Pure Fishing in Alnwick cutting jobs

flyfisher222

Well-known member
Points
63
Location
Hampshire UK
Please do tell me more
My comments are based on the report referenced in post #1 plus a familiarity with the sort of stuff businesses in difficulties (eg Frazers, Debenhams, Arcadia) usually say and also my following up of Pure Fishing's background (eg Pflueger, the supposed reel manufacturer, now exists only as a marketing name).
 

liphook

Well-known member
Points
18
So really you don't know and are just spouting your opinion/bullocks? You certainly come across as a know all
 

lhomme

Well-known member
Points
63
Location
Antwerp
The last six years of my working life I spent in a large tackle shop, completing the circle where it began more than forty years ago. I worked intensively with all brands, including those in the Pure Fishing group. Apart from Shimano they were the easiest to deal with regarding customer service and sales support. Nowadays these commercial advantages do not guarantee more success, certainly not in an oversaturated marketsegment with a diminishing clientèle. I'm not surprised, but what they lose here they will make up for in other (still) growing markets. The diversity of their catalogue is their biggest asset, when a specialised brand becomes unprofitable they just throw it overboard and buy another one. I can only see one reason for them to hold on to Hardy any longer and it's not Greys, but their exclusive rights on the carbon nanotechnology. I bet they nearly went bankrupt buying that.
 

flyfisher222

Well-known member
Points
63
Location
Hampshire UK
….. Nowadays these commercial advantages do not guarantee more success, certainly not in an oversaturated marketsegment with a diminishing clientèle. I'm not surprised, but what they lose here they will make up for in other (still) growing markets. The diversity of their catalogue is their biggest asset, when a specialised brand becomes unprofitable they just throw it overboard and buy another one. I can only see one reason for them to hold on to Hardy any longer and it's not Greys, but their exclusive rights on the carbon nanotechnology. I bet they nearly went bankrupt buying that.
.....That's why 'conglomerates' exist. The parent company, 'three times removed' from Hardy/Greys/Advanced Composites, has worldwide interests in all sorts of things, of which both fishing and composite are only a small part. so if one part fails it's tough but doesn't greatly impact the whole.

As for 'nanotech' in this instance it's just that the epoxy is filled with lots of little silicon spheres. Not much different from the old Daiwa 'Whisker' rods which used little silicon whiskers. It's no big deal and anyone can do it. It's not expensive to 'acquire'. If so minded you could do it in your garden shed - I did when fixing a car plastic bumper a while ago. And it's not exclusive, Sage, Winston, and others do the same.
 
Last edited:

flyfisher222

Well-known member
Points
63
Location
Hampshire UK
As did Loomis and Loop, but no-one can claim the nanotech marketing without paying the patentholder.
"Nanotech" or nano-technology is an often misused word used for all sorts of things. The common definition is anything that has at least one dimension below 100 nanometres but that certainly isn't a 'standard'.

As for patents, using a 'filler' in a resin isn't patentable, though 'your' process to do it might be. You can do it, even using nano-size particles, with an empty jam jar and a wooden stick.

Having done that you (for example) apply it onto some carbon cloth, wrap the desired number of layers around your blank, tightly wrap a spiral of suitable thin film around it to squeeze it all together, let it set and there's your 'nanotech' rod ready for lightly sanding smooth. I've seen it done on a Sage or some other manufacturers video.

Here's a link to an example of REAL nanotec:
:http://www.onegentleman.biz/Hardware Design/Individual Atoms/arranging-atoms.jpg
 
Last edited:

lhomme

Well-known member
Points
63
Location
Antwerp
Spare me the technicalities, left those behind with the job. Thought you knew something about the tackle trade and who owns what. Come back when you know how much Hardy paid 3M for the patent.
 

streamerjunkie

Well-known member
Points
18
Location
London
Most warranties are a con .... I broke the tip of my Loomis Distance caster and it cost me £135 to have it replaced "under the warranty" ?
To be fair, you're lucky you got a spare section at all - G.Loomis in the USA is a whole different entity to Loomis in the EU (as far as I know they're under Shimano ownership). I once sent a rod off for a replacement tip section for a customer and it took 8 months for them to come back and say 'sorry we don't have the parts.'

If somebody brings us in a broken Loomis these days we have to tell them - Shimano will only replace tip sections and it's a minimum charge of £125 from them (without us charging a handling fee or anything on top). Thomas & Thomas are worse - you pay $125 handling fee for them to even look at a broken rod, then it's a $150 charge for a tip section alone. $275 for a replacement tip!

Long and short is - if you want a Loomis rod, buy it from the US and deal with them for any broken sections.
 

flyfisher222

Well-known member
Points
63
Location
Hampshire UK
Spare me the technicalities, left those behind with the job. Thought you knew something about the tackle trade and who owns what. Come back when you know how much Hardy paid 3M for the patent.
I don't need to know anything about the tackle trade. I just needed to look up who owns what and through who. You can do that for any field of business. I don't actually care, I don't give a toss what happens to Hardy or who paid so much for what. 3M is far from being the only one who supplies filled epoxy resins and Hardy don't have to pay for and own the patent, they just buy the cans of material from 3M and use it just like other businesses in all sort of trades do.
 
Last edited:

streamerjunkie

Well-known member
Points
18
Location
London
I don't need to know anything about the tackle trade. I just needed to look up who owns what and through who. You can do that for any field of business. I don't actually care, I don't givr a toss what happens to Hardy.

In your postt you askrd to tell you ore. Which I did. I don't gice a s**t what you thinki about it6.
It was actually Liphook that asked you to tell him more, but that's just me being a pedant :)
 

ed_t

Well-known member
Points
63
Spare me the technicalities, left those behind with the job. Thought you knew something about the tackle trade and who owns what. Come back when you know how much Hardy paid 3M for the patent.
He doesn't know what the daiwa tech was either, but blusters on.
 

flyfisher222

Well-known member
Points
63
Location
Hampshire UK
Gobshite is the word
You're a weird guy.

"Gobshite" "Pathetic" this sort of stuff about something that is no more important than me choosing a different fly to you. And which I checked out, which nobody else bothered to do.
And now we've got ed_t doing much the same about the utterly trivial difference (which I did point out) between the Hardy and the Daiwa. Lhomme getting in on the act too and in effect saying you have to own the Dulux patent to buy a tin of their paint from a hardware store

What an odd crew some of you are.
 
Last edited:

Mies

Well-known member
Points
48
Location
Hibernia
Long and short is - if you want a Loomis rod, buy it from the US and deal with them for any broken sections.
Funny that you should mention Loomis. A few years ago they were considered the bees knees. I rarely if ever see them mentioned these days on the forum. Possibly the replacement costs that you mention have somthing to do with it. Ditto Thomas & Thomas.
 
Top