# Tartan / C&C issues



## MarkSchu

Hello all- I am obviously new to the forum so be kind. I have just come back to sailing after finally getting my family interested. As of yet I only charter boats, but as most of you can understand, I have boat fever almost continuously. Although I was only interested in a coastal cruiser like a beneteau or catalina since I wasn't going to be doing much open water cruising, a friend has me gotten me interested in perfomance boats, and after some research I really like C&C 99 or 110....unfortunately, I have been reading about some hull failures here and at other internet sites. My question from you more experienced folks is: how bad is this problem? Would I be better off buying a boat 1-2 years old to make sure it doesn't have the problem?

Thanks for your help...and sorry if this is the wrong place to post this question.


----------



## Giulietta

Are you crazy????

Don't you know you can't say the T word?? or the C word????

Are you really willing to "disappear"???

Vito Corleone will come after you....PLEASE..PLEASE...don't mention hull failure and T ot C word in the same sentence....you'll be shot down like a dog....


----------



## Jeff_H

I would think that you would be better buying a 3-4 year old boat so that there is a better chance that problems with the laminate would begin to show to a very competent marine surveyor.

Jeff


----------



## MarkSchu

Giulietta said:


> Are you crazy????
> 
> Don't you know you can't say the T word?? or the C word????
> 
> Are you really willing to "disappear"???
> 
> Vito Corleone will come after you....PLEASE..PLEASE...don't mention hull failure and T ot C word in the same sentence....you'll be shot down like a dog....


Thanks for the help.


----------



## MarkSchu

*Thanks.*



Jeff_H said:


> I would think that you would be better buying a 3-4 year old boat so that there is a better chance that problems with the laminate would begin to show to a very competent marine surveyor.
> 
> Jeff


Jeff - I guess from reading the giulietta's response I hit a nerve. I have done lots of searches on this and other forums. I cannot tell if this issue is an isolated event with a very vocal minority or a real significant issue. That was the basis of my question to you oldsters on the board. Again, I apologize if this issue has been discussed to death previously...I am just trying to get the straight scoop.


----------



## T34C

From what I have been able to observe, your first thought is the most likely. I think the issues have involved a handful of boats and are isolated incidents. However, I would not purchase a new Tartan or C&C. I say that because of the financial issues the company appears to be facing rather than a because of a quality problem.
Just my $ .02


----------



## Giulietta

Mark...we had a pretty good thread here, about that..that thread disappeared mysteriously. I have reasons to suspect why, but I am just me...and it's not Sailnet's fault.

THERE ARE ISSUES with newer boats and delamination. That is all I am saying.

I saw real boats with real issues, not photos on a web page.

If it was me...I'd buy another boat, or and old T or C, before the year 1999.

Sorry can't say more....I see Tom Hagen coming down the road in a black Packard..gotta go...


----------



## blt2ski

The 110's were made of typical glass until about 02. Some of the Tartans were also made of glass from 99 to about 02-03 that were made by the current ownership fof T&C. For me any how, boats made from about 05 or there abouts on in epoxy, I would worry to a point re the delam issues, and one that I know of with a gray deck instead of the bright white that it should be, due to more than likely a color mix issue at the factory, with that owner getting a number of different and funky reasons as to why it is gray, not white. 

The 99's and 115's were all made of epoxy, not sure about the 121's, then you are not asking about them.

Other wise, to a degree, it will be buyer beware, as Novus has tried to sell the T&C lines assets to another buyer, they backed out. Leaving owners with out a warrenty, along with leaving the debts to the old company etc. 

I also believe that if you really search, the BIG thread in the buyer area is still there.

Marty


----------



## MarkSchu

Thanks to all. I did find the big thread but really couldn't make out how bad the situation was...thanks for the input and again, I apologize for asking this old somewhat redundant question. It is sad that brand with an otherwise seaworthy history seems to be in such trouble.


