Remember that Seinfeld where everyone chowed down on the fat-free frozen yogurt, but then started gaining weight? When they took the sample to be tested at a lab, it turned out there was plenty of fat in the "fatfree" frozen yogurt.
Well, as so often is the case, life imitates art. (Or do I mean art imitates life?) Either way, let me tell you a story:*
Once upon a time there was a yarn distributor, a large company that sold many lines of yarn to yarn shop owners. I'll call this hypothetical company "Distributor A." Distributor A enjoyed a healthy market share, not the least because of its relationships with some prominent knitting designers and the lack of true alternatives for some of its big-selling products. Among the many yarns Distributor A sold was a Yarn X, a blend of several fibers including cashmere. ["A cashmere sweater? Oh Georgie Porgie!"]
In this crazy Yarnland I have imagined, there is a second company, Distributor B, which also sells yarn to yarn shop owners. One fine day, Distributor B decided to send a ball of Distributor A's yarn to a science lab for testing. (This is merely the first oddity in my hypothetical story. It reminds me of an apocryphal story about my cousin. When seated in a hunting blind with my father, this cousin (long-term readers of mine will be able to guess his name) beheld the glory of his Thermos. "It keeps the hot stuff hot and the cold stuff cold. How do it know?" How do it know indeed. I mean, why would B send A's yarn out to be tested? Especially when it costs a not-insignificant amount? Did B send all of A's yarn out or only Yarn X? Did B send other distributors' yarns out for testing, too, and if so, what did the tests reveal? Or was B somehow tipped off that this particular yarn from this particular distributor was questionable? Did someone who knows the feel of cashmere feel Yarn X and say "Hey, I don't think it's got any cashmere in it"? Or did a disgruntled someone (former employee of A? worker from the mill?) whisper that something was amiss?)
But I digress.
Lo and behold, Distributor B's scientific tests state (as Kathy Griffin would say: "Allegedly! Allegedly!") that A's cashmere blend yarn contains, in fact, no cashmere.
Next oddity: Distributor B emails all its yarn shop customers and tells them about the test. This scenario gets the lawyer in me quivering. Can you say "tortious interference with business claim"? This was not necessarily a brilliant strategic move for a second reason: some of those customers were rubbed the wrong way by the message, and didn't like one distributor butting into the customer relationship that another distributor has with yarn shops.
Distributor A fires back with its own communications, stating unequivocally that its tests show that there is indeed the requisite amount of cashmere in Yarn X. It accuses Distributor B of being angry at losing market share with regard to a different yarn, and trying to turn customers against Distributor A as a result.
Here's the sticky part. There's a statute involving the labeling of products which contain various types of animal fibers, including cashmere. There is an entity called the Cashmere and Camel Hair Manufacturers Institute (thus proving there's a trade association for every market niche) which tries to address the legitimate concern that so many products imported into this country and advertised as containing "cashmere" (or mohair, or pashmina, or whatever) do not, in fact, contain cashmere. The CCHMI is concerned about these fake cashmere products tarnishing the reputation of cashmere and reducing demand for it. And so we have the FTC's rules on labeling cashmere yarn.
To summarize, there are statutes (the Labeling Act and the Textile Act) requiring that products have an accurate label stating the amount of fibers contained in them, in percentage form. According to the FTC, if an item contains both sheep's wool and cashmere, the seller can't just say "cashmere blend": percentages are required. One statute allows a three percent deviation from the percentage stated on the label to take into account unavoidable variations in the manufacturing process; in other words, if you say 5% percent cashmere, so long as the item contains 2 to 8 percent cashmere because of "unavoidable variations" in the manufacturing process, you're okay. The other statute, though it doesn't contain this safety margin, is, according to the FTC, generally interpreted to incorporate this three-percent margin of error.
