BP wrote on Jun 9^th, 2018 at 4:40pm:


No idea what Fecker's production capacity was, but there's plenty of evidence that Unertl did indeed buy mounts from Fecker.
And I wonder why Fecker would hire John Unertl to work for him when he first arrived in the US from Argentina in the 1920's, and then promote him to plant superintendent if he didn't like the man? Considering the number of years Unertl worked for Fecker, and how well Unertl did at the Fecker plant, it's not hard to reach the idea they got along well. If they didn't Unertl would likely never have reached the level of plant superintendent.
Doesn't fit Redsetter's fictional law suit story though.

And although Fecker was active in running ads from his early beginnings in 1922 on, he rarely listed much info on products in his ads. His monthly ads in Arms and the Man spoke mainly of the quality of his lenses and optics, and not much about what products he offered. Wonder if the lack of products listed means he didn't really make anything by Redsetter's standard?

marlinguy wrote on Jun 9^th, 2018 at 4:51pm:


Well documented where?

You're getting ridiculous Redsetter. You want so much to be right that you're willing to make up stories of law suits, and now infer that Unertl leaving Fecker was the same as a bad divorce. And that he "walked off the job" when in reality you have no idea of the circumstances when Unertl left and started his own telescope business. And of course Unertl hated Fecker so much he set up his shop right down the street. I'm sure you can twist that into some ulterior motive to back up your story they disliked each other too!
Are you really so damn desperate to be right that you'll make up some Hatfield and McCoy feud to substantiate your claims?

Vall,
If Fecker and Unertl did separate on good terms, it wouldn't be unheard of for an employer to agree to try to help a former valued employee get on his feet, provided that the employer's business wasn't adversely impacted.
Fecker may have agreed to provide Unertl with some sets of production over-run mounts that Fecker didn't have dedicated to his current requirements.
Fecker may have agreed to let Unertl use idle Fecker shop equipment and tooling until Unertl's own arrived, was set in place, and then finally up and running.
Many shops that are on good terms work together to their mutual benefit when they are able do so.
It may also be that Fecker told Unertl that he considered the making the recoil spring assembly to be a pain in his arse, he had other things he'd much rather concentrate his available time on, and if Unertl wanted to take it over as his own new shop got moving forward, to feel free to do so.
That's happened before.
No one knows, and catalogs and advertising won't provide just what the true relationship between the men actually was.
Information from former employees of both shops might, or might not, ever tell the real story.

Redsetter wrote on Jun 9^th, 2018 at 5:21pm:

Redsetter,
Do you have documentation that proves that Fecker and Unertl didn't come up with an agreement whereby Unertl may have chosen to take some final wages from Fecker in the form of an agreed upon number of Fecker mount sets?

BP wrote on Jun 9^th, 2018 at 5:41pm:


I'm still waiting for the "well known" documentation that Unertl EVER furnished Fecker mounts. When that has been provided, then it will be relevant to consider the terms of their separation.

BP wrote on Jun 9^th, 2018 at 5:24pm:


"MAY HAVE"??? Can you provide one scintilla of evidence for such a proposition?  ONE?   

It will take me some time to did it up, but somewhere I have a statement by Unertl himself explaining why focusing a scope by means of an adjustable middle lens is a poor way to construct a scope.  More evidence, I guess, of his friendship with Fecker.