MOONSTONE Outerwear - Still in business?
Bernard L. Cabatingan
This company makes some impressive technical outerwear -
comparable to that of TNF, and Marmot.
I tried calling their business in Arcata, but got no answer.
Does anybody have any news about them? I heard that
perhaps they've been bought out by a N.Y. business.
What's up?
Bernard
--
Remove the '.spam.spoiler' reference before replying
Jim Mateer
A friend (and devout moonstone advocate) informed me, with a tear in his
eye, that they had gone out of business.
Jim
Bernard L. Cabatingan wrote in message
<346B7C...@osi.spam.spoiler.com>...
Bramyoung
Moonstone and Quest were both recently acquired but I forgot the name of the
company who bought them. If I can find will post. From what I remember, it
doesn't sound like there will be a problem with them continuing as a strong
brand with great products. More of a short term corporate cash flow problem.
Brian Young
Mary Malmros
In article <346B7C...@osi.spam.spoiler.com>,
Bernard L. Cabatingan <bl...@osi.spam.spoiler.com> wrote:
>This company makes some impressive technical outerwear -
> comparable to that of TNF, and Marmot.
>
> I tried calling their business in Arcata, but got no answer.
>
> Does anybody have any news about them? I heard that
> perhaps they've been bought out by a N.Y. business.
That's what I heard, too. As a result, it seems that retailers
who are carrying Moonstone are having a sell-off, at least
around here (Boston). For anyone in the area, Hilton's had
a couple of racks of drastically reduced stuff, and I just
bought a jacket yesterday at Wilderness House/Bob Smith's
at a substantial discount. And yes, it did very nicely
last night in the first snowstorm of the season ;-)
Moonstone wasn't the first jacket I looked at. I tried
Columbia, Marmot, North Face, Patagonia, and EMS and REI house
brands before I settled on the Moonstone. Columbia got rejected
pretty quickly, in part because they still don't seem to understand
that some people actually _move_ in their outerwear, and also
from sheer annoyance at their unwillingness to discard the
whole "system" idea. Unless I buy into their whole "system",
I'm stuck with a lot of extra hardware that I don't need and
that just gets in my way. EMS and REI fell into the "okay but
not great" category. Marmot looked to be well-made, but they
were getting just a little too fancy with the zips and toggles
and silly names for proprietary drawstring systems; bottom line,
if I can't adjust it easily in the store, I won't be able to
adjust it easily with mittens on my hands in a blizzard.
North Face _looked_ okay, but I was wary of their reputation as
increasingly a supplier to those who don't actually go to the
backcountry -- and also, I bought a North Face pack once that just
annoyed me. Patagonia was just wrong. Clearly they've been
owning the category that North Face may be moving into for
years. But the Moonstone jackets looked real solid and
had everything I wanted and nothing that I didn't -- plus
a real good reputation.
For anyone who is in Boston and goes looking, Hilton's will
probably have a marginally better price, _if_ you can find what
you want. Wilderness Haus definitely has a better selection,
more room to try 'em on, and better staff.
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros Very Small Being mal...@shore.net
"They write books that contradict the rocks..."
Clyde Soles
Bramyoung <bram...@aol.com> wrote:
Hardly. Moonstone and Quest died a painful death last summer, Montbell
USA was the first to go under, when OIG collapsed. The Moonstone name
(only) was recently resurected by Esprit but the best guess is they will
be vying for space with Tony Hilfinger in the gooch department stores. I
sincerely doubt previous warranties will be honored and don't have high
hopes for the new product introductions next summer. No great loss
though.
crack baby
Bernard L. Cabatingan wrote:
>
> This company makes some impressive technical outerwear -
> comparable to that of TNF, and Marmot.
>
> I tried calling their business in Arcata, but got no answer.
>
> Does anybody have any news about them? I heard that
> perhaps they've been bought out by a N.Y. business.
>
>
> Bernard
>
> --
> Remove the '.spam.spoiler' reference before replying
the whole nasty affair. Last I heard they were looking for a buyer to
pick up the pieces.
david mann
Mary Malmros (mal...@shore.net) wrote:
: North Face _looked_ okay, but I was wary of their reputation as
: increasingly a supplier to those who don't actually go to the
: backcountry -- and also, I bought a North Face pack once that just
: annoyed me. Patagonia was just wrong. Clearly they've been
: owning the category that North Face may be moving into for
: years. But the Moonstone jackets looked real solid and
: had everything I wanted and nothing that I didn't -- plus
: a real good reputation.