The kicker is that the seller is responsible for label accuracy, even if the seller doesn't make the goods. So if your LYS sells a skein of yarn and it's mislabeled, the LYS is potentially liable even if it purchased the yarn from someone else who made it. And just to make it more nerve-wracking, you can't rely on an invoice that says the items do contain cashmere if it turns out that they don't. You can get a guaranty from the seller that the item complies, and if you rely on that in good faith, you won't be held liable if it turns out the seller mislabeled the product, but -- and this is a big but -- you can't rely on a guaranty and "ignor[e] an indication (such as price or appearance) that an item may not be properly labeled." So you're supposed to see a red flag if, say, a yarn that supposedly contains pashmina is selling for $2 a ball. If you sell an item that doesn't have an accurate label, you can be held liable for some astronomical sum (I've heard the figure $5000 per item mentioned but haven't been able to confirm. As in $5000 per ball of yarn sold. Ouch!).
Yarn shop owners now face a conundrum. Do they continue to sell Yarn X as labeled, relying on Distributor A's statements that it did its own tests and they show the proper amount of cashmere? Can they rely in good faith on A's guaranty even if they've been sent information about tests that also showed that Yarn X has no cashmere? Or is that "ignoring an indication that an item might not be properly labeled"? Do they wish to avoid any possibility of liability that might attach to selling a questionable product, the cashmere content of which is open to dispute, given the stakes involved? Do they feel an obligation to their customers to refrain from selling yarn like Yarn X, where it isn't clear whether the customer is getting what she's paying for?
The logical thing for Distributor A to do would be to pull Yarn X and no longer sell it and allow yarn shop owners to return it, pending some resolution of the dispute over whether Yarn X does or does not contain the requisite amount of cashmere. But Distributor A says it won't. And this is yet another oddity. I suspect that many distributors would take the hit, accept the yarn back, hang on to it or donate it to charity or some such, in the interests of protecting its customers for liability that is, ultimately not the yarn shop's fault, or at least to preserve some semblance of good will. If I had sold a product that had questionable test results, I'd be embarrassed and want to make it right. But A apparently feels differently.
I also have to wonder about some of the backstory. Yarn X is part of a line of yarns put out by a famous designer. It's a shame that the designer's name gets dragged into this debate. I wonder if the designer had any reason to suspect she was dealing with, um, a distributor that behaves like A. I wonder if she has any leverage to demand that A handle things one way or another.
And I wonder when and how this whole thing will get resolved. If there haven't been lawsuits filed already, it surely is a matter of time, don't you think?
So.... if you go into your LYS, and you happen to be searching for a particular yarn that is reputed to contain cashmere, and you can't find it -- this may be why. And if you see unusual signs posted in your LYS about yarn content, this is also why. I suspect each LYS owner will end up handling this in a different way, based on many factors, like how much it trusts or distrusts Distributor A, how much inventory it has tied up in Yarn X, and how serious it judges the risk that it could be held liable for a mislabeled product.
As my husband says, just another day in the dog-eat-dog world of yarn.
*I've purposely omitted naming any of the parties who inspired this story. I don't know any more than you do who is right and who is wrong, and I don't wish to malign anyone who doesn't deserve it. I'd appreciate it if you'd also refrain from naming names in the comments. If you absolutely must know who is involved, I'd recommend scanning the Yarn Shops thread of Knitter's Review forums.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
62 comments:
Holy crap! I hadn't heard about this bun fight for one thing, and for another I never heard of the CCHMI. I didn't know about the % thing either. I just labelled my stuff that way so people would know what was in it. The deadfalls and mantraps out there for business people are pretty scary sometimes.
and the whole story is strange and weird, and kind of like two kids yelling "Did!" "Didn't!" at each other, and leaving the consumer in the air.
Barb B.
Of course if Distributor A was hypothetically well know for being a bunch of sleeze balls you might hypothetically think this is a no brainer.
Wow, fascinating post--definitely a sticky situation. I haven't been reading the KR forums for a while, so I totally missed thie.
