Paul, I think that may have changed or changed for certain models..

I wish I could lay my hands on that information but what I came across was
was a Pachific Seacraft that was for sail.. (I review a hundred listing a
month, when I don't have anything better to do.) It was touted as Hull #1
(first out of the mold) prior to the mold being shipped over to Tiawan for
the ultimate production run..

As it was explained to me, the plug and mold were made in the PS, So Cal.
facilities and then the hull and deck fit tested etc. The interior pattern
bulkhead and cabinetry patterns are also developed in So Cal., everything
until the first hull is completed and sea trialed... Kind of a test and
trial project. After that, the molds and patterns were sent to Tiawan..

Now, this may have been a boat that PS ultimately decided they didn't want
to put into production, with their name on it and sold the production rights
to a Tiawan yard.

The advert/listing for this boat high lighted the fact that this was hull #1
and was produced at PacSeacraft while all others were from Tiawan..

I'm not saying that any other Pac. Seacraft boats are made over in Tiawan.
But there seems to be at least on model that was..

Pacific Seacraft, IMHO, is one of the best in quality. Right up there with
Shannon which I also like..

BTW.. Someone mentioned that Crealock was the primary designer of the PS
boats.. Bruce Bingham did some of the smaller boats and may have had a hand
in some of the nice interior designs of others.

--
My opinion and experience. FWIW

Steve
s/v Good Intentions

Pacific Seacraft builds their boats completely at their facility in Southern
California, from molds through to the to finish work. It's a great shop,
but since I had them build me my PSC44 (hull #16) a couple of years ago, I'm
kinda biased. I sail out of Sausalito (San Francisco Bay), took her to
Hawaii and back last summer, and love the boat.

-Paul
(s/v VALIS)

"Steve" wrote in message
...

Thanks for the correction Cindy.

The Bruce Bingham Fantasia was also built by the Ta Yang yard.

Interesting how these Tiawan boats are still around and enjoy a good
reputation. There was much skepticism when they started competing with the
Cheoy Lee and US made boats.

If I'm not mistaken, Pacific Seacraft is now having their boats built in
Tiawan. I was told that they build the plug, mold and the first hull in
the
US and then turn over production to the Off Shore yard.

Steve
s/v Good Intentions

Thanks for the correction Cindy.

The Bruce Bingham Fantasia was also built by the Ta Yang yard.

Interesting how these Tiawan boats are still around and enjoy a good
reputation. There was much skepticism when they started competing with the
Cheoy Lee and US made boats.

If I'm not mistaken, Pacific Seacraft is now having their boats built in
Tiawan. I was told that they build the plug, mold and the first hull in the
US and then turn over production to the Off Shore yard.

Steve
s/v Good Intentions

Steve wrote:
I could be wronng but I think the Panda was built in the same yard
as the Tayana.

The Panda was built by the Ta Shing yard who also made the Baba,
Tashiba, Taswell, and (I think) Mason lines. The Tayana was a
different yard (Ta Yang?). We have a Baba 30 and love it. The
construction is outstanding. Any issues with these boats will be
most likely caused by previous owners.

Cindy


--
the return email is a spam trap
send legit emails to cindy_at_ballreich_dot_net

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:29:02 -0800, "Steve" wrote:

Of the four boats you have listed, IMFO, the Pacific Seacraft, then the
Tayana.

The only one I've seen regularly up here is the Pacific Seacraft: I've
been aboard both the 34 and the 37 and I must say that I'm impressed,
mainly with a lot of the "little things" most production builders seem
to have forgotten. Also, Practical Sailor had a great article on the
37 last year that made me want to get one.

R.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:29:02 -0800, "Steve" wrote:

Of the four boats you have listed, IMFO, the Pacific Seacraft, then the
Tayana.

The only one I've seen regularly up here is the Pacific Seacraft: I've
been aboard both the 34 and the 37 and I must say that I'm impressed,
mainly with a lot of the "little things" most production builders seem
to have forgotten. Also, Practical Sailor had a great article on the
37 last year that made me want to get one.

R.

Of the four boats you have listed, IMFO, the Pacific Seacraft, then the
Tayana. I could be wronng but I think the Panda was built in the same yard
as the Tayana. In either case or if you go with the others, Find a good
surveyor who is working for you and has you interests in mind.. Don't ever
go with a survey provided by the seller or with a surveyor who is
recommended by the broker..

Ask around among friends in your area and make sure he is into sail boats..
(I once had a surveyor, recommended by my insurance co. who had never owned,
operated or been underway on any kind of boat.. Worked in a boat yard for 8
years.)

Anyway, once you find a surveyor that you can trust to do a good job, tell
him/her what you concerns are (teak decks, hull or deck core saturation or
seperation, hull blisters, etc). If the surveyor knows you have these
concerns, he will have a hard time ignoring them (as some do).

However, I guess it's too early to be considering survyors..


--
My opinion and experience. FWIW

Steve
s/v Good Intentions

Wendy wrote:

I think I have identified some choices that fit my budget and
expectations:

Tayana 37 ...
Valiant 40 ...
Pacific Seacraft 34/37 ...
Ta Shing Panda 38 ...

Thoughts/opinions are certainly welcome!!

