Questions About Non-Approved Venndors

[tmdreb]

Re: Questions About Non-Approved Venndors

Curt,

I would say that the reason for the "drift" in the thread comes from the fact that there are two categories of vendors not on the "approved" list. There are those whose goods fall noticably short of the mark most of us here strive for, and there are those who make top notch reproductions, but who have chosen for whatever reason not to participate in the list.

Personally, I find the term "Approved Vendors" a bit misleading. It seems to imply that the goods made by those who are not on the list are simply not up to par. I'm not really semantics, but perhaps a better name would be "Recommended" or "Suggested" vendors, or just a description stating that these are guys whose goods are up to par and who support the AC.

I completely agree with limiting advertising on the forums to those vendors who support the forums. However, I must admit I find it a bit awkward limiting the discussion of the rank-and-file in the same manner. I won't go into examples at the moment, but I can if asked.

I'm not quite sure there's a way to do away completely with people asking about mainstream vendor products. Quite possibly, someone could ask an intelligent question regarding an accurate reproduction not made by anyone on the Approved Vendor list that happens to be sold by a mainstream sutler. At the same time, we don't need discussions here along the lines of "well, the $15 dollar Indian cap pouch looks just like the $45 American made one."

[CJDaley]

Re: Questions About Non-Approved Venndors

Thank you Heinrich and Paul for answering the questions we all had and taking the time to do so. Also, Chris, I think I'll buy on of your "authentic" Pop guns at Cedar creek or at your shop in Oct. and what type of research have you put into them too! :p

Excellent question my young friend, Tim Welch and I have been sitting here all night talking about the marketing plan for pop guns and plastic canteens. I'm sure we'll come up with a good story to sell them on skinners row.

Let's see....we'll call the pop guns "quaker rifles" and the plastic canteens "gutta-percha water vessels". The cool thing about the canteens is the zipper on the cover so that you can switch from blue to grey if you have a duel impression.

Sorry if I'm a bit goofy tonight guys, it's been a long week. :wink_smil

[coastaltrash]

Re: Questions About Non-Approved Venndors

"Let's see....we'll call the pop guns "quaker rifles" and the plastic canteens "gutta-percha water vessels". The cool thing about the canteens is the zipper on the cover so that you can switch from blue to grey if you have a duel impression. "

Well at least that answers the old question of where to buy a civilian canteen, Thank you Mr. Daley for solving another problem in the hobby!

[dave81276]

Re: Questions About Non-Approved Venndors

Mr. Daley, thank you for being in the leader in authentic pop-guns. Now you don't have to make that choice between the 140th Whatever and the Cub Scout Camporee; just put your tyke beside you in the firing line. :tounge_sm
Next we need a source of period can huggies!

-Dave Eggleston
I Wonder If My Name Shows Up Three Times Mess

[Gallinipper]

Re: Questions About Non-Approved Venndors

The cool thing about the canteens is the zipper on the cover so that you can switch from blue to grey if you have a duel impression.

Zippers are farby, you should make them with snaps. I'd like to pre-order a reversible "Richmond Gray/Kersey Blue" cover please.

(Dang it, where's the tongue-in-cheek icon.....)

Rich Croxton

[Nighthawk]

Re: Questions About Non-Approved Venndors

"It is better to know what makes an item correct than to know who makes a correct item".....John Stillwagon

This is the single best piece of advice I've ever seen on this forum. It seems to me that the absolute botttom line is to be an educated consumer. If one abides by this advice, whether or not a maker is on anyone's "approved" list is irrelevant.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Questions About Non-Approved Venndors

I would say that the reason for the "drift" in the thread comes from the fact that there are two categories of vendors not on the "approved" list. There are those whose goods fall noticably short of the mark most of us here strive for, and there are those who make top notch reproductions, but who have chosen for whatever reason not to participate in the list..... I completely agree with limiting advertising on the forums to those vendors who support the forums. However, I must admit I find it a bit awkward limiting the discussion of the rank-and-file in the same manner.

I think Phil's points are excellent. There's a bit of natural adjustment time for posters when the forum moderation shifted from an impartial "Consumer Reports" mentality to the current situation where some vendors can't be discussed only because they haven't paid a fee. So there's a need to clarify where the new lines are drawn.

