# Wet deck, any ideas



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

I saw this boat today

https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1989/ericson-34-3468516/?refSource=browse listing

Lots to like about the boat.

As you can see from the picture the bow pulpit got hit port side.

This caused problems with the stanchions.

It is also leaking inside.

What would you recommend to fix this and how much to reduce the price of the boat?


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

We are having the same issue, with our pulpit about 10" out of line after a closer encounter than you'd want to have. You or your SS fabricator/welder friend may want to try to straighten the bend first. (It might be easier with the pulpit's feet held in place on the boat.) To fix the leaks you will need to remove, fill, and rebed the stanchion bases. How old is the damage? Has the water had time to soak the deck, or is it simply leaking through the stanchion bolt holes (which, theoretically, could still be sealed from any deck core). If the leak is recent and the deck isn't saturated, try letting it all dry out as much as possible with the bases off before getting into the repair. If the leak is old, the core may be saturated and/or rotted, with possible delamination. If that is the case it will likely be easiest to attack from underneath. Use a dremel to cut open the inner (overhead) layer of fiberglass to expose the core and remove the wet or rotten core. You will be working in what is probably the anchor line locker, forward, so aesthetics of the overhead there are not paramount. If the core is wet but still well-stuck in place, you can let it dry (you're going to fix the leak by filling the stanchion base fastening holes and rebedding the stanchion bases when you re-install them, right?). Once everything is dry, or you've opened it all up to dry material, you find matching core and replace what you took out. There are discussions about whether to use epoxy or polyester resin for such a repair, or go with what your fiberglass guru says. After the core is stuck back in place, apply some layers of cloth & roving, trying to match what you cut through with the dremel. Paint it afterwards if you like. Figuring that just a small section of the deck (five square feet, worst case?) might need re-coring, materials for the entire repair might cost less than a few hundred dollars. A handy boat-owner could likely have this done in less than three weekends. 

Hiring a fiberglass expert to do the work would be much more expensive. It involves working upside down in a cramped space with lots of dust and noxious fumes over an extended period. Since the core may need time to dry and the resin needs time to kick, repeated visits are called for. Just guessing, likely more than $1000. If you are negotiating to purchase the vessel, your fiberglass guy is probably the best in the state and he may quote you something more like $3000. You could also perhaps agree on a price with the current owner, subject to having the repair made by a suitable yard before the closing. Lots of options here.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Paul pretty much sums it up. The main point is that there is a huge difference between a boat with damp decks and a a boat that has a deck with a rotted core. The pictures do not appear to show spider cracking so its possible that the core in deck is entirely intact. Its also possible that the railing base is fastened through the hull to deck joint which would also suggest that the core was not impacted. Beyond that as Paul notes, if this was recent and the core only got damp and has not rotted, then this is no big deal, as in remove the pulpit, check the bolt holes, dry it it out, pot holes as necessary, Reassemble, and Call it done. 

But if there is core rot, that is a much more difficult repair, in a place that is hard to work in. If there is good access, I would agree with working from below. It will mean vacuum bagging the repair and it will be a real PIA to do working upside down, but its pretty doable. 

My primary concern is that this is a spot that is almost impossible to get to on most boats since the molded fiberglass anchor locker blocks access to the sides and bottom of the deck. My other concern is that this is a highly stressed area of the boat, with a number of bolts and backing plates making access more difficult since this is where the forestay ties in and where the bow cleats are located, so the work needs to be done absolutely right. 

Unless you are in love with this boat, I would probably keep looking since the asking price is a little high and the owner thinks the boat is in great shape. 

Jeff


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

OMG, Gene Colvin is still around?!?!?!? I almost bought a boat through Gene back around 1992. Not to sound harsh, but I thought he looked like a guy who was of retirement age back then. I'm glad he's still working; I haven't dealt with many yacht brokers, but Gene was a real gentleman to me; I was looking at cheap boats, and he never made me feel like I wasn't worth his full time and attention. I learned a lot too.

As for the damage on that Ericsson, I hear what Jeff and Paul are saying, but I don't think you could ever pay me enough to recore a deck from inside, especially in that tiny, enclosed area. Maybe, maybe, maybe if I knew how big an area it was (i.e., not buying a pig in a poke), and I knew I could access that full area in reasonable comfort. But still, probably not.

Imagine working under your kitchen sink; now pretend the areas is so cramped that you can get only one arm at a time to reach in and work. Now, pretend that chunks of rotten wood are falling on your face. Now, pretend that gobs of thickened epoxy are dripping down on your arm, face and neck. Oh, and don't forget the noxious fumes. 

If there is only a small area of delamination, you could get away without recoring the deck. Remove the pulpit, clear out as much of the wet core as you can through the deck holes, over drill new holes, fill with epoxy, redrill the right size holes and remount the pulpit. I know it's not the "right" fix, but if the core isn't too wet, you can use a product like Git Rot to try and rebond the deck, core and inner skin. It's not perfect, but if the affected area isn't too big, it should be good enough.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

mstern said:


> OMG, Gene Colvin is still around?!?!?!? I almost bought a boat through Gene back around 1992. Not to sound harsh, but I thought he looked like a guy who was of retirement age back then. I'm glad he's still working; I haven't dealt with many yacht brokers, but Gene was a real gentleman to me; I was looking at cheap boats, and he never made me feel like I wasn't worth his full time and attention. I learned a lot too.
> 
> As for the damage on that Ericsson, I hear what Jeff and Paul are saying, but I don't think you could ever pay me enough to recore a deck from inside, especially in that tiny, enclosed area. Maybe, maybe, maybe if I knew how big an area it was (i.e., not buying a pig in a poke), and I knew I could access that full area in reasonable comfort. But still, probably not.
> 
> ...


I would agree with almost everything that you said with two concerns. The first is that this area of the boat has so much going on stress wise that I am not sure that I would want to do a quick injection job of it unless the area was really tiny (maybe 6-8 inches square). I would also avoid Git Rot for any purpose. Gitrot is epoxy thinned with formaldehyde. If I was going to try to consolidate wood with epoxy I would simply use regular unthickened epoxy perhaps with a small amount of thinner.

Jeff


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

davidpm said:


> I saw this boat today
> 
> https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1989/ericson-34-3468516/?refSource=browse listing
> 
> ...


You sure there is core in that area ? I'd be a little surprised if there was in such a small area.
The meter may be picking up a backing plate on the underside of the deck.
What did percussive sounding indicate


----------



## olson34 (Oct 13, 2000)

The anchor locker on that model is not molded in. It is attached with screws along all sides bedded in sealant.
You might post up concerns on the Ericson owners' site. And, check their large archives for that model.
The asking price seems low, FWIW. The survey will tell you what you need to know.

"Wet" decks are not normally a problem either due to very good hardware bedding practices by Ericson Yachts. Still, it it is certainly time (and past time) to re-bed everything.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Fixing a bent pulpit can e a hugely variable price. Either you are at the mercy of whatever local stainless shops are around, or you have to crate the damned thing up to ship it. And either way, probably make up a template of the deck that the shop can check it against, or expect it to go back for "tuning" a second time. I know some folks would just say "replace it".

On the deck, as noted there big question is just how extensive the moisture is. You'd probably have to remove the pulpit (sure, the seller won't mind that) to poke around the mounting holes trying to see if there was "puss" or solid material near them. IF it was nice and clean, just damp, then there are some less invasive ways to dry it out, i.e. attach silicon heating pads below deck, cook off the moisture, vacuum bag to suck it off faster, repeat with alcohol to suck out even more, and if you got really lucky, no glass work required. As Dirty Harry said "Well punk, do you feel lucky today?"
You really need to explore, which is going to mean something invasive with the seller's permission. Or, perhaps to make them an offer and say "Look, I'm offering xxx$ but $2500 has to go into an escrow account which will be used to fix the pulpit and deck, anything remaining going to you in 90 days."
That's probably the most feasible way to plan for it, just leaving the amount of escrow up for debate. If the deck is't deformed, and you can live with a bent pulpit, then you're just down to worrying about the price of deck repairs.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

boatpoker said:


> You sure there is core in that area? I'd be a little surprised if there was in such a small area.
> The meter may be picking up a backing plate on the underside of the deck.
> What did percussive sounding indicate


That is an interesting idea.

I didn't percus it but there is a leak in the interior in about that location.


----------



## RobGallagher (Aug 22, 2001)

No mention of the damage in the listing. "DIFFERENT TACK is well maintained and in great condition. fully equipped and ready to sail"

Broker manages to mention a new macerator pump, but fails to mention a water leaks and bent stainless.

Yes Gene comes off as one hell of a nice guy. I looked at one of Gene's listings a few years ago. When I looked at the boat I was more than a little torqued that the pictures didn't represent the condition of the boat. Gentleman that he is, he admitted using the same photos from when he sold the boat 10 years prior. Waste of a day. Thanks again Gene.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

RobGallagher said:


> No mention of the damage in the listing. "DIFFERENT TACK is well maintained and in great condition. fully equipped and ready to sail"
> 
> Broker manages to mention a new macerator pump, but fails to mention a water leaks and bent stainless.
> 
> Yes Gene comes off as one hell of a nice guy. I looked at one of Gene's listings a few years ago. When I looked at the boat I was more than a little torqued that the pictures didn't represent the condition of the boat. Gentleman that he is, he admitted using the same photos from when he sold the boat 10 years prior. Waste of a day. Thanks again Gene.


Gene is one of a kind. He is 80 something now and still going strong. People either love him or hate him. Like Jeff said it is easy to learn something from him. His job is to sell the boat, and he is very good at his job. One must never forget that.


----------



## RobGallagher (Aug 22, 2001)

davidpm said:


> Gene is one of a kind. He is 80 something now and still going strong. People either love him or hate him. Like Jeff said it is easy to learn something from him. His job is to sell the boat, and he is very good at his job. One must never forget that.


I don't love him or hate him. Does not change the fact that he is not honest with his listings. In fact, once you interact with him in a possible financial deal, it seems he uses his pleasant demeanor and old age as a distraction, This makes him seem more of a con man. I'm not saying he kicks puppies or has bodies in his basement, he's just a disingenuous salesperson

About Seven years ago I was looking at specific models in the 30K range. I looked at his pictures and price, spoke with him on the phone, I was excited, this could be the boat for me. I brought my checkbook to the showing, something I never do as I like to force myself to sleep on it. This just seemed like something I needed to jump on. I took the day off of work and convinced a sailing friend to join me as a second set of eyes and a voice of reason. The moment I stepped on the boat I knew it was all a waste of time. It might as well have been a completely different boat than what was listed.

I went on to look at boats in Annapolis. A couple month after an offer I made was not accepted, the broker called me back to ask if I was still interested as the owner was more motivated. Done deal.

Last fall I was looking at boats in a higher price range. We looked at a boat but ended up passing. This spring, the boat price fell a bit and we took a second look. Done deal.

My point? I had two interactions with two different brokers, the second interactions ended in a sale. Gene won't ever get another interaction from me.

Shame on him.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but, you are defending someone who is being dishonest. Other folks, looking for the boat that appears in the ad, will waste hard earned money and precious time to go look at that damaged boat.

Dave, is your name not on the lists of Sailnet members who volunteer to go check out local boats so that others who might travel don't become victims to brokers like this?


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

RobGallagher said:


> I don't love him or hate him. Does not change the fact that he is not honest with his listings. In fact, once you interact with him in a possible financial deal, it seems he uses his pleasant demeanor and old age as a distraction, This makes him seem more of a con man. I'm not saying he kicks puppies or has bodies in his basement, he's just a disingenuous salesperson
> 
> About Seven years ago I was looking at specific models in the 30K range. I looked at his pictures and price, spoke with him on the phone, I was excited, this could be the boat for me. I brought my checkbook to the showing, something I never do as I like to force myself to sleep on it. This just seemed like something I needed to jump on. I took the day off of work and convinced a sailing friend to join me as a second set of eyes and a voice of reason. The moment I stepped on the boat I knew it was all a waste of time. It might as well have been a completely different boat than what was listed.
> 
> ...