If I'm not mistaken all of these except the Pacific Seacrafts are Bob Perry
designs, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that (I just noticed that
another writer pointed this out elsewhere, so maybe my memory is correct).
The PS boats are, I believe, Crealock designs. Both of these NAs are of
high repute.

You are obviously leaning toward "double enders" or canoe stern boats. If
that is because you like the look that's fine, but you should be aware of
some other aspects of the design. The original idea for this style dates
back to certain Scandinavian designs from the early part of the 20th
century. There have been many modifications over the years (e.g., the
Atkins series, which I believe includes Steve's "Ingrid"), but it wasn't
until Bob Perry came along and modified the design with the Valiant 40 that
the idea really took off. The Valiant 40 was in some ways revolutionary and
is still way up there on the list of good designs.

However depending on boat size, having a canoe stern gives up a few positive
aspects of transom stern boats without necessarily offering compensation. I
want to suggest (at the risk of drawing ire) that there has never been any
real evidence that these designs are any better or worse than transom boats
in rough going. We hear things about "parting breaking waves and seas" and
so on, but I don't believe there is any quantifiable evidence that
double-enders do any better than any other designs. Not that they do any
worse either, but there's a suggestion of superiority out there that is not
supported by any real evidence.

Next, and again depending on boat size, for a given length you definitely
_do_ lose some room, both on deck (in and around the cockpit) and below
(stowage-wise). This isn't much of a problem for a single-hander in a 40
foot boat, if a 40 foot boat is what you want. But single-handing a 40
footer is not necessarily what it's cracked up to be. I cannot tell for
sure after re-reading your initial post, but you seem to suggest that this
is a goal. If so, you should give serious though to what size makes
ultimate sense in the long term. I have single-handed many miles in designs
around 30 feet. I once took a 47 footer from Florida up to Long Island
single-handed, and although it was quite comfortable while underway
offshore, and especially at anchor, handling a boat that size in harbor or
alongside by myself was less than enjoyable. Too much work, planning,
anticipation, and just plain worry. As an aside, remember that tying
stern-to in a 40+ foot double-ended boat by yourself, and then navigating
the gap to get ashore, is usually harder than with a transom boat.

In short, think about why you want a double-ender, and also what size you
can get away with. Especially for $90K or so.

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/

"Armond Perretta" wrote in message
...
However depending on boat size, having a canoe stern gives up a few
positive
aspects of transom stern boats without necessarily offering compensation.
I
want to suggest (at the risk of drawing ire) that there has never been any
real evidence that these designs are any better or worse than transom
boats
in rough going. We hear things about "parting breaking waves and seas"
and
so on, but I don't believe there is any quantifiable evidence that
double-enders do any better than any other designs. Not that they do any
worse either, but there's a suggestion of superiority out there that is
not
supported by any real evidence.

It seems like the design would simply *have* to be easier in a following
sea. I spent a lot of time running these boats
http://www.boatshow.com/POWER/CustomDivePro42.html which are rudderless
jets, and they were horrid in a following sea. But I admit that comparing a
300hp non-displacement hull to a 35-40 sailboat is an apples-and-oranges
thing. My experiences may well be a hindrance here... I am not committed
to a double-ender.

Next, and again depending on boat size, for a given length you definitely
_do_ lose some room, both on deck (in and around the cockpit) and below
(stowage-wise). This isn't much of a problem for a single-hander in a 40
foot boat, if a 40 foot boat is what you want. But single-handing a 40
footer is not necessarily what it's cracked up to be. I cannot tell for
sure after re-reading your initial post, but you seem to suggest that this
is a goal.

Not the be-all and end-all goal. I'm not antisocial Being single, I
simply expect there would be times when I would sail alone. I may be best
served by something smaller, but 37' is attractive. The Pacific Seacraft at
32' would be fine, I think.

This is going to be an involved (and entertaining) process. I know about
ten times as much about sailboats today than I did yesterday, and I still
don't know very much at all!

Wendy

Wendy wrote:
"Armond Perretta" wrote

... there has never been any real evidence that these
designs are any better or worse than transom boats in rough going.
We hear things about "parting breaking waves and seas" ...
but I don't believe there is any quantifiable evidence that
double-enders do any better than any other designs. Not that they
do any worse either, but there's a suggestion of superiority out
there that is not supported by [the] evidence.

It seems like the design would simply *have* to be easier in a
following sea.

Yes, it does seem so, and for that reason I suggested that what _seems_ to
be the case is not, to my knowledge, supported by verifiable evidence. I
don't really think there is a problem here, but making a purchase decision
on this basis is probably unsound. They still are pretty though, doncha
think?

... single-handing a 40 footer is not necessarily what
it's cracked up to be. I cannot tell for sure after re-reading
your initial post, but you seem to suggest that this is a goal.

Not the be-all and end-all goal. I'm not antisocial

If you equate "anti-social" with single-handing you are looking for an
argument (that _does_ sound a bit anti-social, doesn't it?). There are
plenty of reasons to sail alone, but in my experience an anti-social
personality is rarely one of them.

... I know
about ten times as much about sailboats today than I did yesterday,
and I still don't know very much at all!

This admission puts you ahead of about 90 percent of the fleet.

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/