I'm one of the formerly approved vendors who decided not to pay to participate, due to return on investment for advertisement not being good for my little niche, and I'm totally cool with things from that point of view.

One thing that concerns me though, is from a consumer's point of view. Let's say sometime in the future I'm looking for a hard-to-find reproduction widget. If I ask "who makes the best M1851 left handed monkey wrench" and none of the approved vendors does, I'm guessing that no discussion would be allowed on where else to find one, since it would need to be purchased from a non-approved vendor. Or is it only vendors who compete with approved vendors who can't be discussed? For example, what about directing posters to the milk paint companies, or the food specialty catalogs that sell blade mace and saleratus, or the optometrists who put flat lenses in period eyeglasses? No longer allowed?

Or let's say a new vendor comes along (no, not me, I have no plans to do so--I'm talking as a consumer here) and takes a product that's formerly languished in semi-farby obscurity in everyone's product lines or isn't available at all--I dunno, women's machine-knit stockings, or men's civilian leather gloves, or brown polished cotton. Let's say he or she starts making a spot-on repro which finally allows that part of one's impression to be upgraded or makes a unique item available. Under the current rules, if I understand correctly, no one would be able to discuss the situation unless the new vendor paid the fee, even if they only wanted to discuss it from the point of view of consumers saying, "wow, finally, we can get this part of our impression right." Correct?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Edited because I messed up when quoting Phil

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Questions About Non-Approved Vendors

Hallo Kameraden!

"There's a bit of natural adjustment time for posters when the forum moderation shifted from an impartial "Consumer Reports" mentality to the current situation where some vendors can't be discussed only because they haven't paid a fee."

and

"Under the current rules, if I understand correctly, no one would be able to discuss the situation unless the new vendor paid the fee, even if they only wanted to discuss it from the point of view of consumers saying, "wow, finally, we can get this part of our impression right." Correct?"

In the interest of the discussion...

Am I missing what might be the obvious here?

Is the perception (if not reality here then) that "we Moderators" are in fact and in practice, barring discussion only on the criteria that Vendor Vick and/or Maker Mark cannot be discussed because they had not paid the new AC Forum fee to advertise/link here?

Dr. Phil's Life Law #6: There is no reality; only perception.

"I would say that the reason for the "drift" in the thread comes from the fact that there are two categories of vendors not on the "approved" list. There are those whose goods fall noticably short of the mark most of us here strive for, and there are those who make top notch reproductions, but who have chosen for whatever reason not to participate in the list."

IMHO, it is with "those" vendors 'whose goods fall noticably short of the mark most of us here strive for,' that "discussion" is being severely curtailed or eliminated as a Learning Tool.

I believe this propels us to a different discussion, and one discussed before. And that is, "What is the mission, purpose, goals, and service where and to whom, of the AC Forum?" And, "What SHOULD be?" And, "What could be?" the mission, purpose, goals, and service where and to whom, of the AC Forum?

1. If any of those answers lie in "Authentic Campaigning" and the concepts of progression, evolution, learning, and growth- should the AC Forum embrace and serve the so-called F/M/C segment of the CW Community that is wanting, striving, moving toward the P/H/A segment?

2. Using a public education model, is the AC Forum a "college" or should it serve elementary, middle school, and high school students?

3. If so, analogous to the CAMP CHASE GAZETTE discussion, does this drive away the most knowledgeable and experienced in the CW Community leaving them replaced with an increasingly shallow and shallower "pool" of Fresh Fish and Newcomers?
(Not speaking for anyone else, I have learned much in the five years I have known of this Forum, from this Forum. After a five year absence, the AC Forum brought me from the past to the present. For it to become like other fora serving other segments of the CW Community, it WOULD drive me away, yes.)

4. If so, does it keep some, any, all of the top national or international researchers away as members because the "scholarly discussions" and "research topics" do not rise above the "Who makes the best haversack?" and "what about vender vick's richmond gray richmond shell jacket for $69?"

5. Should the AC Forum set "prerequisites" in the form of "Authentic Campaigner" only type and level questions and replies as a serious "mentor relationship," - and let Fresh Fish and Newcomers and 15 year olds ask "their" questions on other fora and boards made up of, and serviving that portion of the CW COmmunity?

