boat brands - prejudice or reality

[geem]

Only if you're making the mistake of comparing the Contessa - which was a competitive cruiser racer built to withstand the rigors of a RORC season when new - to pure cruising boats from the big manufacturers. If you instead compare it to the cruiser racers of the modern era - boats with essentially the same design brief but half a century apart.... Then you see clear evolution. Probably the closest thing available to buy new now to the design brief of the Contessa is the J99. Which despite being somewhat sedate by modern standards is a lot faster than the Contessa, nearly 20% according to IRC, has better accommodation, is easier to sail with non-overlapping jibs and A-sail kites, And is also a boat built to a standard, as evidenced by the price! And it's still a volume production boat, with well over 100 built now.

If you want to compare older boats, in this case 1970s designs, to the modern volume cruising offerings, then you need to pick a boat from that era that was actually volume built to a pure cruising brief. Westerly Conway family maybe?

What would you rather cruise as a family around the South Coast of the UK in 2026, a Conway or the brand new Oceanis 34.1? Or a Hanse 348? Or a Sun Oddesy 350? The new boats will be faster, more comfortable to live on, much bigger galley, better electronics, proper fridges, shore power built in, much easier handling rigs, more comfortable cockpit, bigger heads with shower etc. (To be fair I have no idea if the Conway had a shower or hot water as standard, but we know that the new boats all will)

Claiming that you cannot see progress in design, when you're actually talking about the same design brief then... That's just perverse.

Your own boat, it is fantastic. Honestly, it clearly is, and you're absolutely right to be so proud of it. But it's also not a volume production boat, is it? So saying it's better than the modern volume production boats is also fundamentally missing the point of comparing like with like. The modern equivalent of your boat (because of course the yard didn't make enough money making and selling them) is probably the JPK45FC or maybe a Pegasus etc. High end boats from small semi-bespoke yards. All of which have their niche and are equally desirable and suitable for the role of liveaboard cruiser with all the things you suggested. And all of which cost significantly more than the same sized AWB. As of course did yours when it was new. A good condition JPK45FC is currently on JPK's website for 600,000 Euros. No wonder that most cruising isn't done in that type of boat. And you absolutely could argue that design has moved on from your boat to the newer equivalent boats.

At the end of the day, however much you personally deride the AWB, for the vast majority of people who dream about sailing over the Horizon they are basically the only affordable option. And they are doing the job. People are sailing across oceans in them. People are living their dreams in them. At a fraction of the cost of a new equivalent of your boat.

Fixed that typo. It was never about a Contessa and my tablet would rather write Contessa than Contest

 

[geem]

Ok, yes I can see that does look likely. Point still stands though. The Contest, which is clearly a great boat, also wasn't a high volume production boat of its day, see my point about Geem's Trintella. Compare like with like, same design brief with same design brief, then compare "new to old".

But that's the point I was making. It was a response to the OP that his boat isn't trying to compete with the market for charter boats

 

[geem]

Here we go again.
Regarding Contest Yachts they are very much now in the modern idiom, twin wheels wide stern etc - and all the better for this. Contest Yachts | Building dreams together

Yes they maybe. Just like HR but they aren't selling to the charter market like Ben Bav and Jean

 

[flaming]

But that's the point I was making. It was a response to the OP that his boat isn't trying to compete with the market for charter boats

But you did get somewhat sidetracked into the "new boat bad" stick....

 

[geem]

But you did get somewhat sidetracked into the "new boat bad" stick....

Not really. Just trying to give a balanced view. I firmly believe that their is some fantastic improvements in technology but to assume all of these improvements find their way into every new yacht is nieve. A quality built boat will always stand the test of time. I cheaply built boat will always be cheap. Lagoon is a modern boat builder who turn out some appalling quality boats. Have a look at Parley Revivals latest vid on grp quality. Or their bulkhead issue.

 

[SaltyC]

I sit on the fence! I appreciate the seakindliness of older designs, I appreciate the speed and accommodation of the newer designs.
I do not appreciate the slamming and dental bills to replace displaced fillings of the newer desings in moderate weather . But like the speed in moderate conditions.
As an engineer, I liked glassed in Bulkheads not glued (bonded - they pop).
The Industry now appears driven by the charter market and maxim of most accommodation / sunbathing / deckspace for the price - only need 5 years use then someone elses problem.
Unfirtunately, the likes if HR are having to cut costs and compete, hence twin wheels and flatter hulls, yet quality (& longevity?) Plus comfort is possibly being reduced.
For many this is irrelevant, for some it is. The old saying of horses for courses could never be more relevant.

