Search results for peachy printer

Peachy Printer has posted an “uncut video” to prove to the world that they actually have a working prototype. It is not terribly surprising to see it function, as the technology is basically all there and cheap. Still, backers have never seen a start to finish print video like this and it has made a lot of people feel better right as they were starting to think the whole crowdfunding campaign and product development was a scam.

There seems to be a fair amount of evidence that development did happen. The prototype shown in the video does have a USB connection rather than the original audio output (for starters). I have been pushed and pulled throughout this process, wanting to believe Rylan Grayston, and understand what could be a true story about his plight, while still feeling fairly well ripped off.
Two problems here. One, this is not the video we have all been waiting for. It is only satisfying under the circumstances. With the camera and print both moving, under inadequate light, with the focus constantly shifting, and then the video ends, it hardly gives a clear enough shot of the print to judge quality.
The most telling thing to me (besides the revelation of seeing the thing work), was the model chosen to print. It was not a true dimensional form, instead being an extrusion of a 2D profile. That’s right, it was a text stamp.

Fourteen years ago I was making photopolymer stamps with nothing more than two pieces of glass, a bit of foam weather stripping, resin, blacklight, and inkjet transparency paper. It gave excellent sharp results. It can be done using either liquid resin or metal backed plate. Discovering this is part of what lead me to 3D printing allowed me to understand and be willing to back a project like Peachy Printer.
So I’m not surprised to see the printer make a stamp. But as far as I can tell, I did a better job with my photopolymer flexographic printing plates.
No doubt many people are relieved to be able to show this video to their friends and family to prove they were not insane or stupid to back a project like this. (I’m glad I can show my family and friends.) However, until I see this printer create true three dimensional forms, I won’t believe that it prints with the quality claimed.
The biggest problem with this specific print, beyond the fact that it is simply a shallow extrusion, is that it can be created by programming the laser to trace the same profile over and over. It doesn’t demonstrate any ability of the printer to regulate the layer height, or know where it is in the print. It also does not demonstrate that the code driving the laser comes from slices of a 3D model. Peachy claims development of a slicer to transform models into layers and translate that into output that drives the laser in sync with the rising layer height. That in fact is necessary for this to be a 3D printer. This print could have been created without a 3D model at all, because every layer of an extrusion is the same. This could have been created by the laser simply tracing the same profile repetitively without any consideration for layer layer height–as long as the layer continued to raise.

It may be that we will see actual 3D printing from this Peachy device. I hope we do. Backers are buoyed by this video and many are clearly ready to give more money to the project to see it to completion. I’d like to see it work. I’d like to see Rylan Grayston out of the hole he is in and to see the backers duly rewarded after their long wait. I’m not going to risk throwing good money after bad though. I’m liquidating my investment in Peachy Printer. The ebay auction on my Peachy Printer Beta Kit closes at 1:13pm Pacific time today.
Standard benchmark print models are freely available in the 3D printing community. They exist to test all of the necessary capabilities of the printer at one time, with one model. Let’s see one of those Peachy Printer. How about this:

Benchmark Print


The difference here is plain to see. Peachy’s demonstration print tests only a single quality when what we look for in a 3D test print will define the limits of a printer on the following terms.

  • size: the object is 2x50x30mm (baseplate)
  • hole size: 3 holes (3/4/5mm)
  • Nut size: M4 Nut should fit perfectly
  • fine details: pyramide, cone, all numbers
  • rounded print: wave, half sphere
  • minimum distance & walls: 0.1/0.2/0.3/0.4/0.5/0.6/0.7mm
  • overhang: 25°/30°/35°/40°/45°
  • bridge print: 2/4/8/16/mm
  • surface: all the flat parts

Come on Peachy Printer. Live up.

Read More

Those were David Boe’s words April 14th, 2014. David just stopped by the Beta Testers’ Forum to say hi–one month after he was apparently done spending $320,000 of Kickstarter backers money building a house instead of a 3D printer.


“I would like to say thanks to all of our Peachy Printer team and everyone who has helped bring our little printer along this far, and am looking forward to seeing where it all goes!”

Right after spending half their magically huge haul on a house he couldn’t even finish. He says that after meeting Peachy Printer creator Rylan Grayston randomly in his driveway one day that they

started talking, sharing idea’s (sic) and everything seemed to just “click.”

“Click,” indeed. And click by click a million dollars went down the drain. One wonders what ideas were really shared that day.


