Latest Posts

Unwelcome Newcomers

Corporate Fuckery, The Gun Thing

At first, I didn’t think too much about this development:

America’s largest gunmaker, Sturm Ruger & Co., accused the parent company of Italian arms firm Beretta of trying to stealthily seize control of the Connecticut-based business through “self-serving demands” such as cut-price stock buys and veto-like board power.

The Todd W. Seyfert-led giant hit back on Monday at the historic firm’s proxy fight, which was first reported by The Post on Feb. 25, that branded the move as a thinly-veiled threat to launch “a war” and complete a full takeover.

Ruger claimed Beretta quietly built a large stake, refused to halt purchases during negotiations and sought perks that could break US antitrust laws that prevent companies from unfairly dominating markets.

“At that meeting, Beretta’s chair indicated a long-term plan to combine Ruger with Beretta but made no formal proposal,” Ruger said in a statement issued via a spokesperson.

“Beretta’s chair also indicated that he had no interest in the status quo and that he would find a way to increase his position if Ruger remained resistant,” the company added.

Looks like the usual corporate dogfight, dunnit?

Then I looked at some of the small print:

Beretta announced plans two weeks ago to nominate four new members to sit on Ruger’s nine-member board after the publication of The Post’s exclusive story.

The names are William Franklin Detwiler of Fernbrook Capital, Mark DeYoung, the ex-Vista Outdoor CEO, Frederick Disanto of Ancora Holdings and Michael Christodolou of Inwood Capital.

Oh, how nice.

And what do capital funds typically do?  Under the guise of “giving more value to shareholders”, these fucking vultures systematically strip and sell assets from companies they come to control.  And having four out of nine directors means they can pretty much do whatever they want — unless of course, the other five directors can hold the line and kick back against them, with shareholder support.

Sounds good, but that’s not the way to bet.

So what can we do, as ordinary folks?  Not a whole bunch, except make Ruger a priority or a first choice on our next gun purchase.  I wish there was more we could do, but there it is.

I have a bad taste in my mouth and a bad feeling in my gut…

Consolidation

Marketing / Advertising, Retailing, Toys

According to this rather lengthy video, Rolex is dropping hundreds of smaller Rolex “dealer” outlets and instead creating Rolex megastores in “prime” locations such as London (!!!) and Manhattan (!!!).

It would appear that the main reason behind this is that Rolex wants to protect their brand by limiting the number of outlets, dropping smaller stores (regardless of relationship longevity) so that they can control the whole “Rolex buying experience” and provide their customers with the proper treatment with fine ambience, better-trained staff and so on.  Also, these larger stores can carry the extensive Rolex range that a smaller store couldn’t.

It all sounds well and good, except that the actual reason, it seems to me, is that during the sales spike caused largely by the Great Covid Panic of 2020, the people who really made money weren’t Rolex themselves but the profiteers who bought their watches and resold them on the “grey” market — and Rolex, like Ferrari, wants to keep as much of the market to themselves.  (Same tactics, different product.)

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with what they’re doing. As long as there are people willing to pay the inflated prices of their products, then good luck to them.

My own personal take on the thing is that I’m indifferent because (regardless of any lottery winning) I would never be a Rolex  sucker  buyer in the same way as Ferrari would forever be outside my list of automotive choices (except maybe a Dino, although given the current price list of same… nah, never mind).  Sorry, I’m no longer impressed by brand names, especially when the brand’s “value” is artificially pumped up by fools and suckers with more money than sense.  And even more so when the brand operates in a commodity category like watches.

And finally, I happen to think that those big, blocky things like the Submariner are just… ugly.  I’m not a scuba diver so I’ll never need one, and anyway, there are other watches just as good for half the price and a tenth of the Rolex attitude (once again, see:  Ferrari dealers).

A pox on all their houses.

Relative Beauty

Drive Time, Modernism, The Gun Thing

“Oh bloody hell, here goes old Kim again, bitching about how ugly new stuff is compared to old stuff.”

Well, yes.  I am very aware that the new stuff is streets ahead of the old stuff, technologically speaking.  I am also aware that despite this, in many cases this techno-superiority makes very little difference in terms of everyday use.  Here’s an example, using this modern iteration of the venerable 1911 handgun:

…versus the traditional:

Now I know that there are all sorts of reasons why the SIG P211 is a great pistol, probably far better than the Gold Cup in terms of, well, everything, from features to function and so on.  But at the end of the day, will both guns deliver a half-dozen or so rounds of manly .45 ACP goodness into the desired target area?  Yes, the P211 has more rounds to deliver, and yes, it has a tacti-cool red-dot sight which I guess will make this new model x times more accurate than the old-fashioned Gold Cup.  If all that floats your boat, have at it.  I’ll stick with the old 1911, because it’s enough for me, and it will shoot better than I can shoot it anyway.

Consider another example of this phenomenon, using high-end sports cars this time.  Here’s Ferrari’s La Ferrari:

Looks good, is super-fast, has all those holes in the body to make the airflow more efficient, etc.  And hoo boy, it sure is super-fast.  No argument about that, least of all from me.

So let’s look at an older version of a supercar, the Jaguar E-type Series 2:

It’s for sure not as fast as the Ferrari — hell, a tuned E-type can only manage at best ~150mph compared to the 220mph of the Scuderia creation, and its piddly little 4.2-liter straight 6 engine pushes out at best 265hp (compared to the newer supercar’s 6.3-liter V12 plus the F1-derived KERS system yielding 850hp).

So… no contest, right?

Quite right.  I’d take the Jag any day of the week, six ways to Sunday.  The looks of the Jag are smoother, less angular and frankly, streamlined enough for me, and the performance is frankly much more than I need.  (The Ferrari’s performance is not only excessive, it frightens me because I wouldn’t be able to control the beast.)

Frankly, both the SIG and LaFerrari embody to me a “modern” style that I have come to detest — much as this example of a “modern” building compares very badly to an older one:

 

Your opinions on all the above examples may vary.

Monday Funnies

Funny Stuff

And on a similar note from yesteryear:

So on we go…

And to end on a somewhat more cheerful note:

“Please Sir:  can we have some more?”

And if that’s not enough to carry you off into the week, you need help.

Modern Classic Beauty: Sarah Miles

Classic Beauty

Here’s one actress of whom it can be said that she was better than any movie she featured in, and when some of those movies are classics, it just proves how brilliant Sarah Miles was.  Here’s a short list of those movies:  The Servant, Ryan’s Daughter, The Sailor Who Fell From Grace With The Sea, Blow Up, and White Mischief.  With the possible exception of White Mischief (an historical drama) and Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines (comedy), most of her movies during the 1960s and -70s were dark, artistic and might be called “avant garde” — which is why Hollywood never seemed to know what to do with her, and she shone mostly in British films.  Oh, and by the way, in Hope And Glory she was astonishing, her old-fashioned looks perfect for the role.

Exquisite and talented:  the complete package.