Celebrity woodworking

[Quickben]

Mike is right (again).
Anybody who has spent time working in a traditional joinery shop will have no trouble making anything you throw at them, it's just how quickly you can make it with the kit you have, the less kit you have the harder it is.

Mike is usually right but here IMO he's waaaaaay off the mark.



Picked at random from the first G search. This French Louis XV style inlaid bombe commode...

"Description
A fine quality antique French rosewood and kingwood floral marquetry inlaid pink marble topped bombe commode in the Louis XV Manner dating to circa 1900.
This very well executed commode with finely inlaid marquetry panels has a serpentine shaped pink and white veined marble topped having a moulded edge.
The marble top sits over three shaped drawers embellished with ornate Rococo style cast brass handles and escutcheons, each drawer having floral marquetry inlaid panels of extremely high quality with a shaped apron below and central mount.
The shaped sides having impressive Rococo style mounts to each front corner and large floral marquetry inlaid bombe sides with the whole being raised on shaped splay legs with terminating on front sabots.
The bombe shape being one of the hardest forms for a cabinet maker to achieve so only a skilled cabinet maker would make such a commode....."

.... is still a piece of 'woodwork' (and there are plenty more examples) but I'd defy anyone to say it's 'dead easy' to make. This is the problem with making a 'one size fits all statement'; some times the size will fit and at others it won't - Rob[/quote]

If the craftsman who made this made a lot of them, then it probably was "dead easy" to him.

That's the thing, if you can do something to a very high standard then it is very easy to you. It's the getting to that point that's the hard part.

But, as Mike was alluding to, being extremely good at woodworking doesn't mean you'll be a commercial success. The time and patience it takes to learn how to make something like the above chest of drawers must be phenomenal, however, would you be able to sell many of them if you were able to make them ? I doubt it. Fashion rules the market and, unless it's a genuine antique, that style has had it's day.

Personally I think it looks gopping but I do appreciate the craftsmanship it takes to create something like that.

 

[shed9]

I would not be too concerned about actively chasing your contacts. If the company has gone under, then they are fair game. You owe your old firm nothing.

Be very careful advising this approach to anyone. Contacting clients from a current or previous employers client list is a form of theft and has very real potential for legal action. I'd take GDPR into account as well; sharing and accessing private data in those circumstances is also open to legal recourse. Christopher's contacts may call him but I suspect the phoenix company will see it differently given his access to the previous client database.


Also I have to say that I get Trevanion's tone and comments. They may not be wrapped up in unicorns and rainbow lollipops but they are a valid and reflective summation of the situation, albeit his from a perspective of someone in industry. Advice and comment needs to cover the reality as well as the supportive good luck offers. Youtube is going to savage Christopher, Trevanion was merely blunt.

 

[AJB Temple]

I really don't agree. The company has gone bust and made its employees redundant. Even if their contracts contained a no solicitation clause, they would not transfer to the new company. And even if they did, they would be almost impossible to enforce. Lawyers (I am one) would advise you not to waste money pursuing this unless you are a sales guy who has stolen a valuable client list. That scenario does not apply here.

This is an unnecessary barrier to someone starting up. Customers in any case do not often take kindly to being "owned". GDPR may be relevant to the insolvency administrators of the company but as an ex employee I would not be losing sleep about the Commissioner coming after me.

The old company has sacrificed customer loyalty anyway. Going bust tends to do that.

 

[woodbloke66]

If the craftsman who made this made a lot of them, then it probably was "dead easy" to him.

That's the thing, if you can do something to a very high standard then it is very easy to you. It's the getting to that point that's the hard part.

I'd estimate that even with years of experience, this type of intricate woodwork isn't going to be ''dead easy'', even when you as a maker have reached the necessary level of skill. It might, if he did enough of them, become routine, but I don't think it could ever be classified as 'easy' - Rob

 

[shed9]

I appreciate that as a lawyer you will know what you are talking about AJB Temple however none of us know the reality of the current status of the company in question. Shutting down may reflect the operations, not necessarily the legal entity. Aside from the scant comments regarding the company we don't actually know who they are or what has happened to it. I appreciate you took a guess at who it is but this was quickly dismissed by Christopher directly.