Read More

Did you hear the one about the Peachy Printer? Guy asks for $100,000 to build a $100 3D printer. Raises over a million dollars between Kickstarter, Indiegogo, Backerkit, the Canadian government and his family for his dream. Partner secretly spends over $300,000 on a house. CEO covers up theft to apparently maintain face, recoup funds, continue development. Recovers $100,000 from thief who defaults repayment agreement. Spends the vast majority of the rest of the funds on salary. Goes broke. Blames theft. Releases taped “confession” from thief that he has been holding over his head for 18 months to extract payment. Thief said he was coerced to confess. Project dead in water. Inventor very bummed. Backers? (pissed). Canadian authorities notified 6 months ago but don’t know what to do with this new fangled crowdfunding thing.

Eric Greene, director of consumer protection with the province’s Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority, is working to determine what people thought they would get in return for their money.

“Was it a gift, a donation, an investment, a contribution or a purchase? Was the promise that you would get a product at the end of the day dependent on a variety of issues?”

There are a few big questions here. Is it legitimate to blame the loss of a portion of funds for the failure of the project? There was much more money spent on the salaries of the developers than was left ultimately outstanding to the embezzler. Only a portion of the funds are included in the mea culpa fancy graphics. How much was raised by Backerkit? Critically, how does Backerkit’s lack of user facing terms of service regarding such transactions as “pre-orders” affect the transacting parties? We know that funds given to Kickstarter and Indiegogo have basically no guarantee of returning any reward. What about Backerkit’s blurring of the lines with the concept of a pre-order? Is this any different than an order?

When I contacted Backerkit to tell them that I had been defrauded by Peachy, they replied that they were very very sorry, but

“due to the recent developments in the Peachy Printer project, we are unable to handle cancellation or refund requests at this time.”

I explained to them that I was under the impression that my transaction was framed as a pre-order, and asked them if they could clearly define this concept for me. Their answer?

“Unfortunately, BackerKit does not currently have a public-facing Terms Of Service for Pre-orders, and this debacle is definitely pushing that to the top of our to-do-list.”

I’ll bet it is.

Here is how Backerkit promotes the concept of pre-orders on their site:

Expand your fan base
A crowdfunding campaign is an exciting event, not a store. Kickstarter has been clear about their position on this, and we think it’s a good idea to retain the sanctity of that event, too. But offering preorders doesn’t actually reduce the value or excitement of this event—it’s just a way for you to allow more people to support your project.

But just to make sure to retain the sanctity of the original campaign, you can always create a little bit of differentiation between pre-order backers and your original backers. Most pre-order backers are excited just to have the option to get in on a campaign that they missed out on, so the easiest way to differentiate is usually to offer slightly different pricing options for pre-order rewards. Rarely have we heard of a campaign’s original backers actually being upset that the creator offered pre-orders after the official end-date. In the end, you’re just allowing more people to get on board and broadening the reach of your project.

Just down the same page, they say this:

Pre-orders also allow you to keep momentum going outside of Kickstarter and Indiegogo. With the added convenience brought by the new Kickstarter Spotlight feature, you can easily lead backers to your own site for pre-orders, whether it be via the BackerKit Pre-orders Widget or your personal online store.

So if Kickstarter is not a store, and Backerkit is differentiating itself from that “event,” what is a pre-order from a store if not just an early order? Where, pray tell, is the sanctity?

This case has serious implications for the crowdfunding community. The story broke two days ago and the thousands of backers are dying for answers. I, for my part, backed the project both because I wanted the product and because I thought the innovative cost-cutting design choices the inventor was working with deserved support. This was a scrappy project from the start and appear to have been simply unprepared for the amount of money that came its way. Clever inventor does not equal successful CEO. Apparently heavy equipment mechanic makes really bad CFO.

This is how embezzler David Boe introduced himself to the forum of Peachy Printer Beta testers back in April 2014:


In other words, backers are supposed to accept that they have been hung out to dry because our Fearless Inventor parked his car in this strangers driveway, then Kickstarter deposited $587,435.73 in his personal account. And the inventor was too absorbed tinkering to notice.

The internet seems to divide in three on the matter. There are those that see Rylan Grayston as the victim he claims to be, who only did what he had to do–who had no choice under the circumstance. There are those that think his cover-up hurts his credibility even if he was in a very tough spot. Then there are many who don’t believe a word he says (or for that matter the video-taped confession of the thief, David Boe).

