toolarts
Member
Here is the tale:
SeaComber Yachts commissioned an authorized update of the Dog Star design from Philip Rhodes in order to produce a new 32 foot double-ended fiberglass yacht called the "Traveller 32" to compete with the Westsail 32.
SeaComber contracted with a yacht builder, Ta Ciao, in Taiwan, to build the Traveller 32.
Strangely, shortly after the first few Traveller 32's were completed, a new yacht started appearing called the CT34. The CT 34 is identical to the Traveller 32 except for the following differences: Instead of a double ended rear-hung rudder there is a canoe stern, and the fore foot of the keel is longer.
The cabin top, bow, mid section, sheer, and all other dimensions are identical to the Traveller 32.
The interior layout is nearly identical to the Traveller 32 (the only discernable difference is a minor change in the shape of the sink in the head).
There is known to be one, single, Traveller 32 that was built in Taiwan and has a hull ID that starts with CT3... No other Traveller built in Taiwan or anywhere else has this ID.
Could it be that the wrong tag was attached to the mold for the hull ID? The tag should have belonged to an early model Ct34?
Could it be that the Traveller 32 and the CT34 were being built in the same yard, side by side?
More facts:
A discussion with Ron Rawson revealed that manufacture of the Traveller 32 was suddenly moved to his yard in Redmond, Washington, around hull #13 because of "some problem with the Taiwan outfit."
Ron was not sure what the problem was, but the molds were suddenly yanked from Ta Ciao and shipped to the U.S. The rest of the hulls were made in the U.S. until SeaComber ceased operations in 1979.
Could it be that SeaComber found out that Ta Ciao had copied the Traveller 32 and created a variation which they were selling in exactly the same market? Could it be that they were unable to stop Ta Ciao from selling this new boat, and the competition, along with rising costs for fiberglass, put SeaComber out of business?
Not an unusual scenario at all for that period of time in the history of yacht building.
However, if any of this is true, it means that the Traveller 32 is the GRANDFATHER of a series of other yacht designs, the CT34, CT 37, etc. culminating in the Tayana 37.
There is quite a bit of information about the Tayana 37, and it is a Bob Perry design, but the design was inspired by the CT34 and Traveller 32 line:
http://www.guildmark.com/crumpet/History.htm
I am posting this in hopes of being contacted by the author of this web page, because the history of the CT34 is very interesting.
Wouldn't the CT34 owners like to know if their boat is based on a Philip Rhodes design, giving it a noble heritage?
All you have to do is look at pictures of these two yachts in the water, side by side, and you know there is more to this than a coincidental similarity. Veiwing the yacht from forward either on the port or starboard side, they are identical.
Anyway, interesting stuff. Maybe this is totally wrong. I'd love to hear from someone who can prove this idea is incorrect.
Regards
G_Paul_H
SeaComber Yachts commissioned an authorized update of the Dog Star design from Philip Rhodes in order to produce a new 32 foot double-ended fiberglass yacht called the "Traveller 32" to compete with the Westsail 32.
SeaComber contracted with a yacht builder, Ta Ciao, in Taiwan, to build the Traveller 32.
Strangely, shortly after the first few Traveller 32's were completed, a new yacht started appearing called the CT34. The CT 34 is identical to the Traveller 32 except for the following differences: Instead of a double ended rear-hung rudder there is a canoe stern, and the fore foot of the keel is longer.
The cabin top, bow, mid section, sheer, and all other dimensions are identical to the Traveller 32.
The interior layout is nearly identical to the Traveller 32 (the only discernable difference is a minor change in the shape of the sink in the head).
There is known to be one, single, Traveller 32 that was built in Taiwan and has a hull ID that starts with CT3... No other Traveller built in Taiwan or anywhere else has this ID.
Could it be that the wrong tag was attached to the mold for the hull ID? The tag should have belonged to an early model Ct34?
Could it be that the Traveller 32 and the CT34 were being built in the same yard, side by side?
More facts:
A discussion with Ron Rawson revealed that manufacture of the Traveller 32 was suddenly moved to his yard in Redmond, Washington, around hull #13 because of "some problem with the Taiwan outfit."
Ron was not sure what the problem was, but the molds were suddenly yanked from Ta Ciao and shipped to the U.S. The rest of the hulls were made in the U.S. until SeaComber ceased operations in 1979.
Could it be that SeaComber found out that Ta Ciao had copied the Traveller 32 and created a variation which they were selling in exactly the same market? Could it be that they were unable to stop Ta Ciao from selling this new boat, and the competition, along with rising costs for fiberglass, put SeaComber out of business?
Not an unusual scenario at all for that period of time in the history of yacht building.
However, if any of this is true, it means that the Traveller 32 is the GRANDFATHER of a series of other yacht designs, the CT34, CT 37, etc. culminating in the Tayana 37.
There is quite a bit of information about the Tayana 37, and it is a Bob Perry design, but the design was inspired by the CT34 and Traveller 32 line:
http://www.guildmark.com/crumpet/History.htm
I am posting this in hopes of being contacted by the author of this web page, because the history of the CT34 is very interesting.
Wouldn't the CT34 owners like to know if their boat is based on a Philip Rhodes design, giving it a noble heritage?
All you have to do is look at pictures of these two yachts in the water, side by side, and you know there is more to this than a coincidental similarity. Veiwing the yacht from forward either on the port or starboard side, they are identical.
Anyway, interesting stuff. Maybe this is totally wrong. I'd love to hear from someone who can prove this idea is incorrect.
Regards
G_Paul_H