----------



## blt2ski

Actually Mark,

If C&C any how does go BK, it would NOT be the first time, the original owners BK'd twice, first time due to a fire?!?! next due to other issues, that is when Novus bought the name etc, and started up within the Tartan group. This is the short 1-2 sentence history, I am sure if you really wanted the history, there is probably a web page with it, maybe eve in Wikapedia.

marty


----------



## T34C

mark- How about a nice Classic Tartan????? I mean really, who wants one of those new fangled POS's?

BTW- have you looked at Sabre?


----------



## MarkSchu

Actually sabre is my first choice...C&C was an option because of price and better performance. A Sabre 386 is now what I am saving for.!!!


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Mark,
I bought a new Tartan 3700 this year, and could not be more satisfied with its sailing performance and overall quality. Before buying, I compared it to the Sabre 386. I preferred the Tartan because of the rig, interior accommodation, and overall quality. We really like the carbon rig. It has a self-tacking sail, roller furling reacher and a pocket boom that makes handling of the main really easy. The Tartan staff has given us good support. We enjoy the boat.


----------



## sailortjk1

Jim, I have a question for you.
Were you aware of the many ongoing litigations that Tartan and C&C are involved in before you made your purchase? 
Have you had any warrenty issues that require addressing?


----------



## T34C

MarkSchu said:


> Actually sabre is my first choice...C&C was an option because of price and better performance. A Sabre 386 is now what I am saving for.!!!


Might take a look at the 362. We have one inour harbor. Very nice boat and rates faster than the 386.


----------



## Giulietta

JimWitherspoon said:


> Mark,
> I bought a new Tartan 3700 this year, and could not be more satisfied with its sailing performance and overall quality. Before buying, I compared it to the Sabre 386. I preferred the Tartan because of the rig, interior accommodation, and overall quality. We really like the carbon rig. It has a self-tacking sail, roller furling reacher and a pocket boom that makes handling of the main really easy. The Tartan staff has given us good support. We enjoy the boat.


So...you decide to start posting now..and on this thread....curious..never saw you here before...I find that odd..your first post...I don't know...

In the one Tartan thread that disappeared..we had a lot of "satisfied" owners that posted only there, only once...almost looked like an "inside" job...and same speech...

Are you an "insider"??? Who are you? Can I see your boat sailing??

How do we know you are a legit owner and no someone (with side interests) pretending to be one??

To me...you are not who you pretend to be....I got caluses now..I figured it all.....

What I think Tartan did with Sailnet is a shame....but I think they forced Sailnet to remove that thread...

Sorry..gotta go....el Don is coming....


----------



## JohnRPollard

Giulietta said:


> What I think Tartan did with Sailnet is a shame....but I think they forced Sailnet to remove that thread...


*WHAT!?*

You are kidding me! Please tell me this is not true.

That thread was chock full of useful information for anyone considering a new Tartan.

Moderators, care to comment?


----------



## T34C

JohnRPollard said:


> *WHAT!?*
> 
> You are kidding me! Please tell me this is not true.
> 
> That thread was chock full of useful information for anyone considering a new Tartan.
> 
> Moderators, care to comment?


Enquiring minds really want to know.


----------



## Cruisingdad

*Tartan Thread*

Until we can comment, we won't. We hope to be able to give you some direction on this by tomorrow afternoon, but the matter is out of our hands.

Do not expect or ask for any more of a response until then. You won't get one from any of us.

- CD


----------



## JohnRPollard

Cruisingdad said:


> Until we can comment, we won't. We hope to be able to give you some direction on this by tomorrow afternoon, but the matter is out of our hands.
> 
> Do not expect or ask for any more of a response until then. You won't get one from any of us.
> 
> - CD


Well, that doesn't mean the rest of us can't comment.

That thread contained a healthy debate about the merits of Tartans new construction methods and materials, problems that some owners encountered, issues with warranty service, and serious financial questions about the solvency of the company -- evidenced by legal judgments and failed M&A activity.

No disrespect to you CD, or any of the moderators, but this censorship is a load of CRAP.

I've got news for Tartan. That thread better reappear or every time anyone asks about advice concerning a new Tartan purchase, I am going to urge them in the strongest language possible to avoid dealing with the company. And this is coming from someone that WAS seriously considering purchasing one of their larger models.


