I read the contents of the pacificmotoryachts.com Web site with some interest. After looking it all over I couldn't keep myself from e-mailing the Web site's author (who appears to want to be anonymous as I could not find his name mentioned). Anyway, FWIW, the e-mail is excerpted below: ------------- It is really unfortunate that the owner of "Big Bud" has had such a poor experience. I also think that your Web site is so entirely negative toward the possibility of offshore construction that many people will be afraid to commission a custom vessel. For every bad experience there are several good ones and if you are going to promote your site as a "Fact Guide" it might behoove you to take a more balanced approach and discuss the positive aspects of a custom build. With the cost of production passagemakers at about $17/lb, a custom built vessel in the U.S. will come in at about $11-$12/lb and a vessel built in China or Turkey about $6-$7/lb. Foreign construction is an excellent opportunity to save some money and get precisely what you think you want. I think Big Bud's owner would have been served to consider a couple of actions that would have helped his cause: A. There are law firms that specialize in marine construction contracts. Retaining such a firm to develop and help negotiate a contract with a builder can save a great deal of headache. B. Having an in-house Naval Architect at the builder's yard design the vessel is not the optimum situation, particularly if there is not an exhaustive (e.g. 100+ pages) specification/bid package document available. If you are going to have the same yard design and build the boat an outside naval architect should be retained to review the design and have some oversight on the project. A thorough spec should be appended to the custom contract so there is no obfuscation of the interpretation. C. It is by far better to work with a Naval Architect or vessel designer to develop the design and then to send out bid packages to evaluate the cost issues and to assist with yard selection. D. A realistic bid price is necessary. Accepting a low bid serves nobody under most circumstances. A $1.5 million price for the Watson 72 is too low to cover the construction costs in New Zealand, let alone to cover any builder's profit. The fact that the yard was looking for another $350,000 wouldn't have been a surprise had the owner done his homework and understood this. There is no excuse for the yard's treatment of the customer. However, the customer's inexperience and his inability to contractually protect himself was a contributing factor to the difficulties. Kind regards, L. Bruce Jones

At 03:34 PM 1/17/05 -0800, you wrote: >I think Big Bud's owner would have been served to consider a couple of >actions that would have helped his cause: > >A. There are law firms that specialize in marine construction contracts. >Retaining such a firm to develop and help negotiate a contract with a >builder can save a great deal of headache. A contract should be considered as the framework for suing. There is a yard in Vancouver BC, well known that essentially is out of the buyers control. I have had clients who paid someone experienced, full time to oversee the work at that yard and it essentially was of no help. I do not know what kind of straight jacket is needed to keep such firms on the narrow path. Even if you have a contract and the firm is reliable and does good work, if they change management or ownership you may be in a real bind. None of this is very encouraging. Building boats may be the last refuge of the seagoing pirate. Mike Capt. Mike Maurice Tualatin(Portland), Oregon