I'm about halfway through grinding out an item for the next issue of a regional
boating magazine. Late last week, I had the chance to try out a new 48 footer.
(Brand name withheld for reasons soon to be obvious).

With the photos back from the processor, my notes carefully reviewed, and
statistics checked, I began trying to create an interesting "snapshot" of the
boat.
I was uncertain about a measurement I had written down, so I went to the mfgr's
website to double check the number. Just for grins, I read a few reviews on the
same boat from the high dollar national mags. The mfgr had posted the reviews
on the corporate website. Ai, yi, yi!

Two of them used almost identical verbiage and phrasing to describe the
engines. Either that was the most remarkable coincidence of all time, or
somebody is simply rehashing press releases. Several of the photos used in
competing publications are identical. It would be possible to write some of
those articles without ever setting foot on the boat, (not saying that anybody
did).

One of the reviewers (a licensed master) described the trolling valves as a
fall back, mechanical control system redundent to the standard electronic
engine controls. Oh, my.

Little wonder so many boating writers have mixed reputations. I suppose that by
current standards, (in most occupations), if you make a solid effort to do a
good job you're guilty of working too hard.

On 21 Dec 2004 03:27:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Two of them used almost identical verbiage and phrasing to describe the
engines. Either that was the most remarkable coincidence of all time, or
somebody is simply rehashing press releases.

========================================

I'm shocked. I'll bet they really liked the boats also, and found no
nits to pick whatsoever.

On 21 Dec 2004 03:27:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

Little wonder so many boating writers have mixed reputations. I suppose that by
current standards, (in most occupations), if you make a solid effort to do a
good job you're guilty of working too hard.

You think that was bad, you should have worked for the American Radio
Relay League.

A rewritten press release is a standard operating practice.

Later,

Tom

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 23:09:28 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On 21 Dec 2004 03:27:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Two of them used almost identical verbiage and phrasing to describe the
engines. Either that was the most remarkable coincidence of all time, or
somebody is simply rehashing press releases.

========================================

I'm shocked. I'll bet they really liked the boats also, and found no
nits to pick whatsoever.

Ya think?

Try "Trailer Boats" sometime - now there's a shill for manufacturers.

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 23:09:28 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On 21 Dec 2004 03:27:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Two of them used almost identical verbiage and phrasing to describe
the
engines. Either that was the most remarkable coincidence of all
time, or
somebody is simply rehashing press releases.

========================================

I'm shocked. I'll bet they really liked the boats also, and found no
nits to pick whatsoever.

Ya think?

Try "Trailer Boats" sometime - now there's a shill for manufacturers.

Later,

Tom

I always assumed that if the mag didn't like the boat it didn't print
the review.
Didn't Karen get some flack over saying this same thing a while back?
Looks like she had a point, eh?

del cecchi

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 21 Dec 2004 03:27:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

~~ snippage ~~


Little wonder so many boating writers have mixed reputations. I suppose that by
current standards, (in most occupations), if you make a solid effort to do a
good job you're guilty of working too hard.


You think that was bad, you should have worked for the American Radio
Relay League.

A rewritten press release is a standard operating practice.

Later,

Tom


Gee one of those rare threads where I can agree with most everything,
great stuff. I'll readily accept it's all being put much more politely
than me also .............

Chuck you can still do a good review & not accept or even correct the
marketing line, indeed most boats are OK on their own merit & it's
always sad to see the marketers degrade the genuine merits with spruik.



K


K

Chuck you can still do a good review & not accept or even correct the
marketing line, indeed most boats are OK on their own merit & it's
always sad to see the marketers degrade the genuine merits with spruik.

You've hit the nail on the head. Rather surprising, since most of the heads you
hit aren't connected to nails. :-)

I've never seen a major mfgr. boat that is a totally unsafe, unworkable,
ridiculous piece of crap. Every boat has something to recommend it to somebody,
for some purpose, under proper conditions.

