Was just wondering if any of the sponsors at left have adopted using the new cork grading scale.

These things take time, although I can't think of a good reason that they should. But, consider that the CCS has been out for a couple years now and only 3 of the sponsors bother to test and post blank data (Lamar, Rocky Mountain, and Dan Craft; apologies if I left anyone off that list). What's up with that? Doesn't make sense to me but that's the way it is.

Let me just add something. I'm baffled by the lack of CCS participation by the sponsors because every one of them I've dealt with - and that's over 15 probably - are super helpful and friendly people who will talk, advise, and answer questions all day long if they think they can help you. So, it just seems crazy that they wouldn't take a couple hours to test a bunch of fly blanks and post the data. Clearly, their customers love having this information to help them choose the right blank for their project.

With regard to the cork grading scale, it is similar to the CCS in that it is a vast improvement over the non-standardized and confusing system we had prior to its introduction. And, I hope I'm wrong, but I'm guessing there will be the same unknown force acting to keep it from being adopted. What is the force? Somebody tell me why better systems aren't automatically adopted ASAP by the entire rodbuilding community. Do people still use outhouses instead of indoor plumbing? West Virginians need not respond, LOL.

They don't have to adopt it (the cork grade scale) in order for you to use it. Most of them have a copy of the scale and all you would need to do is just call and ask how their cork matches the various grades in the scale. If they can't or won't tell you, then that alone should tell you something about the cork in question. Regardless of what terms they may use for their cork, flor, super, AAA or whatever, by looking at a few rings and then consulting the scale, they can easily tell you which grade their cork matches.

....................

Tom, the 3 pictures representing the cork grades would be a great picture to post on the photo page. That way, any vendor who does not have a copy of the magazine can be directed to the photo link and respond to a potential customer's inquiry. If they don't have the magazine, I'm sure not wasting my time and money faxing any vendor a copy of the picture.

Most vendors who are serious about rod building take the magazine. Out of the 60+ sponsors to the left, I count 53 who take it by subscription.

I hope the remainder take your point seriously - you're not going to waste your time or money faxing it to them and if they expect to be able to answer customer's questions about how their cork matches up, surely they'll spend $5 to get the magazine and have the first quality photo on hand.

What would show up on the photo page at 72 dpi isn't going to be nearly as good as the 300dpi photo in the magazine. Because of the subtle nature of cork grades, I'm not sure a web photo is going to be in anyone's best interest. Plus, the scale was created and presented for the benefit of RodMaker subscribers.

.................

That makes sense. At the price of good cork, the magazine costs less then 3 cork rings.

I hadn't thought about that - you make an excellent point. If the use of the scale saves you one "surprise" on a shipment of rings that are not at all what you expect, you'd have paid for the magazine many times over.

.............

The only thing that is going to get vendors to begin doing this is if enough buyers demand it... Most will not do it simply because of one interesting article in RodMaker.

Even then- and as good as the pictures are- there is considerable "grey area." I have purchased several thousand dollars worth of "1+" cork over the last 5 years. Looking over a few 100 ring bags when I got my magazine, most were rings I would call 1's, there were a few that were obviously 2's, and lots that could have gone either way. So what should the guy have labelled his bag as, 1 or 2? He's not going to go and hand grade 50,000 rings all over again to meet the new grading scale (unless many of his customers begin to demand it).

The customer is king. The vendors will do what they have to do. As the article said, there will be some variance in rings per grade because the grading will be done by human eye and will be somewhat subjective on rings that are on the low end of one scale and the top end of another. But also as the article stated, 90% of what you buy should fall squarely within the grade it is advertised as being. That was true before the article and will be true afterwards. If you order 100 CG1 rings and 50 of them are plainly CG2, then I'd switch to a vendor that has a little better eye for grading cork rings.

................