A small part of why I spin my own yarn is that I like to know what's in it and how it was handled--but there's still a lot of steps I pass on much of the time (scouring, blending, carding) so I have to trust my experience that what I have in my hands is what I paid for. That, and when we get into luxury ibers, I'm too cheap to buy millspun. Not that the fluff is cheap, but for some reason it's easier for me to take when I'm spending that much more time with it. Quality time with the luxe stuff.
Distributor A certainly is getting a rep for being squirrelly, that's for sure.
On the the yarn shops I frequent has warning signs posted on the bins of Yarn A, on the advice of her attorney. She mentioned the $5000 figure to me, but was uncertain if that meant a fine for each total sale or each skein involved in the sale. I haven't looked for Yarn A at any of the other local shops lately, so I don't know what they've decided to do. The whole thing is weird to me. I like the yarn and will most likely continue to buy it when I can, regardless of the amount (or non amount) of cashmere. As for Distributor A being less than honest, I have no way of knowing for sure, obviously.
We-e-e-ll, there have been rumblings about Distributor A's way of doing business before (hypothetically, of course). In fact, in recent years, a number of yarn shops have discontinued or reduced the amount that they do business with A. And with the entry into the market of additional heavy-worsted, loosely spun, wool yarns with long self-striping colors, this has become easier to do without disappointing the consumer.
Yep, it pretty much sucks because the retailers are left holding the bag. And the bag is full of yarn that is perfectly nice, high quality yarn, just unsellable without risk and unreturnable to the distributor who sold it. Sounds like a class action...
You are at your amazining best when you get all lawyerly. I'm all atwitter.
As for the yarn, I've always enjoyed using it, and I would continue to do so. Since I've bought boatloads of the stuff, perhaps I'll be entitled to some cash back in case it ever comes down to the fact that X doesn't contain cashmere.
But you didn't mention....is it fattening too? Because that would really stink.
A pox on both Distrib A and Distrib B's houses. They are acting like toddlers in a sandbox. Really.
Given Distributor B's fairly creepy behavior, I wouldn't be surprised if they had tested every yarn A carries that contains cashmere (and probably that one with camel, too) and Yarn X was just the only one that came up iffy.
The whole situation just seems bizarre to me, and it hasn't become more understandable in the few months since I first heard about it.
I've heard a lot of the horror stories about Distributor A secondhand, but it sounds like the main reason yarn store owners do business with them is because they carry very in-demand yarns. I wouldn't doubt that they were responsible for this, but I'm still skeptical because a competing distributor (who presumably has something to gain) did the testing. It is an interesting legal issue for yarn store owners, though, and I don't presume to be an expert in this area.
When are you going to cover the "price-fixing" scandals? :)
fascinating. quite a dilemma for yarn stores.
I agree with Joe about when you get lawyerly. but I don't agree about yarn X. my son made a hat out of it and in the rain it proved worse than useless. the microfiber or something absorbed and held water. it was like wearing a pint of water on your head. oh, and it all stretched out over his face. I would never make any more outerwear with that combination of fibers. and with the pilling of the hat I don't think I would trust it for innerwear either.
as for the cashmere, I just read Luxury Knitting, or some such title, that discussed Cashmere, Silk and Fine Merino. Realising how little there is of quality cashmere produced every year made me dubious of all cashmere claims.
Valeria -- Send me an email, if you would, telling me what you are referring to since I'm not familiar with it....
Well, I have to chime in on the Designer. She/He should know how the yarn is manufactured, what exactly it contains, and who is distributing it, including their reputation and tactics. Her/His name is on the ball, which makes it their reputation, not the distributor. Quite honestly, I would hold the designer to taks for what is happening, not the distributors, regardless of reputation. Why, because I am purchasing this yarn in part because of that name. This designer is making a great deal of money from this product. Part of being in business means knowing who you are in business with. This is not a small enterprise that has been duped. At the very least she owes us a statement on the current situation.
