiting to know that I've bought one from a reliable source. That question still hasn't been answered.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> Quote:
> I have no axe to grind or use otherwise and could care less about what anchor you decided to buy or why Don0101





> When you post on a site like this hopefully you will understand and respect others opinions and that yes others dare to post them. On this site none of us is the "captain" of the site. We all get opinions and quite frequently they are not the same, thats how some of us learn and interact. Try not to come in here as the authority on things and shuting down others opinions- Chef2sail


Dom0101, I stand by what I posted. Maine Sail is a gentleman who listens to others opinions and has offered many good and concise opinions and knowledge here. I have taken many of his viseos and how tos and put them into practice. ( I am currently following his instructions on how to install a battery monitor as mine was not up to snuff). He is able to state his opinons without telling someone to quote you-


> else could care less about what anchor you decided to buy or why


. Thats what I have trouble with. Your attitude and statement toward others. You and Maine are not on the same plane here.

As Minnie said previously, a few years past Maine did a very thorough test of anchors which was very dramatic and the ROCNA came out in the elite of the test. The conclusion at the time was that it was all it was said to be. Since then the company has denigrated other anchors, made false claims, and not used the same quality. I think he feels deceived and has acted accordingly stating the facts as he sees them.



> So far, as a juror, I haven't seen the burden of proof met either way.
> 
> In the end, I like the Rocna better for reasons I've stated above. I'm just waiting to know that I've bought one from a reliable source. That question still hasn't been answered. Minnewaska


I have to agree with this and having an original NZ anchor as I bought it and had it shippped to me from NZ by a friend living there and using it long before they were distributed in US stores, I have no worry I have the original anchor not a cheapened one.

Enough said in this post it seems to be repeating its self.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Hello RC,

You know I think highly of you. I believe we have looked at the same data and come to somewhat different conclusions.

> Ohhh c'mon the only real similarity between the Manson Supreme and 
> the Rocna is the hoop. I own both and side by side they are quite 
> different though perform similarly.

I don't own both, but side-by-side in the store they look remarkable similar. The differences are the rock slot and the arrowhead tip. You have better access than I - are there greater differences in concavity or other parameters?

> Peter Smith the designer of the Rocna once said:
_"I developed the Rocna after using a Delta. I had seen early versions of the Spade, and decided the spoon shaped concave fluke was the way to go." _

I see, and recall a paper from Peter Smith stating, that there were elements of the Spade, Delta, and Bugel that Rocna drew upon to derive their anchor. There is a difference between derivation that leads to an advance and a copy.

> So by your own definitions the Rocna is a COPY of the Bugel/Spade
> /Delta and the Manson Supreme is SIMILAR to the Rocna and you 
> consider it a "copy" in the SAME way I consider the Rocna a COPY of 
> the Wasi/Spade/Delta. I guess stealing IP directly from three 
> competitors makes it ok?

You have a good question but I don't agree with your conclusion. In engineering, drawing the best elements from existing products and integrating them into a single design is derivation. A copy, even with minor adjustments is a copy. There is much more gray than black and white in this and when engineers, lawyers, and judges are in a room together there is much smoke and little clarity.

We went through a lot of this sort of discussion when the Japanese started building electronics in the 50s and 60s and cars behind that. What is a copy and what is innovation and where do incremental changes provide value-added?

> I still fail to see where the Manson Supreme "copied" the Rocna.

I agree that the record is not clear. I fully accept that a good bit of my opinion is based on the fact that the Manson product line, Supreme aside, consists of copies. A company that makes money by copying other products could have a spasm of creativity and innovation but to me it seems unlikely.

You cover a lot of ground. As an engineer, some of the things you compare aren't relevant to an assessment of "copying."

Design is patentable. Sometimes what is designed is a manufacturing process, but I don't think that's relevant here. If one implements a design differently (manufacturing) that may not make the implementation less of a copy, even if the implementation is better. That's why many companies license IP from other other companies that don't have the resources to execute what they have wrought.

Of all the things you cited, honesty may well be the most significant to a consumer but not at all associated with copying designs.

I fully agree that under the Bamburys honest went out the window. A lot of people get wound up about Craig Smith's rhetoric but I'm not sure it was more than excess enthusiasm and passion. The Bamburys, including whosy whatsis in China have clearly played fast and loose with the truth. That doesn't have anything to do with from whom innovation sprang and what copying happened.

> Disclaimer: I am a Rocna owner and user (BC built) and it is a GREAT 
> design! I can not however bring my self to swallow any more of the 
> Smith/Bambury rubbish & lies. I will no longer sell or recommend a 
> Rocna to ANYONE until the Smiths and Bambury's are 100% removed 
> from the company or anything to do with the Rocna. This won't likely 
> happen... I have nothing against the new company other than the fact 
> that they should have bought only the product and not the baggage 
> that came with it....

My own disclaimer:

I bought a Canadian Rocna 25 in 2006. In 2008 I bought a second Rocna 25, a Stowable prototype from NZ, as a backup. I do not regret either purchase and continue to be very happy with both anchors.

Not a disclaimer but a statement of pure opinion:

I'd like to see more transparency from CMP the new lessees of the Rocna brand. I'd like to see full disclosure of past events. I'd like to see clear delineation of the role of the Smiths and Bamburys in CMP operations.

I honestly don't know what anchor I would purchase today. I am personally very sensitive to IP issues as the boat on which I sit stems directly from the returns on my own IP. Manson makes me unhappy accordingly. The Bambury administration makes me very unhappy with Rocna and I don't like blatant dishonesty. Spade is expensive in the US and delivery is sporadic at best. Raya, which looked so promising, has faded from the scene. Accordingly if I have to buy another anchor for some reason it will likely be a used Rocna from Canada or NZ or a Delta grossly oversized.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Just for clarity, I need/want a Rocna 40, in the event different sizes are made in different places or of different steel.


----------



## marinextreme (Jan 15, 2009)

Maine Sail said:


> Actually there is plenty of data to support the Manson Supreme not being a knock off. I actually owned a Manson BEFORE I owned a Rocna and I still had one of the first Rocna's produced in Canada. When I bought my first Manson Supreme the only way to get a Rocna here was to pay a FEW HUNDRED in shipping costs from NZ, hence my reason for buying a Manson Supreme first....
> 
> The Rocna is also a knock off. We quickly seem to forget the Wasi/Bugel anchor that was the FIRST hoop anchor or the fact that Peter Smith himself admitted to "copying" or "knocking off" the Delta shank and Spades fluke shape.....
> 
> ...


The slotted Rocna , called the "RRR", later changed to "the Fisherman" was being produced by Rocna in *2008* and was in heavy demand in New Zealand and Australia. It was later introduced to the US market.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

marinextreme said:


> The slotted Rocna , called the "RRR", later changed to "the Fisherman" was being produced by Rocna in *2008* and was in heavy demand in New Zealand and Australia. It was later introduced to the US market.


IIRC, the Rocna website recommended not to use this anchor for overnight or unattended use. Perhaps because of the slotted feature?

Paul T


----------



## cupper3 (Jun 30, 2010)

dabnis said:


> IIRC, the Rocna website recommended not to use this anchor for overnight or unattended use. Perhaps because of the slotted feature?
> 
> Paul T


LOL, not even Craig Smith would go to that extreme. Nice try though.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

Minnewaska said:


> How can we know if shelf inventory is made by the new company?


Call CMP and ask how to tell one of their anchors from a Bambury brothers anchor... Perhaps ask how to special order one specifically manufactured by CMP....


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Maine Sail said:


> There is a big difference between the new Boss and the Spade in that the Spade relies on a lead filled tip, like the CQR & Delta do for proper set orientation. The Boss does not rely on a lead filled tip and the shovel does not even remotely resemble a Spade.
> 
> Alain Poiraud tried for years to come up with a "Spade" without the lead filled tip that worked as well but never did hit the pot of gold and had at least three iterations of it the Oceanne, the Sword and the Raya.
> 
> I'll be curious to see if Manson has the bugs worked out of a non lead filled tip anchor without roll bar..


