GT 35

[snooks]

[/B]

Just as an aside, I have 41 years in the industry, ex surveyor, ex boatyard owner, Chartered Marine Engineer, MRINA. MIMarE. MINucE. Your own magazine did a seven page article on my personal boat. I'm not much of a photographer mind. :encouragement:

It wasn't directed at you, unless you said you were comparing the price of the Bavaria to the GT35.

Have you been on the GT35?

 

[snooks]

When you wrote your review, did you know that the owner of the boat was also the owner of the company which builds them, and that he planned to sell it almost at once?

No and No.

The owner of the test boat is irrelevant to a new boat test feature. I'm there to test the boat, not her owner. I also tested it before she was delivered.

 

[Sandy Bottom]

The reason i ask i did a work experience placement at Dubois Naval Architects in my school days and being the teaboy/scrote i got to wonder off with one or two of the employees to see what the practice did and remember being taken to see a boat of the same name when it was having an extensive refit, i'm pretty sure that was boat; needless to say a very beautiful boat.

Good memory! Dubois did the rejig of the keel / rudder / rig etc. (and made a great job of it).

 

[JumbleDuck]

The owner of the test boat is irrelevant to a new boat test feature. I'm there to test the boat, not her owner. I also tested it before she was delivered.

Thank you. The PBO review mentioned the owner's identity, so I wondered if they had told you as well. In general they seem to be a little coy about it. See this news item for example

Stephen Jones only recently completing the preliminary design was enough for this owner. A collective effort between GT Yachts and Windboats has resulted in the first GT35 being sold off the drawings.
Commenting on the commitment, the new owner remarked “It’s pretty amazing really when you think about it. Why nobody has started building boats of this standard in this size range in the UK until now is a little strange. Once I saw the drawings and listened to some of the reasoning, I suddenly realised why I felt such an anti-climax looking at new boats – none of them are pure performance cruisers. They all try to add some sort of racey element, which is not what I wanted.”

http://www.gtyachts.com/12-11-13-gt35.php​

which does not perhaps give quite the impression it would have given had it said that the new owner runs one of the two firms involved and didn't plan to keep the boat.

 

[pvb]

Thank you. The PBO review mentioned the owner's identity, so I wondered if they had told you as well. In general they seem to be a little coy about it. See this news item for example

Stephen Jones only recently completing the preliminary design was enough for this owner. A collective effort between GT Yachts and Windboats has resulted in the first GT35 being sold off the drawings.
Commenting on the commitment, the new owner remarked “It’s pretty amazing really when you think about it. Why nobody has started building boats of this standard in this size range in the UK until now is a little strange. Once I saw the drawings and listened to some of the reasoning, I suddenly realised why I felt such an anti-climax looking at new boats – none of them are pure performance cruisers. They all try to add some sort of racey element, which is not what I wanted.”

http://www.gtyachts.com/12-11-13-gt35.php​

which does not perhaps give quite the impression it would have given had it said that the new owner runs one of the two firms involved and didn't plan to keep the boat.

Agreed. The whole thing smacks of desperation.

 

[CC@GTY]

which does not perhaps give quite the impression it would have given had it said that the new owner runs one of the two firms involved and didn't plan to keep the boat.

Calm down. Nothing sinister! Ref. degree of anonymity within communication relating to GT35-01, this was at owner's request. Pretty normal.

Reason he is selling has already been mentioned.

I'm enjoying the level of interest and I hope I'll be able to make people proud of British boatbuilding again.

See you all at the boat show.

 

[sailorman]

Well the OP has got you over 6k hits on there, here`s good fortune @ SIBS :encouragement:.

 

[dom]

Calm down. Nothing sinister! Ref. degree of anonymity within communication relating to GT35-01, this was at owner's request. Pretty normal.

Really CC@GTY? Even though people might find it hard to take somebody seriously who gushed so enthusiastically about their own work!

 

[Just_sayin']

Reason he is selling has already been mentioned.

Remind me.

Good luck at the show.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Good luck at the show.

Could be tricky. The entire production of GT35s to date is now available on the second hand market ...

 

[JumbleDuck]

Calm down. Nothing sinister! Ref. degree of anonymity within communication relating to GT35-01, this was at owner's request. Pretty normal.

Hmm. The owner isn't normally the builder, buying one himself to get production moving though, is he? The news item I quoted does rather give the impression that you had found someone who actually wanted to buy one.

Ah well. No skin off my nose. Good luck at the show.

 

[snooks]

I am surpirsed that you can't see the potential issues of a failure to disclose this information in this particular circumstance....

The fact that the owner of the boat is the builder/developer is not an issue if it's revealed... But if it's NOT revealed then there does have to be a question as to if the test is representative of a boat that would be delivered to the customer, or if the boat has been specially prepared for test... Or built to a different standard... If this information is revealed then the reader can form a judgment... If not then it endorses the idea that the boat is a typical production sample...

As a journalist it's encumbant upon you to ensure that any potentially perceived conflicts of interest are revealed... There is a clear conflict in this case and this is not revealed..

Your lack of appreciation of this is surprising.... It seriously undermines the credibility of the piece.

Many times we test boats that are owned by the builder that don't have an owner - except the boat yard of course.

Many times we test a boat that does have an owner an they have specified certain things.

 

[photodog]

Many times we test boats that are owned by the builder that don't have an owner - except the boat yard of course.

Many times we test a boat that does have an owner an they have specified certain things.

