# high quality yacht brands?



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I know that this is very subjective, and most of us love our own boats, but I was wondering what brands of cruising boats do you consider very high quality overall? Aside from Swans and Hinckleys, what are in the upper eschelon (sp?) of boat brands? (not asking about custom built or superyachts)


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Cabo Rico, Island Packet, Morris, gozzard, Halberg-Rassy, Najad, Sweden yachts, Malo, Regina af Vindo and a lot more.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Ah, thanks. I just didnt know. Oh, and I forgot Trintella.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Yes you can join Trintella, Breehorn ,bowman, Fantasi, Faurby, Finngulf, Hans Christian, Maxi, Moody, Ionic, Nauticat, Nordship, Shannon, Oyster and a lot more.

If you already know, why do you ask? That''s not nice Dr Mattito. What do you want?.


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

In addition to above, I would include: Little Harbor, Alden, Pacific Seacraft, Shannon, Able, Camper & Nicholsons . . . Siltala/Nauticat (mine ;-)


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

Sorry for the redundancy PCP . . . similtaneous posts.


----------



## Denr (Feb 7, 2001)

What about Hunter Catalina and Beneteau?


----------



## Silmaril (Feb 22, 2003)

X-yachts, ETAP, Wauquiez, Seaquest, J-boats, Saber, etc...

Oh and Denr, you forgot Bavaria!


----------



## Silmaril (Feb 22, 2003)

Opps, almost forgot...

Wally!!!!


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

I would say that we have 4 different categories regarding price and quality.

1- Completely custom boats like Camper and Nicolson or Alden yachts.

2- Low production semi-custom boats like Najad, Malo, Morris, Cabo Rico or Contest.

3- High quality production boats like Tartan, Sabre, Dehler, wauquiez, x-yachts, J-boats.

4- Big production sail boats . Boats that are made in large numbers to a price, like Bavaria, Hanse, Dufour,Hunter, Catalina, Harmony or Beneteau.


----------



## SailorMitch (Nov 18, 2005)

Dr. Mattito,

Now that you have several opinions on this topic, would you mind telling us what you''re trying to get at? Are you trying to select your next boat, or is this just for general edification? Your post reminds me of one several years ago now by a certain Capt. Denr in which he posed a question along the lines of "if you had a million dollars to spend what boat would you pick?"

Just curious what you''re trying to accomplish?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I grew up sailing but didnt pay a lot of attention to most boat brands when I was a kid, save a few that I would see on a regular basis in Galveston Bay.

My father and I are getting back into sailing again after an 8 year hiatus and he suggested looking at an Island Packet. I had no idea as to whether that was a quality cruising yacht or not. 

It made me start thinking...what are the very high quality cruising yachts out there? I simply don''t know. Maybe if I were an avid reader of Cruising World or Yachting magazines I wouldn''t have had to start this thread. 

This was not meant to be a "if you had a million dollars" thread, and if that is the case, I am sorry. This was only for my own education so that I would know what brands are considered some of the highest quality cruising yacts. I have looked at some of the boats online after gettting the responses, and I have to say that Malo is one of the most beautiful brands of boat that I have ever seen.


----------



## SailorMitch (Nov 18, 2005)

Malo''s are beautiful, and for what it''s worth, Nigel Calder (check out his books if you''ve been away from sailing that long) is having a Malo built for himself. His prior boat was a Pacific Seacraft. He knows boats and doesn''t pick junk!

As for Island Packets -- people either love them or hate them. Your call. I wouldn''t own one but that''s just me. As I often say on here -- other opinions may vary.

Lots of choices out there, many questions to ask yourself, and decisions to make. Will you mainly day sail, go for weekend trips, week long trips, etc.? Coastal cruising, or blue water? How many people? How much $$$ do you want to spend? Lots of basic stuff you need to think about.

Good luck!


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I am not sure that I would recommend an Island Packet as a boat to get ''back into sailing on''. There has been a lot of discussion about these boats on this and other sites, and what ever else you might say about IP''s they are not terribly responsive sailors and certainly not a particularly good choice for a boat to hone skills on.