I'll happily defer to your expertise on such matters, of course (grin) My comments were primarily directed at the simple _appearance_ of all these different anchors - that alone, it would seem, might be sufficient to help obtain a market share, today...

A couple of minor points, however... I am struck by how closely the new Spade Sea Blade does appear to resemble the Manson, they've gone away from the lead-filled tip, looks like merely a slightly thicker version of the laminated Manson "arrowhead" tip...

And, you say in another post: " The Manson Supreme shank is a unique design and not at all shaped like the Rocna or Delta. It has its own unique shape with an added "rock slot" (not a knock off invention as far as I know) and the shank is also shorter and fatter/taller to keep the strength when the rock slot is added. Shank, not a copy."

However, to my eye, lose the stoopid rock slot, and the profile of the Manson shank bears a striking resemblance to the original shank on the Spade...

Let's face it, there's very little New Under the Sun when it comes to anchors, eh? I'd say in the past 3 decades, the only truly "original" anchor designs (that have gained relatively wide acceptance, that is), are probably the Bruce, the Spade, and possibly the Bugel (still very much a Euro-centric anchor, however - I've only ever seen one on ONE American boat, that being Burger & Nancy Zapf's Alden)

btw, if that Rocna of yours that you're putting into "storage" might be a 20 kg, I'd be happy to take that off your hands, if the price were right (grin)

Like you, I love my Manson Supreme, it and the original NZ & Canadian-made Rocna are in a class by themselves, as far as I'm concerned... But, like Minnewaska, the Manson bugs me aesthetically, I hate the look of that dumb slot... And, the dimensions of the Rocna just happen to work slightly better on my bow, have just a bit more clearance from my secondary Bruce...

I actually purchased a Rocna a bit over a year ago, got one on sale with free shipping, so I went for it... Shortly thereafter, the whole steel spec thing blew up... So, I performed a rudimentary hardness test on both, using just one of those common spring-loaded center punches... It was pretty striking, how much "softer" the shank of the Rocna was shown to be, compared to my Manson... So, I took West Marine up on their offer, and returned the Rocna in its never-used condition...

Sorry, but I no longer have the stomach, or time, to follow this saga on the YBW or wherever... However, has it been absolutely determined, that the current Rocna's are _STILL_ being produced using something less than the 800 mpa steel originally specified? Can anyone absolutely confirm that?

And, if true, how can they be that stupid? Not to mention - if that is indeed the case - why would anyone buy a Rocna, today?


----------



## marinextreme (Jan 15, 2009)

JonEisberg said:


> I'll happily defer to your expertise on such matters, of course (grin) My comments were primarily directed at the simple _appearance_ of all these different anchors - that alone, it would seem, might be sufficient to help obtain a market share, today...
> 
> A couple of minor points, however... I am struck by how closely the new Spade Sea Blade does appear to resemble the Manson, they've gone away from the lead-filled tip, looks like merely a slightly thicker version of the laminated Manson "arrowhead" tip...
> 
> ...


Jon,

Still made in the same factory as before but QC being done in CMP's facility in Ningbo, China before being shipped with CMP's other items.

Made from the lower grade , 620, as peter Smith announced that it was "fit for purpose" despite previously demanding the opposite and despite all drawing specs carring the Bis80 mandate.

Now just where does CMP sit? between a rock and a hard place and they are obviously trying to do their best under the circumstances and must now place the product in the market wherever the buying public will accept it.

If they continue to market it as the best quality and the superior product that Smith and bambury sold it as then they are being very very foolish.

If they market it at the appropriate reduced retail price that the current specs ( as opposed to the design specs) dictate then they should enjoy some considerable market force.

Only time will tell.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Keep in mind that in the grand scheme of anchor buyers, about 1% know this story. Rocna will never reduce their price to acknowledge reduced specs, if those specs may still prove certifiable. We'll see if they do or not. The history if it being originally spec'd with super hi density nuclear kryptonite, is only bugging those on the blogs that followed all the mouthing off.

At the moment, Rocna warranties against bending, Manson doesn't. That could be worth a few bucks to the non-blog reading consumer.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

cupper3 said:


> LOL, not even Craig Smith would go to that extreme. Nice try though.


Scroll about half way down:

Product Range » Rocna Anchors

Pauil T


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> At the moment, Rocna warranties against bending, Manson doesn't. That could be worth a few bucks to the non-blog reading consumer.


This is a very good point. If Manson won't warranty against it's stronger shank bending - it shows that the 620 in the Rocna _IS_ "fit enough" since they _WILL_ warranty against bending. It's actually a pretty canny marketing move.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

dabnis said:


> Scroll about half way down:
> 
> Product Range » Rocna Anchors
> 
> Paul T


Should have included the following in my other post. From the Rocna website:

"Retrievable mode - using the shackle rail, for use when you believe the anchor is likely to become fouled (not to be used for overnight anchoring or if the boat is to be left unattended).
Secure mode - using the secure attachment point designed for overnight anchoring."

Paul T


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Maine Sail said:


> Call CMP and ask how to tell one of their anchors from a Bambury brothers anchor... Perhaps ask how to special order one specifically manufactured by CMP....


That's the way to go, ultimately. I guess I'm poking around to see if I can trust what they tell me and whether there is an independent way to verify. Thanks for the input.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

smackdaddy said:


> This is a very good point. If Manson won't warranty against it's stronger shank bending - it shows that the 620 in the Rocna _IS_ "fit enough" since they _WILL_ warranty against bending. It's actually a pretty canny marketing move.


And this came under the new owners NOT the previous owners. As a point of reference the old warranty covered that the anchor met the "specs" yet they refused to reimburse WM for the sub spec anchors they took back. My local store has had four or more returned...

*Previous Warranty:*

"Faulty Product

*If the anchor is defective or fails to conform to its specifications* then those situations are covered under the separate terms of our Lifetime Warranty."

Good for CMP for stepping up to the plate!!!


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

dabnis said:


> Should have included the following in my other post. From the Rocna website:
> 
> "Retrievable mode - using the shackle rail, for use when you believe the anchor is likely to become fouled (not to be used for overnight anchoring or if the boat is to be left unattended).
> Secure mode - using the secure attachment point designed for overnight anchoring."
> ...


That was never the issue it is what was said about the rock slot by Rocna and the BLATANT lies surrounding the slot....

The Smith's spent countless hours publicly bashing the "rock slot" on the Manson Supreme, calling them a "copy cat" and then they chose to COPY the Manson Supreme's slot themselves...

When you spend your efforts in hundreds of posts over 4-5 years disparaging the Manson Supreme and calling it a knock off, then saying things like this:



Craig Smith said:


> Anyway, Alain, really we can be friends. *Like you so eloquently put it, we also think slotted shanks are a terrible concept. We have never made a Rocna with a slot, and suspect the owner of this anchor has. Or was it Mr Photoshop?*


That comment was a bash on a guy who was at a boat show and took a photo of a Rocna with a slot. Then CS called him a liar and accused him of using Photoshop to fabricate a Rocna with a slot......

Does not matter how they tell you to "use it" when they so arrogantly INSISTED it was a *"TERRIBLE CONCEPT"* and they *"NEVER MADE A ROCNA WITH A SLOT"* and the guy who first showed the Rocna Fisheman to the public had used photoshop to defraud the public......

Oh and it is all right here on Sailnet from 2007 during the height of Rocna bashing every other anchor in existence and calling Manson a copy cat: http://www.sailnet.com/forums/157150-post16.html


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Main,

Points taken. It appears that the only Rocna with the "slot" was the small, lightweight "Fisherman's" anchor. Their "Original" design has a solid shank so maybe their venture into the "slot" design was more oriented towards small boat users? They must have swallowed hard before introducing it but did so anyway, maybe trying to be all things to all people?