I think it was me who characterized him as a gentleman; that was my experience with him about 25 years ago. I was shopping for a 22 to 25 foot boat, with a budget of 5-8K; there weren't a lot of brokers willing to give me the time of day (remember, this was almost pre-internet, so the primary choices were brokers and print ads), but Gene took me around to see a bunch of boats and spent a few hours with me. I ultimately bought a boat I found myself directly from the owner, but I recall my experience with Gene in a positive light. Since then, I've read broker horror stories here and elsewhere (not about Gene) that seem to show that my experience was unusual.

I'm very sorry to hear that Gene acted that way.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

RobGallagher said:


> Dave, is your name not on the lists of Sailnet members who volunteer to go check out local boats so that others who might travel don't become victims to brokers like this?


Yes it is and I take a lot of pictures.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

RobGallagher said:


> I don't love him or hate him. Does not change the fact that he is not honest with his listings. In fact, once you interact with him in a possible financial deal, it seems he uses his pleasant demeanor and old age as a distraction, This makes him seem more of a con man. I'm not saying he kicks puppies or has bodies in his basement, he's just a disingenuous salesperson
> 
> About Seven years ago I was looking at specific models in the 30K range. I looked at his pictures and price, spoke with him on the phone, I was excited, this could be the boat for me. I brought my checkbook to the showing, something I never do as I like to force myself to sleep on it. This just seemed like something I needed to jump on. I took the day off of work and convinced a sailing friend to join me as a second set of eyes and a voice of reason. The moment I stepped on the boat I knew it was all a waste of time. It might as well have been a completely different boat than what was listed.
> 
> ...


We need to be a little careful here.

I have no knowledge of the instant case, and comment neither way on the action of this particular broker in relation to this particular vessel.

But a marine professional's reputation is on the line here, and the conversation is all one-sided.

So here is my position in general.

The purpose of an advertisement is to locate potential purchaser interest in an article for sale.

It is not the advertiser's responsibility to divulge all (or any) vessel faults in the ad.

(This is what purchaser inspections and professional marine surveys are for.)

There is an obligation for the advertiser "to not misrepresent" the article for sale. (This is really quite different from "to accurately represent".)

For example, if the ad stated the cabin sole was in "factory" condition, and it was in fact, wet, partially delaminated, and in need of refinishing, well IMHO that would be a clear misrepresentation.

If the ad stated that the vessel was in "sail away" condition, well one has to interpret what that means.

It could mean simply that to the best of the advertisers knowledge, the vessel is reasonably safe to sail in its current condition. (A vessel with a wet, partially delaminated, in need of refinishing cabin sole is not necessarily misrepresented by this statement.) It may be perfectly safe to "sail away" in the present condition.

This statement does not necessarily mean that the vessel is in "Bristol Fashion".

If the ad reader makes that assumption, it is really the fault of the reader, not the advertiser.

It can be very counter productive for an advertiser to attempt to be 100% accurate, communicating vessel condition up front. What they say, and the prospect hears, can be two different things.

Therefore, it is often considered best practice to craft the advertisement in a way to attract sufficient interest to make an appointment to see it, with someone who is reasonably capable of making a purchase decision (perhaps with some prompting).

That one individual prospect felt wronged, may not really be all that bad.

If the owner and subsequent purchaser felt they were treated reasonably fairly and professionally, well, that is about all anyone can ask.

I have read, interpreted, and written many sailboat ads, personally and professionally.

It is not so easy to write an ad that accurately represents every aspect of a vessel for the proper interpretation of every possible prospective purchaser, in a way that is in the best interest of the client (the seller). From the client's perspective, the goal should be to spark lots of interest from a large number of potential, qualified purchasers.

To this end, could it be that the broker's ad was quite effective?


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

As a further example, I have inspected many boats for sale that have listed off numerous "sellable" features in the ad. 

Very few will identify that there is potential moisture in the balsa-cored decks.

Why?

Well, it could turn me off this vessel, when every like one on the market has an equal chance for potential moisture in balsa cored decks, but whose owners choose not to mention this in the advertisement.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

boatsurgeon said:


> As a further example, I have inspected many boats for sale that have listed off numerous "sellable" features in the ad.
> 
> Very few will identify that there is potential moisture in the balsa-cored decks.
> 
> ...


Maybe you like your time wasted. Failure to represent by omission is just as bad as misrepresenting by deception IMHO.

I think anyone who posts here or has spent time here can dicephir and understand that there is a personal opinion bias in any recommendation or posting

As far as ruining reputation, it's an internet posting after all and one person's honest opinion which he is entitled to with a personal interaction. In today's world with yelp, trip advisor, and many other online reviews IU to should not come as any great surprise to you that this is SOP.

One of the great advantages of SN is the network it provides . I see nothing wrong with someone posting their honest reaction to their experience. It can serve as a warning to others or also a recommendation. The reader can filter it. Having read many other posts from him, I believe he is credable to make his statements and was very careful , and he has no axe to grind.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

chef2sail said:


> Maybe you like your time wasted. Failure to represent by omission is just as bad as misrepresenting by deception IMHO.
> 
> I think anyone who posts here or has spent time here can dicephir and understand that there is a personal opinion bias in any recommendation or posting
> 
> ...


IMHO, commenting on anyone's integrity in a negative way, in public, whether it be an internet forum or otherwise, is not cool.

Even moreso when that individual is completely unaware and not present to defend their integrity.

In my business (marine service provider) I have encountered a few bad customers.

Despite being wronged by them, IMHO, it would not be cool to post their names in public, explaining their dirty deeds, to warn others; so I don't.

Public ridicule or humiliation (a from of bullying), especially in an anonymous manner, is just not cool.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Since you joined this forum tou have not been shy with pointed opinions.
Im sure you have much to offer.
Lets all live well togerher.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

boatsurgeon said:


> IMHO, commenting on anyone's integrity in a negative way, in public, whether it be an internet forum or otherwise, is not cool.
> 
> Even moreso when that individual is completely unaware and not present to defend their integrity.
> 
> ...


Here we go.....now it's moved to bullying.....that's quite a stretch

There internet is now full of ananomous ratings of businesses...it's the way things are nowadays.

There are libel and slander laws in place to prevent malicious UNTRUE accusations.

When oneposts untrue statements about a boat he is selling....what is the recourse other than expose the deed?


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

I have mixed feelings on this topic. I don’t expect a listing to provide full disclosure. The broker does have a responsibility to “put his best foot forward” on behalf of the seller. But if a savvy buyer calls him and says something like “Look, I’m going to have to drive 3 hours each way to see this boat and I don’t want to waste my time,” he should give a full, even handed disclosure. I’ve had many who did that, and some others who insisted on wasting my time. I won’t work with the latter again. 

I don’t know this old guy who is the topic here, but what I read doesn’t have the telltale signs of exaggeration or axe grinding. The comments about this guy have come from long-time forum members who have built credibility here. Some are more blunt than others, and we (and they) know who they are and interpret accordingly. 

Frank online opinions are a given now and are found everywhere. I think this place has a good track record of policing itself, and is quick to make things right when a new person comes here to trash someone unfairly. The telltale signs are usually obvious.


----------



## SeaStar58 (Feb 14, 2018)

They showed just a long shot picture of the pulpit in the advertisement and described the boat as follows: "DIFFERENT TACK is well maintained and in great condition. fully equipped and ready to sail" however its obvious from the pictures that were taken while viewing the boat that the port side of the pulpit was damaged along with its stanchions allowing water intrusion to some degree and by the looks of it this was due to hitting the docks piling. On a well maintained boat the stanchion would have been rebedded before water got inside and the pulpit would have been repaired or replaced at the same time.

If water damage exists inside the boat too as was reported its not likely that the broker or owner were unaware of the situation.

From the pictures provided showing the condition of the bow pulpit its a bit in your face that it was not "well maintained" nor in "great condition" and that the advertisement has at least two misleading statements right at the beginning of it, regardless of who the owner and broker are, raises questions on how well/poorly the rest of the boat was maintained which the buyers surveyor would have to keep in mind giving the rest of the boat a bit more scrutiny looking for other issues that may have been cleaned and polished up to hide their true condition. A recent wash and wax does not equal well maintained.

Asking price is between the low and average retail base price for that boat if it was only in fresh water use its entire life and does not appear to take into account the 10 to 15% reduction in value for salt water use.

See:
https://www.nadaguides.com/Boats/1989/Ericson-Yachts/ERICSON-34-SL/10065973/Values

Regardless of who's selling a boat its still "Buyer Beware!".


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

TakeFive said:


> I have mixed feelings on this topic. I don't expect a listing to provide full disclosure. The broker does have a responsibility to "put his best foot forward" on behalf of the seller. But if a savvy buyer calls him and says something like "Look, I'm going to have to drive 3 hours each way to see this boat and I don't want to waste my time," he should give a full, even handed disclosure. I've had many who did that, and some others who insisted on wasting my time. I won't work with the latter again.
> 
> I don't know this old guy who is the topic here, but what I read doesn't have the telltale signs of exaggeration or axe grinding. The comments about this guy have come from long-time forum members who have built credibility here. Some are more blunt than others, and we (and they) know who they are and interpret accordingly.
> 
> Frank online opinions are a given now and are found everywhere. I think this place has a good track record of policing itself, and is quick to make things right when a new person comes here to trash someone unfairly. The telltale signs are usually obvious.


Well said.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

Folks, we are talking about a 30 year old boat, listed below average price.

If it is in just average condition, it could be reasonably and accurately stated that it is "well maintained and in great shape" (for the age and asking price).

(Statement in parenthesis omitted as it should be considered a given by any reasonable person.)

Else every ad for every used boat would have to state...

"This vessel may be subject to some owner deferred maintenance. If any amount of owner deferred maintenance is unacceptable to you, don't waste your time, buy new."


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

boatsurgeon said:


> .....
> 
> The purpose of an advertisement is to locate potential purchaser interest in an article for sale.
> 
> ...


No responsibility to divulge *any* faults? That is demonstrating the depraved level of integrity that is too pervasive in the marine service industry. There are laws against this in many other industries.

No survey is perfect and some defects are hidden, or would require invasive testing, and would only be identified, if disclosed.

I've dealt with several brokers who have tried to punt something as simple as the boat inventory to the survey. I wanted a contracted list of equipment the seller was obligated to provide. They pitch that as a factor of acceptance. It's lazy and dishonest. Again, traits that are so pervasive, the industry has begun to believe it's normal.


----------



## SeaStar58 (Feb 14, 2018)

boatsurgeon said:


> Folks, we are talking about a 30 year old boat, listed below average price.
> 
> If it is in just average condition, it could be reasonably and accurately stated that it is "well maintained and in great shape" (for the age and asking price).
> 
> ...


It is listed below average price only for a fresh water boat. Too many gloss over that NADA average pricing is really for fresh water boats which command a 10 to 15% premium over similar boats used in salt water. So that $37,000 freshwater average for a 1989 Erickson in excellent condition for its age can drop to around $31,000 and the low price for a freshwater 1989 Erickson with maintenance issues of $32,000 drops to around $27,200 due to being used in salt water.

A boat with unattended impact damage and ongoing water intrusion from it regardless of age is not "well maintained" by any measure. If I put up a house for sale as well maintained and it had a leaky roof due to impact with a tree branch along with ceiling damage I could get sited for fraud if I advertised it as "well maintained and in great shape" plus ready to move into condition especially if it appeared that I potentially just cleaned up the outside to hide the trouble spots from the casual observer without repairing the damage to keep it "well maintained".

Lets face it we are talking about a boat that hit a mooring post on a dock and sustained damage beyond just normal wear and tear not just some sun fading, a few sagging cushions or some missed cleanup in the galley.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

Minnewaska said:


> No responsibility to divulge *any* faults? That is demonstrating the depraved level of integrity that is too pervasive in the marine service industry. There are laws against this in many other industries.
> 
> No survey is perfect and some defects are hidden, or would require invasive testing, and would only be identified, if disclosed.
> 
> I've dealt with several brokers who have tried to punt something as simple as the boat inventory to the survey. I wanted a contracted list of equipment the seller was obligated to provide. They pitch that as a factor of acceptance. It's lazy and dishonest. Again, traits that are so pervasive, the industry has begun to believe it's normal.


Not likely to find a broker willing to spend 6 hours preparing a detailed inventory list on a boat they may make a $3000 commission on after spending who knows how much listing, advertising, and showing the boat.

