48 replies to this topic

[AndyR]

Those of us with a passing interest in the progress of the modern Conway Stewart company will be pleased to read the new 2012 CS e-brochure that has recently been launched on the CS Marketing forum at FPN!

Having made an albeit very modest contribution to the production of 'Fountain Pens for the Millions - The History of Conway Stewart 1905 - 2005', I was keen to see how all the research that went into the writing of the book would be reflected in the history of the company as related (fairly briefly) in the new brochure. Unfortunately, despite the fact that CS themselves must have sold around 100 copies of FPFTM, it seems obvious that no-one from the company has actually bothered to look beyond the pretty pictures to read the text! The first two parts of the brochure, entitled 'The Beginning' and 'The Golden Years', purport to relate the history of the company from the early days up to the founding of the modern company in the 1990s. Unfortunately they are packed with errors, oft-repeated misconceptions and new 'facts' that have apparently been plucked from thin air, not to mention numerous schoolboy grammatical errors that are liberally interspersed throughout the the text.

I received a link to the brochure a few days ago and, given all these faults, I assumed it had been on a limited release for proofing and I kept it confidential - but no, it seems it is now apparently freely available in this original form on the link above.

Given that the most valuable asset of the company must be their rights to use the Conway Stewart name and the history that comes with it, you would think they would take a little more care to nurture it and preserve it accurately in their publicity. Unless of course they think that now they have bought the history, they are entitled to re-write it as they wish....

Surely a company with a bit of a reputation for slipshod QC and slipshod customer relations cannot afford to have slipshod publicity material as well? All very disappointing to anybody who cares about the Conway Stewart name and the true history of the company.

Andy

Edited by AndyR, 02 June 2012 - 08:39 AM.

[vintage penman]

No surprise there then........

[JonSzanto]

Does anyone have a dedicated C-S site that could host an errata/rebuttal page to point out all of these errors, or is this just so many data bits whirling in the wind?

[Hugh]

I guess the only reason to include the "history (?)" is to continue to fabricate a connection with the real CS, who ever put this together only cares about the present. I personally find the words " Second Golden Age" somewhat ambitious given track record and even more eye opening is that the repair service offered only includes pens 2005 or younger yet the "SGA" started in the 1990's.

The document in question.

I also note the only reply at present on the FPN is about lack of customer service and appeared to be not overly welcome by Mary !! I guess it's just symptomatic of the plight of CS which still seems to be able to keep going although I would think the "nest egg" from the last change of owners must be running low and current economic conditions ( somewhat adverse than we all would like ) can't be helping.


Regards
Hugh

[AndyR]

1338673250[/url]' post='15118']
Does anyone have a dedicated C-S site that could host an errata/rebuttal page to point out all of these errors, or is this just so many data bits whirling in the wind?

Rest assured CS management have been made directly aware of all the points I raised in my original post. Hopefully they will be addressed in due course.
Andy

[JonSzanto]

Rest assured CS management have been made directly aware of all the points I raised in my original post. Hopefully they will be addressed in due course.

+1

[AndyR]

Time for an update after nearly 2 months!

A link to this topic was forwarded to CS management by my good friend Steve Hull, author of FPFTM. Unsurprisingly, he too was not impressed by the fact that nobody at CS appeared to have read his book. I presume this topic has been read by at least some of the hierarchy there - and I know for a fact that Mary Burke has read it because she forwarded chunks of it to Steve, asking for clarification of the points I was making. Steve referred these to me and I e-mailed Mary directly with a response. I don't know whether she received my e-mail or not, because I was never graced with a reply. Maybe I didn't help my cause when I suggested she post her thoughts here directly and I guaranteed that anything she wrote wouldn't be deleted or edited in any way.........

Of course nothing has happened. In typical CS fashion, they haven't publicly admitted a problem or done anything about it and the brochure has not been amended. And if you don't admit the problem, it doesn't exist..... customer service problems, nib flow issues, they didn't exist either. It was all the fault of unreasonable people daring to raise these issues on FPN. I understand that it was said that the brochure was based on a history written by the former MD Glenn Jones, though there was no explanation of why this wasn't checked against more recent information in the book - and we know how convenient it is to blame former employees for such matters. Maybe the corrections will be made quietly in the 2013 brochure.

