Saddleback v. M&W Traveler

heh, this thread.

Originally Posted by Mr. Moo

Click to expand...

Chances are you wouldn't consume any goods if you knew the history/shadiness behind their production. This is a weak argument.

You're as predictable as you are dense, big guy. Let me break it down for you: when I say that shadiness in advertising and poor quality are typically correlated, what I mean is that companies who feel the need to shill and deceive in their marketing are usually trying to hide something. Since Saddleback was caught red-handed in its shilling, I think my point was justified.

I said absolutely nothing about the conditions under which the goods are produced, be they shady or otherwise. I'm not talking about sweatshops here; I'm talking about deceptive advertising practices. Shadiness in production is a whole different topic and is not at all what anyone on this thread was discussing. But thanks for trying.

Now, if your argument were more along the lines of "Chances are you wouldn't consume any goods [that were advertised deceptively]," then you'd be right. I wouldn't. I make it a habit to know what I'm buying and from whom I'm buying it. And I sure as hell don't buy from a company that clearly feels so uncertain about the prospects of selling its products on their own merits that it invents half a dozen sockpuppets to shill them.

Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard

Click to expand...

You're as predictable as you are dense, big guy. Let me break it down for you: when I say that shadiness in advertising and poor quality are typically correlated, what I mean is that companies who feel the need to shill and deceive in their marketing are usually trying to hide something. Since Saddleback was caught red-handed in its shilling, I think my point was justified.

I said absolutely nothing about the conditions under which the goods are produced, be they shady or otherwise. I'm not talking about sweatshops here; I'm talking about deceptive advertising practices. Shadiness in production is a whole different topic and is not at all what anyone on this thread was discussing. But thanks for trying.

Now, if your argument were more along the lines of "Chances are you wouldn't consume any goods [that were advertised deceptively]," then you'd be right. I wouldn't. I make it a habit to know what I'm buying and from whom I'm buying it. And I sure as hell don't buy from a company that clearly feels so uncertain about the prospects of selling its products on their own merits that it invents half a dozen sockpuppets to shill them.

Well said.

..Oh...hey. Yeah, this thread really took off.

At least I got some votes from the poll.

Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard

Click to expand...

You're as predictable as you are dense, big guy. Let me break it down for you: when I say that shadiness in advertising and poor quality are typically correlated, what I mean is that companies who feel the need to shill and deceive in their marketing are usually trying to hide something. Since Saddleback was caught red-handed in its shilling, I think my point was justified.

I said absolutely nothing about the conditions under which the goods are produced, be they shady or otherwise. I'm not talking about sweatshops here; I'm talking about deceptive advertising practices. Shadiness in production is a whole different topic and is not at all what anyone on this thread was discussing. But thanks for trying.

Now, if your argument were more along the lines of "Chances are you wouldn't consume any goods [that were advertised deceptively]," then you'd be right. I wouldn't. I make it a habit to know what I'm buying and from whom I'm buying it. And I sure as hell don't buy from a company that clearly feels so uncertain about the prospects of selling its products on their own merits that it invents half a dozen sockpuppets to shill them.
I think a lot of company's do this or have an advertising firm do this for them. There are a few terms for this, guerrilla marketing, turfing, paying for fake sites with fake reviews. It seems to be normal for large companies. I guess Saddleback's crime is they did not pay a marketing firm to do this for them. But all of this talk of business integrity reminds me of this:



Jack: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?

Jack: You wouldn't believe.

Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?

Jack: A major one.

Hmm, everything one needs to know one can learn from Hollywood, huh?

Do you seriously believe that ALL businesses are unethical? Given a choice, I will always patronize the more ethical and honest vendor.

I don't really want to post here, but given that what has been said, I think I will say what I wanted to.

When I was researching for a bag earlier (before I ordered my first customhide), I was seriously considering saddleback. The reviews on the site are a little over the top, but I know how overzelous satisfied customers can be. However, what made me eventually decide against saddleback was not the reviews (or the shilling that did happen, one more than one website, whether one person did it or more, but that is not the point of this discussion) but the actual design of the bag itself. I am sure the leather will last a lifetime, but for my needs and purposes (carrying a laptop and lots of documents to workplace and elsewhere) the bag did not seem convenient. The bag might be great as a casual all purposes bag, but I could not imagine using it for work everyday. I know that some people here on SF (and elsewhere) do exactly that even in business settings and love the bag.

I am very particular about my bags, especially looks, ease of use and how well the bag is organized. Saddleback's design philosophy does not go with what I have in mind for my ideal bag. I hate using laptop sleeves and having no padding whatsoever for laptops in their briefcases is a big no-no for me. I know that they do have a padded laptop case, but you can't carry anything else in that:



However good the leather is, for my peace of mind I want a padded compartment for my laptop. Saddleback's regular case does not have this and therefore, not the case for me:



I think the styling is roo rustic for business use too (personal opinion only).

Now look at customhide or mw-traveler:





One thing I really liked about mw-traveler is their use of full grain leather (same as outside) for their lining as well - we rarely see this happen:



For my options (usage and aesthetic), mw-traveler is a better choice.