Some of the difficulty stems from the difference beween fact and opinion.
People who have a negative, personal opinion about a boat naturally feel that
their opinion is a proven, objective fact and are not pleased when another
person fails to hold the same opinion, or consider it a proven, objective fact.

Most boat reviews are written to communicate a few specific ideas. A general
description of the boat, a list of the
product's high points, and a description of the experience underway. You
generally won't find a David Pascoe type article: ("Here's why every boat on
the market is a piece of crap and you're risking your life to leave the dock in
any of them"). If a boat review concentrates on "Here's what this boat does
particularly well......" and the information is based on reasonable
observations and factual data, that's absolutely legitimate. I nearly always
toss in a couple of slight negatives if they seem objectively apparent, (i.e. I
was slightly critical of the heads on the 46 Grand Banks- too small and mundane
compared to most of its competitors).

Some things are not absolutely cut and dried, and even naval architects can
disagree on theories and applications. Real life example: I just finished an
item on a very nice boat. The boat sells for just under $900k. Under most
circumstances, it would be my personal opinion that the stringers were
undersized - but that would be under most circumstances and it would be my
personal opinion. I don't have any way to know for sure that the stringers are
inadequate, and in any case this particular vessel has the engines mounted on
some stout powder coated beams that run immediately above the stringers and are
suspended between two bulkheads. With the weight (and torque) of the engines
removed from the stringers, would it be factual for me to state, categorically,
that the boat was underbuilt- or is it more likely that the mfgr ran a long
series of engineering studies before building a boat of this magnitude and that
somebody, somewhere, (most likely with a college degree in naval architecture)
is well satisfied that the stringers are adequate?

The hull was designed by a naval architect who also does work for Rybovich and
Palmer Johnson, so I'm not certainly not qualified to discuss the design on his
level and more or less inclined to trust in his expertise.

The result was a comment about the engine mounts, but no particular mention of
the stringers. It would be wrong to write
"The stringers are enormously overbuilt and very impressive!" It would be
equally wrong to state as a proven fact that they are too small for the boat.

Once somebody begins seriously looking at a boat, there will be no shortage of
negative feedback about the vessel. Everybody from shorebound dock walkers to
salespeople for competing brands will GD the boat unmercifully- whatever the
make and model. A salesperson selling against the boat I just finished writing
up, might ask a prospect to take a careful look at the stringers in the
salesperson's boat- and then go take a careful look at the stringers in this
particular brand. In the end, the consumer will make up his or her own mind-
maybe taking into account the difference between a strnger that has to bear the
weight and torque of the engine as well as provide longitudinal rigidity- and
maybe not.

On 22 Dec 2004 16:40:03 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

The result was a comment about the engine mounts, but no particular mention of
the stringers. It would be wrong to write
"The stringers are enormously overbuilt and very impressive!" It would be
equally wrong to state as a proven fact that they are too small for the boat.

Would it be wrong to say "The engine mounts were attached to stringers
which seemed smaller that those I've seen on other boats of this
class."?

Later,

Tom

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:06:40 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Would it be wrong to say "The engine mounts were attached to stringers
which seemed smaller that those I've seen on other boats of this
class."?

=========================================

Not wrong, but it doesn't really speak to the real issue which is
intended purpose. What is really needed is a tactful way of saying
that a boat is built adequately for flat water cruising on rivers and
small lakes, as well as serving as a dock side condominium.
That is a perfectly valid statement of use for some, perhaps many
people, and there is no reason they should pay more for blue water
capability. The problem arises when the manufacturer would like you
to believe that everything they build is capable of going anywhere.

On 23 Dec 2004 00:02:14 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Would it be wrong to say "The engine mounts were attached to stringers
which seemed smaller that those I've seen on other boats of this
class."?

The engine mounts weren't attached to the stringers- that's the point. It's
tough to compare stringers based on size alone if they are doing different jobs
and subject to different loads.

Sorry - I misunderstood. A common occurrence when you get to be my
age.

But say that they were?

Later,

Tom