 

[Dutch01527]

I think (might be wrong; often am) that geem’s reference to a Contessa might have been the result of autocorrect. Geem’s post was in response to Dutch01527 who, I believe, has a Contest 41.

That is correct, my boat is a Contest 41. A long distance cruiser of a similar type to a Halberg Rassy, which is better known. Defiantly not a racer.

To me the discussion is not about new boats vs old. If I had the money I would buy a brand new Contest, Halberg Rassy or similar ect in a heart beat.

The original discussion was about a c.20 year old mass production boat vs a c.35 year old limited production boat given the same c.£100k budget.

Both are valid options with advantages and disadvantages. Both will do the job for 99% of people. People will make different personal choices.

 

[Concerto]

Sorry flaming, but geem does say that higher quality boats are designed for a different market. His description in post #57 of the charter market leading the mass production boats, compared to higher quality boats being created for specific owners who probably intending to do long term cruising. They are different buyers and thankfully everyone is satisfied.

I feel sure that the OP has found most of the comments in the thread useful. Although I have a preference for an older boat, at the time I purchased my Fulmar I could have bought a similar sized brand new AWB, unfortunately there are too many features and construction methods that clash with my experience of sailing over decades. This is not that I am averse to changes in design or materials. In my younger days I sailed twin keeled boat, log keel boat, through a variety of race boats including an extreme boat laid up using kevlar and a number of pure cruising yachts, plus some motorboats. Over the years I have been in many boat building yards, but not a mass production AWB factory. The pressure of the cost saving in AWB yards and some design trends make them less appealing to me, but that does not mean that AWB's do meet many buyers requirements.

 

[potentillaCO32]

Fixed that typo. It was never about a Contessa and my tablet would rather write Contessa than Contest

You tablet has taste.

 

[flaming]

Not really. Just trying to give a balanced view. I firmly believe that their is some fantastic improvements in technology but to assume all of these improvements find their way into every new yacht is nieve.

Literally nobody, least of all me is saying that.

I'm merely saying that when you compare new to old, you do have to compare boats from the same segment, the same design criteria etc.

 

[Tranona]

Literally nobody, least of all me is saying that.

I'm merely saying that when you compare new to old, you do have to compare boats from the same segment, the same design criteria etc.

Some find that difficult to do because usually destroys their arguments in much the same way as offering contradictory evidence.

 

[Baggywrinkle]

..... and the thread gets geemed .....

There are plenty of "high quality" modern "blue water" boats available today, buyers can place an order and get a world girdler that is worlds apart from something dating back to the 80s .... it just requires a very thick wallet. The "blue water" cruisers today are better than the ones from the 80s - this isn't really up for debate is it?
New ones even have all the modern features that over the years people have come to expect, windows to let the light in, sugar scoops/swim platforms, comfortable cockpits, dry bilges, light, airy, spacious interiors, twin wheels and rudders - but the problem is that neither the old boat protagonists, nor production boat paupers can afford them - so they don't really get talked about.

Unfortunately there are plenty who want what they imagine are "blue water" boats, but don't have "blue water" money - so they go back in time to find boats from the past that have the features they value.

There is however a price overlap between old-timers that were the flagship boats of their day, now worn out and available at knock-down prices, and more modern boats with the features that modern cruisers have come to expect. Every buyer then has to make a decision as to what they really want and need, there is no right or wrong, and there is nothing to prevent an AWB being used as a long distance cruiser, plenty are doing it.

So what's the compromise? A newer boat is usually cleaner, less worn, drier, faster, light and airy, and has all the mod cons. An older boat has had decades of use in which time it rots, leaks, and otherwise disintegrates, the interior is also usually well used and worn - they often need a re-fit or the addition of equipment that it was never built with, or repairs to the fabric of the boat. Old boats rarely come on the market in excellent condition. Old boats do however have features like weight, skegs etc. that seem to be important to people who like to think of themselves as "blue water" cruisers.

On top of the style and features, there is the manufacturing process used to design and build the boats ... mid 90s and earlier, boats were built before computer aided design was really a thing, the days before stability and structural strength could be accurately modelled and the days before repeatable production processes ensured a reproducible product - they might have been built to best practice back then, but the world has moved on. Refit and Sail is a fantastic YouTube channel where many of the "designed in" weaknesses of older boats are discussed and repaired - there are a few salient lessons in their playlist regarding highly regarded, well respected older boats.