What a reasonable person can expect is there to be a purchase and sale agreement phrase of something like, "including all equipment present at time of inspection" and perhaps, "excluding any personal clothing items" (if the boat was not completely cleaned off before the inspection).

A complete inventory listing of every item aboard is not degfacto standard, but I suppose one desperate enough may do so to appease a purchaser they have lots under-their-breath names for, for a significant commission. Especially if they have been dealing with a number of ridiculous demands from dead beat tire kickers for a while and really need to make a sale.


----------



## RobGallagher (Aug 22, 2001)

boatsurgeon said:


> We need to be a little careful here.
> 
> I have no knowledge of the instant case, and comment neither way on the action of this particular broker in relation to this particular vessel.
> 
> ...


Well, in my case they had the opposite effect.

When one uses pictures that are 10 years old, and those pictures to not represent the condition of the boat, it is false advertising. I stated two cases where I purchased a boats from brokers who did the right thing. I stated one case in which I feel the broker did the wrong thing.

I never said he didn't come off as a nice guy, maybe he's a great salesman. Great salesman don't always have to be totally honest, they have to be effective in closing the deal.

In the end, customers vote with their feet and they tell their friends. :devil


----------



## RobGallagher (Aug 22, 2001)

boatsurgeon said:


> IMHO, commenting on anyone's integrity in a negative way, in public, whether it be an internet forum or otherwise, is not cool.
> 
> Even moreso when that individual is completely unaware and not present to defend their integrity.
> 
> ...


I have a job. I deal with 'customers'. Sometimes they go farther than just being difficult customers. I get compensated for dealing with the occasional bad apple. That is why it is called a job. I have no desire to go on the internet and talk about my job. In fact, it could get me fired.

I have a hobby and that hobby costs me money. The same money I receive from my job. The money I spend on my hobby now makes me the customer. When I spend my hard earned time and money on something and I don't like it, I get to ***** about it. I earned it.

If a boat broker somehow thinks they can get away with using social media to call out bad customers, I suggest they think again. That will back fire on them like an atomic4 with bad timing and stuck valves.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

boatsurgeon said:


> Not likely to find a broker willing to spend 6 hours preparing a detailed inventory list on a boat they may make a $3000 commission on after spending who knows how much listing, advertising, and showing the boat.
> 
> What a reasonable person can expect is there to be a purchase and sale agreement phrase of something like, "including all equipment present at time of inspection" and perhaps, "excluding any personal clothing items" (if the boat was not completely cleaned off before the inspection).
> 
> A complete inventory listing of every item aboard is not degfacto standard, but I suppose one desperate enough may do so to appease a purchaser they have lots under-their-breath names for, for a significant commission. Especially if they have been dealing with a number of ridiculous demands from dead beat tire kickers for a while and really need to make a sale.


You really have been indoctrinated into the marine service industry culture and can't see the forest for the trees. This is not normal integrity, nor work ethic, in any other industry I've experienced. Under the breath comments are clearly a cultural thing too.

First, it's simple enough to have the seller detail the equipment list, who is signing the agreement and representing the item for sale. It doesn't need serial numbers, its just a contractual commitment to deliver. The point is, the seller can walk at acceptance, if I say I'm not buying without a credit for something on that list that doesn't exist. There should be a contract that says, if I've spent a grand or two on a survey, you have to deliver what you said was there. It does not need to include sundries. It simply needs to be above board and that's just not a concept the marine services industry understands like most others. It's an incredibly lazy industry, probably because they have the luxury of taking advantage of people who can pay.


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

SeaStar58 said:


> They showed just a long shot picture of the pulpit in the advertisement and described the boat as follows: "DIFFERENT TACK is well maintained and in great condition. fully equipped and ready to sail" however its obvious from the pictures that were taken while viewing the boat that the port side of the pulpit was damaged along with its stanchions allowing water intrusion to some degree and by the looks of it this was due to hitting the docks piling. On a well maintained boat the stanchion would have been rebedded before water got inside and the pulpit would have been repaired or replaced at the same time.
> 
> If water damage exists inside the boat too as was reported its not likely that the broker or owner were unaware of the situation.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately NADA values are a very poor indicator of actual sales prices. I don't think there is a 10 to 15% reduction in value for saltwater used boats, at least not in sailboats over 28 feet as likely 85% or more are or have been used in salt water. NADA has no record of where the boats have been used in there database. Price is simply based on condition. A well maintained boat in saltwater can be in far better shape than a poorly maintained boat in fresh and sell for more. Besides that NADA values on boats are simply not accurate. They have too broad of a view of condition and the number of sales that are used for calculations are too few to get a reasonable value out of. You can use a guide like NADA values on commodity sales like a 2000's Toyota Camry or VW Jetta where the condition matters less, all are basically equipped the same and numbers of sales are in the hundreds of thousands, but when figuring a boat like an Ericson 34 II there are likely 6 sales a year and condition and equipment can vary hugely, and there is little database as far as accidents and what not. Even BUCvalues no longer has useful numbers and they used to be the standard barer. There is only one indicator that is reasonable anymore and that is soldboats.com and that will be for fairly good condition boats so likely skewed high as it does not cover sales outside of brokers. The good thing about soldboats.com is it shows the price sold and will link to a listing that has photos and equipment lists. But of course soldboats.com is not available to the public.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Goven the incredible number of boats whose current owners (the sellers) obviously have no knowledge or concern regarding the many wet decks, rotting bulkheads, rusting keel bolts, rusty engines, etc. that are out there?

I suppose one could argue that all of these issues can be ignored, especially by a broker, since they are things the average owner has also been ignoring and quite content to live with. So, those damned picky tire kickers....You know, they're the only ones who are upset by all of these things.

Unless, of course, one is willing to consider that boat brokers just might often be used-car salesmen wearing more comfortable shoes?


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

Minnewaska said:


> You really have been indoctrinated into the marine service industry culture and can't see the forest for the trees. This is not normal integrity, nor work ethic, in any other industry I've experienced. Under the breath comments are clearly a cultural thing too.
> 
> First, it's simple enough to have the seller detail the equipment list, who is signing the agreement and representing the item for sale. It doesn't need serial numbers, its just a contractual commitment to deliver. The point is, the seller can walk at acceptance, if I say I'm not buying without a credit for something on that list that doesn't exist. There should be a contract that says, if I've spent a grand or two on a survey, you have to deliver what you said was there. It does not need to include sundries. It simply needs to be above board and that's just not a concept the marine services industry understands like most others. It's an incredibly lazy industry, probably because they have the luxury of taking advantage of people who can pay.


I hope it goes without saying that this is a is a pretty bigoted and offensive statement.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

boatsurgeon said:


> I hope it goes without saying that this is a is a pretty bigoted and offensive statement.


I guess that makes me offensive and bigoted too. I am also in the marine business and disgusted by the chicanery I see every day and not just from brokers. In fact I bet I see more of it than the average forum member here since I work behind the wall.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Bigoted, which means intolerant of others opinions. Probably a good description of me being intolerant of the opinion that a broker and seller are not obligated to disclose "ANY" defects or even provide a contract which details what is being sold. Yes, intolerant. Only people in the trade have forced this cultural acceptance of how to do business. The buyers haven't.

Offensive, which means aggressive or causing someone to feel hurt. Probably accurate too. I've certainly received my fair share of offensive behavior from the industry. I'm the client, but rarely treated like one.


----------



## SeaStar58 (Feb 14, 2018)

miatapaul said:


> Unfortunately NADA values are a very poor indicator of actual sales prices. I don't think there is a 10 to 15% reduction in value for saltwater used boats, at least not in sailboats over 28 feet as likely 85% or more are or have been used in salt water. NADA has no record of where the boats have been used in there database. Price is simply based on condition. A well maintained boat in saltwater can be in far better shape than a poorly maintained boat in fresh and sell for more. Besides that NADA values on boats are simply not accurate. They have too broad of a view of condition and the number of sales that are used for calculations are too few to get a reasonable value out of. You can use a guide like NADA values on commodity sales like a 2000's Toyota Camry or VW Jetta where the condition matters less, all are basically equipped the same and numbers of sales are in the hundreds of thousands, but when figuring a boat like an Ericson 34 II there are likely 6 sales a year and condition and equipment can vary hugely, and there is little database as far as accidents and what not. Even BUCvalues no longer has useful numbers and they used to be the standard barer. There is only one indicator that is reasonable anymore and that is soldboats.com and that will be for fairly good condition boats so likely skewed high as it does not cover sales outside of brokers. The good thing about soldboats.com is it shows the price sold and will link to a listing that has photos and equipment lists. But of course soldboats.com is not available to the public.


What makes you say that the NADA listings of average selling prices of boats down to the Zipcode level are inaccurate? They report selling not asking prices and are not the new kids on the block having been on the research dance floor for a very very long time. Do you have access to the NADA database including the privileged/hidden/extra value fields to be able to empirically state what is and is not in their data?

I write statistical analysis reports for a living along with maintain the core data and it might surprise you what is in the databases of large research firms concerning people and not just where they live but down to the clothes they wear, the food they eat, favorite brands, hobbies, cars, boats, motorcycles, etc, etc, etc. What people buy, sell, eat (along with where they eat), watch (both at home and while mobile), etc is tracked in great detail especially in the US. This is all used to fine tune all forms of advertising (print, billboard, TV, Radio, Internet) and program content on radio, TV, home web pages, restaurants, waiting rooms, etc, etc and is a Mulit-Billion Dollar endeavor to ensure the greatest accuracy since even more billions of dollars in profits are at risk if the data is inaccurate. The PII will not be made public and you have to pay extra to see the extra value fields however most research databases have much more data in them then what is made publicly available potentially down to which brand, color and style skivvies you wear. No I can't comment on the exact contents of any particular database and won't provide more specific details due to confidentiality agreements. Just be aware its all out there being tracked in great detail unless you one of the few in the US who are totally off the grid with no cell phone, land line phone, cable tv, internet, bank accounts, insurance policies, titles of ownership, etc and have no dealings with businesses that record the purchases/services bought by their customers.

There is really nothing completely private in the US except for a few whispered conversations out of earshot of any computer, cell phone, cable tv box (yes they are putting microphones in them to track whether a program or commercial is generating a good response among other things), Google/Amazon automation device, etc. So we really can't comment on what is or is not in a particular companies core data or how they use that information but rest assured its more than many would like to believe.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

SeaStar58 said:


> What makes you say that the NADA listings of average selling prices of boats down to the Zipcode level are inaccurate? They report selling not asking prices and are not the new kids on the block having been on the research dance floor for a very very long time. Do you have access to the NADA database including the privileged/hidden/extra value fields to be able to empirically state what is and is not in their data?
> 
> I write statistical analysis reports for a living along with maintain the core data and it might surprise you what is in the databases of large research firms concerning people and not just where they live but down to the clothes they wear, the food they eat, favorite brands, hobbies, cars, boats, motorcycles, etc, etc, etc. What people buy, sell, eat (along with where they eat), watch (both at home and while mobile), etc is tracked in great detail especially in the US. This is all used to fine tune all forms of advertising (print, billboard, TV, Radio, Internet) and program content on radio, TV, home web pages, restaurants, waiting rooms, etc, etc and is a Mulit-Billion Dollar endeavor to ensure the greatest accuracy since even more billions of dollars in profits are at risk if the data is inaccurate. The PII will not be made public and you have to pay extra to see the extra value fields however most research databases have much more data in them then what is made publicly available potentially down to which brand, color and style skivvies you wear. No I can't comment on the exact contents of any particular database and won't provide more specific details due to confidentiality agreements. Just be aware its all out there being tracked in great detail unless you one of the few in the US who are totally off the grid with no cell phone, land line phone, cable tv, internet, bank accounts, insurance policies, titles of ownership, etc and have no dealings with businesses that record the purchases/services bought by their customers.
> 
> There is really nothing completely private in the US except for a few whispered conversations out of earshot of any computer, cell phone, cable tv box, Google/Amazon automation device, etc. So we really can't comment on what is or is not in a particular companies core data or how they use that information but rest assured its more than many would like to believe.