Paul T


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

dabnis said:


> Main,
> 
> Points taken. It appears that the only Rocna with the "slot" was the small, lightweight "Fisherman's" anchor. Their "Original" design has a solid shank so maybe their venture into the "slot" design was more oriented towards small boat users? *They must have swallowed hard before introducing it but did so anyway, maybe trying to be all things to all people?*
> 
> Paul T


They must have swallowed hard to go to China too, I mean after all the China bashing...



Craig Smith said:


> However there remains the "you get what you pay for" difference, and our USD recommended retail will still be "moderately priced", not "cheap"; *we're not about making cheap rip-offs, we're not based in China, etc.*


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Maine Sail said:


> They must have swallowed hard to go to China too, I mean after all the China bashing...


It would be interesting to know how much they "saved" in going to China and using different spec steel. Looking back on it after all the smoke setteled I wonder if they would do it again? From what I have read they are still using the different spec steel and the China manufacturing facility, not to put down China, I think they can make quality products if asked to? Any good pencil pushers have any idea as to what the "savings" might have been?

Paul T


----------



## marinextreme (Jan 15, 2009)

dabnis said:


> Main,
> 
> Points taken. It appears that the only Rocna with the "slot" was the small, lightweight "Fisherman's" anchor. Their "Original" design has a solid shank so maybe their venture into the "slot" design was more oriented towards small boat users? They must have swallowed hard before introducing it but did so anyway, maybe trying to be all things to all people?
> 
> Paul T


The slotted model was done in up to 25kg until 2009 and then mainly only in the 4kg, 6kg , 10kg and 15kg after that time


----------



## marinextreme (Jan 15, 2009)

dabnis said:


> It would be interesting to know how much they "saved" in going to China and using different spec steel. Looking back on it after all the smoke setteled I wonder if they would do it again? From what I have read they are still using the different spec steel and the China manufacturing facility, not to put down China, I think they can make quality products if asked to? Any good pencil pushers have any idea as to what the "savings" might have been?
> 
> Paul T


Production savings of up to 40% in galvanised models and up to 60% in stainless models.

Price reduction to publc = minimal.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

marinextreme said:


> Production savings of up to 40% in galvanised models and up to 60% in stainless models.
> 
> Price reduction to publc = minimal.


For their sakes I hope they saved some of it.

Paul T


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> > Originally Posted by Minnewaska
> >
> > At the moment, Rocna warranties against bending, Manson doesn't. That could be worth a few bucks to the non-blog reading consumer.
> 
> ...


Why, these new & improved Rocnas with the weaker shank, re-engineered by a team of accountants and marketing experts, sound like the perfect compliment to one of your Modern Production Sailboats built to survive 10 years, or 2 Force 8 Storms, whichever comes first&#8230; (grin)

OK, channeling my best John McEnroe imitation, now: _"You CANNOT be Serious!"_

Really, having the choice between 2 virtually identical anchors, would you actually consider choosing the one of _ LESSER_ material strength, simply because of a piece of freakin' _PAPER_ that comes with it?

If I'm gonna have to ride out a front at anchor surrounded by reefs at a place like Samana Cay, probably the absolute _least_ of my concerns is whether or not the hook I'll be lying to has a freakin' _Warranty_... If the damn thing does come up bent, you think I'm gonna sail back over to Landrail Point, and walk into some yacht chandler and pick a replacement off a shelf? Hell, I'm not even sure the closest West Marine would be in Miami, or Fajardo, Puerto Rico&#8230; What good does a warranty do you when you're out there - much less, if your boat winds up on a reef?










The fact that some bean counters at the most recent iteration of a company with as troubled a history as Rocna have overridden the original engineering, and decided a lesser-grade steel than Peter Smith specified is "good enough" means _NOTHING_&#8230; At least, to any sailor who wants to lie to nothing less than the best, in his estimation&#8230;

My most trusted anchor, the Ultimate Arrow in My Quiver, is an old Northill, made by a company which probably hasn't existed for at least 30 years&#8230; If my life had to depend on a single anchor, this Big Bertha would be the one I'd choose. And the absence of a manufacturer's _Warranty_ would likely be the _last_ thing in the world, that would ever occur to me&#8230; (grin)


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> Why, these new & improved Rocnas with the weaker shank, re-engineered by a team of accountants and marketing experts, sound like the perfect compliment to one of your Modern Production Sailboats built to survive 10 years, or 2 Force 8 Storms, whichever comes first&#8230; (grin)
> 
> OK, channeling my best John McEnroe imitation, now: _"You CANNOT be Serious!"_
> 
> Really, having the choice between 2 virtually identical anchors, would you actually consider choosing the one of _ LESSER_ material strength, simply because of a piece of freakin' _PAPER_ that comes with it?


You're not very good at marketing are you, dude? Heh-heh.

"Facts" don't matter. It's perception.

If Manson refuses to guarantee their bis80 shanks (which are obviously made of stronger steel), yet Rocna claims that 620 is enough, and is willing to back it up with a warranty...who is the general public going to believe as to what's "fit for purpose"? Your logic will lose to perception. And Rocna might even get away with charging more than the Manson.

So you're right. But you're wrong.

As for the production boats thing - welcome to the new order pal.

(PS - one of those "bean counters" was Peter himself.)


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

The Manson shank is shaped differently. Maybe it needs stronger steel to survive.


----------



## congo (Mar 2, 2012)

Hi all, dont know how to introduce my self as a newbie, so I will do it here, my name is Rex, I am the inventor,Manufacturer of Sarca anchors in Australia, not here to sell or promote but can certainly help you out with a bit of history of how our opposition companies arrived on the scene.

We were around a conciderable time before the so called new generation anchors.

If you are interrested I would be happy to give you some fact's.

Regards Rex.

CEO Anchor Right Australia.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

congo said:


> Hi all, dont know how to introduce my self as a newbie, so I will do it here, my name is Rex, I am the inventor,Manufacturer of Sarca anchors in Australia, not here to sell or promote but can certainly help you out with a bit of history of how our opposition companies arrived on the scene.
> 
> We were around a conciderable time before the so called new generation anchors.
> 
> ...


Rex, I assume the mods will check your IP address to be sure you are who you claim, so I'm interested to hear your take on this. I did visit your website and found the following, so presume you saw Rocna hit the market first.



> Other anchor manufacturers were inspired by the performance and popularity of the SARCA anchor so much so Rocna then Manson released hoop style anchors that were marketed under the umbrella of new generation anchors, the only real difference being their flukes are simply SARCA flukes turned upside down which has unfortunately made them of concave design, not convex.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> You're not very good at marketing are you, dude? Heh-heh.
> 
> "Facts" don't matter. It's perception.
> 
> ...


Actually, I do know a thing or two about Marketing... Did a fair amount of work shooting racing for almost 20 years, for a corporation that spent hundreds of millions/year marketing a product people are addicted to... (grin)










One of the bigger problems with the "Sailing Industry" today, in my view - too damn many _marketeers_, coupled with a "low information" target audience eager to lap it all up... (grin)

Perhaps someone will clarify the record on this, but wasn't Peter Smith divorced from the day-to-day operation of Rocna by the time the decision was taken, to go with the lower-spec steel in China?


----------



## congo (Mar 2, 2012)

Hi Minnewaska

Incredible this debate seems never ending but most times still interesting.

We Launched the Sarca anchor 1996 in Australia as a purpose built combination anchor, sarca meaning sand and reef combination anchor, and yes we were very successful, so successful we were approached by a company in N.Z. APPROX 1998 they wanted to market our product over there, so after much persuasion I launched the Sarca in 1998 at the boat show in Hamilton.

We were excepted as you wouldn’t believe and it wasn’t long before just about every boat manufacturer was fitting this new Sarca anchor from Australia, I half expected a push from Manson as we desecrated their local market, Rocna didn’t exist at this stage, so the next step for me was to get into bed with the N.Z. caricature that enticed me to the boat show and we purchased a factory in Hamilton, at the turn 2002 I saw the first rocna.

Story has it they took it to Manson to have them manufacture and distribute; this has been verified since buy a few of the defected Rocna camp but still no hard evidence, Manson then told Peter smith they already had been working on a new design and thanks but no thanks, apparently this is when the sparks began to fly, Manson then launched the Supreme at the Sanctuary Cove boat show Australia, 2003 boat show.