Some of the design features, like skegs, persisted on production boats for a while, rudders were originally attached to the back of the keel, because the materials used to build wooden hulls were not strong enough to support a long balanced spade - but when the keels evolved and got shorter - skegs were created as additional bracing - this led people to believe that a skeg was necessary, manufacturers kept building them, and sold them as offering more protection - until balanced spades became mainstream - skegs all but disappeared as did the boatbuilders refusing to following the market set by European boats. A skeg is just an appendage moulded outside the hull after all, it can be ripped off by an Orca or anything solid if struck at the right angle - rudder shaft strength is still a requirement regardless.

Older hulls were also built in an era where the man with the chopped mat just laid up more mat because the designer overcompensated as the actual forces and stresses were not calculated in detail. So boats ended up being heavy. The weight and wetted surface makes them slower, especially in light winds ... but they felt like brick outhouses, so the owners were happy. Over time the weaknesses surfaced, weaknesses that would be caught today by FEA before the boat was built. People stuck in that era seem unable to accept that light can also be strong if designed properly, or that new materials can make what was impossible, possible. Weight is not a measure of quality. If weight is not introduced due to an engineering need, then weight is just a burden. The only advantage perhaps being that with weight comes inertia so heavy boats go through smaller waves rather than over them. For a smaller hull size this might be an advantage and make them more stable, but as the average boat has got bigger and bigger (and therefore heavier) this becomes a bit of a moot point. Average boat sizes have jumped from around 25ft to around 40ft in my lifetime, and as a result of the size increase, there has been an equivalent increase in average boat weight and capability.

The only real choice for a traditional thinker is basically to buy a fixer-upper where it is a toss-up between old-boat features and what the buyer is prepared to live with in terms of condition and inconvenience. Get that spoon out and scoop the rotten balsa out of the foredeck. Once remedial work is completed, then the boat is fit for purpose again, but it still doesn't have all the modern features the market today demands, and that is reflected in the price.

If a buyer doesn't want a project or a boat with an interior from an antique shop then the only option is to buy newer, which a lot of long distance cruisers choose to do. These newer boats also end up in anchorages the world over.

I can see why this annoys some of the skippers who see themselves as proper voyagers - especially the ones whose identity and ego are firmly shackled to their boat choice.

But there is a perspective that always gets missed in the endless bickering over skegs, keels and such, and that is seamanship and self reliance. This will have orders of magnitude more influence on the success of a long passage than the actual boat involved.

Robin Knox Johnson was given a knighthood for displaying exactly those traits, we didn't give the honour to his boat because, fundamentally, it was a miracle it made it. He is however, a sailing hero - and he took a wholly inappropriate (by todays standards) boat round the world. Who would choose Suhaili for a circumnavigation today? Not many, yet somehow today a First 47,7 owner has made the wrong choice for extended cruising? One gets a knighthood for a daring adventure in a wooden death trap, and the other gets told by armchair forumites that his boat is only suitable for coastal cruising? Quite frankly, it's bollox.

What can it be other than prejudice?

For perspective, here's the list of problems with Suhaili (which, incidentally, RKJ was sailing because he couldn't raise the money for something better - the original "go in what you have" mentality.)

The Maintenance Race - Works in Progress Magazine

He went below to pump out all the water that had come in during the knockdown and found that more was still coming in. To his horror, it was pouring in from gaps around the edges of the cabin, which had apparently been knocked partially loose from the deck. He knew that if the cabin got torn all the way off by another capsize, SUHAILI would fill with water and sink. He reduced sail to improve his odds of surviving the night.

When the storm abated, he spent a whole day reinforcing the structure that held the cabin to the deck, another day rebuilding the self-steering apparatus, and then three days repairing the rudder. If he had not laid in a supply of materials, tools, and fasteners for such tasks, he would have had to quit the race. It was his thorough preparation that equipped him to ‘make do and mend’.

Somehow RKJ fitted everything he needed in an 8,5m waterline with a 3,4m beam - but somehow we are told that spares and tools wont fit in a boat with a 12m waterline and a 4,5m beam? Incidentally, Suhaili was used back in the day as justification by wooden boat owners for wooden boats being better than GRP, because of the repairs RKJ was able to make on route with straightforward tools, the fact that the boat fell apart in the first place seemed to be overlooked. That race defined the attitude of leisure sailors for a decade, until the Fastnet in '79, when the Contessa 32 took the crown of most lusted after boat - fast forward 50 years and the Boat Butler is making a very nice living putting them back together and repairing a number of structural weaknesses.