I agree with all that you say, but I think some cork dealers actually try to throw in some lesser grade cork with their better stuff just to maximize profits. If you order 100 rings of the best and they can slip in 7 or 8 or even 10 or 12 rings that are a little below scale hoping you won't kick it all back because of 10% being off a little, then at some point they're getting the 100 ring price from you for 90 or so rings. Does it happen by accident? I like to give them the benefit of the doubt but sometimes I wonder if this isn't done on purpose.

I would hate to think that you're correct, but in some cases you may be. If I encountered that situation more than once from the same supplier, I'd probably switch.

And just as Mike mentioned, there will always be a bit of a grey area as one grade moves into the next - it wouldn't matter what scale or system you came up with - there will still be a point where one grade moves into the next and somebody, somewhere, has to decide which grade to put that ring into. But this should still amount to a very small percentage of a person's total order of rings.


..........

There's a famous Norman Rockwell SatEvePost cover, set in an old time grocery store, with the grocer pressing down on the scale and the shopper pressing up, both looking perfectly innocent. It's just human nature for the cork vendor to shade the grading up, for the seller to grade it down. Plus, as has been noted, it's all very subjective and there's that grey area at the grade boundaries.

I would second the suggestion of posting a good high quality photo of the cork rings samples in the photo section.


Two reasons:

#1 Folks could then print the pictures off (everybody has a quality printer these day) and hang them in the workshop for future reference.

#2 Folks would not have to cut the picture out of the magazine or constantly have to run find that issue to make a comparison.


Just a thought.................

Or, they could just make a really good copy of the photo in their magazine. Such a copy would be better than a photo run off the photo section.

Photos used on the internet are 72dpi jpeg files. They look great when backlit but when printed and having to rely on light hitting the page and bouncing back to your eye, they pretty much stink.

The photo in the magazine is 300dpi/175 line screen. You won't duplicate that on any web photograph.

It could be that a web photo would still be good enough, but for the time being, I'm going to limit to RodMaker subscribers - they paid for it after all.

......................



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2005 11:49AM by Tom Kirkman.

I agree with Tom that customers have the power to motivate suppliers to make the changes that we find important. For any demand for change to be taken seriously it must be applied frequently and persistently by as many people as possible. Critical mass is achieved when the seller realizes it is in his best interest to conform to the new change. Often that means he need to justify it in terms of dollars and cents. Whether it be a direct loss or gain in his cork sales or lossor gain of other business, that will be the factor that will move him to action. Good public relations is a dollar and cents factor. The first supplier who announces his eager embrace of the new cork rating system is going to reap a nice reward form many of the Phorum members. It will likely then force other suppliers to get on board or look less concerned for the customer by comparison. After a few big players make the change the others will have to follow. I would not be surprised if conversations have already taken place about this issue in the offices of the key suppliers of rod building items. I think the chances of our success in havnig this system instituted is directly proportionate to our persistence in reminding the suppiers of our desire for it. If they receive enough requests and realize it is important to us as builders they will spend the money to make the change. Any change costs money. Even if just to retrain the workers and reorganize the bins of cork. I would also add that the CC System has not been adopted by any ot the large manufacturers for the very same reaason. We have neither been persistent enough nor have we cahnged our purchasing habits in any dramatic way to have an economiocal effect on them. I would also add here that I am accepting my share of the blame for this lack of effort. I have not contributed a single CCS measurement of any of the many blanks I have in house. I have not sent any notice to Loomis or Lamiglas or St Croix asking them to please incorprate the CC System into their sales and customer education programs. Look how few have done most of the contributing to the CCS data bank. This is a great time to take ourselves to account and rise to a higher standard of participation. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and wonder why nothing gets done. It is easy to make the large companies the "bad guys" in this. But I have seen the enemy and it is us! We can do better. I know it.

John Launstein at Rocky Mountain had already told me he plans to adopt the system as soon as he receives his magazine. I strongly suspect that while he may be the first, he won't be the last. As you say, when enough ask for it and often enough, the suppliers usually respond.



..........