Given the investment route the business took there is likely to be holding companies and ultimate owners which may own more than simple lineage to the end business.

My point is that care should be taken to advise people to pillage client lists without facts. That's all.

 

[Quickben]

I can't see how, what amounts to nothing more than, a list of names and contact details can be seen as the "property" of a non-trading kitchen business.

Unlike AJBTemple, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd hazard that if I were to approach one these ex clients, in full knowledge that this company had gone bust and had done work previously for said client, I would be perfectly legally able to do so. How does this differ from Christopher doing this ? Unless ofcourse he signed a non-compete clause in his old contract, but would that contract even apply here ?

 

[Trevanion]

There's this new thing called the Data Protection Act in the UK. I think by law he really shouldn't have any of those phone numbers.

I'm not trying to be harsh, I'm trying to be realistic here.

 

[Quickben]

If the craftsman who made this made a lot of them, then it probably was "dead easy" to him.

That's the thing, if you can do something to a very high standard then it is very easy to you. It's the getting to that point that's the hard part.

I'd estimate that even with years of experience, this type of intricate woodwork isn't going to be ''dead easy'', even when you as a maker have reached the necessary level of skill. It might, if he did enough of them, become routine, but I don't think it could ever be classified as 'easy' - Rob

I'll always remember my instructor's words when I was training to be a gas turbine technician, after he showed us an old Avon engine that had been sliced in half: "it might look like science fiction to you now, but in a couple of years it'll be a piece of p!ss"

He was right, of course, after a couple of years I could fault find, strip, repair and rebuild a Tornado engine, then later a Typhoon engine with ease. It actually was a piece of p!ss, because I'd had training and reinforced that with experience from doing it over and over again.

I don't think woodwork is any different. It's certainly no harder. In fact, I'd say it's even less so because it's also very enjoyable. And we tend to excel at things we enjoy.

 

[Quickben]

There's this new thing called the Data Protection Act in the UK. I think by law he really shouldn't have any of those phone numbers.

I'm not trying to be harsh, I'm trying to be realistic here.

Unless they were given to him in person, not related directly to the job at hand. If so then it doesn't apply.

 

[shed9]

I can't see how, what amounts to nothing more than, a list of names and contact details can be seen as the "property" of a non-trading kitchen business.

Unlike AJBTemple, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd hazard that if I were to approach one these ex clients, in full knowledge that this company had gone bust and had done work previously for said client, I would be perfectly legally able to do so. How does this differ from Christopher doing this ? Unless ofcourse he signed a non-compete clause in his old contract, but would that contract even apply here ?

I'm also not a lawyer but I wouldn't hazard a guess regarding commercial theft either. All I'm saying is we don't know the status of the company and advising that it's all good to take commercial in-confidence data from an ex employer is maybe not good advice on a public forum.

Personally I think there is an ethic to this. Perceptions of how an unknown company treats its employees or indeed customers does not indicate a sliding scale of when it's okay to steal that company's data. This is a generalisation as I appreciate Christopher has expressly indicated he won't be doing that and expect custom to come to him however the conversation is generalised anyhow.

I may be wrong, just saying my opinion is all.

 

[AJB Temple]

Data Protection Act 2018 / GDPR is likely to be entirely irrelevant to the OP. In effect he he exchanged numbers with people who bought kitchens. Perfectly OK.

In the real world sales people, whether it be cars, financial products (the business I work in, kitchens or anything else, tend to hang on to their contact list. It is very difficult for an employer to stop this when employees move on, and in most cases litigation fails on restraint of trade grounds unless the non-compete clause in a contract is comprehensive, well drafted, and fair (including period).

The risk for a craftsman (who is not a salesperson) is minuscule.

 

[Quickben]

I can't see how, what amounts to nothing more than, a list of names and contact details can be seen as the "property" of a non-trading kitchen business.

Unlike AJBTemple, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd hazard that if I were to approach one these ex clients, in full knowledge that this company had gone bust and had done work previously for said client, I would be perfectly legally able to do so. How does this differ from Christopher doing this ? Unless ofcourse he signed a non-compete clause in his old contract, but would that contract even apply here ?