You know, Cynthia, I can't figure out where I stand on that issue. Because if I have a yarn line of my own someday (stop snickering, Kathy) I don't know that it would occur to me to have random skeins continually tested for content. I might want initial tests, maybe yearly, certainly assertions from the mill as to consistency of content, and I'd want to work w/ a reputable mill, but I don't know that I'd constantly run tests on every yarn line I sold. At some point, you'd have to trust the mill or the distributor or both that they were going to continue to produce consistent content. Wouldn't you?
It's times like these when I am glad I am just a tiny cog in the knitting wheel and don't have anything at stake here. It's a tough call.
Okay, so I don't know the whole back story here, but it was relatively easy to figure out who Distributor A is. I agree that it was a rather stupid move on Distributor B's part. It would be interesting to me to see how independent the testing was, as that would certainly have some bearing on the direction in which this is liable to go.
Of course, living with a designer, I do get a glimpse of the seedy underbelly of the yarn world, or at least the part of it where I know some of Distributor A's products are produced, so none of this is particularly surprising to me. It seems to me that Distributor A is more than large enough to afford to do regular quality assurance and, if they have any sense, should be doing so.
Now I have to find out if David's heard anything about this story, though I half expect a "yeah, well, that's no big surprise" response.
as another one whose lawyerly sensibilities got all atwitter when I heard about all this, i echo your sentiments. of course, there's more to the story at this point. a retail outlet has now tested the yarn in question and has published a highly inflammatory piece about it all on a shop owners list. this store owner is encouraging all retailers to recall all the Distributor A's yarns containing cashmere in order to avoid liability.
we'll see. personally, i like the disclaimer idea.
I don't know a thing about quality control etc. at the huge mills. However, I know a bit on the mini-mill companies, and some things must be similar. There are mini-mills that I wouldn't use, and would doubt what came out the other end. The one I use welcomes me to walk around, check things etc. (She keeps trying to put me to work actually) But there is definitely trust involved. If the mill is telling you its 17% cashmere, then you trust their word. The percentage is based on weight going into the carding and blending i.e. 25/25/50 cashmere/bison/merino better be 1/1/2 lbs of the product going in. That's cleaned, dehaired, ready for carding. I have heard, but don't know if its true, that some mills base this weight on before cleaning, processing etc of the raw cashmere. For the lovely soft product you expect, the fibre goes through the dehairing process 3, 4 or more times(I had 2.5 lbs. of raw cashmere, ended up with 2 and the mill owner was amazed. Usually she is lucky to wind up with half, but this fibre was very clean. )So, if you used the above example, clean bison, clean merino, and unprocessed cashmere, you would have only 1/2 lb. of cashmere in that mix when the yarn came out. Most people also don't realize that besides the scarcity of the product, and the little each animal produces, the mills charge for each pass through the dehairing process. Between the cost of producing the raw fibre, and the cost of processing properly, I'm pretty suspicious of "cheap" cashmere. Usually, that's what you get when you buy it.
Just my buck and half worth. (used to be 2 cents, but inflation has hit everything)
Barb B.
PS I really don't understand why synthetics are being added. Can anyone give me the reason?
Good question, Barb. My guess is for added durability, especially since cashmere is so soft and wears fast. (Of course, if there's no cashmere in the yarn, they really wouldn't need to worry about durability, would they?) Maybe it also improves the machine washability? Anyone?
Um, an lys I have frequented sent me an email today recalling a bunch of yarns. The distributor doesn't agree with their decision, so I guess they're eating the cost.
The details and links are on my blog today or can be found here: http://www.januaryone.com/archives/2006/10/yarn_recall.php
Thought you might be interested. Thanks.
Gawd, I need more coffee...
The only thing I can really chime in on is the "give or take 3%" thing. My rovings are 50/50, but since I ask the mill to swirl the mohair around the bl, I can see where in some spots there is more mohair than in others. Yikes. That could get me in trouble one day- I may need more than coffe.......