The odd thing when I saw these two anchors they both looked very similar, except low and behold here is our patented trip design sitting on top of the Supreme, now we have as you can imagine had some discussions with the perpetrators over this trip set up as it was a first in the way it worked.

Any way that’s another story, one should understand we went down the path of the concave fluke before we patented the Sarca, problem being we didn’t have winches on trailer boats back in those days, when my 11 year old son went to heave the anchor up I had to help him, every time we pulled up that early concave Sarca we pulled up a bucket load mud weed you name we had it so we simply turned the fluke plate upside down into a convex design and have never looked back.

So basically I would say we are responsible for the surge of so called new generation anchors from the land of the great white cloud. I should mention with all the toing and throwing we still service an excellent market in N.Z.

Where are we now, manufacturing all in Australia, what happened to the N.Z. carictature, factory, factory was sold and I withdrew all right's (another story) the carictature is now doing time.

There is so much to this story you could write a book, unfortunately I don't have to many memories to cherish from N.Z.

Regards to all.
Rex.
CEO of Anchor Right Australia.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Fascinating Rex. I had not heard of your anchor's precedence to the hoop design before. 

It may never be known whether Manson truly was independently engineering their own anchor or whether they copied the Rocna after being exposed to the manufacturing possibility. 

At the least, I can understand why Rocna would believe it was copied, if the Supreme hadn't been released to the market at the time Rocna approached them. That doesn't excuse their lies, nevertheless.

The issue reminds me of the days of early aviation in the US. While the Wright Brothers were the first to take flight, there were people all over the world attempting the same, at the same time. In fact, many succeeded shortly after Wilber and Orville. For the following two decades, the Wright's and Curtiss sued each ther endlessly and France actually became the leading manufacturer of aircraft up through WWI. Many early US aircraft flew with French engines and our first military aviators were actually assigned to fly with the French "air force", as it were.

Bickering over IP rights has gone back a long long time. The tough spot for Manson is that they've clearly copied other designs before.

We may never know.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> Actually, I do know a thing or two about Marketing... Did a fair amount of work shooting racing for almost 20 years, for a corporation that spent hundreds of millions/year marketing a product people are addicted to... (grin)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have to say, that's pretty damn cool. Stills or video?

The bold part above is exactly right - and exactly the reason this bending warranty business is a pretty shrewd marketing move. Remember, in relation to a boat, or even a generator, an anchor is pretty low on the typical boater's list of things he needs to exhaustively research. And if he does happen to feel any compunction to do so, he'll probably just type "best anchor in the world" into Google, see the first link on the page, and go buy a Fortress.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> ....., he'll probably just type "best anchor in the world" into Google, see the first link on the page, and go buy a Fortress.


Hilarious, that's exactly what you get, first and second hit. Then it goes on the news anchors.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> Hilarious, that's exactly what you get, first and second hit. Then it goes on the news anchors.


This one has a nice roll bar...


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> Incredible this debate seems never ending but most times still interesting.
> 
> We Launched the Sarca anchor 1996 in Australia as a purpose built combination anchor, sarca meaning sand and reef combination anchor, and yes we were very successful, so successful we were approached by a company in N.Z. APPROX 1998 they wanted to market our product over there, so after much persuasion I launched the Sarca in 1998 at the boat show in Hamilton.
> 
> ...


And the plot thickens as the pot is stirred.

Hard to beleive Rocna ans hard to beleive Manson. Those who are so sure they are right about who is the original should take notice. They both appear to be copy cats.

The bottom line here is to get the Benjamins out of our pockets. Thats what has to be remembered. so fall in love with none of them lest you will be bound to be disappointed by their character and their lying abilities.


----------



## congo (Mar 2, 2012)

Hi Minnewaska Just thought I would back up my claims with the original trip slot, this is an abstract from the original patent, I designed and patented this method in the mid-nineties, at the time of patent there was nothing in the search similar world wide .

Our two opposition companies HECKLE AND JECKLE were fascinated by the acceptance of the Sarca when we launched it in N.Z. we literally paved a way for the acceptance of hoop style anchors, our trip release was bagged by the anchor smith as you all know, he also bagged Manson when they used our concept, and as you know the anchor smith eventually adopted it to his design.

It has been argued many times that trip release designs with a sliding shackle has been around for donkeys, this is true but never in fulcrum concept like the Sarca, they all pulled from a position well past at a point mostly rear of the shank, so yes the opposition certainly copied it, a big claim, well I have got a patent to prove it.

You know the silly part about all of this is the opposition companies have copied the trip of Sarca without understanding how it actually works, the Sarca trip-is nowhere near as effective on a concave design; it was designed and developed to work efficiently in unison with convex design such as Sarca.

I know a lot of you hate the trip shank for a number of reasons, but it is on the wrong shape that is was designed for and then modified to try to make it work, Rocna's first RRR was a disaster so they simply adapted the Manson design. if anyone would like more answers to this just send me an email.

There has been a lot of talk over bending Shanks, if the anchor is designed correct ally, proof tested to assure its design is strong enough, then a bent shank would be very seldom providing it is deployed for the right size boat, if a shank is bent simply replace the anchor, that's what we would do.

If you are interested on how an anchor designs should be tested I think you will find our test procedure very interesting, this procedure will give you a lot of the answers you are looking for as in how side pull is determined and how anchor shanks strength is determined. Anchor Right Australia click on blog, if someone is smart enough you can down load it for all to see.

Regards.
Rex.
CEO of Anchor Right Australia.
Sorry fellers for some reason the patent copy didn't paste, I will try again later, if some one wants to send mae an email I will attach.


----------



## marinextreme (Jan 15, 2009)

smackdaddy said:


> This one has a nice roll bar...


Not to mention a very high tip weight


----------



## congo (Mar 2, 2012)

Hi all,

Must clarify My boss-wife has informed me Rocna appearance was more like2003 and the Manson release was 2005, regardless the Rocna was before the Supreme by along shot, I have tried attaching the first and origional trip release draft from our patent, hope it works out.

Regards Rex.

CEO of Anchor Right Australia


----------



## congo (Mar 2, 2012)

This was the origional trip release that Rocna found was unsuccessfull so they simply adapted the trip shank that you have a photo of earlier in this thread, as we were at the pointy end of a lot of the abuse from the anchor smith Iam delighted to give you this info. ( sorry about the image but the kids have scribbled on it) but it is authentic.

He was quoted many times in saying the trip release was dangerous ,weakend the shank? He adapted it, he also belted spade and said the removable shank was not something he would ever entertain, Rocna stowable? Steel quality used in Sarca and Manson inferior to Rocna? 

The one major point both of the oposition companies failed to see was how our trip release was designed for convex, convex has a rib highest point running down the center of the fluke allowing it to readily slide rearward from direct verticle pressure, concave have the outer sides of the fluke curved up and will grab rather than slide.

If somone wants to put the two trip release design of Rocna together you will see the what I mean about the Manson shank design. better still put them all together.

Regards.
Rex.
CEO of Anchor Right Australia.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

This keeps getting better and better. You have a different seat with which to view this controversey than the rest of us.

If Congo is legit (no reason to beleive he isnt) he seems to have answers to many of the questions and statements that the "arm chair quaterbacks" have been making for a few years in posts.

Obviously no love lost with the self proclaimed "anchorsmith".

Congo please stay engaged and answering the potential questions others on this site may pose as their have been many posts and statements over this over the years.

Would you consider ROCNA and knockoff of your anchor?
Would you consider Manson a knockoff of your anchor?
Do all companies have patents to their asnchors?
Is the steel quality of the current ROCNA inferior? is making it in China inferior?
Is your anchor still successful in Australian/ New Zealand or have the other two swallowed it up?

More to come from others and myself?

Dave


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Whatever your take on the whole sorry Rocna saga, the slot in the Rocna Fisherman is a complete furphy. They only make it in 9 and 13lb sizes and specifically say it is not intended for use other than as a short term anchor for fishermen. 