I'm also not a lawyer but I wouldn't hazard a guess regarding commercial theft either. All I'm saying is we don't know the status of the company and advising that it's all good to take commercial in-confidence data from an ex employer is maybe not good advice on a public forum.

Personally I think there is an ethic to this. Perceptions of how an unknown company treats its employees or indeed customers does not indicate a sliding scale of when it's okay to steal that company's data. This is a generalisation as I appreciate Christopher has expressly indicated he won't be doing that and expect custom to come to him however the conversation is generalised anyhow.

I may be wrong, just saying my opinion is all.

That data (name and email address ?) doesn't belong to anyone other than the client it pertains to.

 

[Distinterior]

I have been in a similar position to Christopher.

Back in 2010, the company I was sub contracting to on a pretty much exclusive basis, went into receivership due to p i s s poor management by a recent new owner. The previous owner had extensive knowledge and contacts within my trade and had a very lucrative business . I had had direct contact with that businesses clients as I had worked in their houses and had their names, addresses, email addresses and phone numbers.

I was given the opportunity to buy the assets of that business and take over the premises. I began trading from there in my own business name that I had been trading with for 25 years previously.

I decided to contact ALL the previous clients (no celebrities or royalty unfortunately other than a well known successful Snooker player....!) of the business that had been trading from this address by way of a letter to them all, explaining what had occurred and that should they require anything from me in the future, I would be willing to help.

Since 2010, I have had good number of these previous clients come back to me for remedial/additional work and complete new projects.

If Christopher has done the work for previous clients of that company, and they know him personally and that company is no longer trading, then how is he breaking any rules by contacting them directly...??

 

[shed9]

That data (name and email address ?) doesn't belong to anyone other than the client it pertains to.

I'm not talking about publicly available random names and addresses of clients, I'm talking about a portfolio as built up and stored by a business entity.
The actual business aspect of acquiring a client list aside, the information (including commercially sensitive data) is obtained via DPA and more recently GDPR. The conditions of this require it be kept confidential and not to be shared without the express permission of the individual client/s. If this information is taken without this permission then the original company and the person who takes it are in breach of these conditions. If you have a client list clearly you don't own the information in terms of someones name or contact details, you own the right and responsibility for storing it and using it. A right incidentally that is not transferrable without authority to do so irrespective of how you convince yourself its fair game.

It can take decades to build a client database through lots of work and sometimes at huge cost.

If Christopher has done the work for previous clients of that company, and they know him personally and that company is no longer trading, then how is he breaking any rules by contacting them directly...??

I don't know as I don't know the actual situation regarding the company and what terms Christopher is tied to, hence my comment that it's perhaps a little rash to advise him to take another businesses client list without any confirmed facts.
I'd also add that buying a company's assets and taking over a premises' lease doesn't naturally translate into owning anything beyond that unless its part of the sale.

 

[woodbloke66]

He was right, of course, after a couple of years I could fault find, strip, repair and rebuild a Tornado engine, then later a Typhoon engine with ease. It actually was a piece of p!ss, because I'd had training and reinforced that with experience from doing it over and over again.

I think we're talking semantics here which is fine, but ultimately pointless. Interesting, none the less.
To take this to the point of absolute ridicule, what you didn't have to do was to actually make a Tornado or Typhoon engine from the raw materials...impossible I know

What the craftsman making that chest of drawers (and similar fiendishly difficult pieces) would have had to have done is to make it using the raw materials that he was supplied with; that's why it's immensely difficult to do that sort of stuff. Imagine that on a Monday morning, you're given a drawing (or even a rough sketch), told that this is your job for the next couple of months, pointed towards the wood and veneer store and then told to crack on (I know, I've been there )

Anyhow, interesting to natter, but that's enough from me on this one - Rob

 

[Quickben]

I'm not talking about publicly available random names and addresses of clients, I'm talking about a portfolio as built up and stored by a business entity.
The actual business aspect of acquiring a client list aside, the information (including commercially sensitive data) is obtained via DPA and more recently GDPR. The conditions of this require it be kept confidential and not to be shared without the express permission of the individual client/s. If this information is taken without this permission then the original company and the person who takes it are in breach of these conditions. If you have a client list clearly you don't own the information in terms of someones name or contact details, you own the right and responsibility for storing it and using it. A right incidentally that is not transferrable without authority to do so irrespective of how you convince yourself its fair game.

