[Leica] TRI-X: RIP

[billcpearce at cox.net (Bill Pearce)]

What I meant to say was that it would be economically unfeasible to try to 
invent your own machinery and house it. If Kodak would sell equipment, 
facilities, and employees would stay on, it might be possible, but there are 
great hurdles for a new owner to overcome.

-----Original Message----- 
From: Lew Schwartz
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 1:22 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] TRI-X: RIP

I'm not judging the difficulty of the process, I'm saying that once the
process and trade mark is sold, whatever happens next will be up to the new
owner. They would be under no obligation to duplicate Kodak's manufacturing
facilities or the formula for the coating, and they will be entitled to
call their product whatever they want.

On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Bill Pearce <billcpearce at cox.net> wrote:

> It would be entirely possible to get only the formulae and have the film
> manufactured by someone else, but it would be a herculean task to start up
> a new coating line, slitting and packaging line for such a niche product. 
> I
> expect that there is a requirement for highly skilled labor as well. I
> would expect that cranking out Jeeps is quite a bit easier than a bunch of
> tri-x. Jeep owners I have know often had issues with the products 
> precision.
> Also, the freestyle film isn't their formula, but one of the manufacturer.
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Lew Schwartz
> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 9:00 AM
>
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] TRI-X: RIP
>
> Why wouldn't it be the case? Why not port the recipe? Tri-X itself has 
> more
> than one formula and has been produced in different locations and
> countries. The new owner will decide what the product is or isn't just as
> Kodak decides now; that's what ownership means. This kind of thing is done
> all the time in industry. Jeep's, except for their outward appearance, are
> 100% Chrysler products. Ralph Loren sells his brand name as a 'product' by
> itself. If a toothpick manufacturer paid enough for the license, he'd be
> able to market Ralph Loren toothpicks. Freestyle has a house brand black
> and white film the trade name of which has been constant for many years,
> but the manufacturer has changed at least once.
>
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Marty Deveney <benedenia at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> This simply isn't the case.  The physical machinery is as much part of
>> the product as the chemical formula.  If Kodak finds a buyer for the
>> Personalized Imaging business they simply cannot port the formulae to
>> another facility; it would be cheaper to buy the Kodak plant and keep
>> making it there.  The implementation costs of making "Tri-X" somewhere
>> else would be huge, to the point of being prohibitive in the current
>> climate.
>>
>> Marty
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See 
>> http://leica-users.org/**mailman/listinfo/lug<http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug>for
>>  
>> more information
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -Lew Schwartz
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See 
> http://leica-users.org/**mailman/listinfo/lug<http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug>for
>  
> more information
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See 
> http://leica-users.org/**mailman/listinfo/lug<http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug>for
>  
> more information
>



-- 
-Lew Schwartz

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information