Anyone feel brave enough to raise the matter on FPN?

Andy

[Hugh]

In my case bravery isn't an issue...just access!! Little chance that Mary will post here , the FPN offers her the ultimate security in what is posted , in a free and open forum you get to take the good with the bad ( she should of course accept your offer and surprisingly this board is far tamer than the FPN , I'm sure she would be treated with respect). The three things a good business strives for are honesty, integrity and reliability....which ( if any) apply to the "new" CS ? Unfortunately at present none imo, which is a shame as it could all be "so much better" with next to no additional input. Yet another example of something that defies logic and basic business sense.

Regards
Hugh

[AndyR]

I don't think I would judge CS quite so harshly as Hugh! I think the word I would use is more 'incompetent'. I'm sure they are all honestly trying to do the best for their business but they just seem to lurch from one PR cock-up to another.

I wonder whether the reason that the issue hasn't been raised on FPN is because none of the members over there either know (or care) that the brochure history is not actually correct - or whether they have all finally been beaten into submission by the threat of deleted posts, suspensions and bans?

Andy

Edited to add

Hugh is certainly right that people are more reasonable and polite when posting here compared to FPN (and long may it remain so). It shows that treating people with strong opinions like adults rather than naughty children is definitely the way to go!

Edited by AndyR, 26 July 2012 - 06:55 AM.

[Hugh]

Hi Andy,

Maybe I'm a bit harsh !! Anyway perhaps I should ( attempt to) justify those remarks:

1. Reliability. I think we both agree QC problems lead to more out of the box problems than should occur.

2. Honesty. The whole marketing campaign is based on the CS history, since 1905 etc. , and this leads to a lot of consumers believing the "new" and "old" the one and same company. Yes, the truth is available but it's far from "up front". Still it's an easy way to gain a history and an oft used marketing ploy, not entirely dishonest but nor is it totally honest but definitely designed to deceive and the use of phrases such as "our vintage models" certainly do nothing to promote the facts.

3. Integrity. Looking at the news paper reports the current owners acquired CS through a pre-pack arrangement , one of the new owners appears to be the company accountant (for the previous owners). On the figures reported in the press, assets of 340000, debt of 540000....goes bust ...a potential return to creditiors of 63%......sold for 38000....a return at best of 7% (the 38k probably covered the administrators costs, the creditors probably got 0). The buyer gained a 340000 asset for 38000..a gain of 300000...in simple terms at point of sale....DEBT FREE. As always there are winners, those include the purchasers who made 800% on their 38k and the staff who retained their jobs and losers , exactly who was owed the half mill. isn't known but I bet they weren't very happy. While the whole process was legal the reality is that the sale of assets well below market value to someone connected with the company lacks integrity. If I had to deal with this company it would be on a cash before delivery basis ( because it's more than likely going to fail again).

As a business (selling pens) it probably operate in an honest fashion but I would not buy a pen from them if it involved payment before delivery given the circumstances by which the current owners acquired the company. I would happily change that opinion if Mary Burke ( or someone else from CS) would explain in more detail the change of ownership and the current financial state of CS.

Regards
Hugh

Edited by Hugh, 27 July 2012 - 12:02 AM.

[andrew_]

<snip>
I wonder whether the reason that the issue hasn't been raised on FPN is because none of the members over there either know (or care) that the brochure history is not actually correct - or whether they have all finally been beaten into submission by the threat of deleted posts, suspensions and bans?
</snip>

Or we know it will do no good. I guess that comes in under not caring. In a way, you're right though - the threat of deletion has lead to a point of apathy. If I post something critical, I know it will be deleted and it will do no good. Even if I post something seen as negative but in a constructive manner, the thread is likely to go in a direction CS won't like and will be removed. That forum is just sad.

The conversations that go on via pm are not nearly so kind as what is on the CS forum though, I will say that. The people that actually care PM and talk about it, and in those it is no holds barred. So while FPN & Co. are working hard to white wash the forum. there is an active discussion going on via PMs among collectors and potential customers that is not edited. At least not yet - I wouldn't be surprised if they monitored the PM system.

Anyway, I lurk more than I post (everywhere, obviously), and the CS forum over at FPN is a marketing forum.