To repeatedly use that point to slag Rocna is nothing short of total bovine excrement.


----------



## congo (Mar 2, 2012)

Hi che2 sail, I am going to comment on tdw response first as I think it is more important.

The Rocna RRR a copy of our patent and so is the other N.Z. concave, the attached that supplied on the rrr had a statement, two small anchors only, well I would check that with the current supply, you might find they are available in 22kg as well. 
This I think is the crux of all this bitterness, where does the truth start and the lies end, my beef is not with the Rocna anchor I couldn’t care a less, it is basically with the anchor Smiths and if more lies are being told then if I can help to put it right then so be it.

I also believe no one should ever forget their marketing tactics, internet and away we go, 24 seven behind a key board why you should buy our anchor, and much of this was done through such forums, Bag every manufacturer that proposed a threat, S/h/h/Power certification, (lied,) slotted shanks weak and dangerous, ( lied, now adapted) poor quality steels used in all brands he bagged, lied, in his only, removable shanks dangerous wouldn’t go there, lied, Rocna stowable, West marine’s anchor test (We Won) actually took copy wright material from west marine and altered the test chart.

I dont know if many of you have seen the video by P Smith –(sarca tested) judged by many forums as being fraudulent, compare that video with ours and you may find the truth, Super Sarca to the test.

I think there are many out there that purchased a Rocna anchor that continue having trouble coming to terms with being screwed, and not just that, they put their family’s lives on the line trusting in this wonder anchor, when the anchor Smiths finally were exposed and bit the dust I think the misfortunate purchasers of the Rocna were rejoicing, then CMP threw the anchor Smiths a life line by keeping them on, this I believe is a bitter pill for some to swallow, so no I don’t see this ending for many years and so it should be, it just may prevent another would be internet schemer promoting an anchor that isn’t. 

Yes that is a mouth full as I am sure you will test me, difference being Anchor Right has a 16 year history behind it. 

I also think these forums helped them enormously to scatter their B---S---but can also take pride in giving the unfortunate that were conned a voice, a very effective one at that.
Regards.
Rex.
CEO of Anchor Right Auastralia.


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

> I think there are many out there that purchased a Rocna anchor that continue having trouble coming to terms with being screwed, and not just that, they put their family's lives on the line trusting in this wonder anchor, when the anchor Smiths finally were exposed and bit the dust I think the misfortunate purchasers of the Rocna were rejoicing, then CMP threw the anchor Smiths a life line by keeping them on, this I believe is a bitter pill for some to swallow, so no I don't see this ending for many years and so it should be, it just may prevent another would be internet schemer promoting an anchor that isn't.


Did you ever come forward like this on sailing forums publicly before Rocna bit the dust (so to speak)?


----------



## congo (Mar 2, 2012)

Hi Chef2sail 

You Wrote; Obviously no love lost with the self-proclaimed "anchor smith".

Not wrong there, sometime before the Rocna was released I received an email from a guy in N.Z. he was ranting and raving like I had never seen before, absolutely abusive and threatening, I was, I must admit stunned by this performance,(surely someone is playing a sick joke) No he claimed he had purchased an anchor from a dealer in N.Z. used it once and had bent the shank and hoop.

After a few more emails this guy was not going to be satisfied with a replacement anchor, didn’t want his money back, get this, he wanted me to take the anchor of the market as it was dangerous, he continued on to say he had engineers over there that could solve the problem, I won’t go into all conversation but you should have the picture by now.

Being the type of person I am, I eventually told him to jam the bent anchor where it best fitted, he then returned email stating that he would go to every dealer and have our product discredited, can you believe this, then went on to state I haven’t heard the end of him by a long shot.

I simply pushed this confrontation over my shoulder and got on with life, just after the Rocna was released I happened to pick up some of their marketing material, to be honest I needed to sit down, on the bottom of the flyers contact was the same guy that I had the confrontation with no other than yours truly the anchor Smith.

Now if the anchor smith is roaming please challenge me over this as I still have your emails, why am I telling you this? Well if there is anybody out there feeling sorry for this cast of caricature’s don’t, they were rotten from the get go, I was a victim along with all who were tucked, biggest victims were my five kids reading the dribble putting down our concept, they had absolutely no scruples what so ever, no I had certainly not heard the last of your truly.

Sorry but it feels good to spew it. 

Chef2sail Wrote;
Would you consider ROCNA and knockoff of your anchor? 
would you consider Manson a knockoff of your anchor?
You can be the judge of that.

Do all companies have patents to their anchors?
I don’t see where it is anybody’s business, not relevant. 

Is the steel quality of the current ROCNA inferior?

That’s not for me to say, but what I will say is this, the Rocna design as stated by P smith would only ever be strong enough if manufactured from high strength steels with the properties of bissaloy

Is making it in China inferior?

Nothing wrong with china manufacturing, it’s the bunch presenting a price to be made to. 

Is your anchor still successful in Australian/ New Zealand or have the other two swallowed it up?Obviously no love lost with the self proclaimed "anchorsmith".

No we were never swallowed up, but I was sent a text just before the launch of Rocna in Australia, Rexy were coming to get you, Australia and N.Z. had already experienced the holding power of the Sarca and what was being offered was more of the same.

How they did so well in other parts of the world were for the same reasons as Anchor Right did in N.Z. and Australia, new found performance that no one had experienced before in anchor technology.
Combine that with 24 seven behind the key board infiltrating every forum on the map, I must admit they did extremely well.

Regards.
Rex.

CEO of Anchor Right Australia.


----------



## congo (Mar 2, 2012)

If the moderators don’t want me to continue then by all means let me know and I will disappear, there are a lot of victims in the woodwork that copped a bashing for many years, forums, many, aloud the anchor Smith to have full rain most of the time, this is a bit belated but may answer some questions fore few and then maybe they won’t feel so bad they were trustful. 

Chrisncate Wrote; Did you ever come forward like this on sailing forums publicly before Rocna bit the dust (so to speak)? 

When all of this started my skills on a computer were extremely limited and coming from a family of thirteen, then leaving school at thirteen to support the family, I felt I simply could not get into toing and throwing with the anchor Smith, so I chose to just let him ramble, he attracted so many opposition companies that the bloodletting was full on and did not need me to add to the fray, any way back in those day’s I would t have not been up to his skills.

As time passed I had a couple of competitors contacted me asking for support to bring this tyrant to justice, a video had just been released by P anchor Smith (Sarca Tested) it was emailed to me and that was when I got involved, probably now 12 months ago, it was clear he was coxing in the Rocna in soft mud, easily seen, just view his boot marks he leaves behind when trying to remove the Rocna, when it was time to pull the Sarca even though he had only moved a couple of feet it was clearly dryer with a mixture of rubble and mud, plus I think speed wise he must have he had entered the Grand pre.

My interpretation bought a bout a domino effect as many could clearly see my point, questions were being asked and at the same time the Rocna camp was falling apart and tell all became the theme, it is now as you know it. 

We Have a DVD on our web site SARCA TO THE TEST, and then watch his video it’s on utube somewhere (Sarca tested) then watch ours, you are the judge. 

Regards .
Rex.
CEO of Anchor Right Australia.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Congo,

While you have shown great negativeity about ROCNA and Smith, noticably absent are many comments about the Manson gang. Any special reason for that? They both " copied " you.

I know of the reprehensible arrogance and campaing of anchor smith, but both surely took your business.

I have one of the original ROCNA from NZ shipped from there and have been very happy with it and in fact sleep very comfortably at night when using it. I probably wouldnt buy one now considering the quality issues.

Dave


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

chrisncate said:


> Did you ever come forward like this on sailing forums publicly before Rocna bit the dust (so to speak)?


Rex has been on other forums just not here... I WISH his anchors were available here....

And my apologies to Rex for omitting the Sarca from my recalled history. I went straight from Wasi to Rocna/Manson but the Sarca also had this design WELL before Rocna and Manson and the rock slot was NOT an original Manson idea.......