Why on earth should we believe that boats designed and built 40 to 50 years ago are somehow "better"? Are we honestly saying that the route Suhaili took in '69 couldn't be done today in a Bav 51 or a First 47,7 - two of the most popular ARC boats? (Statistics for 2020-2025 collected by Practical Sailor)

It's just belly aching from the usual suspects IMO, stuff I've seen before from my fathers generation - stuff I listened to ad-nauseum in pubs up and down the West Coast of Scotland in my childhood and teens - I realised then it was all about ego, basically it was just validation-seeking behaviour.

 

[Supertramp]

But the real point of this thread is not what's the best boat for blue-water, coastal cruising or racing. It was whether the prejudice and price of (say) Swedish boats versus mainstream French brands is justified in a circa 20 year old boat.

And the answer seems to be its not justified unless you are wanting design features and attributes beyond the norm or average.

 

[Concerto]

Baggywrinkle, I suppose you want berths that are comfortable for a 6ft 9in tall man, a galley with a fridge that runs on 12V or automatically switching to 240V, a cooker with 2 burners, an oven and a grill, a toilet with a shower running hot and cold water, mains sockets (including an inverter) and USB sockets throughout the boat, storage for clothes, tools, dinghy etc, comfortable cockpit, powerful winches to help trim the sails on a mast that can be controlled to flatten the fully battened main sail, good electronics and autopilot, a sprayhood to keep spray away from the main hatch, solar panels, etc, etc, etc. In fact I am missing the electric anchor winch. But how about having a folding electric bike onboard, let alone a small washing machine. Sounds just perfect for most sailors. Welcome to my 45 year old 32ft Westerly Fulmar.

My Fulmar has a generous beam for its year, a substantial keel and a balanced rudder with a tiller. Just the one rudder as the transom is quite wide but not as extreme as modern boats requiring twin rudders.

When Concerto was at the Southampton Boat Show in 2021, the afternoon of the opening day brought aboard 4 men in their early 20's. They had spent all day on all the modern yachts, they flopped down in the main cabin. One then passed the comment "Isn't it nice to be on a proper yacht, not one of the Ikea boats." His friends immediately agreed. Need I say any more than not everyone, young or old, wants big open cabins with hull windows.

 

[Baggywrinkle]

But the real point of this thread is not what's the best boat for blue-water, coastal cruising or racing. It was whether the prejudice and price of (say) Swedish boats versus mainstream French brands is justified in a circa 20 year old boat.

And the answer seems to be its not justified unless you are wanting design features and attributes beyond the norm or average.

The prejudice isn't about what people want in a boat, the market provides for all want's and needs. Assuming that one persons wants and needs are superior to anothers for the same usage is where the prejudice comes in.

Basically, "I want a skeg hung rudder to cross the atlantic, therefore any boat that doesn't have one is a coastal cruiser" is where the prejudice comes from - and companies like Kraken take this to extremes - which is fine as they need to find differentiators to justify the price tag - if they didn't then they wouldn't survive in the market.

It's fairly obvious to most people that a Mercedes from the 80s isn't as comfortable or desirable as a current Mercedes, and that a current Mercedes is a nicer car than a current Ford .... but when owners of 80s Mercedes start claiming that their car is better than a current Ford because for example it is rear wheel drive, that's where the problems start .... and that in a nutshell is what's happening with boats.

 

[Supertramp]

The prejudice isn't about what people want in a boat, the market provides for all want's and needs. Assuming that one persons wants and needs are superior to anothers for the same usage is where the prejudice comes in.

Basically, "I want a skeg hung rudder to cross the atlantic, therefore any boat that doesn't have one is a coastal cruiser" is where the prejudice comes from - and companies like Kraken take this to extremes - which is fine as they need to find differentiators to justify the price tag - if they didn't then they wouldn't survive in the market.

It's fairly obvious to most people that a Mercedes from the 80s isn't as comfortable or desirable as a current Mercedes, and that a current Mercedes is a nicer car than a current Ford .... but when owners of 80s Mercedes start claiming that their car is better than a current Ford because for example it is rear wheel drive, that's where the problems start .... and that in a nutshell is what's happening with boats.

I agree with your reasoning.