[AndyR]

The conversations that go on via pm are not nearly so kind as what is on the CS forum though, I will say that. The people that actually care PM and talk about it, and in those it is no holds barred. So while FPN & Co. are working hard to white wash the forum. there is an active discussion going on via PMs among collectors and potential customers that is not edited. At least not yet - I wouldn't be surprised if they monitored the PM system.

Nice to know there is a thriving underground over there! I had heard similar reports from other members I am still in contact with. All very silly, isn't it!

Mind you, watch out for those PMs now - Mary Burke has read this topic at least once and she may well keep popping back occasionally.........

Of course the alternative is to PM all those who share your concerns and suggest that they post their thoughts in open forum over here where things are handled in a more adult fashion. Certainly if anybody has questions on vintage CS they are more likely to receive an informed opinion here than at FPN - all those who really know about the vintage pens baled out of FPN many moons ago.

Andy

[Roger W.]

They have booted moderators before but, I think at least they think they have a winner in Mary being connected with CS and all so I don't see that forum getting any relief even though it is a clear area undermining the integrity (come on we'll say they have some) of FPN. One seems to have to be careful discussing ink especially Noodlers - seems to garner summary execution of topic. I've not noted any problems with topics on Sheaffer or Wahl - both moderators are decent chaps. One day FPN may go the way of Penlovers but, they've done a lot to keep it from imploding and the FPB is almost wholly pens which isn't a likely contender to take FPN out. A new pen chat site with chatter could catch on. FPN is so very big though, bigger than Penlovers could have ever gotten. In the past it would have been natural progression for FPN to fail and something else take it's place - that doesn't seem likely. Maybe the broad group of moderators will figure out they have some bad apples among them. I'm sure some of them read postings over here so it is a good forum for them to get some perspective.

So Conway Stewart and discussing Noodlers is bad - what else?


Roger W.

[andrew_]

They can get worked up about me and my PMs if they so desire... My forum activity is so low it's not funny, and any real discussions I'm likely to have would be over here most likely.

As for the Noodler's thing, I think that was more just that they got tired of it. They left the questionable threads (at least what I knew about), and basically told people to quit. That was my take. More of an issue with them not wanting to moderate the flame wars that go on about anything people have strong opinions about. There were so many of them it was ridiculous.

I doubt they'll do anything about the CS forum until the modern CS goes under again, as I'm inclined to think it will. I honestly can't figure out how they're still in business - even with the deal of how they got it, I can't see them as liquidating assets to keep it afloat. Maybe their sales are doing better than I would think they are, but they haven't really shown anything exciting, and with all the troubles with the Marlborough Vintage, it just isn't looking good. Not to mention that the non-LE Marlborough is still nowhere to be seen, despite it being just an acrylic c/c filler of the existing HR LE. It made me quite nervous that mine had to go back to them for repairs - I just kept expecting to read that they closed down again, and then I would be out of luck.

[Hugh]

They can get worked up about me and my PMs if they so desire... My forum activity is so low it's not funny, and any real discussions I'm likely to have would be over here most likely.

As for the Noodler's thing, I think that was more just that they got tired of it. They left the questionable threads (at least what I knew about), and basically told people to quit. That was my take. More of an issue with them not wanting to moderate the flame wars that go on about anything people have strong opinions about. There were so many of them it was ridiculous.

I doubt they'll do anything about the CS forum until the modern CS goes under again, as I'm inclined to think it will. I honestly can't figure out how they're still in business - even with the deal of how they got it, I can't see them as liquidating assets to keep it afloat. Maybe their sales are doing better than I would think they are, but they haven't really shown anything exciting, and with all the troubles with the Marlborough Vintage, it just isn't looking good. Not to mention that the non-LE Marlborough is still nowhere to be seen, despite it being just an acrylic c/c filler of the existing HR LE. It made me quite nervous that mine had to go back to them for repairs - I just kept expecting to read that they closed down again, and then I would be out of luck.

As far as PMs go I'll simply quote Wim " I don't know if you realized, but these messages are PMs, or Private Messages. Posting these in a public forum is a breach of privacy and confidentiality..." so apparently if they started reading your PM without either your or the receivers permission then they breach their own rules...that doesn't mean it wont happen though but unlikely as it doesn't affect the board in any way.