That said, Rex how do I get a Sarca in the USA? I would retire my Rocna......

Disclaimer: My Rocna and Manson Supreme anchors are still the best performing products I've used, even edging out my steel and aluminum Spade by a decent margin. This performance opinion will not change until I find a better performing anchor.

I however no longer support anything to do with Rocna and am in the search for a new anchor, that must perform equally or better. This is in order to remove the Rocna PERMANENTLY from my bow.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Maine Sail said:


> Rex has been on other forums just not here... I WISH his anchors were available here....
> 
> And my apologies to Rex for omitting the Sarca from my recalled history. I went straight from Wasi to Rocna/Manson but the Sarca also had this design WELL before Rocna and Manson.....


Can you please go back and edit that? Heh-heh.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

smackdaddy said:


> Can you please go back and edit that? Heh-heh.


Done...


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Can you please go back and edit that? Heh-heh.


_Still_ smarting over me outing your notable silence (then shaming you into a half assed defense) of S/N over on S/A huh?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Maine Sail said:


> Done...


Nice. You gotta love this place.


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

CnC, not really the thread nor sub-forum for that. Can you at least keep the unrelated snark to Off-Topic? Some of us are actually liking this thread for the info that's coming up. I know I don't want to see it devolve so soon like the other anchor threads.


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

BentSailor said:


> CnC, not really the thread nor sub-forum for that. Can you at least keep the unrelated snark to Off-Topic? Some of us are actually liking this thread for the info that's coming up. I know I don't want to see it devolve so soon like the other anchor threads.


You need to go ahead and direct that at the poster going off topic at me first, thanks.

And no worries, I won't be responding to the thread (or ruining it for you).


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

Thanks CnC.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

I'm pretty sure nobody is interested in my opinions on this, but...
The biggest problem in trying to choose an anchor for ones boat is the dearth of factual information about wind loads on boats, working strengths of rode components, tensile strength of anchors and holding power or load capability of different anchors in various media. 
How much pull can an xyz boat exert in a ## knot wind?
How much does wave action amplify that pull?
I have read anchor test reports in magazines, watched Maine Sail's videos, and looked at manufacturer's information and none of that leads me to a conclusion of which anchor design, what size anchor, how much and what size chain, how much and what size rope, what size anchor cleat...etc. After watching Main Sails' videos I was all hot for a Rocna, but then all this crap came out so started looking at Manson Supremes and Fortresses. 
For my 28 foot 7850 pound sailboat it would appear that anything from a 12 to a 45 pound anchor with somewhere between 10 and 300 feet of 1/4 (BBB or hi test?) chain and/or 250 feet of 1/2 inch nylon rope. That translates in a price range or a couple of hundred dollars to more than a thousand bucks. It seems to me someone like Practical Sailor or CCA or the EU Standards association could put together a Sleep Well at Night (SWAN) computation that lets one enter knowable data elements and voila here's the configration for your requirements.

Another thing, who cares who stole what from whom. If you can submit a design and get a patten, then there are sufficient differences in the products to make who came first irrelevant. All anchors evolved from a rock, live with it and celebrate the proximate changes. 

What I do care about are liars and there appear to be some in the anchor business. 

Someone pointed out that you can't anchor a boat on a warranty. So the best thing you can rely on is factual honest information from the engineering department. Think about an anchor warranty. Say you are going to sell 10,000 anchors this year, that represents at most 3,650,000 anchoring events. In acutality there will probably only be 7,300 anchoring events and only 1,825 will be in gale conditions and maybe, maybe a dozen in storm conditionsand one of those is going to break. For sure we are going to read about that one here on SN. So marketing says sure, if you bought the right size and it breaks, we will replace it. But in the really small fine print liability is limited to anchor replacement only. And of course there is no warranty on the shackle, chain, rope, chaffing gear or deck cleat. Anchor warranties don't mean anything.

Maybe we can commission Maine Sail to develope the SWAN computation and make a sticky out of it. I'll be happy to go help him with the testing (on his boat, in Maine, in the summer, eating lobsters and drinking beer and...).

Gah!
John


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

Actually, getting a patent simply means that the examiner did not find the previous patents or he/she didn't notice the similarities. There are a number of stupid patents that make it through the checking process that prove the contention getting a patent means the invention is unique. People have patented the wheel & peanut butter & jelly sandwiches for crying out loud!

This does goes for all anchors mind you, not just Rocna. Not trying to defend any side here, just pointing out that getting a patent is not necessarily the indicator of a unique or substantially different invention.


----------



## congo (Mar 2, 2012)

Hi chef2sail.

You wrote;


> while you have shown great negativity about ROCNA and Smith. Problem being I have been answering questions and from my side there is simply nothing nice to say about the Anchor Smiths.


You wrote;


> noticeably absent are many comments about the Manson gang.


Manson and Anchor Right have had our issues but we haven't hung out our dirty laundry on the forums.

You wrote;


> I have one of the original ROCNA from NZ shipped from there and have been very happy with it and in fact sleep very comfortably at night when using it.


If you are happy with what you are deploying then I have no comment.

Hi Maine Sail thanks for your kind words.

You wrote;


> that said, Rex how do I get a Sarca in the USA? I would retire my Rocna


Joe at Seacor in Seattle has just imported some large Sarca's, I would imagine he will be organizing another order soon; you can pm me if you want more details.

Hi ccriders.

You wrote;


> I'm pretty sure nobody is interested in my opinions on this, but...
> The biggest problem in trying to choose an anchor for ones boat is the dearth of factual information about wind loads on boats, working strengths of rode components, tensile strength of anchors and holding power or load capability of different anchors in various media.


Well I am interested, If you want solid information the best place to get this information is from any marine survey officer, it will cost, but he will simply spec your boat as to weight wind age draft and so on, you tell him where you expect to travel, open anchorages, open waters subject to strong wind excetera and he will get you as close as to the correct ground tackle, weight, size, even your chain size, but no make no mistake he would recommend tested chain and guide you in the wright direction.

These guys are qualified to do this; their information comes from the most proven oldest hand book information available, the USL CODE, Lloyds, DNV, and N.M.S.C. in Australia and many more still rely on this information when specking the ground tackle for boats.

Yes do not believe what you read re holding power figures from unqualified media, get this information from an authority that has done the testing, such as Lloyd's DNV, N.M.S.C. and so on, otherwise you will continue getting conflicting results from one anchor test to another. Unfortunately you have be wary of liars that say they have certified S/H/H/Power anchors when in fact they don't, you have seen the results, shanks bending like pretzels, lucky no one came to grief because of them, if they had come to grief, most definitely the Mary men would have had a law suit against them.

You Wrote;


> Another thing, who cares who stole what from whom. If you can submit a design and get a patent, then there are sufficient differences in the products to make who came first irrelevant. All anchors evolved from a rock, live with it and celebrate the proximate changes.


Possibly no one cares except the inventor.

You wrote;


> someone pointed out that you can't anchor a boat on a warranty. So the best thing
> You can rely on is factual honest information from the engineering department. Think about an anchor warranty. Say you are going to sell 10,000 anchors this year that represents at most 3,650,000 anchoring events. In actuality there will probably only be 7,300 anchoring events and only 1,825 will be in gale conditions and maybe, maybe a dozen in storm conditions and one of those is going to break. For sure we are going to read about that one here on SN. So marketing says sure, if you bought the right size and it breaks, we will replace it. But in the really small fine print liability is limited to anchor replacement only. And of course there is no warranty on the shackle, chain, rope, chaffing gear or deck cleat. Anchor warranties don't mean anything.


You know we do have standards, you would not fly in a plane if it wasn't built to standards, but if so, there is still no guarantee you will land safely, you would not buy a car that is not made to standards, even if it is, and fitted with four airbags you still may easily be killed, so basically all we have is standards to regulate safety as best we can, So why would anyone buy an anchor not made to standards, well made anchors too, have indeed saved lives, there is no perfect anchor and I don't believe their ever will be, but if you have liars cheats out there as we have seen then you just may end up with a dud.