----------



## bubb2

You go John!!!


----------



## bubb2

Cruisingdad said:


> Until we can comment, we won't. We hope to be able to give you some direction on this by tomorrow afternoon, but the matter is out of our hands.
> 
> Do not expect or ask for any more of a response until then. You won't get one from any of us.
> 
> - CD


Well this is apparent shake down of Sail net. I will sue you if you do not remove the thread. I am a big one for freedom of speech. 
Where do I send my check to sailnet defense fund?:hothead


----------



## sailingdog

CD—

Why would you pull a thread that had raised very important and valid issues about the integrity of two very well respected sailboat marques, C&C and Tartan, as well as the integrity of the people and companies involved with those brands. The lawsuits are a matter of open legal public record. The problems with some of the newer epoxy-resin hulls is also pretty well known and publicly acknowledged through the marine press. Also, the company's efforts to sell just the assets and remove warranty liability from the new company is pretty slimy IMHO.

Why would Sailnet buckle to any pressure from Tartan/C&C to remove the thread?


----------



## T34C

JP- I agree there was a LOT of useful info in that old thread. There was also a lot of speculation, some justified some maybe not. My guess is there was a threat of a aw suit and now sailnet attorneys are looking it over to determine risk. That basically means if there is ANY risk the attorneys will recommend that thread not come back, or if it does it will be heavily edited. Just my $.02...


----------



## blt2ski

"if" the BIG thread that I am recalling being around is the one being disCUSSed, then yes, there was posters that were probably a little to far over the line to some degree in what they said, ie SN or the poster could get sued for inflammatory type comments. 

There where a few folks that wanted to see the demise of Novus because of said words, others like myself, saw some issues, hoped they fixed them, and continued building boats using cutting edge techniques. When one does this, yes, there could be some issues.......back peddling etc in the how you go about things. so any way, enough of my politicing, I usually try to some degree to stay out of that type of thread........so why am I here too?!?!?!?!?!

Marty


----------



## Giulietta

JohnRPollard said:


> *WHAT!?*
> 
> You are kidding me! Please tell me this is not true.
> 
> That thread was chock full of useful information for anyone considering a new Tartan.
> 
> Moderators, care to comment?


John...like I said before.., I think THAT it what happened..BUT..I am not sure...I am speculating. But I hope it's not..

And to be honest, I don't really think the mods even know about it either.

All I figured was on my own...but I am sure Tartan may have forced them to remove it...the tone on the thread went weird..

hence my jokes about the MAfia...got it?


----------



## ajf10

It is rather ironic that the thread which disappeared contained a lot of hotly contested debate about whether tartan quality had dropped, and whether the company was acting in a stand up fashion to honor warranty problems or whether they were trying to avoid responsibility to owners of boats which had failures. As I recall, there were many posters against but a vocal minority "for tartan." The fact that Tartan appears to have taken legal action against sailnet to suppress open discussion by a sailors community about the integrity of the company seems to support the argument of those who argued that Tartan is a company to be avoided, no?


----------



## JohnRPollard

Giulietta said:


> hence my jokes about the MAfia...got it?


Yes, I got the joke.

Well I am going to avoid commenting further until the mods can give us some insight. At this point none of us really knows anything -- we're all just speculating.

I'll only add that I found that deleted thread to be very useful for culling through the (mis)information, and my overall impression was that it gave Tartan a fair shake. Which may be more than can be said about this and other threads that will ensue in its absence.


----------



## Giulietta

ajf10 said:


> It is rather ironic that the thread which disappeared contained a lot of hotly contested debate about whether tartan quality had dropped, and whether the company was acting in a stand up fashion to honor warranty problems or whether they were trying to avoid responsibility to owners of boats which had failures. As I recall, there were many posters against but a vocal minority "for tartan." The fact that Tartan appears to have taken legal action against sailnet to suppress open discussion by a sailors community about the integrity of the company seems to support the argument of those who argued that Tartan is a company to be avoided, no?


AJ..I didn't say they did..I said, *I think* that is what happened..but also said I may be speculating...

None of the mods responds to me about this issue, so I don't know...