I have been following this project closely ever since its inception at the end of 2016. I backed it at the Beta tester level both because of the promise to send me a Beta kit immediately and for the opportunity to become part of a community of people supporting the development of the product. The community never materialised, and the company was making revisions fast enough to make the kit obsolete almost as soon as I got it. I continued to follow updates over the following two years. Knowing now that the money was missing from the start makes me call into question whether or not the makers were truly making a good-faith effort to bring the product to backers. Only an investigation will clear this up.

As angry as I am i still believe Rylan Grayston–mostly. He strikes me as ernest, amateur, and truly heartbroken by this affair. But I can’t reconcile his blaming the Peachy failure on David Boe, his partner who stole the money. Nor can I get over the fact that I pre-ordered when they made that offer after the Kickstarter. The money had already been stolen. The company continued to raise money from the public and the government despite being aware of the internal fraud. That is the worst part. Unfortunately for Rylan, I’m afraid it also may put him in the position of answering criminal charges. It most certainly exposes him to severe legal liability. It damns his credibility. Nevertheless, I’m inclined to think that he did what he felt he had to, and maybe even was trying to limit damage to his remorseful former friend.

This does not make matters any better really. I can’t forgive the fact that I contributed when asked, after it should have been clear that the money was not where it should have been. This was a practice that continued throughout the life of the company, run low on cash–scramble for someone else to buy in. Bad news. Ever hear of a pyramid scheme? I first received this opportunity on Jan 08, 2014, and I made payment on 2/12/14. I’m not accusing Rylan Grayston of knowingly defrauding me–yet. The fact remains however that when I paid in $620, David Boe had already spent almost $320,000 on building a house. What was Rylan doing with his portion of the funds during this time?

ScreenClip [2]

The answer is he was spending almost $400,000 on salary and wages. Oops. No wonder Peachy decided to announce seven months later that the “Peachy Printer is Now Available for pre-order.” They sent this email on 10/15/14:


That was a year and a half ago folks. Peachy Printer was totally broke then. This was three weeks after Peachy hit rock bottom. Three weeks after the September 18th date that Rylan gives as the day he finally demanded the remainder of all corportate funds from David Boes personal account–and received only $30,000.  This left $320,000 outstanding. That is why they said the printer is available and offered it for “pre-order.”

When I look back at the email that I got asking for money, three months after the theft, it does say that the terms of transaction are essentially those of the kickstarter. It’s not exactly legal language but the idea is that there is no obligation to deliver put upon Peachy. It is a risk. That email came from Kaleb Dunlop.

ScreenClip [3]

I can’t find much on Kaleb, but he seems to be some young kid that was working for the Peachy team. When I google him I get this link for a Google Plus page,

ScreenClip [4]

Strangely, clicking the link leads to the following page:

ScreenClip [5]

Is Kaleb Dunlop actually Nathan Grayston? What does this mean? It seemed suspicious, so naturally I googled to see if Superman and Clark Kent were ever seen together:

ScreenClip [6]

Dunlop is the big kid in this 2012 photo, holding the Skateboard. Nathan Grayston (Rylan’s brother and also a Peachy employee), is on the far right. Two totally innocent kids at a community skatepark groundbreaking. They look well intentioned. Why the link for Kaleb’s Google Plus page apparently leads to Nathan’s page is anybody’s guess. I’m sure the authorities will be talking to everybody who worked for Peachy. Rylan says when the fraud was discovered that he and his brother took massive paycuts and moved out of their commercial space into a shared home that they worked out of. You’ve got to wonder what they were all being paid before–and WHY?

As for other failures, too much time and money was actually spent towards the product relative to original estimates. Like any project, there were unforeseen challenges and delays. However, either the prototypes presented in the Kickstarter were far-under developed, successive generations failed to focus on minimum viable product, or the whole project was doomed from the start by it’s insistence on being the worlds first $100 3D printer. There are reasons that there wasn’t one before and still isn’t now. Clever innovations piled on top of each other might make a great story, a good pitch even, but there are reasons that existing technology incorporates the design choices that it does. It’s one thing to reinvent the wheel, but when you add in better mousetraps and discovering fire you might just be setting yourself up for failure.

I, like many in the backer community are struggling with how to frame this story. Is it a criminal caper or a tragedy? It looks like both.

Oh, and by the way, my Peachy Printer Beta kit is up on ebay–brand new, unassembled, highly collectible.

