Mari vs. LaBella

[jnbrown]

I have had the Mari’s on for a few days and really like them. They are very smooth and feel great on the fingers. They have a really meaty tone. So far intonation is good. Wish I tried these sooner.

[acmost9]

Yes, you should try Mari 100p, or 100pL if you like lighter tension (not that I feel much difference between the two). I can't think of a La Bella I'd play in preference. Their best nylon might be the 10PH series, but they feel
higher in tension.

Greetings, just put some 10PH trebles on a guitar, I only have one guitar so by the time I change 'em to compare them to something that
was on 3 or 4 sets ago, not a very accurate comparison but from what I remember the 10PHs feel & sound similar to what I remember
Augustine Classics being like...despite whatever differences their published diameters and tensions are. Am I crazy?

[petermc61]

No, not crazy.

I would have thought 10PH would sound closer to Imperials than Classics, but that’s only from my memory bank, which is ageing!

[acmost9]

Heh, yeah I think it's the feel maybe more so...the Imperials are a little more manly man, might be throwing my sense of tone off.

[Sharkbait]

I understand the sentiment but what I don't understand is how that translates into what brands SBM does or doesn't sell.

I think with La Bella it was us or them, but not both.

I 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.

In many countries (including Australia, last time I checked), anti-competition laws typically stop (a) anti-competitive agreements, (b) abuses of dominant position, and (c) mergers having an anti-competitive effect on the market.

The prohibition against anti-competitive agreement are aimed more at preventing cartel collusion between horizontal competitors (competitors in the same level of a supply chain) or at price maintenance agreements between parties in vertical relationships (eg. between a manufacturer and a distributor).

Exclusivity clauses in agreements in vertical relationships (e. La Bella & Strings by Mail) are not usually considered to be anti-competitive agreements because they have a net positive effect on the market (by encouraging/enabling a manufacturer with a small market share to enter the market). This is especially so if the market shares of the parties to the vertical relationship don’t cross a certain threshold (~20% or 25% in some countries but I don’t remember Australia’s threshold).

The exclusivity arrangement can be a problem if one party has a dominant position in the relevant market (usually more than 50% market share) and the exclusivity arrangement is an abuse of that dominant position (eg. by preventing its competitors from having similar services from the other party to the relationship. In this case, if La Bella does not have a dominant position, even if it demanded SBM’s exclusivity (in this case, not even full exclusivity, just partial exclusivity), there is no abuse of dominant position to violate anti-competition laws.

The mergers prohibition (point (c)) can usually be ignored by anyone who’s not a lawyer dealing in mergers & acquisitions, or the marketing people who need to provide market share data to the lawyers .