pvb
Well-Known Member
Yes, they changed their name (although not on the GT Yachts website!). But did you look at the accounts they filed for last year? Essentially insolvent.
Yachting Monthly New Boat Tests
- Thread starter snooks
- Start date
Yes, they changed their name (although not on the GT Yachts website!). But did you look at the accounts they filed for last year? Essentially insolvent.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Yes, I had a look, but I'm not experienced in interpreting such things. It looks to me as if they ended 15/16 a lot less in debt than they were in 14/15. Still not exactly Apple (AAP), though ...
RobF
Well-Known Member
But there are British niche boats too. Anyone remember the GT35?
The colour scheme of the boat at Fox's is particularly niche. Purple Corian worktops???
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but fantastic light switches. And only £140k inc VAT ... that's about 40% of the notional[1] price when new, after three years. At this rate it will be able to compete with other second hand 90s designs in just a few years.
[1] Notional because nobody ever bought one.
pvb
Well-Known Member
Mr Cockburn bought one!
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
It was Mark Funnell, the owner of Windboats who "bought" the one and only GT35, if reports on here are correct. It's a shame the mags didn't investigate at all the claim that a real purchaser had stumped up for it. Blinded by the desire to "big-up", I suspect.
snooks
Well-Known Member
It is a boat test, I neither have the time nor the inclination to go out investigate who the first buyers of all of the boats I test are. I'm not being paid to do a financial inspection of the company, go though its books or check the providence of any buyer.
That's outside the remit of a BOAT test.
Most people have got over it, you however seem to be struggling. Have you thought about counselling?
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. You said that your enthusiastic review of the GT35 was based, at least in part, on a desire to big up the company, in which case it was clearly more than a boat test and yes, you should have checked the company and its claims about the buyer - which as I recall were included in the article. In general, actually, if the reports are intended to help purchase decisions, there probably should be something about the company, particularly when it is small, new or relatively unknown in the UK. As I recall, you did this for that rather nice Dutch boat you tested.
Of course it might be unfair to expect this of a photographer-turned-boat-tester, so perhaps one way in which the tests could be improved (you did ask) would be to get a journalist on them as well, allowing them to tackle the background stuff and context while the tester does the physical report and sailing impressions.
jbweston
Well-Known Member
It is a boat test, I neither have the time nor the inclination to go out investigate who the first buyers of all of the boats I test are. I'm not being paid to do a financial inspection of the company, go though its books or check the providence of any buyer.
That's outside the remit of a BOAT test.
Most people have got over it, you however seem to be struggling. Have you thought about counselling?
I'm a little surprised that someone aiming to provide a helpful boat test should regard the likelihood of the builder's staying in business as, er , none of his business. Clearly the ability to deliver on promises, deal with warranty claims etc is critical to the attractiveness or otherwise an expensive and fairly complex capital asset.
I'm not talking about the GT 35 here, just any boat test.
Similarly, whether the builder is offering the first boat it has built, the tenth or the thousandth tells us something important that most of us would like to know - likelihood that the builder knows what it's doing, the quality of build, whether the bugs are developed out of the product, whether the builder has any satisfied customers etc.
Personally I feel that's one of the differences between a useful test report and a boat description. Particularly as we know that boat magazine testers aren't allowed to say about any boat 'This boat is a dog and the builders are incompetent/shysters/dreamers/useless'. Just the stuff that's most useful for us potential purchasers.
Of course first boats that the builders haven't been able to sell on the open market can be great. Occasionally . . . very occasionally.
pvb
Well-Known Member
But Mr Cockburn seems to be the one carrying the debt resulting from building the (unique) GT35.
pvb
Well-Known Member
It is a boat test, I neither have the time nor the inclination to go out investigate who the first buyers of all of the boats I test are. I'm not being paid to do a financial inspection of the company, go though its books or check the providence of any buyer.
That's outside the remit of a BOAT test.
Most people have got over it, you however seem to be struggling. Have you thought about counselling?
That's perhaps a tad harsh, and perhaps indicates that, in hindsight, your GT35 test wasn't that brilliant.
doug748
Well-Known Member
It is a boat test, I neither have the time nor the inclination to go out investigate who the first buyers of all of the boats I test are. I'm not being paid to do a financial inspection of the company, go though its books or check the providence of any buyer.
That's outside the remit of a BOAT test.
Most people have got over it, you however seem to be struggling. Have you thought about counselling?
Yes, quite.
I think it was one of the more interesting tests, at least the boat was different and not another bloody 40 foot summut or another.
Of course there was no market for the design and, probably, the concept but the report can't be blamed for that.
Variety is the key. As we can't expect a succession of rich enthusiasts to launch new boat brands, perhaps smaller boats, niche designs and racers should feature more regularly.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
It was an interesting idea and was an interesting review, which could have been a lot more enlightening. There are, after all, plenty of people here who think that a beautifully hand-crafted 90s boat would outsell modern mass-produced designs; the sad tale of the GT35 pretty conclusively demonstrated that (a) such a boat would be very, very expensive and (b) nobody wants 'em.
A really good review would have looked at the boat in that context, not just at the layout of winches and the light switches. What was interesting about the GT35 was far more than the physical object; it was the attempt to re-launch a whole type of boat. Unfortunately we didn't get that. Instead we got an uncritical repeat of the company's claim that the first one had been sold, which gave a quite misleading impression of the likely commercial viability of the project.
Of course it's a few years ago now, and it's maybe unfair to criticise snooks on the basis of his first stabs at writing.
snooks
Well-Known Member
Perhaps a tad hash, but there wasn't anything wrong with the boat test. It was a test of the boat. But then again it's not your work that is being questioned again and again and the same boat test being brought up again and again, with the same references to what I've written in the past again and again by the same person again and again....it's all rather tiresome
The only mention of the owner I remember making was that they didn't want end cushions on the seat ends which left the interior looking plain.
