''Óriginal parts'', ''identity '' and ''retip'' conundrum

Rephrasing the points made:

The myth of ''original parts'', ''identity confusion'' and ''misunderstanding

of retips''.

1.''Original parts'' presuppose  not only the method of their idetification

     but also of their importance. Neither is made clear.

2. ''Identity'' : no identity without an entity or ''object'' . Names are assumed

     to  provide the reference. But ''fake names'' are not .

3.  Retips, aversion against retips is based on false assumptions: 

     that manufacturer use  their own unique styli while retipers use

     some other (not original) kinds. Our general statement is that

      both use ''the same'' styli produced ether by Ogura or Namiki

      as a combo with the cantilever. The question than is , is gluing

      this combo in the ''joint pipe'' (aluminum  part of the cantilever)

      better done by the manufacturer or retiper as well why? 

      The other thread about Replicant as ''third party'''deed not

       deliver relevant information. 

@best-groove 

+1, largely incomprehensible, and not just from a language barrier. Raul's English isn't perfect either, but I can tell exactly what his point is. 

The usual qualifications without argumentation. People who have

no idea what they are talking about complain about their own 

''incapability''. There is internet you know. There you can

check your own language barrier. Understanding Raul ''exactly''

illustrate your ''understanding'',

I have not investigated all Cartridge Producers Small Print, when it relates to a Service by the Manufacturer, where the offer has an option as follows:

To receive a Exchange Model following a the old model being Traded In.                  This is mainly aimed at a Cartridge that is deemed ready to undergo a refurbishment as a result of many hours of usage.

The Manufacturer offers a 'Retip' , 'Refurbishment' or 'Rebuild' Service on Cart's from their Models Only, or extend this service to a Variety of Brands they are not involved with, which will indirectly become a Bespoke Work and hence a Bespoke Model will be produced.

In any of the the above scenario's the likelihood is that the offer from the Manufacturer will be to supply a Cart' that when returned to the user, has Parts used during the work undertaken that are 'equivalent' to the part that has been exchanged.

My understanding is that the 'equivalent' will be more of a reference to, and limited to the term 'function' and not filter into any other area of what the term 'equivalent' can refer to.

There is also the suggestion that when the Cart' is returned to the user, It will be received under the pretence. that as a result of the 'equivalent' parts being used to restore the supplied model, the least on offer is that the 'function' on offer is the same as the Supplied Cart' and the pretence will also put forward the suggestion that extends to inferring the returned Cart' may be an improved Cart'.

I take it there are Phono Cartridge Technicians who feel if their chosen parts are used to replace parts used by other Technicians from different organisations, they are quite within their rights to infer the Cart' is now at least on parity with the non Bespoke Version, and that the use of chosen parts for the Bespoke Version has potentially produced an Improved working model.     

Pinda, nice ''reproduction'' of what manufacturer will or are supposed

to do. But my arguments are  pointed out in 4 kinds. Each about

specific ''interpretation problem''. A correct discussion should address

all or some of my arguments denying their truth. Mulveling deed not

address a single one. But he expressed his opinion about his, say,

opponent . He also stated to understand Raul ''exactly''. But

without mentioning when and if  Raul ever addressed MY arguments.

You should also address  my argument about ''original parts'',

their identity so we can know which  are available  as styli and

 cantilevers to manufacturers as well retipers. This does

not apply for what individual retipers may have in their stock.

They don't supply other with their styli. So what they own is not

relevant for  availability in general. We were not able to discover

where Replicant  is produced while we assume that this stylus

is not available to everyone. So my general statement that all

manufacturer as well retipers get their styli and cantilevers from

either Namiki or Ogura is still actual. The point then about ''retip''

is why an manufacturer should do this job (aka gluing cantilever/stylus

combo in the joint pipe)  better than an retipper?