We all know where soldboats gets their data. No one seems to know where NADA gets theirs. They are not getting it from Yachtworld or the brokers and it's hard to believe they are running around the country chasing down individual sales. NADA will not say how they arrive at their numbers. I've done thousands of marine valuations and find NADA too often wildly off the mark to be trusted.

I suspect (believe) that NADA's number are crunched from Martin scales, depreciation tables etc. from new prices and this method cannot possibly take into account the dozens of other variables that affect FMV.


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

SeaStar58 said:


> What makes you say that the NADA listings of average selling prices of boats down to the Zipcode level are inaccurate? They report selling not asking prices and are not the new kids on the block having been on the research dance floor for a very very long time. Do you have access to the NADA database including the privileged/hidden/extra value fields to be able to empirically state what is and is not in their data?
> 
> I write statistical analysis reports for a living along with maintain the core data and it might surprise you what is in the databases of large research firms concerning people and not just where they live but down to the clothes they wear, the food they eat, favorite brands, hobbies, cars, boats, motorcycles, etc, etc, etc. What people buy, sell, eat (along with where they eat), watch (both at home and while mobile), etc is tracked in great detail especially in the US. This is all used to fine tune all forms of advertising (print, billboard, TV, Radio, Internet) and program content on radio, TV, home web pages, restaurants, waiting rooms, etc, etc and is a Mulit-Billion Dollar endeavor to ensure the greatest accuracy since even more billions of dollars in profits are at risk if the data is inaccurate. The PII will not be made public and you have to pay extra to see the extra value fields however most research databases have much more data in them then what is made publicly available potentially down to which brand, color and style skivvies you wear. No I can't comment on the exact contents of any particular database and won't provide more specific details due to confidentiality agreements. Just be aware its all out there being tracked in great detail unless you one of the few in the US who are totally off the grid with no cell phone, land line phone, cable tv, internet, bank accounts, insurance policies, titles of ownership, etc and have no dealings with businesses that record the purchases/services bought by their customers.
> 
> There is really nothing completely private in the US except for a few whispered conversations out of earshot of any computer, cell phone, cable tv box (yes they are putting microphones in them to track whether a program or commercial is generating a good response among other things), Google/Amazon automation device, etc. So we really can't comment on what is or is not in a particular companies core data or how they use that information but rest assured its more than many would like to believe.


If you do statistical analysis you should understand there is no value from small sample sizes. There is a much greater swing in boat prices than there is in say automotive. A Camry XLE will have basically all the same equipment to within a few hundred dollars, you have a easy to use measurement of wear in mileage, while a boat could well have equipment that is worth three times the value of the boat. Add on top of that with the Camry there are tens of thousands of sales a year combined to a typical used boat that might have three or four a year sell. How can you make any kind of statistical analysis on that small sample size of such a large range of sale price? NADA values for small production cars like Lamborghini have shown to not be accurate, and they are produced in much higher numbers, and of narrower value ranges than old sailboats.

So again commodity goods they are fine, but on small volume sales there is just simply not enough data to make valid analysis from.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

Minnewaska said:


> Bigoted, which means intolerant of others opinions. Probably a good description of me being intolerant of the opinion that a broker and seller are not obligated to disclose "ANY" defects or even provide a contract which details what is being sold. Yes, intolerant. Only people in the trade have forced this cultural acceptance of how to do business. The buyers haven't.
> 
> Offensive, which means aggressive or causing someone to feel hurt. Probably accurate too. I've certainly received my fair share of offensive behavior from the industry. I'm the client, but rarely treated like one.


Hint: We all tend to reap what we sew; boaters and service providers alike.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

boatsurgeon said:


> Hint: We all tend to reap what we sew; boaters and service providers alike.


Except you have no evidence of that on my part. Your posts make very clear where you stand on disclosing defects.

I don't treat my clients like it's an equal two way street. I'm honest with them, but work hard to satisfy what they want. They can trust me. Some are harder to deal with than others, but they get the same quality an attention. They don't owe me anything, I have to earn it.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

boatpoker said:


> I guess that makes me offensive and bigoted too. I am also in the marine business and disgusted by the chicanery I see every day and not just from brokers. In fact I bet I see more of it than the average forum member here since I work behind the wall.


I too inspect boats regularly (generally troubleshooting and repair, including survey remediation).

Statement:

The reality is, the boating industry is thriving, and has produced a wide array of vessels that have proven to be extremely durable and reliable, and that customers continue to purchase.

Proof:

1. Despite the marine environment being extremely inhospitable to humans, there are few drownings due to boat failures.

2. Many boat manufacturers have been in business longer than other industry averages.

According to the laws of supply and demand, in general, all boating customers are getting what they are paying for.

So if customers are not happy with their purchases, the real issue appears to be that customers are asking the industry for the wrong thing.

It's just like buying products at Walmart.

The consumer asks for cheap prices and they get it.

Later the consumer complains the product is of low quality, but they keep shopping there due to the low prices.

Then they find that the local economy is failing and their taxes are rising due to the loss of local jobs to manufacturer the goods at the price points demanded.

Who is to blame?


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

Minnewaska said:


> Your posts make very clear where you stand on disclosing defects.


Actually, I severely doubt you have a clear understanding where I stand on disclosing defects.

Nor do I suspect any amount of my further discussion on the subject would change your mind.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

OEMs are building, in some cases, to a lower quality level. In others, they've simply learned how to lower cost and even improve quality. Hull glass formulas are a very good example of higher quality at lower cost on some designs, over the old battleship thick hulls that blistered. 

Nevertheless, I don't see how either have anything to do with the general poor quality of service in the trades, after the fact, and deception within the brokerage community.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

boatsurgeon said:


> I too inspect boats regularly (generally troubleshooting and repair, including survey remediation).
> 
> Statement:
> 
> ...


I don't think we are talking about boat manufacturers. We are talking about the trades. In my market there are dozens who tout themselves as "Accredited Marine Surveyors" Certified Marine Surveyors, Certified Master Marine Surveyors, diesel mechanics, marine electricians, marine systems mechanics and out of those hundreds very few have actual earned credentials.

Unfortunately you can call yourself anything in the marine business and it's up to the consumer to figure out which credentials are real. If you have $50 for business cards and a pickup truck you can be a marine surveyor, marine electrician or marine refrigeration engineer. The industry is rife with people who had the 50 bucks and the pickup truck.

As an example you can take a look at this list of Every Marine Surveyor in Ontario and Their Qualifications.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

boatpoker said:


> I don't think we are talking about boat manufacturers. We are talking about the trades. In my market there are dozens who tout themselves as "Accredited Marine Surveyors" Certified Marine Surveyors, Certified Master Marine Surveyors, diesel mechanics, marine electricians, marine systems mechanics and out of those hundreds very few have actual earned credentials.
> 
> Unfortunately you can call yourself anything in the marine business and it's up to the consumer to figure out which credentials are real. If you have $50 for business cards and a pickup truck you can be a marine surveyor, marine electrician or marine refrigeration engineer. The industry is rife with people who had the 50 bucks and the pickup truck.
> 
> As an example you can take a look at this list of Every Marine Surveyor in Ontario and Their Qualifications.


Due diligence is as simple as asking:

1. "May I see your current SAMS or NAMS card.

If no, look elsewhere.

2. If yes, "May I see your current commercial liability insurance certificate."

If no, look elsewhere.

Any "professional" marine surveyor will be pleased to present their credentials and insurance cert., as they have invested in these to prove their credibility and to set themselves apart from Joe Schmo.

Joe will attempt to explain away why certifications are worthless and insurance not needed.

If you hire Joe, and get a worthless report, whose fault is it?

But the real problem is the boaters who hire known schmos to get a clean report to renew their boat insurance without having to perform essential to safety and value preservation maintenance and repairs, or a whack of money should they inadvertently scuttle the ship, and then turn around and offer this to the broker or prospective buyers as supposed evidence of condition and fair market valuation.

Who is the crook?

No SAMS or no NAMS and no commercial liability insurance?

Take your moisture meter and tap hammer and put 'em back in your pick-up; you're not setting foot anywhere near my boat.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Quite a perverted point of view to argue the consumer is more at fault, for not fully vetting the person selling their wares, than is the fraudulent provider. That’s unreconcilable. In a commercial transaction, the person being paid has more responsibility. Period.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

Minnewaska said:


> Quite a perverted point of view to argue the consumer is more at fault, for not fully vetting the person selling their wares, than is the fraudulent provider. That's unreconcilable. In a commercial transaction, the person being paid has more responsibility. Period.


That is most certainly a valid stance for a perpetual victim.

God help you if you ever receive an e-mail from the Ivory Coast.

The customer has a need for marine services.

The marine service provider has a need for customers.

The two interview each other to determine if they wish to engage and the terms under which they shall.

The relationship is symbiotic and on equal footing.

Not identical footing, but equal footing. Either party has the right to perform their due diligence and to say no.

To suggest the boat owner has no responsibility or obligation to scrutinize who they hire is absolutely and unequivocally incorrect, foolhardy and naïve.

Any industry, any circumstance.

I would not approach any tradesperson as you suggest: not a carpenter, auto mechanic, teacher, boy scout volunteer, minister, gymnastics coach, accountant, nor doctor.

What you profess is merely a shirking of your own responsibility for due diligence because you are paying with money vs blood, sweat, and tears. Total poppycock IMHO!


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Nice try boatsurgeon. I have many experiences in other industries, where I'm perfectly pleased with the general level of competence, service and integrity. As I've mentioned, I even know of some marine tradesman that are good. It's the overall industry that is out of whack.

I'm not suggesting the client do zero due diligence. For goodness sake, based on the average industry experience, they should take collateral! What I said was it's solely the providers responsibility for poor performance and you suggested it was the clients.



boatsurgeon said:


> ...If you hire Joe, and get a worthless report, whose fault is it?.....


It is entirely Joe's fault. Perhaps the client could have done more to avoid, but Joe is being paid, he fully owns any failure. Most tradesman in the marine service industry are related to Joe and I don't understand why. Seems a cultural thing.

On that point, most marinas around here have you captive. You don't have a real choice. If you don't use their staff, you pay the marina an additional 15% vig. I somewhat understand the vig, as the marina is providing the slip, etc. although, I am already paying for that. Still, many contractors won't come to our marina, because the manager makes their lives miserable. When I mention where I am, his name is literally the first and only word out of their mouth. No doubt because he either feels threatened by a more knowledgeable vendor or is rubbed by not making the full fee.

You simply keep sticking your foot in your mouth, by demonstrating the marine trades culture that most owners object to.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

Minnewaska said:


> Nice try boatsurgeon. I have many experiences in other industries, where I'm perfectly pleased with the general level of competence, service and integrity. As I've mentioned, I even know of some marine tradesman that are good. It's the overall industry that is out of whack.
> 
> I'm not suggesting the client do zero due diligence. For goodness sake, based on the average industry experience, they should take collateral! What I said was it's solely the providers responsibility for poor performance and you suggested it was the clients.
> 
> ...


Speaking of hoof in mouth disease....

Who has the responsibility to chose the marina where the boat is kept!?

Is that the someone else's fault too?

Who has the problem paying 15% extra for excellent service by a pro rather than poor service by an unqualified resident schmo?

Is that the industry's fault too?

Oh and that service you need to repair your swim platform, it was the wind's fault that it was damaged?

Based on our interactions here, I suggest it could be that you are not impressed by the professionalism of the marine service industry, because the pro's client screening process results in you always reverting to Joe Schmo (who has no other work booked, so can fit you in).


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

Boatsurgeon, You appear to be in the marine business somehow. Your profile gives no indication of where you are located or what marine service you provide. I think you may be taken more seriously if you were not so secretive.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

boatsurgeon said:


> Speaking of hoof in mouth disease....
> 
> Who has the responsibility to chose the marina where the boat is kept!?
> 
> ...


Wow, we are really talking past each other.

Boatsurgeon, I don't think anyone ever argued that the consumer doesn't have to be vigilant against fraud; and I don't think anyone here said they think that paying more for a real pro over a hack is a bad value. What they think (and I agree) is that when a pro acts dishonestly, he is more at fault than the consumer (who often has no real yardstick or information to judge the pro against). How can you possibly blame the boat owner who hires the yard where he keeps his boat to fix something, and he gets screwed by bad work or is overcharged? How is the boat owner at fault in that scenario?