So ask the questions, is this anchor tested certified, by who, if it sounds dodgy check out who tested the anchor, show me the test cert. show me how much holding power per kilo of this design, quality steels then show me the proof test results, if they cannot supply this information don't buy the anchor.

We have just supplied a 105 k.G. for a Sun Seeker, the owner had a survey officer spec the anchor size, we had to supply all of the information that I have just taken you through, so now because of the thouroughness of researching and then us supplying, if something should happen simply because we lied, are we liable, you bet we are.

I am going to attach some good information and I would encourage you to read it, it may reassure you that some anchor manufactures are not just there to make a quick buck, but more importantly will answer many questions about shank strengths and sideways pull.

Regards.

Rex.

CEO of Anchor Right Australia.

Sorry fellars once again I cannot up load this file,must be to big.


----------



## congo (Mar 2, 2012)

BentSailor 
Senior Member

Hi Bent sailor.

Patents unless you have been involved with patents, deigns and the like it is a minefield, unfortunately without them who would want to be enthusiastic about inventing or developing anything.

Certainly not worth going into on a forum, we now need to move on from the past what was is and it can't be changed, you have all allowed me to set some records straight whether you believe me or not that’s up to you, but it felt great to have my say.

My last post was an effort, but if you guys generally would like information as to what many of you are seeking then please have a look at the proof test procedure, click on blog right hand top of page, if someone can upload it, I know I can’t, I would be more than happy to answer any questions, to date I have mentioned our web site several times simply to give you some answers but have not seen anybody respond, I would have thought seeing you are looking for information you guys would have been all over it. 

Regards
Rex.
CEO Of Anchor right Australia.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Rex,

Good points were made about the financial decision of providing a warranty. To make the point further, when that infrequent event does occur, only a fraction of them will even pursue the warranty. They may not be original owners or so much time has passed, they forget there is one.

To turn the logic, it begs the question why all anchor companies don't provide a bending warranty? Does Sarca? Unless changed recently, Manson does not.


----------



## congo (Mar 2, 2012)

Minnewaska 

Good question,if someone would like to take up my suggestion and try to down load the blog, super high holding power test procedure, many of your questions will be answerd,if you bend the shank on one of our anchors you take it back to the dealer and have it replaced (no charge) condittions,if it is the wrong size anchor for the boat then why should we. Simple conditions, now if it is a stainless steel anchor,(no waranty) reasons being, stainless steel has very poor flexing properties and will yield on impact,further,once bent you cannot straighten it as it will work harden, from my point of view very expensive,no warranty.

Now if we can offer to replace a bent anchor we must be confident the product will hold up,again check our proof testing for your answer.

Make no mistake the down side with stainless is made clear to the purchaser before taking delivery of the anchor, if they still want it then we supply it, the point I was makinfg in an earlier thread was this, there are many cheap anchors on the market that will infact break, cheap cast is a good example, if it is a proven tested design the chance of breaking, well I have never heard of one as they are all designed to yield bend, not break.

Look I don't think there is much more I can help you with but if there is email or pm me to let me know.

Thanks guys, over and out.

Regards.

Rex.

CEO of Anchor Right Auastralia. l


----------



## flyingwelshman (Aug 5, 2007)

Proof & Field Testing of SARCA Anchors (from Anchor Right site)


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> To turn the logic, it begs the question why all anchor companies don't provide a bending warranty?


Our Lifetime Parts Replacement Warranty covers any type of damage to the anchor. Parts are replaced for free, customer only pays shipping & handling, which is nominal since the parts are relatively light and we ship them via the US Postal Service.

Damaged parts do not have to be returned, and it does not matter if the customer is the original owner, or if he has a sales receipt, or if he sent in a warranty registration card.

Safe anchoring,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors

P.s. Good to see Rex aboard on this forum. A real gentleman and an innovative, highly-skilled anchor designer / manufacturer.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

congo said:


> .....Look I don't think there is much more I can help you with but if there is email or pm me to let me know.
> 
> Thanks guys, over and out.


Many thanks for all the input, it was very helpful.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

BrianFortress said:


> Our Lifetime Parts Replacement Warranty covers any type of damage to the anchor. Parts are replaced for free, customer only pays shipping & handling, which is nominal since the parts are relatively light and we ship them via the US Postal Service.
> 
> Damaged parts do not have to be returned, and it does not matter if the customer is the original owner, or if he has a sales receipt, or if he sent in a warranty registration card.
> 
> ...


Thank you, Brian. I do have one of your anchors. Good to know.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

I think I have exhausted the Anchor Right website and I have to say it is impressive, but not in slick sort of way. Their test rig appears to be a very legitimate set up to compare anchors side by side. Seeing their anchor hold when others drag is pretty eye opening. Lets hope as (if?) they expand to the US market they avoid the pitfalls that snagged Rocna. I don't think I could purchase an anchor manufactured in China at this time. Surely they are capable of some pretty sophisticated manufacturing, but I think the specification writer and the QC people have to be very smart (which maybe Rocna was not?). 
If anyone figures out how to get their hands on one, let us know.
John


----------



## GaryHLucas (Mar 24, 2008)

I really have to ask. Why WOULDN"T you offer a guarantee that your anchor won't bend in use? I used to sell a mechanical product that sold for $3,000 to $6,000, and I offered a 100% money back guarantee, with no time limit. A potential customer would approach me at a trade show and say they were considering my product and a competitors. I'd flip over the brochure and show them our guarantee in plain English on the back. Then I'd say "buy one of ours, buy one of theirs, send back the one you don't like! Or try mine first, and return it if you don't like it." My competitor had to go for it, or look unsure of his product. Mostly he went ballistic and scared off the customer completely! People would ask how I could make such an offer. It was easy, my worse downside was that I'd have to take one back, refurbish it and offer it at a substantial discount to one of customers that already had a number of them. So how much do you have to add to the cost of an anchor to cover the cost of an occasional bent one?

Gary H. Lucas


----------



## congo (Mar 2, 2012)

Ccrider

I feel a bit embarrassed, someone has tidied a couple of my posts, whoever is responsible don’t try to educate me, not that I don’t appreciate but I am having enough trouble as it is just getting my words out, one key at a time, and thank god for word and spell check. 
I really appreciate your comments, and no the shadows are getting far too long for me to worry about manufacturing in China.

GaryHlucas.

Hi Gary, fully understand where you are coming from but it’s not quite that simple, depending on the type of product you are selling you may well be able to make solid guarantees, when it comes to anchors and I can only comment on our design, two things, there is no way I would ever guarantee you won’t bend our anchor, further, I will not guarantee you will not drag our anchor, now there’s a mouth full for you.

Let me explain, we supply trawlers weighing up to 180 ton for example verses a150 k.G. anchor, our proof testing to the specs of the Marine authorities tells us the anchor is fairly bullet proof for straight line loads and most probably will handle the bulk of sideways thrust if the Authorities have got it right.

What this testing doesn’t tell us is how much load- force applied to the anchor if it is wedged in rocks with the forward thrust of a vessel weighing 180 ton when retrieving, you can apply this set of circumstances to every size boat anchor design, so if someone guarantees you, this anchor won’t bend? Keep looking for a more realistic company.

Same with your anchor dragging, there are so many factors that can and will cause anchors to drag other than design, making guarantees to the above is not only ridiculas but dangerous, regardless of where you anchor, what type of anchor, you should always stay alert for the obvious. 

The assurance we give our customers is pure and simple.

First Our anchors are tested and certified,this the most important factor when purchasing an anchor. 

Second we will give you three months to trial our anchor or a season of boating, if it doesn’t stand up to what we say, or you are simply not happy with its performance, you will get a full refund. 

Three, if you bend our anchors shank then again take it back to the dealer and receive a free replacement, providing it's the right size anchor for the boat.