Irrespective of the history of saddleback's internet posting, think whether or not the bag will work for your needs, and then decide. Don't go just with looks.

Your ad hominism knows no bounds. You must be a teller.

What is your method for researching every product that you purchase, in order to make sure no deceptive advertising was used? Please share it with us.

Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard

Click to expand...

You're as predictable as you are dense, big guy. Let me break it down for you: when I say that shadiness in advertising and poor quality are typically correlated, what I mean is that companies who feel the need to shill and deceive in their marketing are usually trying to hide something. Since Saddleback was caught red-handed in its shilling, I think my point was justified.

I said absolutely nothing about the conditions under which the goods are produced, be they shady or otherwise. I'm not talking about sweatshops here; I'm talking about deceptive advertising practices. Shadiness in production is a whole different topic and is not at all what anyone on this thread was discussing. But thanks for trying.

Now, if your argument were more along the lines of "Chances are you wouldn't consume any goods [that were advertised deceptively]," then you'd be right. I wouldn't. I make it a habit to know what I'm buying and from whom I'm buying it. And I sure as hell don't buy from a company that clearly feels so uncertain about the prospects of selling its products on their own merits that it invents half a dozen sockpuppets to shill them.

Originally Posted by Classically

Click to expand...

I think the situation here is a matter of specialization vs generalization...In short, if you're looking for a bag that can perform more than one role, I would recommend the Saddleback.

+1. I purchased the Saddleback chestnut backpack for this very reason. I go rowing every morning and cycle to the river everyday for this purpose, and then bike straight to work. For a long time, I carried a backpack made of some synthetic material which got the job done, but eventually I figured that I needed a bag that: (i) could be carried as a backpack (for biking purposes) (ii) spacious enough to put clothes and shoes in; (iii) hardy and durable (in case it rains when I'm biking) (iv) "stylish" enough so that it would not look too out of place with a suit for those evenings when I have to go to cocktail receptions or formal-ish events after work.

The Saddleback backpack was the perfect solution for this. And while I first balked somewhat at the cost, it has become obvious now that it is worth every penny. I completely agree with previous posters who said that there are many bags out there that look more "refined" and "formal" than the Saddleback, and indeed, I would carry one of those to very, very formal meetings and leave the Saddleback at home. But the Saddleback is flexible enough to withstand the elements, and at the same time fit in in a crowd of suits and cocktail dresses that I carry it almost everyday.

At the risk of sounding like someone who has a stake in Saddleback - and I don't - I would also echo previous remarks about Saddleback making you "stand out" from the crowd. I've been carrying the Saddleback for almost three weeks now, and the bag is getting noticed or complimented at least once everyday, literally. I have to admit that I could probably get used to all this attention

In a nutshell, there are many choices of bags out there, and Saddleback is one option that gives you a bit more flexibility IMHO.

Hello All,

I just joined this forum. Love the drama!

Lets get back on track. Saddleback v. M&W Traveler.

I ordered a medium Saddleback briefcase but haven't received it yet. Obviously you know how I voted...

I'd like to hear more from Saddleback owners as to how these bags hold up stiffness wise. New photos show them nice and stiff but I've seen some older photos and they look a little ...flaccid. I know they have a 100 year warranty but I'm sure they would not replace it because it's starting to look weathered, that's their whole hype.

Any thoughts or pictures would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Jack

Originally Posted by Mr. Moo

Click to expand...

Your ad hominism knows no bounds. You must be a teller.

Funny, I count one ad hominem line in the post of mine you quoted: "big guy...dense." So there are your bounds, friendo. Any rate, the rest of my post was a pretty solid refutation of your blatant misreadings of my argument.

What is your method for researching every product that you purchase, in order to make sure no deceptive advertising was used? Please share it with us.

Click to expand...

Gee, where do you buy your straw? I'm thinking of building a straw man myself, but obviously you're quite good at it, so I'm curious about where your source your grass.

Once again, you distort or misrepresent my argument and then attack the distortion (straw man). This makes two straw man arguments in a row from you. Try to step up to the plate and argue against my actual point next time. Assuming you're capable of more than one-line straw men, that is. It remains to be seen. I'm not holding my breath.

Originally Posted by [savage]

Click to expand...

Deuce, that's really weird about the inside leather. The interior on mine has a very distinct suede nap that would never be confused as looking plastic nor cheap.

Perhaps you could post some pictures of the inside, and I will do the same so that they can be objectively compared.

Here are some pictures, its tough to get a good picture but I did my best.

Arrogant Bastard, I think we know how you feel about the company.

Any thoughts on the bags themselves? I want to get a feel for it before it arrives.

Thanks,

Jack

Originally Posted by Deuce

Click to expand...

Here are some pictures, its tough to get a good picture but I did my best.

Deuce,

Do you think it won't last? Or just crappy look\\feel?

Jack

Not going to comment on this new "lining" but one improvement of these bags, IMO, would be to start using some nicer brass or copper capped (closed on both sides) rivets so that the bag does not so much look like it has been stapled together. Rivets closed on both ends would look much cleaner and more professional. As I recall the rivets are also some base metal colored to make them look like copper or aged brass.