To take the car analagy, is the current Mercedes much and noticeably better than the current Ford? To the average driver, then probably not. And isn't that the argument when comparing, say, an HR 34 with a Bavaria 34?

The car analagy is not good when comparing old models with new since they all come with 4 wheels etc. Although many would describe wet belt engine technology as the equivalent of hull windows!

If like me you value heavy displacement, want a pilothouse and don't have enough money to buy new then you are sentenced to choosing older boats with those features due to the lack of more modern models of that type. But I am not prejudiced against boats that don't share those features - its a personal choice, not a prejudice.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

I agree with your reasoning.

To take the car analagy, is the current Mercedes much and noticeably better than the current Ford? To the average driver, then probably not. And isn't that the argument when comparing, say, an HR 34 with a Bavaria 34?

The car analagy is not good when comparing old models with new since they all come with 4 wheels etc. Although many would describe wet belt engine technology as the equivalent of hull windows!

If like me you value heavy displacement, want a pilothouse and don't have enough money to buy new then you are sentenced to choosing older boats with those features due to the lack of more modern models of that type. But I am not prejudiced against boats that don't share those features - its a personal choice, not a prejudice.

That would point to the average driver not being very discerning. To me, a good car, or boat, is worlds apart from an average one, and in much the same way. But then, I love driving, cars or boats.

 

[Dutch01527]

What an interesting thread, an insight into human nature and thinking.

Starts with a reasonable question and elements of the debate then diverge into a number of more extreme positions and statements based on personal preferences and beliefs.

The prejudice isn't about what people want in a boat, the market provides for all want's and needs. Assuming that one persons wants and needs are superior to anothers for the same usage is where the prejudice comes in.

Basically, "I want a skeg hung rudder to cross the atlantic, therefore any boat that doesn't have one is a coastal cruiser" is where the prejudice comes from - and companies like Kraken take this to extremes - which is fine as they need to find differentiators to justify the price tag - if they didn't then they wouldn't survive in the market.

It's fairly obvious to most people that a Mercedes from the 80s isn't as comfortable or desirable as a current Mercedes, and that a current Mercedes is a nicer car than a current Ford .... but when owners of 80s Mercedes start claiming that their car is better than a current Ford because for example it is rear wheel drive, that's where the problems start .... and that in a nutshell is what's happening with boats.

A house would be a better analogy than a car. A well maintained and modernised Georgian house vs a nearly new, modern executive house. I have owned both which were similar sizes and values and to me the older house was considerably better built and had considerably more charm and character. However, that is just my opinion and taste, other people will legitimately have a different views and that is ok.

I might have missed something in this thread but I can not see anywhere that the fans of older prestige boats have claimed that that is the only “bluewater”choice or that their choice is superior to others.

I think that people are reacting defensively to the likes of Kraken’s messaging and not to what has actually been said by the contributors. Those reactions have been more extreme that the actual posts merited - “snobbishness”, “prejudice” “superiority” “ego” ect are personalised do not represent the actual posts on here.

 

[dunedin]

That would point to the average driver not being very discerning. To me, a good car, or boat, is worlds apart from an average one, and in much the same way. But then, I love driving, cars or boats.

But that almost certainly is the case. To a huge majority of people a car is a means of transport, running kids to school etc. Only a small minority even read comparative car reviews - if it gets from A to B then fine.

And similarly with boats. Few compare polar diagrams of potential purchases, or compare key measurements etc. If it has a nice interior and a decent specification many will go for it. And that is perfectly fine.

But I suspect that buyers of Dragonfly, Arcona, XY etc think differently, and punish their wallets accordingly.

 

[johnalison]

I might have missed something in this thread but I can not see anywhere that the fans of older prestige boats have claimed that that is the only “bluewater”choice or that their choice is better

People make statements on threads principally to justify their own choices. There was no mention of blue-water sailing in the original post, and it is an area that I have little interest in and less knowledge. The point is "is there a difference between 'prestige' brands' and others other than cost?", and not, as far as I can see "is an old Swedish boat better than a new French/German one?". Having owned an HR for 25 years and sail in and in company with some AWBs I can only say from my experience that there are differences. My boat was better finished, had better equipment, and was better designed than the AWBs of the same period and gave more comfort and a better sailing experience than its cheaper contemporaries, though these have improved in the interim. HR and Bav 34s were mentioned above. The fact that I kept and enjoyed mine for 25 years while my friend sold his Bav after two years because of its unsatisfying sailing qualities and failing equipment answers the question for me at least.