Read More

Billed as the first $100 3D printer and scanner, it was almost too good to be true. Now, it’s a million dollar scandal that is rocking Kickstarter and Indiegogo. After two years of delays past promised shipping and nebulous updates of continuing development, Peachy Printer project head Rylan Grayston has come forward to present backers with a well crafted and graphically endowed sob story of his victimization at the hands of his business partner David Boe, whom he says built a house with over $350,000 in backer funds, leaving him broke.


Apparently, the embezzled funds can not even be fully recouped from the unfinished home.

This is a historic occasion for both the 3D printing community and for crowdfunding more generally, which has been reeling a bit from other high profile project failures (see Coolest). Mr Grayston presents himself as well intentioned. He also is a victim, he says. While that may be the case, his handling of the matter is a failure almost on a par with that of his evidently criminal business partner. Specifically, having had knowledge of this embezzlement for well over a year, as well as reason to believe the funds were in danger ever since the project was funding, Rylan Grayston did not go to the police until he had run out of money himself, nor did he report the truth to backers. Being unable to fully recoup on a supposed “repayment agreement” from his lowlife partner, Grayston has now gone public with his “plight”. I can’t bear to watch the video myself, complete as it is with fancy editing and a dubstep soundtrack. Did these jerks just spend money to tell us we got ripped off?

With today’s announcement, Peachy has revealed an elaborate website which purports to show that Peachy has been acting in good faith and place the blame entirely on the actions of David Boe. If comments on the Kickstarter and Indiegogo pages are any indication, backers feel the polished presentation only adds insult to injury.

The timeline on is meant to be exculpatory, shifting blame to Boe. What it tells me is that Grayston knew this was a problem for a long time. Instead of making the predicted delivery in October 2014, the company was broke, having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on salary. When exactly Grayston “knew” Boe had stolen the money will be a question for courts and journalists. What he did clearly know was that his company had no money and could not deliver on time.

While Grayston may have hoped that Boe would fully repay the company (he apparently did in part), the company also launched a pre-order campaign in October 2014, after it had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on salary and was nearly broke. On October 15, 2014, Peachy emailed sent the following email with the header: “The Peachy Printer Now Available!”


Two weeks later they bounced their $17,000 payroll. By mid December, 2014, this confession from Boe was apparently filmed:

Here is the period during which the theft was allegedly discovered. (via


Unfortunately, rather than involve the police, Grayston apparently tried to eke out a product over the next year and a half. Eventually the shoestring broke, leading to today’s admission of insolvency. The internet will no doubt judge Peachy quite harshly, as they have been doing for some time already. For my part, I half believe Grayston. I backed Peachy via the Backerkit website at the $600 Beta Tester level. For my money, I was to receive two kits, one of the existing Beta product, the second of the final product launch. I did receive my kit back in May of 2014. My judgement at the time was that it was not worth my time to assemble–development was apparently somewhat rudimentary, and the promised community of Beta developers turned out to be a dud. I instead chose to wait until the final product launched, with the hope of making an easy upgrade to my part kits.

Being in possession of one of these rare Beta kits gives me somewhat more faith in the good intentions of Rylan Grayston. I have eagerly watched many updates over the last year purporting advances in development and offering revised ship dates. This small measure of faith is little consolation though and I really would like my money back. He could be accused of covering up this scandal while leaving backers in the dark.  That seems incontrovertible. Perhaps the man still believed in his dream and simply saw it crumbling if he were not to save face. Maybe he thought he could really pull it off. Maybe he really believed David Boe when he agreed to pay all the money back.

Only time will tell when it comes to the true details of this scandal. Those details will no doubt come out. Grayston has even penned an open letter to authorities and requests that backers contact police as well. I’ll do that. But first I need to unload my beta kit.

How about this. I’m out $600 bucks but I’ve got a relic that is the only thing in the world separating Peachy Printer from vaporware. Now it’s on ebay. Want your own piece of history? The first $100 3D printer? No guarantee made as to function, but the parts all seem to match the packing list.

A lot of people stand to be disappointed by this state of affairs and no resolution is in sight. Perhaps the greatest loser is the idea of crowdfunding itself, which is going to need some serious revision to restore the trust of backers. Not only will Kickstarter and Indiegogo be spinning their wheels to sort this out, but little known Backerkit is going to have some explaining of its own to do. Let’s hope crowdfunding recovers.







Read More