Damn Mindy, why'd you have to bring that up? My chunky alpaca/merino I ask to have minimally blended so it has a kind of funky look. Maybe if we say "50/50 blend taken overall"?
Barb b.
Definitely bad business on the parts of A, B and the designer. They've all put their integrity on the line. If the end user (us knitters) were knitting with fibers not correctly listed, we too, could do a little harm. Who'd want to make something for someone who may be allergic to the contents? I may have my pillows sent out for testing. I'm sure there's a PFMI (pillow feather mft inst) OK that was silly.
As a yarn shop owner, I have had yarn-mafia type dealings with Distributor A (hence the anonymous comment), and was told by an anonymous phone call from someone "in the know", that the Designer's entire line of yarn was FINANCED by Distributor A, and that is why she can't/doesn't/won't do anything about their dirty dealings. I have been saying for a while that the yarn world is darker than it seems, and it looks like that side of the biz is starting to be seen by the end-consumers.
Looks like the publishing world hasn't cornered the market on skeeviness.
Jude in obscureknitty
Crap. I just finished one glove with Yarn X last night. Regarding a certain other yarn sold by Distributor A, I bought 3 balls of a certain subtley self-striping yarn recently, and each ball had at least 2 knots. One ball had 3 knots, two of which were spaced about 3 yards apart. Maddening! I adored the colors, but the quality sucked. Has anyone else experienced this? This experience is one of the many things that caused me to start spinning my own yarn. I know what it is, and I know there aren't any @#$%ing knots in it! :-)
So, can I get my money back from eBay for a huge amount of the Designer's yarn . . . or do a continue to knit with a soft yarn that may or may not contain the requisite amount of cashmere (I could just lose the ball band instead and be done with it). Such intrigue in the knitting world!
It seems like Distributor B more or less created this issue since how many knitters a) knew about the cashmere labeling rules and b) would go to all the trouble to get something tested and then sue?? Of course for $5000 it might be worth it.
My guess on why the yarn has microfiber in it is that microfiber is super soft, and definately gives one a "ooh, cashmere" kind of feel. I mean, I usually recoil at acrylic, and I think that particular yarn line feels fine. It's a way of upping the luxury feel at a lower price, maybe?
This is all velly intelestink, because I just bought some odd-percentage cashmere yarn at my LYS, and now I'm sort of miffed because of the premium price I paid just 'cause of that strange percentage of goaty down. I'd just as soon have the same yarn (correctly labeled) for $2 less/ball or so.
That aside, I remember a same Certain Designer's name being mentioned in a scandal 2 years or so ago regarding said Designer's yarn being named similarly and sold as A-yarn-created-by-and-for-the-benefit-of-poor-women-in-a-Southern-Hemisphere-Country when in fact it was not.
And is it really tortious interference if Company B emails THEIR client list with claims about Distributor A? I could see the case if B got ahold of A's client list ane emailed them.
I bet my LYS owner is unaware of this.
And dang it, why doesn't someone just put all of this on massive sale, with a statement, "unknown content" so that I can just scoop up some deals. Nerts.
Would it change the picture if you suddenly found out Distributor B did all this to prepare the market for their own Cashmere product with the exact same composition - but at a more expensive price and minus the designer support?
Then who would appear sleazy ...
(this hypothetical product is being shown to shop owners now and is hypothetically being called "Cash-True". Ethical huh?)
The funny thing about this is that I highly highly respected dist A's cashmere blend, and kind of laughed at the box store cashmere blend----but yep, I don't like much about the big box store yarn company, but I believe that they have fiber content integrity, and I bet the box store cashmere blend actually has more cashmere in it than dist A's!