Some here have also suggested that the marine industry is unusually rife with dishonest and incompetent vendors. Fortunately, that hasn't been my experience, but I've read plenty of horror stories. And now that I've bought a more complex boat that has systems that I have no experience with, I am betting I will have to rely on the pros to do work for me, at least until I learn how myself.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

If you had much experience wirh the lamp shade or candle wax industry, you could make similar complaints...
Tis life, folks


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

boatsurgeon said:


> > Who has the responsibility to chose the marina where the boat is kept!?
> 
> 
> I've been at four on the Bay and they've all been the same. There doesn't seem to be a choice. There are two high end yards on the Bay that I've yet to try. One, the Newport Shipyard, no longer takes seasonal tenants. The other, Hinckley, is in a remote spot and more of a work yard than a marina.
> ...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

RegisteredUser said:


> If you had much experience wirh the lamp shade or candle wax industry, you could make similar complaints...
> Tis life, folks


I've hired several aviation mechanics, avionics techs and paint/interior shops in all corners of the country. My experience has been generally very favorable.

These folks have licenses they would lose, if they behaved or performed the way most marine equivalents seem to think is normal. If the FAA were to learn of similar rampant horror stories in a repair facility, they would shut it down.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Not that long ago, it was common for women at the beauty shop to talk about Days of Our Lives and The Young and the Restless.

Its....The Internet.

Mix up a nice one, and make it a double....
Maybe a pitcher full


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Minnewaska said:


> I've hired several aviation mechanics, avionics techs
> 
> ...
> 
> These folks have licenses they would lose, if they behaved or performed the way most marine equivalents


I think that's a big part of the difference.

The other thing with aircraft, is they are a little bit like cars in that the designs are fairly standardised. Boats, nearly every one is unique.

I have had somewhat better luck finding service since switching to a smaller boat, not hard to find someone to work on a Honda outboard in their own heated shop.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Arcb said:


> I think that's a big part of the difference.
> 
> The other thing with aircraft, is they are a little bit like cars in that the designs are fairly standardised. Boats, nearly every one is unique......


Yes, that identifies why some jobs take longer, not why they are done poorly. Weather is a timing problem too, but not the real cultural problem.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

Minnewaska said:


> I've hired several aviation mechanics, avionics techs and paint/interior shops in all corners of the country. My experience has been generally very favorable.
> 
> These folks have licenses they would lose, if they behaved or performed the way most marine equivalents seem to think is normal. If the FAA were to learn of similar rampant horror stories in a repair facility, they would shut it down.


I personally believe you guys are painting a completely false picture.

Compare ABYC certified techs to licensed Avionics techs and the difference in professionalism, quality of service and craftsmanship will be negligible.

Hire a boat bum and it will be a bummer.

The boat owner has the choice and the holder of the money has the power to choose who works on their boat.

If you don't even ask the qualifications of the person working on your boat, IMHO, if you get a boat bum, you got exactly what you asked for

If boaters were nearly as concerned as aviators about the qualifications of the person working on their craft, we would not be having this discussion.

You do have the right to choose who works on your boat and to query their qualifications.

If you chose not to, or choose to allow an unqualified person work on your boat, you are getting exactly what you are paying for, "Somebody of unknown qualifications working on your boat."

I hope you guys have better finding quality marine service in the future.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

An ABYC certified technician is certainly heading in the right direction. One of our members here, Maine Sail, is an ABYC guy and anyone would be happy to have him work on their boat and pay whatever he demands. 

However, knowledge is no assurance of integrity. I had an ABYC tech demand that the only way to replace my keel studs (in an iron keel), was to saw off the keel at the joint and rebed the entire thing. Indeed, if the joint was compromised, it needed to come off. However, Beneteau's own instructions call for inspecting the studs, by removing from the inside. He refused to even try, as his way was the only way. I actually agreed, having been forced to, but he ran out of time. After that season, I had some tools made and replaced them myself, with a friend. The studs were pristine below the bilge. It would have been entirely unnecessary damage to the keel/hull and extra work to do it his way. 

I have dozens of these stories. I had one insist I needed a new cutlass bearing (after 4 years) so I asked him to show me the play that caused him to make the recommendation. I noted literally none, he never showed. 

I had some screws backing out of jib furler slot halves. His solution was to replace the entire unit, furler and all. I'm still not sure if he was kidding, this was so outrageous. 

Had my AC unit service and cleaned at the beginning of the season. The tech calls and says it won't switch between heat and cool, he's a new unit in the truck and could replace it right now. I asked him to wait until I got there. I tested it and everything worked fine. That was 3-4 years ago.

I have another entire category of things they've broken, while aboard fixing something else. I have a great picture of a vibram workboot print, ground into my teak cockpit sole. Old parts found in the bilge below the engine. 

The real irony here is that I would literally pay twice what I pay today, to have others work on my boat. I don't trust them. The stories are endless and way too common in the marine industry. I only pay to have done what I physically can't. Here's a plus. I've had good paint work done over the years. yay.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

Minnewaska said:


> An ABYC certified technician is certainly heading in the right direction. One of our members here, Maine Sail, is an ABYC guy and anyone would be happy to have him work on their boat and pay whatever he demands.


I concur that Rod is quite experienced and pretty sharp. I recommend any internet info be treated as a single source requiring verification and validation. While most of what Rod writes I agree with completely, there have been more than a few things I disagree with.



> However, knowledge is no assurance of integrity.


Surely. I have worked for companies having top execs that had brains and integrity, then I worked for some that had MBAs from revered schools of business. ;-)

Your statement is true of every profession.



> I had an ABYC tech demand that the only way to replace my keel studs (in an iron keel), was to saw off the keel at the joint and rebed the entire thing. Indeed, if the joint was compromised, it needed to come off. However, Beneteau's own instructions call for inspecting the studs, by removing from the inside. He refused to even try, as his way was the only way.


So this is a judgement call that every service provider has to evaluate. What repair options can I offer at what risk to the owner and myself. If I try to save the owner some money by performing a repair that has 80% chance of success, how will they respond if it doesn't succeed. Will they still pay me for my time. Will they hire me to perform the more certain repair? Will they hire someone else, bad mouth me all over town, and hurt my business and livelihood, even though I spelled out the risk to them very clearly and they chose the less expensive option?

I actually agreed, having been forced to, but he ran out of time. After that season, I had some tools made and replaced them myself, with a friend. The studs were pristine below the bilge. It would have been entirely unnecessary damage to the keel/hull and extra work to do it his way.



> I have dozens of these stories. I had one insist I needed a new cutlass bearing (after 4 years) so I asked him to show me the play that caused him to make the recommendation. I noted literally none, he never showed.


So if your statements are true, it could be that he was lying, or it could be a simple mistake and he confused the needs of your boat with one of the many others he had inspected.



> I had some screws backing out of jib furler slot halves. His solution was to replace the entire unit, furler and all. I'm still not sure if he was kidding, this was so outrageous.


Could be a legitimate recommendation. It could be he had significant experience with that brand of furler and knew it to be inferior. It could be the furler was at the end of life expectancy and due for replacement. I certainly have a lot of experience with owners who are trying to save money by fixing when they should be replacing. I used to give the option all the time. Now I am more careful. Too many owners have blamed me when I have offered the option to repair something and then another part breaks and they try to blame me for it, (after my original recommendation was complete replacement).



> Had my AC unit service and cleaned at the beginning of the season. The tech calls and says it won't switch between heat and cool, he's a new unit in the truck and could replace it right now. I asked him to wait until I got there. I tested it and everything worked fine. That was 3-4 years ago.


Don't know, could have been fraud, cold have been an intermittent fault, could have been a brain fart.



> I have another entire category of things they've broken, while aboard fixing something else. I have a great picture of a vibram workboot print, ground into my teak cockpit sole. Old parts found in the bilge below the engine


.

Sounds similar to my experience with pretty much every trade. I have found one auto-mechanic out of about 30 that I trust. Of ABYC certified techs (relevant trade to work), I would trust most that have been in the repair business full time for 3 years or more. Still, due diligence is required to assure they can meet my standard of integrity.



> The real irony here is that I would literally pay twice what I pay today, to have others work on my boat.


Then do so. Stop whining about the boat bums at your local marina, and hire in someone with skills and integrity or move the boat to where these resident qualities exist.



> I don't trust them.


Perhaps they are not trustworthy, or perhaps you have unreasonable expectations, or perhaps you have trust issues.



> The stories are endless and way too common in the marine industry.


News for ya. As I have said, the stories are common in every industry. Some are the fault of the service provider, some the fault of the customer, some a little of both. All too often it is the complaint of the customer who knows-it-all (but actually know way to little about what they are speaking).



> I only pay to have done what I physically can't.


We have a lot of customers that do same.

We try to ignore as much of the botched work aboard that we can while addressing the instant issue.

In necessary cases, we draw attention to the customer in the hope it doesn't ruin the relationship because they disagree with our assessment (often arguing something like ABYC standards are only a guideline) and because the boat hasn't blown up in 30 years it isn't likely to tomorrow. (Tomorrow is always a new day.)

We have other customers that hand us a spare set of keys for our safe-keeping with ongoing standing orders to, "Do what it needs and send me the bill." We still provide them with full inspection reports and itemized Work Orders, to ensure everyone is on the same page for the repair, maintenance, and improvements needed and completed.



> Here's a plus. I've had good paint work done over the years. yay.


I am glad you are pleased with your paint guy. Be sure to share that with others.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

My son has been a rigger for over 10 years so I have heard a lot of stories.

I've been looking for a boat the last few weeks so have some recent experience poking around on a lot of boats.

One possible reason for the disconnect is that many of the the boats we are dealing with are 30+ years old.

Also their are so many systems I have not yet found one single boat where the owner of a 30 year old boat has kept up with everything. I'm sure that some of you own such a boat but I have not seen one yet for sale.

Take one simple example. Catalina 30 needed to replace the steering cable. Had to remove the compass to get to the gear. Their are 4 long (6") screws holding it together. Three came out but one took 3 hours and I still broke it. 

It would be hard to explain to a customer that I spend $300 to remove a screw and still ruined it. If maintenance had been done every few years and the proper anti-seize used maybe it would had come out easily.

It is a bad scene all around.

I'm in the computer business and I often have the same conversation with people. Do you want me to spend from 100 to 500 to attempt to fix your $150 computer or do you want a new one for $700.

If things go the customers way they are happy. If it takes too long they are not happy. If it breaks the next day they are not happy. If they skip my service and their nephew fixes it in five minutes they think I'm a crook.

Some situations are not easily solved to everyone's satisfaction.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

davidpm said:


> I've been looking for a boat the last few weeks so have some recent experience poking around on a lot of boats.


Now that we've solved the problem of dishonest tradesman, back to the boat search; how's it going David?


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

davidpm said:


> My son has been a rigger for over 10 years so I have heard a lot of stories.
> 
> I've been looking for a boat the last few weeks so have some recent experience poking around on a lot of boats.
> 
> ...


Precisely!


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

If a marine service provider performs work with an 80% chance of success first attempt, 1 in 5 customers will most definitely be disappointed or at the very least "concerned".

A percentage of those will immediately call another or DIY, not allow the service provider to address, and bash the service provider relentlessly to all of their friends (fellow boaters who could be possible future clients were it not for this). 

How frequently should the service provider take a chance on a repair having an estimated 80% chance of success?

Should the possible estimated response of the owner play a part in my decision to recommend repair or replacement?

How many owners will attempt repair on the same thing 5 times before blaming it on the part, and relaying to their friends what an excellent DIYer they (when they finally decided to replace the part) are and how bad the marine service industry is?


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

She's been whistling on the burner for a while now.
Probably not much useful steam left to give.
Maybe turn off the fuel and move on....


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I know many bad DIYers, for sure. But, again, if they're paying, the vendor bears the responsibility for good work. Great anecdotes coming the other way and I'm sure they're true. Stil, it's the vendors bag to hold. I find myself in unavoidable positions, from time to time, where my clients are not happy. It's still fully my responsibility, that's why I get paid. I accept it and do what I have to, in order to make them happy. Period. I'm all too often told my the boat yard what I, as the client, need to accept.