I may well be a photographer-come-boat tester, but after being involved with boat tests, two a month for 13 years, and been writing them for the last three years, I think my knowledge of boats is sound.
I thank all those who who have contributed with genuine feedback.
I have no desire to be goaded by the same individual about a boat test I wrote over three years ago. Cheeriebyee
Barbican
Well-Known Member
Well I remember reading that test, and to me it was a useful description of the boat, which is what I enjoy in such articles. If I had been a genuine buyer of that particular brand I would have been interested in an independent view, because it is sometimes difficult to be objective when making ones own observations, and because I might have missed something important. As an observer it just entertained.
I wouldn't bother reading an assessment of the company, or the background of its customers because in the many months that it has taken me two buy the two new boats I have bought from small UK builders it has been clear their positions can change dramatically and quickly. I felt on both occasions I needed to do my own due diligence and set up the best "guarantees" I could.
I have found talking to owners who have had their boats for a while and dealt with the builder from start to finish a very helpful exercise, but even then it is not always clear what is fact and what isn't, so I can see it being a minefield for a magazine.....
When buying I do read as much as possible about the candidate boats and also those of similar size and type from the same builder, so magazine reviews are a great resource and it is helpful when they point out weak points as clearly as good, for this to be credible it needs to come from an experienced person (even better if it's the same author since they will hopefully have consistent preferences that I share) and it seems to me as you are a sailor and have done a good apprenticeship, and write well I will continue to read your reviews with interest.
Please also highlight those elements of the boat that are new to the market, innovative, different or quirky and across as many segments as is practical, your current approach works well for me, and is a useful part of the buying decision, but I do not expect a comprehensive structural survey, or an analysis of the builders competence in market segmentation and targeting.
Apologies for blathering on!
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure that the word "test" is appropriate in any of this, because it doesn't seem to me that any actual testing goes on. Well, except in the case of the crash test boat, and manufacturers might object if you blew up perfectly good new boats to see what happens.
Perhaps it would be better to call the current articles "reports" rather than "tests", to avoid raising unrealistic expectations. Not your choice, I expect, because the silly "100-point boat tests (Britain's most comprehensive)" were well before your time. You'll remember that they allocated equal weighting (ten points) to "seaworthiness" and "chart table" ...
Otter
Well-Known Member
The new boat reviews are never very interesting because the magazines demand a house style; each one is almost interchangeable with another and it all reads like a worthy, well researched description of a Ford Mondeo, oooops I mean Bavaria 365. The sort of reviews I like were Clarkson’s new car reviews in the Times. He would prattle on wittily for 75% of the article about biscuits and you’d wonder where the hell it was going until he pithily described the new Mondeo is a couple of short paragraphs, relating it to his discussion on the merits of custard creams vs jammy dodgers.
No one is going to buy a Mondeo or a Bavaria based on a magazine review, I want to be entertained by the reviews and informed by the hopefully interesting article on sheet angles and new designs of propellor. The fact is that you could switch the boat model names on 99% of new boat reviews and no one would notice. Thoroughly researched but worthily dull. Pass me the biscuits someone.
No one is going to buy a Mondeo or a Bavaria based on a magazine review, I want to be entertained by the reviews and informed by the hopefully interesting article on sheet angles and new designs of propellor. The fact is that you could switch the boat model names on 99% of new boat reviews and no one would notice. Thoroughly researched but worthily dull. Pass me the biscuits someone.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Well said, that man. It's the same with all the really great and popular reviewers - Clive James, A.A. Gill, John Naughton, and so on. Their writing is hung loosely on a book/restaurant/programme, but the point of the article is to entertain generally. As someone wrote earlier, boat reviews in the magazines are rather William-Woollard-Top-Gear. Terribly worthy but dreadfully dull - like most of the boats reviewed, I suppose.
I used to like the ones where Dick Durham went sailing with someone one their own boat. It was interesting to read how owners had found them over an extended period, not just an afternoon in the Solent, and they always included an overnight so Dick had rather more experience of using the boat than sailing about for an hour or two while dodging a photographer's rib.
Last edited:
dunedin
Well-Known Member
Snooks, don't quite understand your logic from a couple of your replies further up this thread .......
Give the speeds and pointing ability in real terms - ie vs True wind speed and angle, rather than Apparent
In every test make clear what material the seacocks are made of - an important indication of build integrity
This one I do think is important - as YM makes a big thing that seacock materials are critical, but it doesn't follow through by actually applying to its own boat test. Pious editorial words and actions don't align here.
That's my thoughts (as an actual paper YM subscriber, at least for now)
Give the speeds and pointing ability in real terms - ie vs True wind speed and angle, rather than Apparent
Not sure that makes sense - you are already giving boat speed, apparent wind speed and apparent wind angle. True wind speed and angle are just trigonomic transformations of this same data. Indeed, assuming you are no longer using the special YM calibrated kit for this, the instruments used for your Apparent readings would do this transformation automatically by switching to True. It is the True wind that determines what we sail in
In every test make clear what material the seacocks are made of - an important indication of build integrity
So I don't think you weigh the boats you test to confirm the displacement. Or take core samples to check whether the hull and deck cores are balsa, foam or solid. Instead you use the boat specs or ask the manufacturer. Why not do the same thing for seacock specs.
This one I do think is important - as YM makes a big thing that seacock materials are critical, but it doesn't follow through by actually applying to its own boat test. Pious editorial words and actions don't align here.
That's my thoughts (as an actual paper YM subscriber, at least for now)
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
It would certainly move the pieces in the "test" direction if that sort of assessment was made.
