|
Roger:
Perhaps I am a little sensitive but it seems every opportunity you have to bash the Canadian Built Boats, you do. I don't understand this. You were not associated with the Sam L. Morse Company doing the contract agreement between the two companies. True our BCC C, has a balsa cored deck and cabin instead of plywood coring but many professionals would argue, in the classic sense of the word argument, that balsa coring is superior to plywood coring. Many boat builders before 1980 and during the early part of the 80's did not mold a hull number into the hull. Our first boat, a 1980 Dolphin 22 did not have a hull number nor did our second boat, a 1976 Nor'star built Flicka. Our Canadian built BCC does not have a hull number. Our boat has bronze bulwark stanchions instead of wood bulwarks stanchion; unlike the early SLM BCC's which had wood stanchions placed through the deck in wooden boat fashion. These were a constant source of leaks in the early BCC's. Further, all fittings and hardware are bronze. I am quite sure there are other small differences between the Channel Cutter Yacht built boats and the Sam L. Morse built boats but we know, we have a well built boat. After 18 years of extensive cruising with different owners, the boat is still well founded and an outstanding example of a well built boat. Does it make any difference at this point in time. The license contract between SLM and CCY is long expired. Perhaps you have your own agenda to promote the Sam L. Morse Boats at the expense of the Channel Cutter Yacht built boats. That is your business. If you have an ax to grind, then contact someone who worked at Channel Cutter Yachts and grind it with them and not owners of the Canadian Built BCC's.
Rod Bruckdorfer
S/V IDUNA, a BCC C
|
|
Me thinks you are a little too sensitive. I first contacted Roger at SLM when considering a BCC and specifically asked about the difference(s) between the Canadian and US built. He only informed me of the differences between the two in the matter of construction detail and was not at all negative to the Canadian built boats. I ended up buying a SML boat in the end only because there were more to choose from at the time I was in the market.
Sincerely yours,
Mark Giegel
BCC #73
|
|
Rod,
I am sorry if you interpret what I said as Canadian BCC bashing. It was not my intention at all so if it was taken that way...I apologize!
My intention was to explain hull numbering systems on BCC's. We had a problem with the builder in Canada not placing a HIN on their boats. I do not know the reason for this...it was before my watch. Lyle Hess explained it to me that the builder had to pay royalties to SLM and to Lyle. The recorded number of hulls do not correspond to the the actual number of hulls that exists, thus there were more boats built than royalties paid. You can call this Canadian BCC bashing but I call it unprofessional management. This has nothing to do with the boats quality. It is simply a matter of fact!
I feel it is wrong for an owner of a boat not to have some kind of proof of its origin. FACT: It will make the boat without an HIN more difficult to sell.
There is little about the Canadian built boats I do not like. The ones completed by the factory are excellent. Yes, personally, I do not like the balsa core but it has its advantages...take it how you like. I loved the bronze castings on the bulwarks. We even tried to get permission to use the patterns but were unable to do so. I have seen some owner finished Canadian boats that are better than any the SLM has produced...ever....
I try to stay off this site as much as possible just because of this sort of problem. It was my intention to explain the HIN...no intention was said or intended to bash the Canadian boats.
Sorry I offended you or any other who owns a Canadian BCC's
Roger Olson
|
|
hi rob,
while i understand that your letter does point out / address something specifically that roger said regarding the builder of the canadian bcc's, and while it was not necessarily positive. i think that it is a stretch to say roger has an axe to grind with the maker of the canadian boats. if you take roger for his word, which i have no reason not to it seems that at least lyle hess, designer of your vessel, was slighted by the canadian company, (if they built boats without paying a royalty to lyle ) and while i hardly know roger having only met him once, it is my impression from what i do know that he was a friend of lyle's it would not be unreasonable for him to say what he said. i understand you were directly addressing roger in your email and i don't think roger needs to be defended by me, however since you broadcast your e mail to us as a group i am responding as such. best, -aaron btw there have been some quality control issues brought up on this website
regarding both boats i believe but i only specifically remember comments
regarding the california built boats. i do appreciate the fact that roger
even lurks here and is available for feedback from the group. i guess if
i had an axe to grind ( i don't) about the canadian built boats it would
be that i never hear anything from the group that built them. is channel
cutter yachts now defunct?
Rod Bruckdorfer wrote: Roger: Perhaps I am a little sensitive but it seems every opportunity you have to bash the Canadian Built Boats, you do. I don't understand this. You were not associated with the Sam L. Morse Company doing the contract agreement between the two companies. True our BCC C, has a balsa cored deck and cabin instead of plywood coring but many professionals would argue, in the classic sense of the word argument, that balsa coring is superior to plywood coring. Many boat builders before 1980 and during the early part of the 80's did not mold a hull number into the hull. Our first boat, a 1980 Dolphin 22 did not have a hull number nor did our second boat, a 1976 Nor'star built Flicka. Our Canadian built BCC does not have a hull number. Our boat has bronze bulwark stanchions instead of wood bulwarks stanchion; unlike the early SLM BCC's which had wood stanchions placed through the deck in wooden boat fashion. These were a constant source of leaks in the early BCC's. Further, all fittings and hardware are bronze. I am quite sure there are other small differences between the Channel Cutter Yacht built boats and the Sam L. Morse built boats but we know, we have a well built boat. After 18 years of extensive cruising with different owners, the boat is still well founded and an outstanding example of a well built boat. Does it make any difference at this point in time. The license contract between SLM and CCY is long expired. Perhaps you have your own agenda to promote the Sam L. Morse Boats at the expense of the Channel Cutter Yacht built boats. That is your business. If you have an ax to grind, then contact someone who worked at Channel Cutter Yachts and grind it with them and not owners of the Canadian Built BCC's. Rod BruckdorferS/V IDUNA, a BCC C --
(248) 446-4600 office (248) 212-8160 mobile (248) 437-1265 fax |
|
Roger:
I was too sever, my apologies to you and to anyone else I may have offended.
There is no question in my mind that you have carried the workload to keep the BCC going, especially in a market that wants the 40 to 50 ft. euro-looking plastic creations. A tough job and if I may add, well done.
I was upset by, not so much as what was said but what was not said. You ended your statement with " This was only one of many reasons the SLM Co. discontinued their agreement with the Canadian builder." These type of open statements are innocent enough but they also can leave doubt about a product or during a state or national campaign, a politician. I have seen similar statements about the Canadian BCC at the discussion forum which can and do get repeated out of context.
Again, I am sorry for being so sever. I hope you will accept my apology. It was quite unkind of me.
Rod Bruckdorfer
S/V IDUNA
|
|
Rod, Thanks for the statement, apology and understanding; all accepted. I feel bad about my comment and I think you understand that there was no malice intended. I hate to use this site for such trivial matters. So with that lets let it lie. If anyone would like to continue this discussion contact me at roger.olson@att.net .
I would like to see more effort in discussing the things we have all done to our boats that makes them just a little be better...Lets concentrate on sharing ideas.
For the sake of interest, my BCC now weighs in at over 17,000 pounds! That is about 1000 pounds per 1 inch of waterline so I now set three inches below normal waterline. On Xiphias, my waterline was one inch from the bottom of the chainplate and still sailed like a champ. So to all you who are reluctant to put on the extra anchor and chain...go for it....however.....you will be a little slower though!
Roger
----- Original Message -----
|