Hey! I resemble that Patagonia remark!
Seriously for a second, Patagonia made a pretty sharp
break away from their mass poser marketing in the mid
80s. The biggest (literally) example was the dropping
of the Retro Pile jacket. It was so big and unstuffable
that no "real" users were taking it into the bc. Wouldn't
fit into their packs. But, they could have sold millions
of the things for the BU kids to wear while crusing Newbury
Street.
As for "fashion" concerns, I actually think that Moonstone,
Marmot and TNF are much more guilty of letting design
desicions being made by fashion concerns. Want to know
what a "technical" jacket is? Its a coat that has
black elbow patches on it -- something that Marmot is
quite proud of noting in their current catalog. The
reality is that the Patagonia jackets that look more
like fashion pieces (as opposed to "technical" pieces)
have cloth that is as strong or stronger in these
high wear places. You gotta look closely at the fabric
specs and such.
Another distinction is the Less is More design attitude
at Patagonia when it comes to features. Despite some minor
gripes about the hood, I think the Patagonia Torre is
arguably the cleanest, most functional rigs in its class.
Hands down over the TNF Kichatna and Moonstone Sauvage, imo.
Too many useless doo-dads. Arm pockets and crotch straps.
No thanks.
Dave Mann | "It is impossible, or not easy, to do
| noble acts without the proper equipment."
dam...@lynx.neu.edu | Aristotle, <<Politics>>, 1323a-b, trans Jowett
T. Scott Roberts
On 17 Nov 1997, david mann wrote:
>
> As for "fashion" concerns, I actually think that Moonstone,
> Marmot and TNF are much more guilty of letting design
> desicions being made by fashion concerns. Want to know
> what a "technical" jacket is? Its a coat that has
> black elbow patches on it -- something that Marmot is
> quite proud of noting in their current catalog. The
> reality is that the Patagonia jackets that look more
> like fashion pieces (as opposed to "technical" pieces)
> have cloth that is as strong or stronger in these
> high wear places. You gotta look closely at the fabric
> specs and such.
>
Quite true. The reason that Marmot touts having black sleeves is that
they are made out of three ply goretex for durability, something none of the
other companies do. Marmot started doing this long ago and used contrasting
colors so people would notice. While North Face and the others copied the
color they neglected to copy the three ply idea. So what started out as
a great functional idea became wide spread fashion.
Besides, Patagucci is run by a has-been hypocrite and caters to the SUV
wielding masses.
T. Scott Roberts
sco...@mik.uky.edu
david mann
T. Scott Roberts (sco...@mik.uky.edu) wrote:
: Quite true. The reason that Marmot touts having black sleeves is that
: other companies do.
This is certainly true for jackets like the antiquated Alpinst
and Alpinist Lightweight. But it is clearly NOT true for their
more modern jackets like the Thunderlight and Alpinist Climbing
Jacket/Parka. These more up-to-date designs are unlined and use
3-ply Goretex through-out, not just in the high wear areas. On
these coats, the arm and shoulder patches add nothing to the
design but extra seams that require extra seam taping and provide
nothing but more chances for failure in the field. It is purely
a consesion to a fashion driven market that want to buy a
"technical" looking jacket, whatever the heck that means.
If you want a sturdier fabric in the elbows and on the shoulders
and if you want to minimize the number of seams, go with something
like the Patagonia Torre or the Mont*bell Tempest which have the
good sense to use only piece of fabric from cuff to cuff up along
the back of the arms and over the shoulders.
: Marmot started doing this long ago and used contrasting
: colors so people would notice. While North Face and the others copied the
: color they neglected to copy the three ply idea. So what started out as
: a great functional idea became wide spread fashion.
Again, the only jackets that can be reasonably compared to anything
made by Marmot using the 2-ply/3-ply design has to be a lined jacket
like the TNF Mountain Light. The Mountain Light is largely a fashion
piece. Witness the snaps instead of velcro on the zipper flap.
: Besides, Patagucci is run by a has-been hypocrite and caters to the SUV
: wielding masses.
Troll silent, troll deep.
Judge the gear by it's own merits.
Kenneth Cline
In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.971117...@nx24.mik.uky.edu>, "T. Scott Roberts" <sco...@mik.uky.edu> writes:
|>
|> Besides, Patagucci is run by a has-been hypocrite and caters to the SUV
|> wielding masses.
