I'll bite:

Flying Tadpole II: built for style 1/3rd, simplicity 1/3rd, speed
1/3rd, read the website http://www.ace.net.au/schooner

Lady Kate: looks didn't come into it at all for purchase. i'd
watched her professionally built, seen her on the water, knew
what she was capable of, understood the design philosphy, and
grabbed her for spare change in a receivership sale because I
knew people locally would be deterred by her difference. They
were, and there wasn't time for the Sydney push to muscle in.
However, I did know what she looked like on the water, quite
different from the packingcaseatthedock effect, so there may
still have been a subliminal "looks" effect. Say, 2%. So at a
5% fiducial limit, not significant.

Again, lurkers see the website
http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/sbhome.htm

(BTW if it's a.s.asa folks playing and pressing the "hot" button
at http://www.soundclick.com/flyingtadpolemusic.htm , thank you
and please keep doing it!!!!!)
--

Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://music.download.com/internetopera
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com


Bobsprit wrote:


For me, the looks of a boat are worth about 20-30% of my final decision. It's
not more or less important than performance, but there's no reason to own a
ugly boat like Loco's or Capt. Neal's. Perhaps Loco "thinks" his boat is
attractive and that's fine. Some guys prefer women shaped like mailboxes too.
So....how did the beauty of your boat effect your decision to buy. Would you
have bought a boat that offended your eye if she crunched the numbers well?

RB