As to your bigger question as to what manufacturer''s offer a quality boat, I think at the heart of it is the bigger question, "What is your definition of quality?". Here there are bound to be a wider range of opinions than one might think. To me a major piece of what makes a boat a ''quality boat'', has to do with the engineering and the choice and use of materials that goes into the final boat. A piece of what makes a quality boat in my opinion deals with sailing ability and ergonomics. In that regard a lot of boats that seem to routinely get the ''quality boat''
seal of approval in the court of general opinion really do not fit my own criteria for what makes a quality boat. It is the really lousy ergonomics of the deck plans and sailing ability of the Island Packet combined with their somewhat crude engineering that would take them off of my list of quality vessels. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I have perceived that individual priorities are the key ingredient precipitating the wide variance of opinions about what defines a quality yacht. Some focus on tradition and are attracted to older designs based on wooden boats with split rigs and sprits. Along this path, others appreciate the craftsmanship of fine joinery and designs that give a nod to tradition but acknowledge contemporary developments in keel/hull form and aerodynamics, albeit with little regard to weight reduction. Beyond this divide, many emphasize the more reductive trend of function over form. They perceive that a sailboat is “a priori” designed to sail and appreciate the latest engineering efforts in hull form and rig design, producing yachts with great structural integrity and the highest performance ability. 

I submit that there are yacht builders of the highest quality who produce examples of each of these yacht forms. I think PCP summarized the categories very well in an earlier post to this thread, from a cost perspective. However, from a design perspective it is a different discussion.

Certainly, one must understand what he expects his yacht to do. The term “quality” can be applied to anything from an all out racer to a high latitude global cruiser and every degree of cross breed in between, AND one could find a quality yacht to fit the bill.

Inquiring about “quality” sailboats introduces a form of bigotry originating from the biases of sailors communicating personal preferences based on their own experiences. It offers little basis upon which to compare sailboats until one’s personal preferences are known. -Phil


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Nice post Phil.

I certainly agree with you when you say: "I have perceived that individual priorities are the key ingredient precipitating the wide variance of opinions about what defines a quality yacht."

But when you say "...many emphasize the more reductive trend of function over form. They perceive that a sailboat is “a priori” designed to sail and appreciate the latest engineering efforts in hull form and rig design, producing yachts with great structural integrity and the highest performance ability. "

I would like to add that a sailboat, except if it is a pure racer, is not only designed to sail, but also to live aboard. The quality and comfort of that life aboard and the autonomy of the boat will also influence its form, not only the interior, but also the hull shape.

And about sailing, there are many differences in the kind of sailing (traveling). There are the ones that want to go as fast as possible with a full crew, others want good speed but a boat that can be easily solo sailed, others want maximum comfort in a seaway others an optimized safety, for the size of the boat. There are a lot of compromises to be made (in hull shape and rig), originating completely different boats, depending on the assumed different priorities. 

The only disagreement (possibly) with you has to do with this statement:"..."others appreciate the craftsmanship of fine joinery and designs that give a nod to tradition but acknowledge contemporary developments in keel/hull form and aerodynamics, albeit with little regard to weight reduction."

It seems to me that you think that weight (mass), besides the one needed to give the boat stability) is always a bad factor in a sail boat.

Although I agree that mass is always a bad factor in a racer or even in a cruiser-racer, it is not (in my opinion) in a pure cruising boat with priorities aimed to have an easy motion, maximum safety and lots of autonomy. 

And I am not the only one thinking that way. Take as an example the new Swan 46. Swan are well known by their high-tec, luxurious cruiser racers (but also winning ocean racers), but recently they went to the old cruising roots and made a purely cruising boat, the 46.

The boat displaces 39 000 lbs. Compare it with the displacement of the Swan 45, a cruiser racer that comes in two versions : in the more racing version, 19 150 lbs and in the "cruiser" version, 23 920 lbs. The extra weight of the 46 doesn’t find its motive on a question of money ( kind of thinking – lighter, more expensive) because those guys don''t look at costs, just quality (both boats cost over $700 000, being the 45 the "cheapest". 

It is obvious that the Nautor Company technicians believe that mass has an important role to play in a purely cruising boat and they surely know what they are doing, having lots of experience with racing and cruising boats.