[Saddle up high horse]
Well that "has-been hypocrite" designs and sells clothing for
climbers, paddlers, mountain bikers, sailors, surfers, etc. I
don't care about fashion, so it doesn't matter to me if other
people buy the stuff, too. I also don't resent people for being
successful, and Yvon Chouinard has pumped enough of that success
back into environmental, social, and recreation charities that I
feel I have gained by his success.
The clothing, by the way, is first rate outdoor gear, and now
everyone else's prices have caught up (now everything is
overpriced). I've often chosen Patagonia because they still offer
lighter, simpler designs that aren't driven by the latest fashion
trends. They don't slouch on the technical side, either: My
Gridman suit is awesome. Patagonia isn't afraid to innovate,
either: No other top outdoor brand has anything close to the
light, durable, storm-proof, and breathable Storm Cycle jacket and
pants with its unique stretch fabric.
The bottom line is that Patagonia designs for dirtbag funhogs.
They know that one way or another, these users will get this gear
even if they can't afford to pay retail.
[Dismount]
Ken
david mann
Kenneth Cline let the cat out of the bag and wrote:
: The bottom line is that Patagonia designs for dirtbag funhogs.
: even if they can't afford to pay retail.
[climbing out of the dumpster and brushing the dirt
of his worn Duck IIIs...]
Shhhhhhhh!!! Next thing you know, you'll be posting
the how-tos. No need to bring more thirsty critters to
the watering hole.
David Fawcett
Kenneth Cline wrote:
>
> Well that "has-been hypocrite" designs and sells clothing for
> climbers, paddlers, mountain bikers, sailors, surfers, etc. I
> don't care about fashion, so it doesn't matter to me if other
> people buy the stuff, too. I also don't resent people for being
> successful, and Yvon Chouinard has pumped enough of that success
> back into environmental, social, and recreation charities that I
> feel I have gained by his success.
This includes utilizing organically grown cotton for all of their
clothes that contain cotton, and integrating recycled fleece into most
of their fleece products.
David Fawcett
crack baby
Not sure I agree with you on the department stores remark. According to
official releases, the company is committed to keeping it a specialty
product line. Whether or not this becomes reality...who knows. What
killed Moonstone before was the fact that they waited until the shit hit
the fan to launch any sort of marketing campaign and the first couple
attempts were pretty lame. If Esprit can create a hard-hitting,
sustainable marketing approach, and make the gear as good as it was
before, they might just become a force to be reckoned with. Or, maybe
you're right and they will begin production of rubber rain jackets for
school kids in which case the world will eventually be owned by The
North Face. (and microsoft, of course)
Redrock47
>Marmot started doing this long ago and used contrasting
>colors so people would notice. While North Face and the others copied the
>color they neglected to copy the three ply idea.
Yep. Neglected to copy. hell, everybody's copied the 3-ply design by now.
even dyed in the blue stay at home catalog companies such as land's end have 3
ply stuff.
I have no idea what this adds to the conversation in general, but I do know it
adds nothing to society as a whole unless you count the man hours being wasted
by reading this. If you took all the man hours people spent typing and
reading angry and often irrelevant responses to posts, you could probably
build a really big thing. It would be made entirely of stone and poorly
constructed, as it would be made by eclimbers, but it would still be quite
big. And by typing this message I add to these wasted hours. But it's not my
job to fix things. I'm only in it for the free food and climbing.
grizzly_adams
Was reading through the postings and thought it was curious that the
companies that were mentioned were spoken of as if they were human.
It sounded as if each of these companies are individuals based on the
characteristics which were ascribed. Contrary to the impression
giving by many of the postings, the manufacturers mentioned are not
radically different in their approach to marketing, design of product,
or manufacturing.
This is due primarily to the cross polination of managment from these
various companies. As an example, The North Face, Marmot, Sierra
Designs, etc. were at one time all part of the same company. In
addition, a large contingent of management at Moonstone came from the
North Face. Patagonia also has many individuals who used to work for
other outerwear manufacturers.
When you are looking for clothing or equipment don't worry about
whether its manufacturer is a "technical" company. You should judge
the product and only the product based on its ability to meet its
intended use. For example, The North Face makes some of the preimer
"expedition" clothing in the world. (Don't take may word for it, look
at what true adventurers wear when they are going places like the top
of Everest or across Antarctica.) However, the Mountain Light Jacket
produced by The North Face was never designed to be a heavy duty
climbing jacket. Its intent was to fill a gap between heavy
mountaineering type clothing and everyday outerwear. As an analogy,
it would be like saying a Porsche isn't as good as Dodge Ram truck
becuase the Porsche can't haul as much. They have different intended
uses. You are absolutely correct in your statement "Judge the gear by
it's own merits."
