[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex 456 - tip of the iceberg...chemistry
Possibly, but both 3M and Ampex acknowledged issues with tape (and in
the case of 3M, film) related problems, and they seemed to own up to
them without having any lawsuits filed (3M, of course, closed down their
operations not too long after some of the problems had started showing up).
In any case, they are only liable for the cost of replacing the raw
material (same as Eastman Kodak), which they in fact they did when we
ran into problems which showed up immediately. At one point in the
1980's, we sent back at least 200 rolls of tape, and over 100,000 feet
of film, to 3M when we encountered some problems. To their credit, they
were very responsive, and worked with us to solve the problem.
I doubt that any of the companies would have knowingly sold defective
product, as they wouldn't want a bad rep, plus the hassle of all the
product returns. Since most of the issues with SSS showed up long after
the original sale of the product, I doubt they would have known about
this at the time of manufacture. What would be interesting, though, is
knowing when a formulation was changed that led to the eventual problems
that we are dealing with now. We have seen some batches of tape of the
same formulation that show little degradation in the form of SSS, and
others which are nearly unsalvageable, all from the same vault.
Since all these companies are now out of business or bought out, it's
rather a moot point, as there is no one left to sue anyway!
--Scott D. Smith
Chicago Audio Works, Inc.
Bob Olhsson wrote:
Scott D. Smith wrote:
...I have never been able to get anyone from
BASF/AGFA to own up to the problem.
I suppose I should mention the elephant in the room.
If somebody could prove that a tape manufacturer knowingly sold tape having the sticky-shed problem, it would open them up to product liability lawsuits from the major broadcasters, film studios and record labels.