Paulo


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Paulo- If you believe “that a sailboat, except if it is a pure racer, is not only designed to sail, but also to live aboard. The quality and comfort of that life aboard and the autonomy of the boat will also influence its form, not only the interior, but also the hull shape”, then this statement goes far in defining your preferences in the yacht design continuum. It becomes apparent to me that creature comforts play at least an equal roll to sailing performance in your ideal boat. The degree to which one is willing to allow interior accommodations to influence hull shape, for example, goes a long way toward establishing priorities and establishing criteria to meet individual needs. Some may, and do, reverse this equation. 

As you say, it is absolutely true that there are many kinds of sailing, or traveling, that people wish to do. This is precisely my point, that there are quality yachts built for various intended purposes. One cannot define quality simply in terms of design type. They are separate subjects, often intermingled in these discussions. And to make matters more complex, within these types of sailing purpose, there are divergent design aesthetics that appeal to individual sensibilities differently. Ergo, Malo may build a quality yacht, but all quality yachts are not necessarily built like a Malo, or like Swan, or whatever other brand we may name. “Quality” is a difficult to discuss in general terms. We tend to define it based on taste, aesthetic appeal and personal preference. We know it when we see it, but it’s real tough to achieve complete consensus. The discussion would be easier if it were first reduced to boats of a specific purpose so that we are all talking about the same thing. Or else ask the question; “What traits are common to all high quality sailboats, regardless of purpose?” 


One maxim I do believe to be universally true is that excess weight above the waterline is always bad. Ballast weight should be maximized as deeply as possible while all other displacement contributors should be minimized to the extent it is possible within the design parameters. What the optimum ballast / displacement ratio should be is a little beyond this discussion, but any increase in displacement, other than ballast, creates a chain reaction which feeds upon itself; necessitating more powerful sails, which require even more ballast for stability, which demands stouter structures, which add more weight yet… you’ve heard it all before. 

The intuitive argument has often been made that increased displacement produces better motion comfort. Some also feel that it’s necessary for robust construction. Both of these claims are false. I do not believe that Swan intentionally built the 46 to be heavier, only that they were appealing to customers with different priorities. Luxury equipment and solid wood joinery are not light and the people who are drawn to this yacht place a higher priority upon these things than sailing performance, simple as that. They did not make the boat heavier to improve motion or strength. 

As it has been stated here before, if you are willing to pay for greater displacement, which is another way of saying “a bigger boat”, and you wish to maximize motion comfort, buy a longer waterline length instead. You will get more interior space and greater speed as a free bonus! If you care little about these things and wish luxurious appointments and systems galore, buy a Swan 46. My guess is that either of the Swan 45s will be much faster, more comfortable and easier to sail too, but I certainly don’t know that from the experience. Priorities, my friend. -Phil


----------



## catamount (Sep 8, 2002)

"What traits are common to all high quality sailboats, regardless of purpose?"

That''s easy: ($),$$$,$$$!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I have been reading with interest about the cruising yachts. Two days ago I passed an Island Packet - he had all sails up, I had mine reefed. I guess my boat is faster. Point is commparissons- my boat is heavier then most, but sails well too. I do not rock at anchor like the "corks" that are sometimes around me. So racing means one thing, cruising means another. About cruising sailboats, sometimes older is better. An older boat in good shape survives the daily use of crusining, offers tougher interiors and the designers gave thought to day after day use, where a racer might not have many creature comforts. 
If this thread is about new boats, well great, but older ones might offer more to the cruiser. By the way, I own a Passport 40, and its fabulous for living on board!


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Phil and pmills, Dr Matito remains silent about what he wants so I am going to continue this agreeable discussion in another thread that is basically about the same issue that we are discussing, I mean the one on General Discussion: "How heavy is too heavy".

I want only to tell Phil that he misinterpreted me. 

You have said, quoting me:

"Paulo- If you believe “that a sailboat, except if it is a pure racer, is not only designed to sail, but also to live aboard. The quality and comfort of that life aboard and the autonomy of the boat will also influence its form, not only the interior, but also the hull shape”, then this statement goes far in defining your preferences in the yacht design continuum. It becomes apparent to me that creature comforts play at least an equal roll to sailing performance in your ideal boat. "

No, you are just guessing and you can not assume this from what I have said, and your guess is wrong.

About autonomy ( meaning by that, capacity to cross oceans or sail in remote areas with a family, or staying away from marinas), for that you need big water and fuel tanks, lots of supplies.