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a company who happens to have gained
market share among baby boomers or sport utility owners. Outerwear
manufacturer's leverage their preceived "technical" expertise to
promote a premium price for their products. This allows these
companies to finance inovative product development. Companies who
cater only to the "technical" crowd usually don't last. First, there
simply just aren't enough "technical" consumers to keep a company
afloat and simultaneously finance needed product development. Second,
a large portion of the "technical" consumers can't or won't pay for
the true cost to make inovative products. This is due in part to the
age of these consumers who don't have the disposable income at this
point in their life to purchase these products.
It may be unfortunate but the companies that thrive and consequently
develop & market new technology are the ones who can hold the balance
between technical and mass marketed products. Moonstone apparently
wasn't able to.
dam...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (david mann) wrote:
>T. Scott Roberts (sco...@mik.uky.edu) wrote:
>: Quite true. The reason that Marmot touts having black sleeves is that
>: they are made out of three ply goretex for durability, something none of the
>: other companies do.
>This is certainly true for jackets like the antiquated Alpinst
>and Alpinist Lightweight. But it is clearly NOT true for their
>more modern jackets like the Thunderlight and Alpinist Climbing
>Jacket/Parka. These more up-to-date designs are unlined and use
>3-ply Goretex through-out, not just in the high wear areas. On
>these coats, the arm and shoulder patches add nothing to the
>design but extra seams that require extra seam taping and provide
>nothing but more chances for failure in the field. It is purely
>a consesion to a fashion driven market that want to buy a
>"technical" looking jacket, whatever the heck that means.
>If you want a sturdier fabric in the elbows and on the shoulders
>and if you want to minimize the number of seams, go with something
>like the Patagonia Torre or the Mont*bell Tempest which have the
>good sense to use only piece of fabric from cuff to cuff up along
>the back of the arms and over the shoulders.
>: Marmot started doing this long ago and used contrasting
>: colors so people would notice. While North Face and the others copied the
>: color they neglected to copy the three ply idea. So what started out as
>: a great functional idea became wide spread fashion.
>Again, the only jackets that can be reasonably compared to anything
>made by Marmot using the 2-ply/3-ply design has to be a lined jacket
>like the TNF Mountain Light. The Mountain Light is largely a fashion
>piece. Witness the snaps instead of velcro on the zipper flap.
>: Besides, Patagucci is run by a has-been hypocrite and caters to the SUV
>: wielding masses.
>Troll silent, troll deep.
>Judge the gear by it's own merits.
GREGL628
At least Patagucci is still designed and run by climbers! Looked at the latest
version of the TNF Mtn Light? It has a seam that runs right over the top of the
shoulder that any neophyte realizes will leak after 6 mos. under a pack and
would not tolerate. But their clothing isn't designed for the outdoors. It's
designed for fashion. They readily admit 70% of their business comes from
non-outdoors people.
david mann
Kenneth Cline (cli...@silver.fox.cs.cmu.edu) wrote:
: Some companies (e.g. Patagonia) don't play the sponsorship game.
If you have access to back issues of Outside, you should dig
around for Jon Krakeur's luke-warm review of the newly released
Patagonia Super Alpine. Talk about conflict of interests.
: but it might still look good. Is this what you're saying we have with
: the Mountain Light jacket - a garment that looks good but isn't
: optimized for anything other than sales?
I have a buddy who finally got his local TNF rep to admit
that the only reason that they continued putting metal
snaps on the Mtn.Light instead of moving to velcro was
because of marketing. It seems that they look better
when the jacket is on display on a hanger in the store.
Actually, we can't begrudge TNF, Marmot and Patogonia
their success in fashion oriented marketing. Quite simply,
it pays the bills. TNF and Marmot both go after the
fashion driven skiing market and I'll continue to
contend that many of the so-called technical pieces
are driven by fashion conncerns. Further, Patagonia
has had success with it's sports clothing. There's
alot of mark up in them there fashion hills and Moonstone's
failure to figure this out has left them a step back.
Jeez, look what happened to Gerry when the down sweater
went out of fashion. Baby strollers?!?!?!
Oh yeh, news flash for allof the Marmot zealots out there.
Just got the new catalog and lo and behold what do I see
but that they've thrown out the super technical, highly
functional elbow and shoulder patches on their Alpinst
and Lightweight Alpinist parkas. Instead, they've pretty
much copied the single piece design that fashion magnet
Patagucci has been using since the mid-80s when they
introduced their Storm gear. But don't worry. Marmot
at least had the good sense to stick with black for
the arms and shoulders. Black is so much more durable,
ya know.
