Very much hinted at during my conversation.
Talked with my daughter who is a lawyer, and she referred me to site at the US Department of Justice that talks about competition and monopoly under the Sherman Act. The Act seems to allow exclusive dealings between two parties at the expense of another under certain circumstances.petermc61 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:38 amI understand that. What I don't understand is one of the world's leading economies why that is acceptable. In Australia, an attempt to do that would be seen as anti-competitive (contrary to the overarching interests of consumers) and would be open to prosecution.
I understand all of that and agree that, by and large, that is competition at play. It may well be that as we have a smaller domestic market we therefore need additional regulation. This regulation is not interfering with competition, but designed to stop anti-competitive behaviour. The only example given by you above where it would trigger in Australia is a case where a supplier offered product to a retailer but did so on the basis that the retailer could not stock a competitor's products. The reason for this is to avoid large players using their market power to stifle smaller competitors, which is certainly not in the interests of consumer in the longer term.Guitarhancock wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:53 amHere is the way it works in reality. Neither LaBella or Mari are required to sell their product to anyone. They can sell their product from the back door of their warehouse if they have the correct local licenses. Or they can sell to WalMart and not to Amazon if they choose. If SBM wants to only sell LaBella they can . If they want to sell Mari and La Bella does not like it then SBM can tell LaBella to take a hike unless they have a binding legal contract they signed not to sell Mari strings. This happens throughout retailing in the USA. Many high end companies that only sell to Saks, Macys and Nordstrom would never sell to Costco or Wal Mart because their items would be sold at a lower price. It works.
Do not let the government interfere. Any more than it does.
Australia sounds like a great place to live but ....SBM is in the USA. Competition
Yes. This topic influenced me to order a set of Mari strings. I have been using them for two weeks now on three guitars and am very pleased. After a few tunings they held fast and feel smooth and silky on the fingers. These are the light set - 100p and 100pL. As to their longevity, hilm3g says “they seem to last forever”. I’ll let you know my experience in the future. I’m comparing these to La Bell 900 golden superior which I love and have been using for the past nine years. So far, I prefer the Mari’s and plan to order a set for my flamenco guitar.
Thanks for this. I can at least have som comparison to LaBella Strings.es335 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:09 pmUnfortunately not! There is not even a diameter table but acc. my measurements the figures for 100p are app. 0.72/0.85/1.02 mm (e/b/g). Translating this in tension delivers a stronger gradient from e to g than most other treble sets.
BTW these are almost the same figures as of the Pepe Romero GLOW trebles!
Sure have. The Mari is the better string and very consistent in intonation. I would not have described them as that similar, other than they are both nylon.jnbrown wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2017 3:26 amHas anybody compared Mari 100P to Aquila Cristallo?
I was going to try the Mari but it was a lot cheaper to buy the Cristallo so I went with that.
I have heard these strings are similar.
I really like the Cristallo a lot but the intonation is not so good.
The high E string isn't bad, the B string gets sharp as I play higher up but I could live with it. The G string is horrible so I replaced it with a carbon string.