6. How should/could the AC Forum actually better serve the growing segment of the "P" Community still in the so-called Mainstream and Campaigner segments who continually ask and reask about "who makes" or what about Run-of-the-mill Vendor Vick's products- what what it now (if not yesterday or last week), want it at the push of a button, and want to ask "Tell me everything that is known about 'X' Thank you." WITHOUT rewarding that undesired and unwanted behaviour with Instant Success and still teaching and mentoring a "researched approach?"

7. Is there a risk, to the AC Forum, in that if it tries ot be all things to all people, it pleases none and serves even fewer in the end- to become watered down and pointless, if not invalid? (ARE "we" serving "our" community here?

8. Does not, refusing to discuss Vendor Vick and Maker Mark's wares and products in some way serve to discourage (albeit perhaps with a sledge hammer) NOT buying their goods as being not approppriate or desireable for "our" level and segment of the CW Community? Does it not force rethinking, and hopefully, research into what makes an item correct instead of who makes an correct item?

9. And, 'some vendors can't be discussed only because they haven't paid a fee.' I would say that some, many, vendors SHOULD NOT BE discussed not becasue they have not paid of fee, but rather because they do not serve the AC Community let alone those striving and working toward the H/A Segment.

10. How does one please all the people, all of the time? (When one tries to please all, one ends up pleasing none.) For me personally, I am not saying "Do not ask those Newcomer questions. I welcome and highly encourage the asking and the answering. Just not here. Please ask them where they belong."

For me personally, I hold the view that the AC Forum moderators do not, in the totality and completeness required:

1. Possess private collections large enough or have access enough to public ones,
2. Possess the knowledge on every aspect of Civil War material culture,
3. Possess the reference materials and libraries,
4. Possess the physical time,
5. Possess the means and mechanisms to obtain, review, publish, and return EVERY reproduced item from EVERY current or would-be vendor or maker,

in order to make this work fairly, effectively, and efficiently.

When it comes to vendors, perhaps Dr. Phils' Life Law #1 works: You either get, or you don't. And the Life Strategy is: Become one of those who gets it.

IMHO, the AC Forum should "get out" of the "approval business" as it is too tedious, cumbersome, unwieldly and just plain next to impossible.

I am not sure the AC Forum, can or should serve as the sole vehicle to "get it" when it comes to vendors and the concept of correct materials, patterns, and methods of construction.
Instead, "we" continue to analyze and discussion originals and how SOME vendors who strive for and achieve the concept of correct materials, patterns, and methods of construction work compares to the originals. Those vendors and makers who do not, care not, and whom serve another CW Community or three, should be discussed in those lands and kingdoms.

Do we advance toward that concept and how? Or do we retreat from it and how?

But, I know that I personally cannot physically, mentally, or temporally meet the needs of analyzing and evaluating every piece of farb junk and bogus trash being sold in certain segments of the CW Community versus original items these daze.
I also believe in becoming an Educated Consumer and Informed Customer (to the extent I am, I did it on my own with things called museums, books, collections, and face-to-face questions. With a Big Assist from the AC Forum in the era of the Glowing Screen. WITHOUT ever asking "Who makes the best Widget? "Or what about Vendor Vick's Widget?")

But that is just me. :-)

Sorry to get into such a discussion on Labor Day Weekend, Kameraden!
And, whew... This promoting, furthering, and fomenting (some would say 'fermenting') discussion is hard work!!

But, who DOES make the best indigo dyed fatigue blouse? :-)

Thanks for all of the input here and in PM and e-mail!

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
At Work In the Fields of the Bored Mess

[dave81276]

Re: Questions About Non-Approved Venndors

Would it be possible to have a "Consumer Reports"-type Approved Vendor list and then have a separate, select Supporting Vendor list? Maybe that would help some of us lay members figure out from whom to buy our kit.

-Dave Eggleston

[Hank Trent]

Re: Questions About Non-Approved Venndors

[QUOTE=Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]
Is the perception (if not reality here then) that "we Moderators" are in fact and in practice, barring discussion only on the criteria that Vendor Vick and/or Maker Mark cannot be discussed because they had not paid the new AC Forum fee to advertise/link here?