Let''s imagine that we are talking about a 38ft cruiser racer. Normally a boat like that is designed to carry around 100L of fuel and 150 of water. If you put in that boat a normal capacity for an ocean cruising boat, let''s say 350L of fuel and 400L of water, you are increasing (and only in this particular) the weight of the boat in 500kgs. If you join the weight of four or five people, more the weight of the supplies, dinghy, ocean life raft, extra batteries and electronic equipment, you are going to see that the maximum carrying weight of the boat (manufacturer defined), that in a boat of this type is around 1000kgs is exceeded for more than 50%. If you put all this extra weight in the flat hull of a cruiser racer (that is not designed for it) you are going to end up with a sluggish and probably dangerous boat, a boat that will not sail well. 

If you start with a Halberg- Rassy, that comes standard with that kind of tank capacity and is designed to have, for the same size, more than the double of the carrying capacity, you end up with a boat that sails well and with a boat that is doing precisely the thing that it is designed to do.

Of course, the hull of a cruiser racer is different from the one belonging to a modern ocean cruising boat, and that has to do (not only, but also) with the weight each boat can carry and that has to do with the autonomy of each boat. That is what I mean.
(I know, from other post, that you think that if you need more carrying capacity, one should buy a longer boat, not a heavier boat. I think there are a lot of reasons to have a boat limited in size and I will clarify that view in another post.)




About hull shape and "quality and comfort of the life aboard", you thought that I was talking about "interior accommodations to influence hull shape", and that would never cross my mind. I was thinking in being able to cook and eat with the boat in motion, or not being thrown off the bed, not to speak of using the WC…. that kind of thing.

I was saying that a hull shape of a cruising boat is not exclusively determined by speed issues (sailing as fast as possible), but also thought and shaped to give a comfortable motion, that permits some degree of comfort of the life aboard (traveling).

Paulo


----------



## CapeCodSailor (Mar 29, 2005)

Where does a Watkins rate?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Pretty close to the bottom. Watkins offered a lot of boat for the money, but they were not all that well built and their designs tended to be pretty mediocre.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## trecksail (Dec 2, 2004)

Jeff,

What about the C&C''s?(late 60''s early 70''s - 34'' or 36'') From the info I''ve found they seem to be well built, quick, and well designed. (deck, cockpit, cabin layout)


----------



## Grigrigrigoris (Jan 11, 2002)

Any detailed opinions about the Moodys? Jeff, I am wondering which model of sailing boat you have and why you chose the particular one.

Grigoris


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I am not much of a fan of the Angus Primrose era Moody''s but the newer boats seem to be pretty good boats. They seem to be nicely finished. I have not especially liked their interior layouts and I am not a fan of aft cabins on boats as small as Moody tries to put them. Most of the ones that I have seen in the States have interiors that are biased towards coastal cruising. 

I own a Farr 11.6 (Farr 38).The Farr 11.6 (Farr 38) were built as cruiser/racers and in their day they were extremely fast compared to other 38 footers that could be cruised. Compared to cruiser/racers of that era, they were very light. With a design weight of only 10,600 lbs., they were somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4''s of the weight of a normal 38 foot coastal cruiser of that era. In some ways these were boats with a split personality. Sisterships of my boat are distance cruising all over the world. My boat, for example, was single-handed in from South Africa on her own bottom. Yet, when these were new boats, Farr 11.6’s were also winning races in a wide range of venues. 

My boat was designed at an interesting point in Bruce Farr''s and yacht design history. Farr, like many top designers, had been designing race boats to compete under the IOR racing rule and had done so quite successfully. But in late 1970’s and early 1980''s designers and racers were becoming disillusioned with boats optimized for the IOR rule. These early 80’s IOR boats were comparably slow, tender and difficult to sail especially in heavy conditions or with short crews. Designers began designing large one-design, offshore capable, keel-boats that were designed to be well rounded designs and which were not specifically optimized to any racing rule. For example this is the era that saw the introduction of boats like J-36/35, Express 37 and Santana 36. Into that climate, Bruce Farr designed the Farr 11.6. The boat was a big hit in New Zealand and South Africa with well over a 125 of these boats built in a very short period worldwide. 