At the end of the day, the culture around my neck of woods is clear. There are very, very few boat owners satisfied with the overall quality and reliability of local service. 

In the example of my keel bolts, the vendor refused to even do the book inspection. It was just to drive up the bill and/or satisfy a narcissistic point of view. In fact, years earlier, I asked for the keel joint to be sealed with 4200. He refused and said he had a better product. It didn't work. I insisted on 4200 the following winter and it did work. At least, this same manager admitted he was wrong this once.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

Minnewaska said:


> I know many bad DIYers, for sure. But, again, if they're paying, the vendor bears the responsibility for good work. Great anecdotes coming the other way and I'm sure they're true. Stil, it's the vendors bag to hold. I find myself in unavoidable positions, from time to time, where my clients are not happy. It's still fully my responsibility, that's why I get paid. I accept it and do what I have to, in order to make them happy. Period. I'm all too often told my the boat yard what I, as the client, need to accept.
> 
> At the end of the day, the culture around my neck of woods is clear. There are very, very few boat owners satisfied with the overall quality and reliability of local service.
> 
> In the example of my keel bolts, the vendor refused to even do the book inspection. It was just to drive up the bill and/or satisfy a narcissistic point of view. In fact, years earlier, I asked for the keel joint to be sealed with 4200. He refused and said he had a better product. It didn't work. I insisted on 4200 the following winter and it did work. At least, this same manager admitted he was wrong this once.


Again, it is a two way street.

The owner IF INTERESTED has an obligation to verify the qualifications and competence of the person being hired.

The service provider IF ASKED has an obligation to prove qualification and competence for the job being hired.

If the owner doesn't perform their due diligence, for all they know, the person hired is a desperate boat bum that will accept any type of work if there is a chance to make some money for booze or drugs.

Accepting money for service does not make one a "pro"; could be just a temporarily employed boat bum by someone with terrible hiring skills.

While I'm sure some will not get it, for others, a little more open minded, to improve the quality of the marine service received:

1. Ask (don't tell) what needs to be done?

2. Ask for credential and liability insurance certs?

3. Ask locals who have hired the individual for the same type of work: Was it fast, good, or cheap? (Be suspicious of any claim of all 3.)

4. Ask for a written itemized work order detailing parts and labour estimates.

5. Ask for the job scheduled start date and finish date.

6. Ask what happens if the job takes more (time or money)than estimated.

7. Ask for the warranty in writing.

8. Request to review and approve the revised Work Order, including itemized parts, labour, start and finish date, for any change after initial approval you request, before the new work is performed.

9. Ask which so accredited individual will inspect and sign off on the work, if the person actually performing the work is not duly accredited.

10. Ask what verification / validation will be executed on the service performed.

Or...

Whine incessantly that you keep ending up with a schmo, incapable of completing the work competently, on time and on budget.

The choice is truly yours.

Quite frankly, I don't care what you do on your boat in your neck of the woods.

I'm just trying to help you understand why what you keep doing the same way over and over and over again isn't working.

If you don't wish to listen, keep doing it your way.

Good luck with all your future marine service acquisition endeavours.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

boatsurgeon, this is getting tiring and your perspective is clearly that of a service provider. Owners don't agree with you. When most of the industry stinks, there isn't much choice. As anecdotal evidence, I don't believe any of your posts have received a single like. You're on an island, think about it. Your perspective is representative of the cultural problem.

Owners often do not have the broad choice you suggest, as I've previously detailed. Even with all your suggested research and written estimates, I've still been screwed. You just don't get it and should. This is your client base speaking. Arguing is just proving your lack of understanding.

In fact, I made a agreement with a well known boatyard here, not to publish my written estimate and the resultant bill, if they refunded me to the high estimate. It was a simple cutlass bearing replacement on a p-tube. Nothing complicated, nothing went wrong. The work was done just prior to launch. I was forced to pay the excess bill, as I arrived on a weekend to splash and depart my winter storage marina and the clerk had zero authority, other than they couldn't put the boat in the water with an outstanding invoice.

It's a small community and I later learned that they had an experienced tech supervise a trainee to do the basic job and billed both their hours, therefore, the bill came to about twice the middle of the estimated range.

It took the President of the Company to resolve the matter, when I said I would post the two documents here and let world decide. They would have the opportunity to defend it, if they like, but knew they couldn't. The industry is too accustom to clients that just take the spanking and ask for more. I'm glad this thread is putting a spotlight on it.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

Minnewaska said:


> boatsurgeon, this is getting tiring and your perspective is clearly that of a service provider. Owners don't agree with you. When most of the industry stinks, there isn't much choice. As anecdotal evidence, I don't believe any of your posts have received a single like. You're on an island, think about it. Your perspective is representative of the cultural problem.
> 
> Owners often do not have the broad choice you suggest, as I've previously detailed. Even with all your suggested research and written estimates, I've still been screwed. You just don't get it and should. This is your client base speaking. Arguing is just proving your lack of understanding.
> 
> ...


Dear Minnie, this is getting tiring and your perspective is clearly that of a perpetual victim owner.

Marine Service Providers don't agree with you.

When most of the industry is competent, and you have the choice and power to seek competence out, you continue to hire schmos.

As anecdotal evidence, I don't believe any of your posts on this subject have received a single like (and this is a forum consisting mostly of owners rather than service providers).

You're are a perpetual victim, think about it.

Your perspective is representative of a small portion of the boat owner community.

Owners always have the broad choice I suggest, as I've previously detailed.

You just don't get it and should.

This is a professional marine service provider speaking.

Arguing is just proving your lack of understanding.

So a yard you hired had a proper junior tech training program, was executing it properly, and you decided you should not have to pay the individuals working on your boat, so extorted a refund from the yard.

Thank you for posting this.

Your vessel / handle is now on my "Do not serve" black list.

Good luck with your future marine service acquisition endeavours.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

I think this thread is going around in circles. Many posts are TMI and I'm just skimming them, because it's gotten repetitious.


boatsurgeon said:


> Your vessel / handle is now on my "Do not serve" black list.


That's your prerogative. I'm glad you've got so much business that you can afford to be selective.

For those of us who like to make informed decisions on who we choose to hire, I think it's time for you to make a one-time disclosure of your company information so we'll know who we may be dealing with in the future. It's time for you to stand behind your statements. Otherwise, you may just be another Joe Schmo. The reputation that you're building here could win you some new clients (or not). Keep it discreet (not in your signature) so that you don't violate site advertiser guidelines.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

boatsurgeon said:


> ....Your vessel / handle is now on my "Do not serve" black list...


Ironically unnecessary. Happy to stear clear, if you'll identify the coordinates. I suspect this will prove to be bluster.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

boatsurgeon said:


> Marine Service Providers don't agree with you.


I do.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

boatsurgeon said:


> So a yard you hired had a proper junior tech training program, was executing it properly, and you decided you should not have to pay the individuals working on your boat, so extorted a refund from the yard.


There is so much just plain wrong, but unfortunately increasingly common in today's "customer last" world, in boatsurgeon's latest. But the above quote is what really gets me. A boat owner gets and estimate of the costs, and the yard goes above it, not because the work was more complicated/difficult than estimated, but because the yard chose to staff it in way that benefited them, not the owner. I get the need for jr. training programs, but if you are going to use them, build the costs into your general pricing. There is no excuse for forcing them on an unwilling and unknowing customer. The fact that Boatsugeon thinks this is an acceptable practice is just unfathomable to me; I get that things sometimes cost more than was estimated, and I certainly understand the problem of the customer who just cannot be satisfied. But double-charging someone for work is just dishonest.

If you think otherwise, you should be upfront with your customers "by the way, that estimate I gave you only includes the work of the certified repairman. I also expect to have an apprentice assigned to the work too. His time will be charged separately. Ok?" My guess Boatsurgeon, is that you wouldn't make that kind of disclosure because you know that your customer might well take his business elsewhere.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

mstern said:


> There is so much just plain wrong, but unfortunately increasingly common in today's "customer last" world, in boatpoaker's latest.


I hope you understand I was saying I agree with Minnewaska as I have throughout this thread.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

boatpoker said:


> I hope you understand I was saying I agree with Minnewaska as I have throughout this thread.


My apologies sir. I meant "boatsurgeon". I shall correct it.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

mstern said:


> ....A boat owner gets and estimate of the costs, and the yard goes above it, not because the work was more complicated/difficult than estimated, but because the yard chose to staff it in way that benefited them, not the owner.


That is exactly correct. It's unconscionable that the random assignment of paid trainees, without the client's consent, was argued as proper practice and I was accused of extortion. I was willing to publish the written estimate and the final bill and they were welcome to defend it publicly. That's not extortion, that was transparency. That's a rip off boat yard knowing it couldn't defend it's actions.

I see, after 8 hours, the surgeon isn't willing to identify their boatyard that extols these practices. That sums up the point. Boatyards with this attitude need to operate in the dark.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

mstern said:


> There is so much just plain wrong, but unfortunately increasingly common in today's "customer last" world, in boatsurgeon's latest. But the above quote is what really gets me. A boat owner gets and estimate of the costs, and the yard goes above it, not because the work was more complicated/difficult than estimated, but because the yard chose to staff it in way that benefited them, not the owner. I get the need for jr. training programs, but if you are going to use them, build the costs into your general pricing. There is no excuse for forcing them on an unwilling and unknowing customer. The fact that Boatsugeon thinks this is an acceptable practice is just unfathomable to me; I get that things sometimes cost more than was estimated, and I certainly understand the problem of the customer who just cannot be satisfied. But double-charging someone for work is just dishonest.
> 
> If you think otherwise, you should be upfront with your customers "by the way, that estimate I gave you only includes the work of the certified repairman. I also expect to have an apprentice assigned to the work too. His time will be charged separately. Ok?" My guess Boatsurgeon, is that you wouldn't make that kind of disclosure because you know that your customer might well take his business elsewhere.


OK, so we heard one side of the story.

Here is how the same story might be told by the marina manager, in their "Customer Relations Incident Report".

(YYYY/MM/DD)

The customer was advised that the strut bearing should be replaced. (Many boats are way overdue but the owners have neglected service for way too long, causing all kinds of other expensive consequential damage.)

The estimator provided a cost range (as estimators may properly do, as the boat may be lacking in proper maintenance causing the job to take longer than normal).

The customer approved the estimate and authorized the work be performed.

The manager assigned two workers to the job, a duly qualified person and an apprentice.

Both workers expect to be paid, two heads are better than one, and this type of job is often more easily done by two.

There is also the safety aspect where it is better to have two workers together on a job like this.

The job may be easier, better, and faster done with two workers.

If only one were assigned, the job may have gone over the end of shift and incurred another day's yard fees for the customer to pay.

The job took a little longer than average (perhaps due to an unexpected / unforeseen difficulty).

The job was invoiced accordingly at the higher end of the range estimated, based on the actual time billed for which the workers were paid.

The customer may have heard from "Bad Bill" (another marina client; a past dead beat service customer now blacklisted "do not serve") that there were two people assigned to the job, and that one was doing a lot of standing around, and talking to the other.

As usual, with a bunch of half truths over several alcoholic beverages, he worked the customer into a frenzy.

The customer became increasingly upset that he was not charged the minimum of the range estimated, even though they approved the amount invoiced up front.

The customer threatened our business harm by publishing false statements.

A partial refund was offered in exchange for dropping this threat.

This customer is now blacklisted "gas only; do not perform any other service".

Signed: (Marina Manager)

Now I don't know if their is any real truth to the scenario I have concocted, any more than the post Minnie made from his perspective.

But based on my experience, this could very well be EXACTLY what happened.

Fortunately the actual percentage of (properly screened) customers who behave like this are few and far between, just as few are the occurrences as Minnie has claimed, of wrong doing by marine service pros.

The customer stories I could tell, but won't, as they are not present to defend the issue from their perspective.

Personally, I think Minnie should contact the yard and invite them to comment on this thread, from their perspective.

However, if they are smart they know it unwise to do so on a public forum, where they can be anonymously erroneously blasphemed, causing potential damage to the business, for little chance of gain.

People tend to believe what they wish to believe, regardless of the truth.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Wow. What an imagination. At least you're good at telling stories. 