Of course I remember the Seinfeld yogurt episode. It ended with a
twist. Kramer and his lab tech girlfriend knocked something over during
a love-making session in the lab, which ended up contaminating a blood
sample belonging to then NYC mayoral candidate, Rudy Giuliani. The
upshot? An article reporting that Rudy's cholesterol level was
dangerously high. The moral? You can't always assume the accuracy of lab
tests.
Which brings us back to your mythical Yarnland protagonists, A and B.
Why would B single out just a yarn that A distributes, when other
companies also market similar yarns? Could it be that B was upset
because A had taken market share away from one of B's yarns? Or because
B was about to market its own cashmere blend to compete with A? Maybe
your initial "tortious interference" instinct was right after all.
And what if B's lab report wasn't so reliable? After all, cashmere's
notoriously hard to test for, even when Cosmo Kramer isn't involved.
Plus, A has its own reports contradicting B. A even has a DNA report.
And A's standing behind its yarns, even giving guarantees to its
customers, just like the FTC suggests.
Oh, well. It's your story. You can leave it as is -- a non-believable
fairy tale. Or you can make it believable by including some semblance of
reality.
Oh, my, it looks like someone from a yarn distributor very much like my hypothetical A has shown up. Anonymously, of course.
Actually, Sion -- if I may call you that -- my story (hypothetical) concluded by noting that I had no idea who was right and who was wrong. A blogger simply can't know whose lab tests are the most accurate. But it is the very uncertainty that harms the yarn shop. Why should the yarn seller -- who isn't in any better position to know the right answer than I am -- have to bear the risk of the uncertainty?
and to see how Sion -- or is it Shear, but then what would it matter because they are all in it together and therefore they are the same -- counters clear facts, go to http://www.knittersreview.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=66581.
It is interesting to note that in the October 2006 edition of "The Wool Record" is an article by Franz J. Wortmann, an expert from the University of Manchester, which shows in diagram 2 that for detecting 100% cashmere - to have under a 1% error and be able to reliably say something is 100% cashmere - you must test AT LEAST 450 fibres. The % error at 100 fibers on a 100% Cashmere samples was 5%! That means although the sample WAS KNOWN to contain 100% Cashmere - 5% was undetectable or thrown off due to the small number of fibres analyzed.
Imagine what this implies for a Cashmere BLEND where you are only testing for 12% Cashmere and all the tests being publicized are done on only 50 fibres!!!!!!! No wonder they are finding no cashmere.
soooo...
Does quoting the good professor mean that 100% cashmere yarns, say even a "pure" cashmere - maybe even a newly introduced yarn under a certain brand name - is not 100% cashmere?
Then, if that yarn is not pure cashmere, what, pray tell, does pure mean and what percentage of cashmere does this new yarn actually have?
Another question: are you implying that the good professor's math - that 100% is actually 95% - allows the conclusion that 0% is really means 12%.
May I call you Sion also. I looked
at the www.theknitwith.com test
results from Langley. They were
done on over 500 fibers not 50 as
you say and 50 more than the 450
you quote.
Any way using your argument of the
5% versus the 3% FTC guideline and
subtracting from 12% percent, one
gets 7%. Those tests still show
ZERO.
You and your Jeff keep alluding to your JULY tests done in Europe on Knitters Review.
Post them on your KFI website so
we can finally see them. You say
you have given them to the shops.
So put them on your website that
we, the consumers, can see them and
judge for ourselves.
I can't wait KFI to show all of you sceptics his now famous July tests. I want to see it posted on his web to put an end to all this confusion over my favorite yarn.
I agree I think that KFI need to post the test results on their web site instead of just throwing accusations at others. I for one want to see their July tests. Why not settle this. I want to judge for myself what balls and dye lots they were testing.
I don't get it. No big company like the Distributor A here would do something like what they're accused of doing.
When their lawyers let them, I can't wait to see how they respond.
I too want to see their test reports. That'll end this PDQ.
Praying for the day.
Hmmm, Still waiting to see those test results. Is distrbutor A not as proud of those results as he says. Let's see him put his money(test results) where his mouth is. I think DB needs to do this in order to assure knitters that her yarns is indeed as labeled.
