Hello John:
A 'Whois" on their web page turns up:
Registrant:
NOBLE COLLECTION (NOBLECOLLECTION4-DOM)
21731-B Filigree Ct.
ASHBURN, VA 20147
US
Domain Name: NOBLECOLLECTION.COM
Administrative Contact:
NOBLE COLLECTION (NC2808-ORG) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NOBLE COLLECTION
21731-B Filigree Ct.
ASHBURN, VA 20147
US
703 858 4340
Fax- 703 858 4350
Technical Contact:
HABIB, CHRISTINE-WN-JGEG (CHJ258) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NOBLE COLLECTION
21731-B Filigree Ct
ASHBURN, VA 20147
703 858 4340
Brooke Clarke
John Carmichael wrote:
> Hi Steve and others,
>
> I tried to make light talk about the little Frankenstein Sundial by The
> Nobel Collection in my first email (remember the hubbub over the DST human
> analemmatic?) but inside I was really pissed off for three reasons:
>
> 1. They cheated my friend, the person who gave it to me and who spent a lot
> of money.
> 2. I am in direct competition with this company, their product, and their
> glamorous false advertising. But I am playing by the rules and they are not.
> 3. They don't have an address that I can write to or a number to call.
>
> It was also upsetting that this is just another flawed sundial that we can
> add to a growing list of flawed sundials that are flooding our small sundial
> market. I couldn't agree more with Steve's concern about this and I also
> wonder about existing legislation. I think reputable sundial sellers and the
> buying public need a way to protect themselves from this sort thing.
>
> But perhaps there is a better way that wouldn't involve lawsuits. I know
> that before people buy anything, they like to read reviews of what's
> currently for sale in the industry. ( That's how I picked out my digital
> camera). The internet is LOADED with reviews for just about everything.
> Wouldn't it be nice to have a website of Sundial Reviews? It wouldn't have
> to be associated with NASS or BSS. The reviews could be written by a group
> of dialists and/or by customers.
>
> I know my idea for a Sundial Makers Association didn't float, but a website
> of Sundial Reviews would be a lot less ambitious and very effective.
>
> Just a Thought
>
> John
>
> p.s. If anybody wants to see a close-up photo of the Nobel Frankenstein
> Sundial and a scan of their signed "Certificate of Authenticity" that I dug
> out of the trash, tell me and I'll sent you an attachment.
>
> I'm mad!
>
> John L. Carmichael Jr.
> Sundial Sculptures
> 925 E. Foothills Dr.
> Tucson Arizona 85718
> USA
>
> Tel: 520-696-1709
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Website: <http://www.sundialsculptures.com>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Lelievre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <sundial@rrz.uni-koeln.de>
> Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 1:04 PM
> Subject: Re: corrupt instruments
>
> > Sara wrote (snipped)...
> >
> > > One reader took me to task for my use of the word "corrupt" and perhaps
> > > others were equally puzzled.
> >
> > Well, I for one had no problem seeing it as corrupt (modern). But if we
> > don't like corrupt, how about fraudulent?
> >
> > The site says the dial is "...an authentic replica ...exacting in
> > detail...calibrated to count the hours by the sun's rays..."
> >
> > Doesn't the US have any consumer protection legislation to say that
> products
> > must be fit for the advertised purpose?
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > (original, snipped...)
> > > >What bugs me about this kind of rubbish is that for all the effort
> that
> > > > went into making the castings, the company could just as easily have
> > made
> > > > them right as wrong....Is this just do to ignorance, laziness, or
> > > corruptness?
> > >
> > -
> >
>
> -
-
