Italian clasps, revisted

[dagoR6]

Hey guys,

sorry to start a new thread but I didn't want to bounce the old one to the top. I've been playing clasp detective the past couple of days and after searching through the forums read up on the 2006 thread on the Schmale vs. Italian clasp controversy. Where it was found that Schmale was 100% positive that the Italian clasps were all fakes. But many members agreed that they had late 90's Italian clasp boxes that were undoubtable.

I found some of my 98 first release trini boxes and noticed both had Italian clasps (bought from an LCDH). I was just curious, now that two years have gone by, what peoples thoughts are. Were the Italian clasp boxes mainly authentic? Or is it considered fact in this day and age that they were counterfeit.

Just to clarify that the sticks I have in those boxes were like a ray of light from heaven when smoked with a hint of warm puppy dogs rubbing your feet.

 

[cohibafan]

Here's the original post for reference...
http://www.cigarpass.com/forums/index.php?...70&hl=clasp

 

[Mr Peat]

Opus X boxes had the Schmale clasps on them at one point. I thought it was pretty funny when I noticed it. The Opus X #5 box I have has Schmale while the Opus X #4 box I have has the Cucci clasp.

 

[tone-ny]

Didn't you read Rod's letter stating not to start a new thread if one existed?

Your comments could have easily been added to that thread and not a new one.

Rod's Letter

edited to add link to Rod's letter

 

[JHolmes763]

Didn't you read Rod's letter stating not to start a new thread if one existed?

Where does it say anything about that? The link in Rod's signature for new guys links to a page that says this:

Don't "bump" old threads. If a thread is more than a year old, then there's probably no need to post to it. There are exceptions, please use your best judgment.

---John Holmes...

 

[tone-ny]

Didn't you read Rod's letter stating not to start a new thread if one existed?

Where does it say anything about that? The link in Rod's signature for new guys links to a page that says this:

Don't "bump" old threads. If a thread is more than a year old, then there's probably no need to post to it. There are exceptions, please use your best judgment.

---John Holmes...

"asking that everyone please THINK BEFORE YOU POST."

Rules

1.) Before posting a question (especially if it seems that it may be a common question), please use the search feature on the forum. Simply click the Search button, and type in what you're looking for. There's a good chance your question has already been answered.

Plus numerous other posts by Rod on the subject.

Have I answered your question John?

 

[JHolmes763]

No, but I won't hijack this thread anymore. Sorry, dago. I hope you get some answers.

 

[tone-ny]

Here is the link for the second clasp thread that makes mention of the first clasp thread.

http://www.cigarpass.com/forums/index.php?...l=schmale+clasp

 

[grateful1]

Didn't you read Rod's letter stating not to start a new thread if one existed?

Where does it say anything about that? The link in Rod's signature for new guys links to a page that says this:

Don't "bump" old threads. If a thread is more than a year old, then there's probably no need to post to it. There are exceptions, please use your best judgment.

---John Holmes...

Here in lie's the crux...one of them needs to be changed- maybe!

Which one do you think needs to be looked at?
The newer one stating to not start threads when a thread exists...or the old one about necro-threads?

As far as Dago's thread...it's been discussed.
Regarding the clasp issue: what's to say a seller could not 're-use' a clasp.

<edit...speling>

 

[tone-ny]

No, but I won't hijack this thread anymore. Sorry, dago. I hope you get some answers.

I guess you haven't been paying attention to Rod's numerous posts on the subject.

If the discussion has occurred why start a new thread? The continuation of a previous thread can add knowledge to those that are new to CP as well as refresh the memory of older members. I hope I've explained this, since I wasn't as clear in my previous posts.

 

[JHolmes763]

Yes, you win!

 

[tone-ny]

Yes, you win!

I'll send you my address then :whistling:

 

[dagoR6]

Hmm, the old thread was about 2.5 years old or so. The end result seemed to be two minds on the subject. It was a long thread, I searched it and the other thread and read every post including the clear documentation that the german company is the only legitimate supplier and that many people have legit boxes with Italian clasps.



On many forums bumping an old thread is considered poor form because it appears new for a moment and then has to be read to the end to get on the same page with the poster.

Rod suggests against bumping an old thread, so I simply started a new thread, mentioned the old one, summarized the old one and then asked if in more than 2 years if anyone has had a new insight or experience or god forbid, a new member with some input exists.

 

[grateful1]

Hmm, the old thread was about 2.5 years old or so. The end result seemed to be two minds on the subject. It was a long thread, I searched it and the other thread and read every post including the clear documentation that the german company is the only legitimate supplier and that many people have legit boxes with Italian clasps.



On many forums bumping an old thread is considered poor form because it appears new for a moment and then has to be read to the end to get on the same page with the poster.

Rod suggests against bumping an old thread, so I simply started a new thread, mentioned the old one, summarized the old one and then asked if in more than 2 years if anyone has had a new insight or experience or god forbid, a new member with some input exists.

What does he have to do with this issue?

 

[Devil Doc]

My memory ain't what it use to be, but I seem to remember Rod posting that if a thread was more that a year old, it was better to start a new one.

Doc.

 

[JHolmes763]

... 2.5 years old ... two minds on the subject ... a long thread ... I searched ... read every post ... so I simply started a new thread, mentioned the old one, summarized the old one ... new insight or experience ... new member

You didn't do anything wrong, imo, Brother. Looks like you put some thought into it. We should be so lucky with some of the other threads (cello on or off, anyone???).

-John

 

[tone-ny]

My memory ain't what it use to be, but I seem to remember Rod posting that if a thread was more that a year old, it was better to start a new one.

Doc.

Yes and no, there are several posts out there from Rod that he asks if there is new information on the topic to add to a pre-existing one.

 

[Bxcigrfan]

Don't "bump" old threads. If a thread is more than a year old, then there's probably no need to post to it. There are exceptions, please use your best judgment.

---John Holmes...

i dont usually get in these type of discussion but i want to give my .02 here and not neccessarly on anyones side.

above you see the statement from Rod about bumping old threads, everything in this world that is not set in stone is open for interpretation.

Don't "bump" old threads. If a thread is more than a year old, then there's probably no need to post to it...

one would read this and say ok ill start a new one since this is old and probably not relevant to todays smoker.

but the end of the quote goes on to say

...There are exceptions, please use your best judgment.

this could have been one of those situations where the thread could be "bumped" because the addition to the thread was meaningful and meant to retrieve new information on the matter. You made valid arguement as to why you made a new thread and how you referenced the old thread but in there lay my point. Since you had to reference the old thread, then one would go to the old thread, read through it, and then come back to yours. Had you included it in the original they would read through it as one fluid story.

but if someone wanted to "bump" the thread to add; "i think they could be fake" and not add anything to the value of the discussion; i believe they would be in the wrong.

your decision not to "bump" the original was your judgement

now lets all hug and smoke

 

[mmburtch]

Don't "bump" old threads. If a thread is more than a year old, then there's probably no need to post to it. There are exceptions, please use your best judgment.

I'm pretty sure this was said to keep Gary from bumping really old threads, and the rest of us having to go through the mental exercise of figuring out WTH Gary is getting at.

 

[grateful1]

Don't "bump" old threads. If a thread is more than a year old, then there's probably no need to post to it. There are exceptions, please use your best judgment.

I'm pretty sure this was said to keep Gary from bumping really old threads, and the rest of us having to go through the mental exercise of figuring out WTH Gary is getting at.

Do you mean like...why would I BUMP this onehttp://www.cigarpass.com/forumsipb/index.php?s=&showtopic=30&view=findpost&p=9550?