First, I asked to have the bearing replaced and wanted to give them some work.

Second, the boat was already on the hard. The prop needed to be removed, the bearing pressed out with their hydraulic press, new bearing, reinstall the prop. They did not claim anything went wrong, nor was there really anything that could have in such a simple set up.

Third, you're a pretty poor reader. I said they charged well over the top of the range of the estimate. 

Lastly, I didn't threaten any false statements. I said I would publish both the written estimate and the written invoice. What do you see as false? I would be more than happy to have it out with them here, but I've not identified them, as that's what we agreed. The truth is, I have no legal obligation to non-disclose, as we didn't sign anything. But, I'll keep my word, which is more than I can say for many boatyard and service techs. 

Now again, exactly where is it that you work, so we know what attitude to expect there?


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

They say that sometimes you are the bug and sometimes the windshield. 
I alternate between the two states of being.

Sometimes I'm sending the bill sometimes I'm paying it.

I try to keep in mind the long view of every interaction.

1. I spend a lot of time either communicating or learning the risks and potential costs.
2. I try not to sweat the small stuff. A hundred or two either way on most median size bills is not worth stressing over.
3. If someone questions my bill the second time their will be consequences.
4. If someone overcharges me the second time I may not go back of if I do go back I will very gently make it clear that the cost of the job is important to me. As a vendor I know that some people don't care about the cost and just want what they want when they want it. I'm not one of those people.

In the software business their are three thing: Cost, features, delivery time. As a customer you are lucky if you get two.

I work really hard as as customer or vendor to see things from the other parties point of view and learn and educate as needed. 

Even so I'm only successful about 95% of the time. The 5% I chalk up to education.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

Minnewaska said:


> The prop needed to be removed, the bearing pressed out with their hydraulic press, new bearing, reinstall the prop. They did not claim anything went wrong, nor was there really anything that could have in such a simple set up.


I've done my share of prop shaft bearing replacements and know all kinds of crap can go wrong.

Some of it is owner inflicted, some just circumstantial.

If you believe not, then it is my position that you really don't know much about prop shaft bearing removal and replacement and are not likely a good judge at what a fair and reasonable invoice for same is.

Unless you tell us how much money we are talking about here, I can't really comment on whether it was valid or not.

For a standard strut bearing, $400 labour wouldn't be out of the question. We've had some go as high as $800 due to problems.

(Could be upwards of $2500 for some deadwood mounted bearings, but that shouldn't be the case here.)

The trouble with this whole story is that it is your word against theirs.

Oh wait a minute, they are not here to tell their side.

And we're not getting much for detail about your side.

It could very well be the original invoiced amount was appropriate, and the manager just decided it was less painful to refund than listen to any more incessant, unwarranted whining.

Or, maybe they really did overcharge.

We have no way of knowing without hearing the other side of the story.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

And we still don't know your coordinates to avoid. How come? You say I'm on your no-serve list. 

I haven't named any of these vendors, for them to have to defend themselves here. I know I still have the written estimate and bill, so perhaps I'll go dig it out, but I'm not sure you're worth it. We're talking about the overall state of the industry, with examples, that is a mess. 

If nothing else, this thread is a spot light on how incompetent customer and public relations are. I'm hearing that the service guy is either right, or the client gets banned. Nevertheless, I'm more focused on documented dishonesty, secrecy and changing the clients stated facts that are too common as well.

Think about how this thread goes if a "service provider" says..... "I can't know all the facts, as I wasn't there, but as you describe your experience, that's totally unacceptable." But you didn't. You blamed the client for not doing proper due diligence, then when that backfired, you started making up alternate scenarios in the dark. It's all exactly what I've come to expect from the industry at large. Not all, but most.

You've been asked several times to let us know the business that is proud of your point of view.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

Minnewaska said:


> I haven't named any of these vendors, for them to have to defend themselves here.


You started this discussion by attempting to blaspheme and discredit the entire marine service industry, of which I am a part.

Because I disagreed with your general position and attempted to educate you how to acquire better service, you have attempted to blaspheme and discredit me also.

Therefore, I am not inclined to disclose the company I represent so that you can attempt to discredit and blaspheme that as well.

But you have now asked how many times despite my repeated disregard?

You see, there is a pattern here that you ignore the obvious, and you keep doing the same thing, again, and again, and again, but expecting different results.

So let me be perfectly clear. Which company I represent is totally irrelevant to the general discussion. I choose not to disclose this information. You need to get over it.

I have dealt with all kinds of boating customers.

I have dealt with all kinds of marine service providers.

Based on this, I disagree with your general assessment.

I am merely trying to demonstrate that everything you have posted could be either 100% accurate, 0% accurate, or somewhere in between.

The same holds true for everything I have posted.

I am merely trying to demonstrate that there are 2 sides to every story and when we hear yours, we are hearing only one, cast in the most favourable light you can, to attempt to make your point.

My general belief is that there is good and bad in every industry, and that all one has to do to verify they are dealing with the good, is just a little due diligence.

I have attempted to offer you (and others following) some assistance, based on my alternate perspectives.

Feel free to glean from this whatever benefit you can.

In general, if you are a perpetual victim of poor service, YOU need to change YOUR practices.

Anyone setting foot or laying hands on your vessel to perform service that you have not authorized is trespassing.

The choice of who services your vessel and what their qualifications, competence, integrity, and trustworthiness are, is absolutely, unequivocally, irrefutably, and completely yours.

STOP! shirking your responsibility.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

boatsurgeon said:


> OK, so we heard one side of the story.
> 
> Here is how the same story might be told by the marina manager, in their "Customer Relations Incident Report".
> 
> ...


Boatsurgeon, I am genuinely curious as to your take on this set of facts:

an owner comes in and asks for an estimate on doing some work on his boat. The yard says: "The parts will cost $300, and we estimate that it will take about four hours of labor. We charge $100 per hour for labor." The owner authorizes the work, and the yard bills him $300 for the parts, and $800 for labor. When the owner questions why the labor charges were so high, the yard says "it took four hours; I put two guys on it". The owner is angry; he thought the estimate was $700: $300 for parts and $400 for labor.

Who (if anyone) is at fault in the above?

Was it incumbent on the owner to ask for details how the hourly rates would be charged (i.e., did they mean $100 per hour regardless of how many workers were assigned, or did they mean $100 per man per hour?).

Does the yard have any responsibility to explain that they were going to assign two workers, thereby making the effective rate $200 per hour?

Does it make any difference if the second worker is an apprentice whose presence chiefly benefits the yard and not the owner?


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

mstern said:


> Boatsurgeon, I am genuinely curious as to your take on this set of facts:
> 
> an owner comes in and asks for an estimate on doing some work on his boat. The yard says: "The parts will cost $300, and we estimate that it will take about four hours of labor. We charge $100 per hour for labor." The owner authorizes the work, and the yard bills him $300 for the parts, and $800 for labor. When the owner questions why the labor charges were so high, the yard says "it took four hours; I put two guys on it". The owner is angry; he thought the estimate was $700: $300 for parts and $400 for labor.


By whose definition are these facts?

I believe this is a scenario you have invented and posted based on some information you have interpreted from another posters one-sided view of a customer/marine service provider interaction.

It may be reasonably accurate, or it may be as far from fact as it can possibly be. We simply don't know.

What I can tell you, is that based on my experience, (which is fairly extensive), is that an estimate is exactly that, an educated guess.

For most service providers in any industry, an estimate is not a guarantee of actual invoice amount, regardless what happens over the course of the service provision.

Customers who believe an estimate to be a guaranteed invoice amount, are usually wrong.

One fact that I am most sure of, all of our estimates indicate very clearly that the invoice will be based on actual time and materials.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

boatsurgeon said:


> By whose definition are these facts?
> 
> I believe this is a scenario you have invented and posted based on some information you have interpreted from another posters one-sided view of a customer/marine service provider interaction.
> 
> ...


I'm not trying to trick you into giving an opinion on Minne's problem; I was trying to set out a fact pattern that we both accept as an accurate depiction of a fictional set of circumstances, and see if we agree or disagree on what went wrong, and who, if anyone was at fault. I'd like to get past the "customer is always right" and the "no one understands the yard's difficult circumstances" arguments.

I have no issues with an estimate being just that, an estimate, not a guaranteed price. And I have no issue with paying for services rendered. What I'm trying find out from you is what the parties' respective obligations are in that fact pattern I set out. So, I am asking you what you think about those specific questions in my earlier post.

Btw, I give you credit for coming back here to discuss this topic when you are for the most part getting hammered. I frankly am having trouble believing that your position is that a yard can throw as many people and hours at a job as they want to, and if the customer doesn't like it, he can take his business elsewhere. So I promise not to reflexively take the boat owner's side if you promise not to just defend the yard.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

mstern said:


> I'm not trying to trick you into giving an opinion on Minne's problem; I was trying to set out a fact pattern that we both accept as an accurate depiction of a fictional set of circumstances, and see if we agree or disagree on what went wrong, and who, if anyone was at fault. I'd like to get past the "customer is always right" and the "no one understands the yard's difficult circumstances" arguments.
> 
> I have no issues with an estimate being just that, an estimate, not a guaranteed price. And I have no issue with paying for services rendered. What I'm trying find out from you is what the parties' respective obligations are in that fact pattern I set out. So, I am asking you what you think about those specific questions in my earlier post.
> 
> Btw, I give you credit for coming back here to discuss this topic when you are for the most part getting hammered. I frankly am having trouble believing that your position is that a yard can throw as many people and hours at a job as they want to, and if the customer doesn't like it, he can take his business elsewhere. So I promise not to reflexively take the boat owner's side if you promise not to just defend the yard.


OK, so a couple things:

A) I don't believe I am getting hammered. My perceptions is that one or more of a larger audience, disagree with some of my statements or positions as vehemently as I disagree with some of theirs.

When presenting an alternate perspective, I expect that those pre-disposed to:

A) agree with a position, likely will.

B) disagree with a position, likely will.

c) Look at issues with an open mind, likely will.

B) There is no such thing as a "fact pattern" of potentially fictitious events.

This aside, I will attempt to address the "hypothetical" scenario you posted in a following response.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

I have had a 30yr career in the marine business and within the first year of start up have turned away much more business that I could possibly accept. For many of those years I worked 6 - 7 days per week. Whenever I took a year off to go cruising. I'd turn my phone off. On the way home after a winter down south I'd turn the phone back on and by the end of the the day be fully booked for months.

I attribute my success in this business to three simple things.

1. I show up when I said I would.
2. I do what I said I would do.
3. I charge what I said I'd charge.

On the rare occasion that a job took a lot longer than expected, I ate it.
There have also been times where I reduced my fees when it took a lot less time than I had anticipated.

My ethics and scruples are solid and I sleep well at night. Strangely I'm also sure that the less than optimally skilled people in this business with questionable ethics also sleep well at night but I'd rather do it my way.

PS anyone can track me down quite easily on this forum as I see no need to hide.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

OK, so I tried responding to this hypothetical scenario but there are way too many details missing for the interaction to possibly be successful with any degree of certainty.

I kept finding myself wandering down endless paths, if this then that, which was consuming way more time than I can warrant.

All I can say, is that the hypothetical scenario you posted is highly unlikely to actually happen as posted.

Usually, when there is a customer / service provider relationship breakdown, it is due to a lack of communication resulting in a misunderstanding, by one or both parties.

We have very few relationship break downs. 

Never-the-less, while I absolutely hate doing it, I typically have to fire about 1% of new customers every year. 

So here is how it goes for my marine service business:

1. RFQ received (phone, e-mail, in-person, etc.)
2. Create new customer account or update old.
3. Determine whether to entertain the RFQ. (Do I want this customer and/or their vessel in my customer data base.)
4. If needs unclear, customer interview or vessel inspection.
5. Discuss the possible cost and time ranges.
6. Narrow scope to as well defined as practical.
7. Prepare a Work Order in writing with time, cost ESTIMATES. (All include clear note that invoice is based on actual time and materials.)
8. Customer reviews and approves Work Order.
9. Work commences.
10. Usually the work goes without a hitch, everything goes according to plan, all parties are happy.
11. If at any time it becomes apparent work will not meet the written estimate (time, quality, or cost) we contact the customer to discuss options.
12. If the customer becomes belligerent and abusive instead of being reasonable and trying to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution, we initiate our customer termination process.