Grizzly B. Adams
cli...@silver.fox.cs.cmu.edu (Kenneth Cline) wrote:
>In article <6546v5$2...@camel21.mindspring.com>, Grizzly Adams (Grizzly B. Adams) writes:
>|> Yea TNF admits that 70% of sales come from "non-outdoors" people.
>|> What Patagonia does not admit is that even a higher percentage of
>|> their sales come from those same "non-outdoor" types. A large portion
>|> of which consists of catalog sales from companies such as L.L. Bean
>|> and Land's End.
>So what? Big deal. All I care about is whether or not they make great
>outdoor gear. This guilt by association logic doesn't hold water.
That is exactly my point. Judge the gear based on its intended use.
In a previous post that was what I was driving at. I was merely
pointing out to the previous poster that TNF is not the only company
that also markets to a different consumer. You stated it simply and
directly.
>Ken
david mann
Clyde Soles (cso...@rmi.net) wrote:
: Having visited most of the companies in this discussion, and talked with
: their designers, I beg to differ. They do have very different
: philosophies though I wouldn't use the term "radical."
ohhh, this would be interesting to here about. Pray, tell more.
Dave Mann wrote:
: > >and Alpinist Lightweight. But it is clearly NOT true for their
: > >more modern jackets like the Thunderlight and Alpinist Climbing
: > >Jacket/Parka. These more up-to-date designs are unlined and use
: > >3-ply Goretex through-out, not just in the high wear areas. On
: > >these coats, the arm and shoulder patches add nothing to the
: > >design but extra seams that require extra seam taping and provide
: > >nothing but more chances for failure in the field. It is purely
: > >a consesion to a fashion driven market that want to buy a
: > >"technical" looking jacket, whatever the heck that means.
: Uh, you couldn't be more wrong here. The material used on the elbows and
: shoulders is many times more abrasion resistant and has a much higher
: tear strength than the body fabric (and just about anything on the
: market). The Thunderlight and Climbing Jacket III are about the most
: technical pieces available from anyone.
Hmmm... comparing apples to apples, the Climbing Jacket III would
be most camparable to something like the Patagonia Torre, no?
The difference here is that the Torre uses the tougher fabric
wrist to wrist intead of in patches. Actually, I guess in terms
of weight (of fabric and overall) the Torre would be somewhere
in between the CJIII and the Thunderlight. Still the point
remains, What does the extra seams on these Marmot pieces add
besides more failure points.
: BZZZT. Seam taping technology has come so far now that leakage here is
: practically a non-issue, especially on 3-ply. Fewer seams can also mean
: a less sophisticated design, though I'll concede the Torre is pretty
: darn nice.
If having fewer seams means a less sophisticated design, then why
did Marmot drop the arm and shoulder patches on the newly updated
Alpinist and Lightweight Alpinist. Ok, I'm no warranty manager
(Joe, this is your cue) but I've killed 3 different jackets
in my short life. 2 of those failures have involved seam taping
in one manner or another.
[BTW, since I mentioned that I've killed jackets in the past I
should give kudos to both TNF and Patagonia for standing behind
their stuff, big time.]
: AFAIK, no other company has ever used 3-ply in high abrasion areas of
: lined jackets. Around here you still see a lot of ancient Alpinist
: parkas in use.
I thought Moonstone ripped off the 3-ply/2-ply idea for some
of their lined jackets.... Anyway, I agree completely that as
far as lined coats go, the Marmot's are the nicest. Lined
jackets make fine ski jackets for lift served skiing. Nice
around town for that matter. (I'm trolling here, Clyde!)
Look, my point in all of this is that Patagonia is not the
only player guilty of considering fashion in it's design.
The hogwash that Marmot and TNF are more hard core and more
technical because of having elbow and shoulder patches is
just nonsense. Heavier material, yes, needed. But not the
patches. Like the Marmot add campaign from a couple of
season ago said, good warranties don't help in the field.
Kenneth Cline
In article <6529qd$6...@camel19.mindspring.com>, Grizzly Adams writes:
|> Was reading through the postings and thought it was curious that the
|> companies that were mentioned were spoken of as if they were human.
|> It sounded as if each of these companies are individuals based on the
|> characteristics which were ascribed. Contrary to the impression
|> giving by many of the postings, the manufacturers mentioned are not
|> radically different in their approach to marketing, design of product,
|> or manufacturing.