That’s the best I can do, I am not interested in second or third owners it all becomes too complicated, (reasons below explained)

By the way Brian from Fortress thanks for your kind words, Fortress anchors are a different design, breed and lend themselves to easily being identified, their componentry is complicated and good tooling is needed to copy, Fortress steel types are light and of high quality, finally you would only be replacing a part, not the whole anchor, what all of this means is Fortress are able to offer a unique service as you can be assured it is a genuine Fortress. First, second, third owner, it’s still a fortress.

When it comes to one piece anchors the whole ball game changes, false claims can easily be made on a cheap copy, some of these copies are so good you would not know the difference unless it is sent back to the manufacturer, all too complicated, so warranty to first owner only. 

Regards.

Rex.

CEO of Anchor Right Australia


----------



## pft44 (Feb 22, 2012)

What is so difficult about reading the online reviews of customers at the West Marine site? Yes, there are experiences of bent rocna's there, and yes WM apologized for the inferior metal on the WM review site. A photo of such an anchor was included there. Yes there are changes in the metal compositions of these anchors from what was promoted. Please read those reviews for yourself.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> I don't think I could purchase an anchor manufactured in China at this time. Surely they are capable of some pretty sophisticated manufacturing, but I think the specification writer and the QC people have to be very smart (which maybe Rocna was not?).
> If anyone figures out how to get their hands on one, let us know.-ccriders


Ah come on...if the Chinese can send spacecraft up in orbit, and if the can build nuclear reactors dont you think if they wanted to they could build a good anchor of quality if they wanted to.

If the designer doesnt design it to quality specs, and if they do they dont exercise quality control to the high standards during production then the anchor is crap....no matter where it is made. Just because it is Chinese produced doesnt mean it is inherently inferior.

Dave


----------



## LinekinBayCD (Oct 19, 2009)

pft44 said:


> What is so difficult about reading the online reviews of customers at the West Marine site? Yes, there are experiences of bent rocna's there, and yes WM apologized for the inferior metal on the WM review site. A photo of such an anchor was included there. Yes there are changes in the metal compositions of these anchors from what was promoted. Please read those reviews for yourself.


Here is link to the Rocna reviews on the West Marine website.

ROCNA ANCHORS Fixed-Shank Scoop Anchors at West Marine

Neither of the two pictures of bent shanks are first hand posts. Just the same couple of pictures that have been repeated on many boating sites. As I am an owner of a 33lb China made Rocna purchased from West Marine I contacted WM late last year regarding the type of returns they had with the Rocnas. As of that point in time, probably late November, they did not have any Rocna's returned because of any type of damage or bending to either the shank or fluke.

Right now I'm keeping the Rocna. In part because of the info from WM and in part because there is some info indicating that the sub spec (pun intended) steel was not an issue with the 33 lb models. If and when the new manufacturer of Rocna's stock make their way to WM's shelves with the original speced steel I may exchange it.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

chef2sail said:


> Ah come on...if the Chinese can send spacecraft up in orbit, and if the can build nuclear reactors dont you think if they wanted to they could build a good anchor of quality if they wanted to.
> 
> If the designer doesnt design it to quality specs, and if they do they dont exercise quality control to the high standards during production then the anchor is crap....no matter where it is made. Just because it is Chinese produced doesnt mean it is inherently inferior.
> 
> Dave


I think that is just what I said.
John


----------



## tomperanteau (Jun 4, 2009)

chef2sail said:


> If the designer doesnt design it to quality specs, and if they do they dont exercise quality control to the high standards during production then the anchor is crap....no matter where it is made. Just because it is Chinese produced doesnt mean it is inherently inferior.
> 
> Dave


I agree. Case in point: the iPhone. Apple has stringent quality requirements, and their factory in China knows this. Their product reflects this.

The Chinese can manufacture anything we can, and do it more cheaply, but if you give them shoddy engineering to work with, or you don't exercise quality control, you get what you pay for.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

tomperanteau said:


> I agree. Case in point: the iPhone. Apple has stringent quality requirements, and their factory in China knows this. Their product reflects this.
> 
> The Chinese can manufacture anything we can, and do it more cheaply, but if you give them shoddy engineering to work with, or you don't exercise quality control, you get what you pay for.


Then can, but let's be sure we understand why it can be cheaper. Their labor is severely taken advantage of, just like ours was during the industrial revolution. Their day will come.

Secondly, the manufacturing culture there has ZERO patent infringement hesitation. Those that I know personally that have their products manufacturered in China know this and know there is nothing they can do about it. In the end, the cost is so low, it is still worth having some quantity of counterfeit product out there. The Chinese also realize just how much they can steal, with your knowledge, before you move out.

This system will crumble eventually. Corruption always does. As soon as there aren't enough chairs for everyone when the music stops, the guy left out will turn.


----------



## LinekinBayCD (Oct 19, 2009)

BrianFortress said:


> Our Lifetime Parts Replacement Warranty covers any type of damage to the anchor. Parts are replaced for free, customer only pays shipping & handling, which is nominal since the parts are relatively light and we ship them via the US Postal Service.
> 
> Damaged parts do not have to be returned, and it does not matter if the customer is the original owner, or if he has a sales receipt, or if he sent in a warranty registration card.
> 
> ...


Brian

A few posts back I relay what I was told by West Marine about returns of damaged Rocnas being returned to them which was zero. Do you know how many if any Fortress anchors have been returned to WM. I guess I could ask WM but since you are here thought I'd ask. Do you think WM sells more Rocnas or Fortress anchors?

I believe WM based on my past experiences with thieir customer support and return policy. Do you think there is any reason to doubt what they said?


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

LinekinBayCD said:


> Brian
> 
> A few posts back I relay what I was told by West Marine about returns of damaged Rocnas being returned to them which was zero. Do you know how many if any Fortress anchors have been returned to WM. I guess I could ask WM but since you are here thought I'd ask. Do you think WM sells more Rocnas or Fortress anchors?
> 
> I believe WM based on my past experiences with thieir customer support and return policy. Do you think there is any reason to doubt what they said?


We know exactly how many Fortress anchors are returned to West Marine, as they furnish us with very detailed weekly performance reports. Not all anchors are returned because of damage, sometimes the customer bought the wrong size, or it won't fit into their anchor locker, or they found a better deal somewhere else (i.e. used model on Craigslist), etc.

Obviously, we know how many anchors they send directly back to us for credit. Some are, in fact, damaged while others are simply scratched up and can't be sold as new.

As you would expect, West Marine closely guards information regarding competitive product lines, but we have been told that Fortress is the best-selling "premium" anchor that they carry.

I suspect that Rocna is neck and neck with Manson for sales at West Marine, as they obviously have similar rollbar designs, although I would expect Manson sales to be stronger in the future given the points brought out in this thread, i.e. higher grade steel, Lloyd's certified, comparable performance.

I don't have any reason to doubt what West Marine has said about the number of damaged Rocna anchors that have been returned, as I think from top to bottom they are very honest and straightforward people. Also, they are certainly not going to risk their stellar reputation or subject themselves to unnecessary risks by not being honest to the boating public about a safety equipment product.

That said, I don't know if the West Marine person who told you that returns were zero was referring to the returns at a single store or the returns for their entire 300+ store chain, or if he had the latest information, etc.


----------



## LinekinBayCD (Oct 19, 2009)

BrianFortress said:


> We know exactly how many Fortress anchors are returned to West Marine, as they furnish us with very detailed weekly performance reports. Not all anchors are returned because of damage, sometimes the customer bought the wrong size, or it won't fit into their anchor locker, or they found a better deal somewhere else, etc.
> 
> Obviously, we know how many anchors they send directly back to us for credit. Some are, in fact, damaged while others are simply scratched up and can't be sold as new.
> 
> ...


It was a corporate customer service rep in an email response to me in connection with my inquirey on a China manufactured Rocna I had purchased from West Marine. Let me clarify on the returns. They had Rocna returns for, wrong size, galvinizing materal wearing at the tip, some for no reason, some for just not fitting in the bow roller and some because of the WM statement relating to the use of steel less than what was specifieded but none for bent or damaged shanks or flukes.

Thanks Brian for the answer.


----------