This isn't about boat testing.. It's about basic journalistic ethics. You have a clear responsibility to avoid conflicts either real or perceived, and if this is not possible, to reveal those conflicts.

In this case, you have not revealed the boat is owned by a party which has a interest in a positive review, and a technical ability to influence the outcome of the review, or the production examples of the product which follow.

If you are now telling us that you regularly review yard boats without revealing this basic fact, then I am gobsmacked.

It's a very clear conflict which must be revealed to the reader to avoid complicity in any attempts that may be made, obvious or otherwise, to affect the review.

I have read many reviews of yard boats, provided by the manufacturers. It is never a issue if that's revealed.

You need to have a think about that and maybe seek some guidance in regards to this subject.
You have a responsibility to your readers... And you need to recognise when perceived conflicts arise and then reveal them. It's basic stuff.

 

[Momentary Lapse of Reason]

This isn't about boat testing.. It's about basic journalistic ethics. You have a clear responsibility to avoid conflicts either real or perceived, and if this is not possible, to reveal those conflicts.

In this case, you have not revealed the boat is owned by a party which has a interest in a positive review, and a technical ability to influence the outcome of the review, or the production examples of the product which follow.

If you are now telling us that you regularly review yard boats without revealing this basic fact, then I am gobsmacked.

It's a very clear conflict which must be revealed to the reader to avoid complicity in any attempts that may be made, obvious or otherwise, to affect the review.

I have read many reviews of yard boats, provided by the manufacturers. It is never a issue if that's revealed.

Wow - are you drunk? I follow a number of car and hifi forums, new to this one, and having been following this one for a couple of days I am amazed at the level of abuse by a handful.

Calling somebody's ethics into question is pretty low even for an open forum. In journalism just because a fact hasn't been revealed doesn't make that fact automatically relevant to any question of validity of the piece and it certainly doesn't imply complicity. The two are mutually exclusive. It may be relevant, granted, but still doesn't imply complicity.

You need to have a think about that and maybe seek some guidance in regards to this subject.

To make this statement thoroughly righteous you should have ended with the nicely condescending sign off ",young man."

 

[Twister_Ken]

This isn't about boat testing.. It's about basic journalistic ethics. You have a clear responsibility to avoid conflicts either real or perceived, and if this is not possible, to reveal those conflicts.

In this case, you have not revealed the boat is owned by a party which has a interest in a positive review, and a technical ability to influence the outcome of the review, or the production examples of the product which follow.

If you are now telling us that you regularly review yard boats without revealing this basic fact, then I am gobsmacked.

It's a very clear conflict which must be revealed to the reader to avoid complicity in any attempts that may be made, obvious or otherwise, to affect the review.

I have read many reviews of yard boats, provided by the manufacturers. It is never a issue if that's revealed.

You need to have a think about that and maybe seek some guidance in regards to this subject.
You have a responsibility to your readers... And you need to recognise when perceived conflicts arise and then reveal them. It's basic stuff.

Ahem - I don't see how declaring ownership - or not - affects the quality of the boat tested, or the way that quality should be reported.

No conflict of interest - the boats looks good, or doesn't; the boat sails well or doesn't – whether owned by the builder or the local milkman.

 

[photodog]

Wow - are you drunk? I follow a number of car and hifi forums, new to this one, and having been following this one for a couple of days I am amazed at the level of abuse by a handful.

Calling somebody's ethics into question is pretty low even for an open forum. In journalism just because a fact hasn't been revealed doesn't make that fact automatically relevant to any question of validity of the piece and it certainly doesn't imply complicity. The two are mutually exclusive. It may be relevant, granted, but still doesn't imply complicity.



To make this statement thoroughly righteous you should have ended with the nicely condescending sign off ",young man."

No I'm not drunk, I'm a journalist who for 12 years ran a press agency employing journalists supplying material to national titles, and is still work every week for papers such as the Sunday times.

You clearly do not have any training in regards to this or you would understand the concept of a perceived conflict and the responsibility to reveal this to the reader.

There is a clear perceived conflict in testing a yard boat and then not revealing it's a yard boat. Failure to reveal this potential conflict to the reader leaves the publication open to the accusation of complicity. It's the reason why perceived conflicts MUST be revealed.

 

[Momentary Lapse of Reason]

It's the reason why perceived conflicts MUST be revealed.

I don't perceive a conflict.

 

[photodog]

Ahem - I don't see how declaring ownership - or not - affects the quality of the boat tested, or the way that quality should be reported.

No conflict of interest - the boats looks good, or doesn't; the boat sails well or doesn't – whether owned by the builder or the local milkman.

So the yard has no interest in a good review?
so the yard has no ability to provide the boat in a "spec" designed to help this which may or may not be provided on production boats?

Any logical examination will reveal that testing a item that has the potential to be fettled by the organisation which has a clear interest in obtaining a good test result results in a perceived conflict. This is Fine IF THE conflict is revealed... Ie the product has been provided by the manufacturer.

 

[photodog]

I don't perceive a conflict.

Good for you. I do. And if I do, then so will others.

This is journalism 101. When you write a review of something... And that has been provided for review by the maker, then You need to reveal this to the reader.

 

[Momentary Lapse of Reason]

so the yard has no ability to provide the boat in a "spec" designed to help this which may or may not be provided on production boats?

I know Windboats have a formidable reputation but can they really work magic? Magically make the boat faster? Magically make the boat more manoeuvrable? Magically make the tester perceive it differently..?? Magically make the boat heel less? It is what it is. Some spit and polish might be all they could do.