I can thinks of at least one of these companies whose decisions and
appearance are heavily influenced by the man at the helm. You probably
know who I mean. Others are managed solely for maximization of profits
to satisfy the board of directors and shareholders.
|> ... For example, The North Face makes some of the preimer
|> "expedition" clothing in the world. (Don't take may word for it, look
|> at what true adventurers wear when they are going places like the top
|> of Everest or across Antarctica.)
"Premier" is an interesting word to use in this context - it sounds a
lot like premium. Budweiser is "premium" beer, and I'd drink it if
Anheuser-Busch paid for all my climbing trips, but I like other beer
better. That sponsored climbers wear North Face gear means the
equipment is adequate, but don't be fooled into thinking that it is
therefore the climbers' first choice. When you see a logo in a picture
from Antarctica or (to a much lesser extent) Everest, you should wonder
how much money the company paid to get it there.
Some companies (e.g. Patagonia) don't play the sponsorship game.
|> However, the Mountain Light Jacket
|> produced by The North Face was never designed to be a heavy duty
|> climbing jacket. Its intent was to fill a gap between heavy
|> mountaineering type clothing and everyday outerwear. As an analogy,
|> it would be like saying a Porsche isn't as good as Dodge Ram truck
|> becuase the Porsche can't haul as much. They have different intended
|> uses. You are absolutely correct in your statement "Judge the gear by
|> it's own merits."
If I understand this correctly, this is exactly what some people are
complaining about: Some companies have stopped optimizing their gear
for outdoor use in an attempt to gain greater market share and profit.
There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but if Porsche had added a
pickup bed and trailer hitch to the new 911? It might haul and tow OK,
but not as weel as a real pickup truck, it wouldn't go as fast, either,
but it might still look good. Is this what you're saying we have with
the Mountain Light jacket - a garment that looks good but isn't
optimized for anything other than sales?
Ken
Kenneth Cline
In article <6546v5$2...@camel21.mindspring.com>, Grizzly Adams (Grizzly B. Adams) writes:
|> Yea TNF admits that 70% of sales come from "non-outdoors" people.
|> What Patagonia does not admit is that even a higher percentage of
|> their sales come from those same "non-outdoor" types. A large portion
|> of which consists of catalog sales from companies such as L.L. Bean
|> and Land's End.
So what? Big deal. All I care about is whether or not they make great
outdoor gear. This guilt by association logic doesn't hold water.
Ken
David Fawcett
Grizzly, Adams wrote:
>
> When you are looking for clothing or equipment don't worry about
> whether its manufacturer is a "technical" company. You should judge
> the product and only the product based on its ability to meet its
> intended use. For example, The North Face makes some of the preimer
> "expedition" clothing in the world. (Don't take may word for it, look
> at what true adventurers wear when they are going places like the top
> of Everest or across Antarctica.)
Does the phrase "North Face Climbing Team" mean anything to you? These
folks you see pictured with NF clothes on the big peaks are no doubt
some of the top alpinists, however, you shouldn't kid yourself into
thinking that these folks pay retail for their gear. Obviously a
contract relationship.
David Fawcett
Clyde Soles
> Contrary to the impression
> giving by many of the postings, the manufacturers mentioned are not
> radically different in their approach to marketing, design of product,
> or manufacturing.
Having visited most of the companies in this discussion, and talked with
their designers, I beg to differ. They do have very different
philosophies though I wouldn't use the term "radical."
>
> This is due primarily to the cross polination of managment from these
> various companies.
Yes, the outdoor industry is incestuous. OTOH many people have intense
dislikes of their former employers (the circumstances for their leaving
were often unpleasant) and make a point of doing things differently.
> When you are looking for clothing or equipment don't worry about
> whether its manufacturer is a "technical" company. You should judge
> the product and only the product based on its ability to meet its
> intended use.
Problem is, many companies don't give the information needed to judge
the products -- it's mostly hype. Just because fabrics look the same,
doesn't mean they are the same; the differences can be profound.
> I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a company who happens to have gained
> market share among baby boomers or sport utility owners. Outerwear
> manufacturer's leverage their preceived "technical" expertise to
> promote a premium price for their products. This allows these
> companies to finance inovative product development.
Correct, they *can* make good stuff. But these companies are rarely the
true innovators despite the extra capital and marketing.