In a lot of ways she was also a typical family cruiser built for use in New Zealand. From what I understand, the New Zealanders have a culture that is more accepting of the idea of cruising carefully engineered, very light weight boats. During this era Bruce Farr designed a whole range of very fast cruising boats that were similar in concept to the 11.6 but ranging from 21 feet up to 60 footers. Even in the early 1980''s, these fast cruisers offered a lot of carrying capacity for their dry weight, had surprisingly comfortable motions and were quite stable as compared to the light boats that we knew at that time in the northern hemisphere. 

The engineering on my boat is amazing. The 11.6 has a comparatively thin skin for that day, (heavy by modern standards) supported on closely spaced framing. The boat has a series of closely spaced, hand glassed longitudinal stringers that run the length of the boat and terminate at a squash block at the bow knuckle. Depending on where you are in the boat, there are transverse framing or a structural bulkhead every 20” to 30”, The framing around the keel area consists of massive glassed in transverse frames. These are incredible stiff and sturdy boats that really seem to stand up to a lot of abuse. 

Today she is pretty slow when compared to modern race boats. But she was in many ways the last of the last generation of boats that could be raced or cruised in a wide range of conditions. She is remarkably easy to handle single-handed and in a heavy breeze. She points well for a cruising boat and is very fast in a wide range of conditions. Although light in weight, her hull form and weight distribution makes the Farr 11.6 surprising comfortable in rough going. I have been very pleased with her sailing ability right across the board. She is moderately well balanced with a very light helm, but unlike some of the newer boats, she does not track all that well. As a result I tend to use the autopilot when covering distance. With her light helm these boats do very well with streering vanes. (My boat had one which was removed when she came to the States. )

For me, one of the big draws to this boat is her fractional rig which I look at as being the ideal offshore and shorthanded rig for a boat of this size. 

The previous owner had almost exclusively raced her and so she has a lot of good racing gear but when I bought her cruising systems were in serious need of updating and I have been slowly converting her back into more of a cruiser and less of a racer. The interior layout is clearly designed around offshore passage making rather than coastal cruising and her stock tankage is a bit on the small size. 

I do not think that these are an ideal boat for everyone. I think that these are great high performance singlehanders or for couples who will accept a pretty spartan boat for a bit of extra performance. I am not sure that I would classify her as a high quality yacht but she works for me. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Moody, like a lot of top high quality boat manufacturers could not cope with the prices of big production sailboats manufacturers and stopped making small sailing boats.
They have stopped making the 38 and the 42 in 2003 and are now focused in making big luxury oceangoing boats.
Smaller second hand boats have a good value in the market, are well built and are good oceangoing boats. They are also adapted to live aboard. 
They are not fast boats, but all is relative (If you compare them with an Island Packet, they are fast).
I particularly like the recent production of the 38. Nice interior in a good looking boat.

Paulo


----------



## windship (May 4, 2002)

Norseman 447

Dennis


----------



## Brian Murphy (May 7, 2012)

Has anybody got a Nordship 40DS?


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

PCP said:


> I would say that we have 4 different categories regarding price and quality.
> 
> 1- Completely custom boats like Camper and Nicolson or Alden yachts.
> 
> ...


Don't agree with some your choices....

J-boats - anyone who mounts winches through balsa core could not be considered high quality.

Tartan - More marketing than quality. Have you followed any of the law suits and horror story threads on this forum (the best of which were deleted a couple of years ago).

Island Packet - Anyone who uses concrete and scrap metal for ballast (including old re-bar and what looked like the damper plate from my 1967 Chevy Nova) should not be considered high quality.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

Pretty old thread but also fairly timeless. When I talk about a "quality boat" I think in terms of engineering and build quality. Design/performance aspects aren't really a part of "quality" to my mind. There are lots of ugly, stripped out quality race boats, just as there are lots of beautiful, slow, quality cruising boats.

Is a Ferrari higher or lower quality than a Rolls Royce? How about a Cadillac Escalade compared to a Chevy Suburban?

On a side note, the Scandinavian boats listed made me think - are there *any* low or middling quality boats produced in the Scandinavian countries? I sure don't know of any.


----------



## MarkSF (Feb 21, 2011)

You forgot to mention Bristol.


----------