Noodlers is, I suspect, somewhat different as a person who was oft quoted as saying Noodlers caused problems ( and posted so on his own web site) passed comment that he was no longer allowed to mention Noodlers on his site. The conclusion I draw from this and the change on FPN including new policy is as a result of some form of action by Noodlers, despite the owners having the benefit of legal protection against such action ( the person posting comments is responsible for them not the site owners..in the US).

CS assets, I seem to recall seeing listed somewhere a change in mortgage arrangements not long after the new crowd took over. Conclusion is that the operation is funded from asset sale/borrowing against (this unlikely as who would lend to them?), logical if the new owners wanted to see if they could make a goer of CS without risking their own money and allows CS to be easily shut up and still make a profit on their investment.

They have booted moderators before but, I think at least they think they have a winner in Mary being connected with CS and all so I don't see that forum getting any relief even though it is a clear area undermining the integrity (come on we'll say they have some) of FPN. One seems to have to be careful discussing ink especially Noodlers - seems to garner summary execution of topic. I've not noted any problems with topics on Sheaffer or Wahl - both moderators are decent chaps. One day FPN may go the way of Penlovers but, they've done a lot to keep it from imploding and the FPB is almost wholly pens which isn't a likely contender to take FPN out. A new pen chat site with chatter could catch on. FPN is so very big though, bigger than Penlovers could have ever gotten. In the past it would have been natural progression for FPN to fail and something else take it's place - that doesn't seem likely. Maybe the broad group of moderators will figure out they have some bad apples among them. I'm sure some of them read postings over here so it is a good forum for them to get some perspective.

So Conway Stewart and discussing Noodlers is bad - what else?


Roger W.

Hard to disagree with that , Roger.

Regards
Hugh

Edited by Hugh, 16 August 2012 - 03:12 AM.

[david i]

Noodlers is, I suspect, somewhat different as a person who was oft quoted as saying Noodlers caused problems ( and posted so on his own web site) passed comment that he was no longer allowed to mention Noodlers on his site. The conclusion I draw from this and the change on FPB including new policy is as a result of some form of action by Noodlers, despite the owners having the benefit of legal protection against such action ( the person posting comments is responsible for them not the site owners..in the US).

Regards
Hugh

Hey, let's watch which Board we reference, shall we?

d

[Hugh]

Noodlers is, I suspect, somewhat different as a person who was oft quoted as saying Noodlers caused problems ( and posted so on his own web site) passed comment that he was no longer allowed to mention Noodlers on his site. The conclusion I draw from this and the change on FPB including new policy is as a result of some form of action by Noodlers, despite the owners having the benefit of legal protection against such action ( the person posting comments is responsible for them not the site owners..in the US).
Regards
Hugh

Hey, let's watch which Board we reference, shall we?

d

Edited promptly !! I don't want to %^&$ off another Admin......

Regards
Hugh

[vintage penman]

If you keep an eye on Companies House in the UK there is the possibility of purchasing a set of CS's accounts when or if they file them. I have a sneaking suspicion that they won't and the company will fold yet again.

[andrew_]

That is quite interesting about Noodler's. I guess that means they (or their distributor) are sending out nasty-grams via their lawyer, too bad.

I agree Hugh, it is pretty unlikely they would do much over PMs. I could see them reading them though just to see what people are saying.

[AndyR]

So, a whole year down the line since I started this topic and CS never felt moved to correct the history in their 2012 brochure in any way or as far as I am aware, even admit there were any errors! However, the fact that this information has been floating around the web for a year or so now means it is now apparently getting taken as gospel.

I was particularly taken by this new topic in the FPN CS forum here , especially the post no. 15, which is just about as wrong in every aspect as anything I've ever seen written about CS history on the web could possibly be, notably the last paragraph! I note Paul M has tried valiantly to explain the actual situation a couple of times (exactly right about the steel nib, Paul!) but the others posting there appear to prefer the version of history that CS would like them to believe.

We must look forward now to what the 2013 brochure will bring. It will either repeat the same rubbish from last year or it will have been corrected and, if so, I hope somebody will have the balls to ask Mary Burke over at FPN to explain why the two histories are so different.

Andy

Edited by AndyR, 09 June 2013 - 07:46 AM.