My (mis)understanding came from what Paul wrote in another thread:

We avoid references to non-approved vendors since they are in direct competition with said list and not paying their fair share for advertising. Furthermore, we also avoid non-approved vendors of a more mainstream nature - not only because they don't support the AC but also because most of their products are sub-standard.

I thought the "we" that Paul was referring to was the collective group of all posters here, as directed by the moderators, and therefore "we" (all posters) should avoid references to high-quality non-approved vendors, as well as low-quality non-approved vendors.

That's a policy which I'd accept, by the way, if it were indeed the rule, but I just want to understand what the policy is.

Heinrich wrote:

Instead, "we" continue to analyze and discussion originals and how SOME vendors who strive for and achieve the concept of correct materials, patterns, and methods of construction work compares to the originals. Those vendors and makers who do not, care not, and whom serve another CW Community or three, should be discussed in those lands and kingdoms.

Works for me!

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[JimKindred]

Re: Questions About Non-Approved Venndors

Dave,

The problem you run into is who and what qualifications do they have to make the judgment. Just because a person may be considered to be a good reenactor that does not qualify them to be an educated reviewer of Civil War uniforms or equipment. Unfortunately often that is the only criteria used when selecting a reviewer.

To accurately determine if a reproduction is a true reproduction you need to compare it to the original it was copied from. In most cases the reviewer does not have access to the original and may compare the reproduction to a similar original which may result in a confused comparison.

On the other hand you may have a reviewer with an agenda. On many occasions I have read reviews online and in print where the reviewer praises the product of sutler A while damning the product of sutler B. The only problem with the review is that both items being reviewed are identical as I sold both sutlers the item in question and they came from the same box.

Then what about reviewers who are offered free samples for a positive review. I won't even get into that one, it is self explanatory.

"Would it be possible to have a "Consumer Reports"-type Approved Vendor list and then have a separate, select Supporting Vendor list? Maybe that would help some of us lay members figure out from whom to buy our kit."

The best way to figure out from whom to buy is to study originals and compare the reproduction to originals. In the days before the internet that was the only way we had to make determinations and that way still is the best. When you fling a question out to the internet you have no way of knowing the accuracy of the answer that bounces back. If you do your own research you will learn for yourself what is right and what is not. The internet may provide instant gratification but it is not the best way to determine from whom to buy. Be patient, study and make your own decisions, do not depend solely on internet lists to make yourself an informed consumer.

[Amtmann]

Re: Questions About Non-Approved Venndors


On the other hand you may have a reviewer with an agenda. On many occasions I have read reviews online and in print where the reviewer praises the product of sutler A while damning the product of sutler B. The only problem with the review is that both items being reviewed are identical as I sold both sutlers the item in question and they came from the same box.

Jim is right. I've seen this happen with 3 different vendors and some tinware.
A few "experts" were giving their opinions about one's being better than the other but not as good as the third. The point was, all three came from the same source and were probably made during the same run.

[dave81276]

Re: Questions About Non-Approved Venndors

If the A/C used the same criteria it applies to vendors allowed to advertise here, these concerns shouldn't be a problem. Otherwise, are y'all saying the vetting of Approved Vendors is futile? It seems to me, that if the A/C can review their paid advertisers according to a set of standards, albeit relative to the experience of individual reviewers, it should be able to do the same to other vendors. Besides, the term "Approved Vendor" has misleading connotations which would be remedied by changing the name to "Supporting" or "Recommended Vendor".

-Dave Eggleston

[Michael Semann]

Re: Questions About Non-Approved Venndors

Very good point Dave. It is indeed a bit misleading to the less informed to suggest that any vendor not included amongst the "Approved" Vendor list is an absolute no-no for authentic goods. How about Charles Childs, Becky Nall, MBS, MJN, and Ben Tart for example? Changing the name to "Recommended" Vendors as you have mentioned would be a smart, and in of itself, more accurate description.

[hardtack1864]

Re: Questions About Non-Approved Venndors

I think that is a great idea Micheal and Dave, a "Suggested Vendors" list would really work, maybe we should have a poll setup to get this figured out?