It can take decades to build a client database through lots of work and sometimes at huge cost.

This is no doubt all true. However, I don't think it applies to Christopher since he's obviously built up a face to face personal relationship (going by his previous comments) with some of these clients and therefore it can be assumed that he has their blessing. It's not like he's raiding a company laptop in the dead of night...

If Christopher has done the work for previous clients of that company, and they know him personally and that company is no longer trading, then how is he breaking any rules by contacting them directly...??

I don't know as I don't know the actual situation regarding the company and what terms Christopher is tied to, hence my comment that it's perhaps a little rash to advise him to take another businesses client list without any confirmed facts.
I'd also add that buying a company's assets and taking over a premises' lease doesn't naturally translate into owning anything beyond that unless its part of the sale.

 

[shed9]

This is no doubt all true. However, I don't think it applies to Christopher since he's obviously built up a face to face personal relationship (going by his previous comments) with some of these clients and therefore it can be assumed that he has their blessing. It's not like he's raiding a company laptop in the dead of night...

You can't assume anything which is what I'm trying to convey here. Other than Christopher no one here knows any quantifiable facts of the situation, yet people are queuing up to 'hazard a guess' or 'assume' it's all good to use commercially sensitive and confidential data to contact a client list from a previous place of work. Christopher himself has said;

taking contacts with me is something that I couldn't do technically speaking.

Not looking to argue but equally concerned at the advice. I'll leave it here as it's not conducive to the thread anymore. Using personal and commercially sensitive data accrued whilst in the employ of a business entity to your own commercial gain is just plain theft and ethically questionable but that's just my opinion so we're all good.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

... Using personal and commercially sensitive data accrued whilst in the employ of a business entity to your own commercial gain is just plain theft and ethically questionable but that's just my opinion so we're all good.

Certainly - but he isn't in the employ of the company, is he? It no longer exists.

 

[shed9]

but he isn't in the employ of the company, is he?

Exactly my point, he would no longer have a legal right to use their personal commercial data.

It no longer exists.

Again, we don't know that hence my concern over advice without this knowledge. Ceasing operations and ceasing trading are different terms and we don't know their current situation, let alone who they are.

I know I said I'd leave it but given this is directly related to Christophers position and it seems to go round in circles - To put this into the context of the specific clients mentioned in this thread, if someone in the public eye got a direct phone call or email from an ex employee of a company they had dealt with previously using their personal data supplied to that company - how do you think that will play out. These are not friends, they are ex customers of a previous company. People in the public eye (and otherwise) value privacy, if they can't trust you with their personal data not sure they are going to be too keen on dealing with you. Yes there will be exceptions, as always in life, and there will be different levels of relationship with each customer but you watch how quick those relationships change in the right circumstance. I'm not talking about swapped numbers between friends I'm talking about customers personal and confidential information.

Christopher said the company in question were serial phoenix operators, this usually entails retaining clients with each iteration where possible (usually through a holding company). I know the company had / has an alleged bad reputation but some previous customers won't know of this.

I'm quite surprised at what little value is placed in this data and the free advice that its all fair game despite any facts. Like I said, I'm not looking to argue, I just have a different view is all - clearly given the consensus I concede I am in the minority.

Christopher I apologise for derailing but felt this was relevant. Good luck either way. Personally I think you are taking the right approach waiting to be approached by these ex-clients. It doesn't stop you marketing to others and I look forward to your progress.

 

[Quickben]

I think it's because he intimated that he had a more personal relationship with some of the clients than a faceless transactional one which, I think, gave rise to most people thinking that he would be able to approach them for future work without fear of being took to court.

You're correct, obviously, in that we know very little of Christopher's relationship, but it strikes a chord in me being told that if I were to build up a relationship with a client that was more than just transactional while working for one company, I wouldn't be allowed to get in contact with that person if I were to leave that company and start my own similar enterprise.

I actually think you're right to advise caution based on worst case scenario, but in reality, I don't know anyone who would be offended if contacted in the way Christopher first described. I certainly wouldn't.

I'll accept that there are people out there who would, though. What a depressing thought...