> Companies who
> cater only to the "technical" crowd usually don't last. First, there
> simply just aren't enough "technical" consumers to keep a company
> afloat and simultaneously finance needed product development. Second,
> a large portion of the "technical" consumers can't or won't pay for
> the true cost to make inovative products. This is due in part to the
> age of these consumers who don't have the disposable income at this
> point in their life to purchase these products.
I think the real issue is companies that are purely technical are often
run by idealists who tend to be lousy business people. If anything, the
demand for high-end products is growing because consumers are realizing
it is often a better value in the long run even if it is "more than they
need."
> It may be unfortunate but the companies that thrive and consequently
> develop & market new technology are the ones who can hold the balance
> between technical and mass marketed products. Moonstone apparently
> wasn't able to.
Yep, the smart ones will sell a freight car of shorts and t-shirts for
every one-piece climbing suit that goes at full retail.
> >This is certainly true for jackets like the antiquated Alpinst
> >and Alpinist Lightweight. But it is clearly NOT true for their
> >more modern jackets like the Thunderlight and Alpinist Climbing
> >Jacket/Parka. These more up-to-date designs are unlined and use
> >3-ply Goretex through-out, not just in the high wear areas. On
> >these coats, the arm and shoulder patches add nothing to the
> >design but extra seams that require extra seam taping and provide
> >nothing but more chances for failure in the field. It is purely
> >a consesion to a fashion driven market that want to buy a
> >"technical" looking jacket, whatever the heck that means.
Uh, you couldn't be more wrong here. The material used on the elbows and
shoulders is many times more abrasion resistant and has a much higher
tear strength than the body fabric (and just about anything on the
market). The Thunderlight and Climbing Jacket III are about the most
technical pieces available from anyone.
>
> >If you want a sturdier fabric in the elbows and on the shoulders
> >and if you want to minimize the number of seams, go with something
> >like the Patagonia Torre or the Mont*bell Tempest which have the
> >good sense to use only piece of fabric from cuff to cuff up along
> >the back of the arms and over the shoulders.
BZZZT. Seam taping technology has come so far now that leakage here is
practically a non-issue, especially on 3-ply. Fewer seams can also mean
a less sophisticated design, though I'll concede the Torre is pretty
darn nice.
> >Again, the only jackets that can be reasonably compared to anything
> >made by Marmot using the 2-ply/3-ply design has to be a lined jacket
> >like the TNF Mountain Light.
AFAIK, no other company has ever used 3-ply in high abrasion areas of
Grizzly B. Adams
cso...@rmi.net (Clyde Soles) wrote:
>> Companies who
>> cater only to the "technical" crowd usually don't last. First, there
>> simply just aren't enough "technical" consumers to keep a company
>> afloat and simultaneously finance needed product development. Second,
>> a large portion of the "technical" consumers can't or won't pay for
>> the true cost to make inovative products. This is due in part to the
>> age of these consumers who don't have the disposable income at this
>> point in their life to purchase these products.
>I think the real issue is companies that are purely technical are often
>run by idealists who tend to be lousy business people. If anything, the
>demand for high-end products is growing because consumers are realizing
>it is often a better value in the long run even if it is "more than they
>need."
Idealists are "a" factor in why some technical companies go out of
business. Many of them aren't capable of succesfully running an
ongoing business. But, being an idealist doesn't mean you actually
have a good idea. More off then not, most idealists are just
stubborn.
It's not much of a value if you don't need it. That sounds like the
guy who couldn't pass up buying a saddle becuase it was such a
bargain. So what if he didn't own a horse.
>> It may be unfortunate but the companies that thrive and consequently
>> develop & market new technology are the ones who can hold the balance
>> between technical and mass marketed products. Moonstone apparently
>> wasn't able to.
>Yep, the smart ones will sell a freight car of shorts and t-shirts for
>every one-piece climbing suit that goes at full retail.
You got that right!
>> >This is certainly true for jackets like the antiquated Alpinst
>> >and Alpinist Lightweight. But it is clearly NOT true for their
>> >more modern jackets like the Thunderlight and Alpinist Climbing
>> >Jacket/Parka. These more up-to-date designs are unlined and use
>> >3-ply Goretex through-out, not just in the high wear areas. On
>> >these coats, the arm and shoulder patches add nothing to the
>> >design but extra seams that require extra seam taping and provide
>> >nothing but more chances for failure in the field. It is purely
>> >a consesion to a fashion driven market that want to buy a
>> >"technical" looking jacket, whatever the heck that means.