"Another question: are you implying that the good professor's math - that 100% is actually 95% - allows the conclusion that 0% is really means 12%."
No - I am implying that when experts run a test on what they KNOW is 100% Cashmere - in order to "test the tests" - and they determine that you must run at least 450 fibres just to get below 1% error - that perhaps people shouldn't be so quick to trust a FEW tests on something with a marginal amount of Cashmere - with no controls in place.
I would also submit that to run one test of one ball of one yarn in one color of one dyelot - and use that result to condemn a whole product (or product line) - is foolish. To prove that it is not a mere production issue with a certain yarn or a certain color or a certain dyelot one needs to run tests on all colors of that yarn - and even better all dyelots.
Lastly - I submit that since it might be a problem with the testing - that perhaps a test should be run on all products from all suppliers with a marginal amount of cashmere. If they all come back with the same results (of no cashmere) - then obviously there is something wrong with the test being used.
For proper results one needs to run a proper experiment. I don't feel that is being done at this time. I feel that some are "choosing their data" to prove their own position.
Sion- enough RED HERRING. Now you are saying Langley and STR do not
have the proper controls.
When will you stop spinning and
show your JULY tests??
Hummmm....
Choosing their date to prove their own position.
Now that's an interesting proposition. Never heard of that EVER happening before!
What a contrast between publicly disclosed data for all to see themselves on the Yarn Recall page at www.theknitwith.com against let me tell you about my reports but no, you can't see my reports.
Where's the chosen, call that hidden data, to prove a point.
Sion- may I also call you Sion and
quote you- ""I feel that some are
choosing their data to prove their own position.
Well, isn't that what you have been
doing since you posted on KR for all of us to see.
First, all the nonsense about Cascade and Ella Rae AND the Knit With and his mother and his purchases are ridiculous.
Second, this crying about your
cashmerino being duplicated is
immature. Isn't it your company that knocked off eyelash? Isn't it
your company that is knocking off
one of my favorite yarns- Tahki Donegal Tweed- with your own version? Isn't it your company that
made those imitation Plymouth labels and called them Iross and Alectra and sold them to Big Lots?
Isn't it your company that knocked
off your own Debbie Bliss cashmerino and sold it to A.C.Moore
as "cashmere Luxury Aran"? The store manager identified the UPC
code as yours.
Third,why have you still not posted
your July test results?
Fourth, you say more testing has
to be done. Well, there are many
consumers out here ready for you to
test skeins that we purchased before
JULY. Where shall we send them at
your expense for testing?
Fith, I dare ask the question about
your other cashmere products, and
especially the 100% cashmere.
Finally, we want answers and test
results. The truth will come out
sooner or later.
Do you remember Haldeman and Ehrlichman? Some one will be Deep
Throat.
What does the LYS do when the truth comes out? If there is no chasmere in the yarn what then? Throw the yarn away, sell it and be liable? If there is cashmere in the yarn will the consumer really believe it?
Oh Sion ( if I,too, may be so personal),
How sedulous is your mind.
Quote: " To prove that [zero cashmere content]is not a mere production issue with a certain yarn or a certain color or a certain dyelot one needs to run tests on all colors of that yarn - and even better all dyelots."
I disagree.
When tests, duplicated at two different labs, shows zero cashmere in three distinct yarns from a range of six similar yarns, that's not "a mere production problem."
That's a PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!
I found 12 balls of Debbie Bliss cashmerino baby in my stash.
I've been ripped off.
When I call KFI at Tel: (516) 546-3600, I better get their acceptance to pay for testing.
TO: Sion, Shear or whoever at KFI
You got stones!
I read you claim "You can't always assume the accuracy of lab tests" when you challenged those test reports bout your yarns.
Where's your reports?
I don't assume no accuracy of any reports I only hears about but can't reads for myself.
