Speaking as one who makes rolls and has had to think about the problem
of stock level maintenance, I think the tone of the question in yester-
day's MMD was mean-spirited and unnecessary (and shows utter ignorance
of Tom Jansen's superb rolls).  Surely all that matters is that, when
rolls are ordered, the agreed set is duly delivered in an agreed time-
frame.  Has this been tried? If not, just what's the point of the com-
plaint?

You have to bear in mind that these roll-recutting operations are tiny
businesses, and it is quite impossible to have everything on the shelf.
Think a little about the practicalities of it.  To put a 1000-title
list on the shelves would take months, if not years, would tie up tens
of thousands of dollars of capital in materials alone, as well as pro-
viding no income.  Anyone in the business can tell you that half of the
titles wouldn't sell and every order would have at least one title that
is sold out.

Personally, I list only rolls that are presently being cut, but even
then I cannot hold every title permanently on the shelf.  I have a
large and growing library of rolls that have been scanned and are ready
to be cut, if anybody requests them.  I'll cut any scanned Duo-Art roll
if you want four copies, and may do fewer if the others seem likely to
sell.  The choice of titles to cut is something best made by the
buyers, not the manufacturer.  But the buyer needs to know what is
available for cutting, or else everybody is working in the dark.

So, offering a pick from a large list reduces the time to market and
also the price because there is less tied-up capital that has to be
paid for.  The buyer benefits and gets the rolls he wants, for the
first time in seventy years it being possible to pick from decent-sized
catalogues of rolls.  How on earth can this be anything but good?  Re-
member how it used to be when you had those grotesque subscription
series where you had to take every title that somebody else chose.
That was hardly a market-responsive model!

Julian Dyer