>Uh, you couldn't be more wrong here. The material used on the elbows and
>shoulders is many times more abrasion resistant and has a much higher
>tear strength than the body fabric (and just about anything on the
>market). The Thunderlight and Climbing Jacket III are about the most
>technical pieces available from anyone.
Your talking to the wrong person here. That was left over from the
previous poster.
>> >If you want a sturdier fabric in the elbows and on the shoulders
>> >and if you want to minimize the number of seams, go with something
>> >like the Patagonia Torre or the Mont*bell Tempest which have the
>> >good sense to use only piece of fabric from cuff to cuff up along
>> >the back of the arms and over the shoulders.
>BZZZT. Seam taping technology has come so far now that leakage here is
>practically a non-issue, especially on 3-ply. Fewer seams can also mean
>a less sophisticated design, though I'll concede the Torre is pretty
>darn nice.
Agreed. Even the Goretex process has been improved. I wonder how
many people know that Goretex is not a fabric?
>> >Again, the only jackets that can be reasonably compared to anything
>> >made by Marmot using the 2-ply/3-ply design has to be a lined jacket
>> >like the TNF Mountain Light.
>AFAIK, no other company has ever used 3-ply in high abrasion areas of
>lined jackets. Around here you still see a lot of ancient Alpinist
>parkas in use.
Again your talking to the other guy.
Grizzly B. Adams
Yea TNF admits that 70% of sales come from "non-outdoors" people.
What Patagonia does not admit is that even a higher percentage of
their sales come from those same "non-outdoor" types. A large portion
of which consists of catalog sales from companies such as L.L. Bean
and Land's End.
The Mountain Light Jacket was never and still not designed for heavy
use. Hence the word "light". It was designed to fill a gap between
everyday use and a true mountain jacket. So if you are using it as
such, then you have the wrong tool for the job.
By the way, the last time I was on McKinley two of the guys on the
rope were in TNF management.
Grizzly B. Adams
It makes excellent sense to sponsor a climbing team, if you can afford
it. It provides two benefits. It is one way to leverage the
perceived technical know how so that you may increase sales - product
promotion. It also gives valuable feedback for product development.
As a former member of a team that received full sponsorship, we worked
with the designers and developers to make products which we wanted.
Some of the ideas that were generated worked well. Others that we
thought were inovative and useful at sea level stank above 8000m. Our
team submitted an after action report on the equipment so that
improvements could be incorporated. Everybody was a winner. We got
needed equipment. They got advertising and real testing of their
products.
By the way, the vast majority of expeditions do not receive
significant sponsorship. Most expedition members may not pay retail,
but they will be lucky if they can get it at the wholesale price.
Typically you may only get 10% off the retail price. Try going to a
major equipment company now days and tell them you want them to
sponsor your next assualt on Everest. They'll tell you to get in
line.
If you do get sponsorship, many times it seems it is almost not worth
the trouble. We had multiple sponsors and the size and placement of
every logo for each company was fought for bitterly. It was almost
worse than the climb.
David Fawcett <da...@outtech.com> wrote:
>Grizzly, Adams wrote:
>>
>> When you are looking for clothing or equipment don't worry about
>> whether its manufacturer is a "technical" company. You should judge
>> the product and only the product based on its ability to meet its
Redrock47
If you really want a technical jacket, sew in a laptop.
Bryan Miller
Grizzly B. Adams (GrizzlyAdams) wrote:
: Yea TNF admits that 70% of sales come from "non-outdoors" people.
: What Patagonia does not admit is that even a higher percentage of
: their sales come from those same "non-outdoor" types. A large portion
: of which consists of catalog sales from companies such as L.L. Bean
: and Land's End.
I'd love to see sources for both of those statements :-o
"Sold to" and "designed for" are not synonymous. There are many
rich wannabees that purchase Porches but have no clue how to drive
one. Just because rich people order Patagonia products from mail
order catalogs doesn't mean the design isn't there. Your tautology
doesn't follow.
cheers,
Bryan Miller
---
Fort Collins, CO, USA
mil...@patchsvr.fc.hp.com
MB
Dave Mann >
> I have a buddy who finally got his local TNF rep to admit
> that the only reason that they continued putting metal
> snaps on the Mtn.Light instead of moving to velcro was
> because of marketing. It seems that they look better
> when the jacket is on display on a hanger in the store.
Perhaps. But velcro can be problematic in certain conditions as
it may collect ice or mud rendering it useless. Imo velcro should
at least not be used on trouser legs.
Markus Bjorksten
mfb@[delete this]iki.fi