You better check your stones too. They's not as big as you all thinks.
publicly disclosed.
Yup, that's a problem.
And problems don't just go away until they're solved.
Does KFI and Debbie Bliss EVEN have any lab reports?
FYI - my name is not Sion and I don't know why you all are assuming that. If you ever read Sion's post from Knitters Review you would recognize that our writing styles are entirely disparate.
I still stand by what I posted regarding testing - and I note that very few of you addressed the points I raised.
Finally - I agree with the one poster that if multiple products from different manufacturers are testing 0% there is a problem. The problem is either that EVERY mill is leaving out the cashmere - or the testing being used is not accurate. I even implied this in my previous post.
In any case - this is my last post on this blog. Take care.
What a shame, Digital yarn posted
the long awaited tests. The problem
is simple, they were all done in August and September
and can not possibly
be the tests KFI issued on July 20.
Also, the introction again uses that word- "presence"- no quantities unfortunately.
Does anyone have the July tests to
share with us?
Thks
WOW, I just checked out digitalyarn.typepad.com/ and the test posted are NOT the much talked about July tests that KFI sent to my LYS. Someone is trying to pull the acrylic over our eyes.
As a shop owner and customer of KFI, I received those test results - and from what I hear every KFI customer received them. Surely someone knows how to scan them in and post them?
If not - can't the consumers simply ask their LYS to see them?
Shop owner
Do each of those tests show a detail of the Date, Color , Dyelot, signature and
percentage of cashmere that would
validate them ?
Also, what countries are they from?
First it was chads.......now its counterfeit yarn! What is an american knitter supposed to do now!!!!
Well I guess we all know now that
there must be something wrong with
the KFI tests. No posting of them
anywhere, unless knows where.
Finally we got to see the test results, courtesy of the knit with
after weeking of KFI stonewalling.
Disgracefully manipulation and
deception of the knitting public.
Hope Eliott Spitzer of New York throws the book at them.
It was said:
'This designer is making a great deal of money from this product. Part of being in business means knowing who you are in business with. This is not a small enterprise that has been duped. At the very least she owes us a statement on the current situation.'
The designer is NOT making a great deal of money. She essentially licenses her name. Years ago another very large company was paying her TOPS £500 a month for all the designs she could do. This was what she, and many designers dream of.
She chooses her blends, but not the mills. She sees the raw materials at the mills in Italy, but not the spinning. The company that started all this has stated if they knew it was the mill that made this yarn they never would have, because they make some of their yarns too. So perhaps there yarns should be tested too?
She is working on making a statement that will address ALL THE ISSUES. She doesn't want to make one that isn't addressing everything so people can say she is hiding anything, not revealing the truth, or hiding behind a distributor. She is more upset than any of us.
Now, you can choose to believe that, or not, but what we all should remember is that -- regardless of the yarn -- it is a person we are dealing with here. A single person, who works out of a single room in her house, who has feelings. Who is being threatened to be sued by an unnamed yarn store that has posted results on their website, even though she has never said word one about them publicly.
A person who is appalled at the state of this, concerned about the knitters -- not her reputation, but what the knitters have bought, compared to what they have thought they have bought.
A person with feelings. Remember that.
The Knit With did microscopy tests, which are different than the tests which were run and posted on Digital Yarn, which were DNA tests, and more accurate according to my friend who is a DNA scientist type person.....
With all due respect to the designer in question (and believe me, I am a big fan), all the feelings in the world don't help the yarn shop. The yarn shop is stuck with yarn which may be excellent but the mere selling of it subjects the yarn shop owner to liability -- because the yarn shop doesn't know who is right and can take the financial chance on betting on the wrong pony. I've tried to keep this discussion respectful of the designer in question, not the least of which by not mentioning his/her name. A situation like this is terrible not the least of which because people don't know what or who to believe. And I'm sure there are a lot of LYS owners who are very upset, too.
Post a Comment