MARKETING WOOL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7017, 4 January 1910, Page 3

MARKETING WOOL

(To tils EOitor ■' N.Z. Times.") Sir,—With reference to tho article headed "Marketing Wool, Local versus Home Selling," which appeared in the "New Zealand Times" on October 12th, wo trust that you will allow us to make a brief reply to a portion of the criticism—to attempt to deal.with all the points raised by your correspondent would be to aak for too much of your space. It is of couras natural for those who wish to encourage local selling in the Dominion to use every argument which can possibly benefit their case, but wo submit that to accuse Loudon wool brokers of

"deliberate and malicious misrepresentation" because they give the average price that a bale of wool realises in London, and also mention the value per bale sold in Australasia, is to use language that iB not only unnecessarily discourteous, but quite unjustifiable. It is quite true that maij of the best clips are sold in London, though reference to numerous articles appearing in Australian papers would lead one to infer that such is not the case, but if your correspondent is acquainted with our market be must know that, especially in July and September, brokers' catalogues contain large quantities of small faulty Australian scoureds, and scoured New Zealand crossbred pieces and crutcbings ■which weigh light, and the average value of which, therefore, is very low. But the average London value per bale is also affected by the inclusion of South African wool, tho Value of which, at current rates, does not exceed £l2 per bale, for fair average greasy fleece. In common with many of our follow-brokers, our annual circular always contains a paragraph dealing with production, distribution, and average value

per bale in Home and Australasian markets, this statistical information being given as likely to interest our wool-grow-ing friends, and the average value per bale ia stated in its only practicable form, i.e., inclusive of Australian, New Zealand, and South African wool, and we cannot believe that your readers will agree with your correspondent in regarding such estimate aa constituting "deliberate and malicious misrepresentation." The other arguments put forward in the article wo allude to are, we think, of an ex parte nature, and probably your correspondent would regard any reply from us as being equally motived; but in reference' to his astounding statement that "taking the average of the past fifteen years it will be fouud that the local markets have returned an average of full id per lb higher than that of London," wo are quite content to refer this claim to all wool growers who have ibflowsd the course of prices during the period mentioned. We would, however, ask all business men one question: The number of buyers attending the New Zealand local auctions tends yearly to incroaso, can this increase be explained by the fact that experienced wool buyers repeatedly journey thousands of miles in order to purchase wool at a higher price than they would have to pay if they stayed at home?—We are, etc.. WILLANS AND OVEEBI7EY. London, November 10th.