We consider that the usual favourable customer responses, repeat business, and customer referrals we receive, are clear indication that we are doing it right.

But based on the attitude of some prospects that fail to pass our customer screening process, I am not surprised at all that they have difficulty "finding good help".

In most general terms, I assume I have done something wrong if a customer believes they have been negatively impacted by interaction with my company.

I generally review the circumstances to determine how such an incident can be avoided in the future. 

9 times out of 10 it is by modifying our customer screening process.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

Not sure I believe boatsurgeon is actually in the marine business.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

boatpoker said:


> Not sure I believe boatsurgeon is actually in the marine business.


I think his motivation is personal.
A smart business does not go down this alley.

Public forums can be dangerous for businesses and need smart people with good judgement leading.
This is now a rabbit hole with no good exit


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Retail is tuff.
I hate it.
Give me B2B all day lomg.
Get emotions out of it


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

RegisteredUser said:


> Retail is tuff.
> I hate it.
> Give me B2B all day lomg.
> Get emotions out of it


My father used to say that all the time when he owned a retail business.
He sold his retail business and opened a wholesale business.
His competitors started offering NET30 or NET60 terms, so he had to do the same.
He then discovered that getting people to pay up is like pulling teeth.
After that he went back to retailing, and was much happier the second time around.

Now he says "give me cash-and-carry all day long."


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Unless someone has actually used BS’s (good shorthand pun) business, there is nothing that could malign it, other that what one of its employees posted here. Says it all that it’s staying dark. Out.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

Minnewaska said:


> Unless someone has actually used BS's (good shorthand pun) business, there is nothing that could malign it, other that what one of its employees posted here. Says it all that it's staying dark. Out.


Well, if my contributions here have not helped you learn how to improve your part in the customer role, I hope it was not a total loss, and did help someone else following.

To summarize:

1. In the customer / marine service provider relationship both parties are on equal footing:

A) The customer has a need and offers money.
B) The service provider has skills and offers time.

2. The customer should expend at least as much effort qualifying the marine service provider, as the marine service provider does the customer.

3. If one believes there are good and bad in every industry, it just makes sense to put in some effort to seek out the good (from the customer and service provider perspective).

4. The customer has the right, privilege, and responsibility to chose who works on their boat. If they repeatedly receive bad service, they need to change their approach.

5. The marine service provider has the right, privilege, and responsibility to assure they are duly capable of performing the work agreed to in a professional manner. If they provide bad service, they need to make it right.

6. If nothing else, I hope everyone learned that in most cases, an estimate is not a guarantee of final cost. If unforeseen happens, or an error in estimate is made, it is still the boater's boat, and they are as responsible for paying for the repair, as the trades person (not just a marine service provider) is of communicating deviation from estimate as early as possible, discussing possible alternatives, and invoicing fairly.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

I have no axe to grind on either side ....but just my own viewpoint.

While I align somewhat with what Minnewaska is saying, it is totally unrealistic to agree with his continued rant on having boatsurgeon expose his address and credentials. To whatthe end.""so he can take potshots at him. If he keeps insisting may he should follow his requirement and post the many contractors he has had issue with. Drop this unreasonable demand of his on a fellow SN member. His continued request on the same issue is growing old. 

It's difficult to assess his comments Minnie he is no expert in running a business and has no qualifications to make recommendations on business practices. Stay in your lane here . However as a consumer of services his points are well taken and are relevent and are his personal experience. 

I do not shared the broad brush painting of an entire industry as being incompetent. I have used Marine contractors and for the most part have a good record as I do my due diligence before using them If Minnewaska has such a poor track record with all these contractors maybe a self inspection on how he chooses them would be a place he should look at. No one can be a constant victim unless you allow yourself to be. Obviously he keeps choosing the wrong person

To his point that there seem to be many issues in the Marine service industry I agree with him. More than there should be


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

To add. I believe that truth in advertising is required. If a boat has leeks saying it's pristine is not true. It is the responsibility of the broker/ owner to insure that....not the buyer. 

If it costs 2000 to fix something , then the figure should be close to that. You need to get your repair person as much as possible. You need to get two opinions if it's a major expenditure. You need to do your due diligence.

When theorists complete you need to inspect it for quality. If it's not up to snuff...complain,,, sue in smalls claim court if necessary.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

chef2sail said:


> To add. I believe that truth in advertising is required. If a boat has leeks saying it's pristine is not true. It is the responsibility of the broker/ owner to insure that....not the buyer.
> 
> If it costs 2000 to fix something , then the figure should be close to that. You need to get your repair person as much as possible. You need to get two opinions if it's a major expenditure. You need to do your due diligence.
> 
> When theorists complete you need to inspect it for quality. If it's not up to snuff...complain,,, sue in smalls claim court if necessary.


What the owner / broker should divulge is quite subjective.

Some sellers will argue, buyer beware, don't divulge anything. They can inspect it all they want.

Some buyers will argue, the seller should divulge everything and anything that is or ever has been wrong with the vessel.

IMHO, as with everything, it depends.

The vessel's list price should reflect the relative condition compared to others of the same make, model, and year, or nearest equivalents.

IMHO, the owner/broker is not ethically obligated to divulge any issue that would be likely to exist on a vessel of that make, model, condition, and list price.

If the list price reflects a Bristol boat, and there's a significant issue, that should be divulged. Someone paying for Bristol should expect Bristol.

If the list price reflects a scrap boat, nothing needs to be divulged. Someone paying for scrap should expect scrap.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

boatsurgeon said:


> Some sellers will argue, buyer beware, don't divulge anything. They can inspect it all they want.
> 
> IMHO, the owner/broker is not ethically obligated to divulge any issue that would be likely to exist on a vessel of that make, model, condition, and list price.


We have a different sense of ethics. I find yours disturbing in a contractor.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

boatsurgeon said:


> ...IMHO, the owner/broker is not ethically obligated to divulge any issue that would be likely to exist on a vessel of that make, model, condition, and list price.....


Wow. Just, wow. This sounds like, FU if you don't find it sucker. Sums up one's integrity right there. This practice is totally illegal in many other industries and should be in this industry too. To wit, without the law, this is what some marine pros argue is normal. Wow. It's in writing too.

Just to clarify another point, the only reason I would like to know where you work is that you posted, in a public forum, that I was banned there. Hard to steer clear, if I don't know. But I do understand why you don't disclose. If you don't own the place, you might be fired for branding the place with these ethics.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

Minnewaska said:


> Wow. Just, wow. This sounds like, FU if you don't find it sucker. Sums up one's integrity right there. This practice is totally illegal in many other industries and should be in this industry too. To wit, without the law, this is what some marine pros argue is normal. Wow. It's in writing too.


Hmmm...

You don't seem to understand:

1. The purchaser / seller relationship.

2. The purchaser / marine surveyor relationship.

3. The purchaser / seller / broker relationship.

4. The owner / marine service provider relationship.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Personal Attack removed per SailNet Forum Rules- Jeff_H SailNet Moderator

Dude, it is time for you to start taking responsibility for performing your own due diligence and stop expecting everyone else to do it for you.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

boatpoker said:


> We have a different sense of ethics.


Yes, I believe we do have very different ethics.

With respect to self promotion, I allow the quality and value of my work to speak for itself.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

boatsurgeon said:


> What the owner / broker should divulge is quite subjective.
> 
> Some sellers will argue, buyer beware, don't divulge anything. They can inspect it all they want.
> 
> ...


That's exactly why people have a negative opinion ok for the Marine industry.

I totally disagree. Certainly posting 10 year old pictures is not something you consider ethical?


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

chef2sail said:


> That's exactly why people have a negative opinion ok for the Marine industry.
> 
> I totally disagree. Certainly posting 10 year old pictures is not something you consider ethical?


I don't know the actual circumstances and cannot confirm or deny exactly how old the photo was, nor if the photo was clearly date stamped, or if there was some statement in the ad like, "If interested, call today for more recent photos."

In general...

If the photo accurately represented the boat, I guess it really wouldn't make much difference.

Nobody in their right mind should make a purchase decision based on ad photos alone.

One can complain about this reality until they are blue in the face, but it is the way it is, and always has been, and always will be, so I guess it is a complete waste of energy.

I expect ad photos to represent actual boat condition, to the same degree I expect photos to accurately reflect wave height.

I've looked at enough to come to expect that the boat always looks better in the photos than it does in real life, so I am never shocked at the difference, when I go to see it.

It would be foolish for the advertiser to not use photos that make the boat look nice and instead use photos that make the boat look bad.

No need to target the marine industry on this, it is true of every advertisement for every item for sale.

Tis the basic premise of advertising.

Attempt to make it appear as an excellent value for money, so prospective buyers will come to buy it.

I have yet to see an ad in any industry state, "The photos make the item look way better than it really is. If you expect it to look like this in real life, don't bother."

Most manufacturers use very expensive professional commercial photographers to take their product photos.

Why?

To make the product look as good in the ad as they possibly can.

Is this wrong?

Well, the purchaser may believe so.

From the seller's perspective?


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

No self promotion required and no need to hide in anonymity. 
I retired three years ago and now only survey occasionally for fun but with an ethic that you clearly do not understand so I will cease trying to educate you.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

boatpoker said:


> No self promotion required and no need to hide in anonymity.


Personal Attack removed per forum rules- Jeff_H SailNet Moderator


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

boatsurgeon said:


> No self promotion?!!?!?!?!
> 
> Personal Attack removed per forum rules- Jeff_H SailNet Moderator .


Still afraid to come out of the dark ?
You win, Im tired of this. let me know if you come out of hiding, I may come back in.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

boatsurgeon said:


> ......C'mon fess up, you are really a 12 year old kid playing on your iPhone pretending to be a boat owner, aren't you?.....


Talk about being childish. Sign of losing the debate.

My point about the industry at large has been well made in this thread, and you made it.


----------



## Tanski (May 28, 2015)

I have a very sneaky suspicion Peterborough Ontario.


----------



## aa3jy (Jul 23, 2006)

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1874798992829908&id=8059908374


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

Minnewaska said:


> My point about the industry at large has been well made in this thread, and you made it.


My point is that some people who complain about others, either personally or as a larger group, are at least in part to blame for their own actions or lack thereof, and you made it.


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

During the second World War, it was quite common along the battle front to see both sides at peace for Xmas.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

paulinnanaimo said:


> During the second World War, it was quite common along the battle front to see both sides at peace for Xmas.


Point well made.

Best of the season to all.

Peace.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

paulinnanaimo said:


> During the second World War, it was quite common along the battle front to see both sides at peace for Xmas.


Merry Christmas to all.


----------



## boatsurgeon (Dec 6, 2018)

I extend my apologies to the forum for engaging in this type of banter.

As a professional marine service provider with over 30 years or related education, training, and experience in all facets of boat maintenance, repair, and improvement, I should be able to deploy my thick skin shields for protection against flame throwers and spreaders, and always take the high road.

It is my promise to everyone here to try harder.

For the record, I choose not to include my personal and business name, as my intent on this forum is not for self promotion.

Responding to forum posts in attempt to provide a valid point of view from the perspective of an active, successful marine service provider, has a real cost of approximately $1.50 / minute to my business in lost revenue potential.

Why do I do it?

It is part of our boating community public service program.

Unfortunately, I find it necessary to protect my business, livelihood, and family well-being from the intentional harm that some may attempt to inflict, without having any first hand knowledge of my character and quality of work, just to bolster their own ego, or attempt to put their position in a better light, by launching a character assassination, when their is no logical defense remaining.

My website does illustrate our technical capabilities, the quality of our work, and the various ways we can help boaters who require / desire professional marine service. 

There is absolutely no reference to competitors or any perceived lack of quality in their work in a medium which I control and to which they would have no avenue to challenge or rebut in any way.

I believe this does display a high degree of integrity and character, in that we can effectively promote our business on the merit of the quality and value of our work, rather than by attempting to disparage competitors.

Since I cannot provide the link for the reasons stated above, you will have to decide for yourself if I can be trusted and you can take my word on this.


----------