I see no reason other than outside pressure, for a site to remove a thread, warning people on a product, that was started with the aim of informing.

I am sad it ahppened, as I did see on of their boats and how it was finished, done and dealt by Tartan (or lack of therof)..

So please let's not assume that it was that that happen, BUT that is what I think...and think only

I'll wait to see.

But damn..if that is true..expect me to bad mouth them left and right...yes I will...


----------



## Mipcar

Giulietta said:


> AJ..I didn't say they did..I said, *I think* that is what happened..but also said I may be speculating...
> 
> None of the mods responds to me about this issue, so I don't know...
> 
> I see no reason other than outside pressure, for a site to remove a thread, warning people on a product, that was started with the aim of informing.
> 
> I am sad it ahppened, as I did see on of their boats and how it was finished, done and dealt by Tartan (or lack of therof)..
> 
> So please let's not assume that it was that that happen, BUT that is what I think...and think only
> 
> I'll wait to see.
> 
> But damn..if that is true..expect me to bad mouth them left and right...yes I will...


Well I am very new to this particular forum site but if what has been suggested is true then that is a great pity. I carefully read the stickies about correct forum behaviour, how to treat newbies, keeping the tone of the forum etc, etc. Then to hear of a subject allegedly being censored, is that not 'selling out' all the forumites?.. Is not a forum supposed to be a place for free speech, discussion and exchange of information?? Very sad.
Just my 2 cents worth.

Mychael


----------



## blt2ski

Something I will point out about another forum I go to, and moderate on, with over 200K reg users, not that that many are using that forum, kinda like here, probably 10% of the reg users really use it if that!

Anyway, One of those forums rules is a person(s) can not talk about a lawsuit that they are involved in with a given company, or write/talk about it if they have talke with an attorney or equal, such as BBB's help. 

This may very well be why among other things, that that thread has disappeared among other reasons.

In the meantime, to a degree, it is probably best for us to try not to guess too much, because it could be some other issue, such as SN's owners being brought to trail as a hostile witness or equal or similar type reason.

Personally, this might be a better thread to temp close until the reason is brought forth etc to keep the jawing to a minimum IMHO.

marty


----------



## smackdaddy

Man, that Giu dude is always trying to stir things up. I say ban his ass*.

(*I can't remember his donkey's name - but it's been posting nothing but nonsense. Can't even photoshop worth a crap. You must admit though, pretty smart donkey.)


----------



## camaraderie

I am jumping on here to say that there will be no resolution to the "missing thread" this week. I have had several discussions with Sailnet management about this and expect a resolution by close of business Friday. Until then, I will say no more, nor will I encourage speculation but be assured we will let you know the resolution as soon as we have one. Thanks in advance for your patience.


----------



## sailingdog

Thanks for the update cam.  I do wonder if the pressure Tartan/C&C has applied is due to the recent news of a possible sale.


----------



## T34C

sailingdog said:


> Thanks for the update cam.  I do wonder if the pressure Tartan/C&C has applied is due to the recent news of a possible sale.


Exactly!!!!


----------



## TSOJOURNER

It is most regrettable that this site has been hijacked by a few people with an obvious grudge (and probably a financial reason) against Tartan. Camaradarie, Sailing Dog, Giulietta and others are clearly hopelessly biased observers. They spend their lives making postings on this site, and love to bash Taratn. WE NEED TO ASK WHY? None are Tartan owners!!!!!!Obviously, a sensible person doesn't spend their idle hours chasing down negative stuff on someone for no reason. 

I am a proud Tartan owner and am sick of the nonsense on this site. I am interested in HEARING FROM TARTAN OWNERS, not you screwballs who like to spend your lives spewing negative stuff.


----------



## camaraderie

Funny how so many Tartan supporters post from Ohio for their first post on this board..and then accuse me and others of being biased and having a self interest.


----------



## Giulietta

JimWitherspoon said:


> It is most regrettable that this site has been hijacked by a few people with an obvious grudge (and probably a financial reason) against Tartan. Camaradarie, Sailing Dog, Giulietta and others are clearly hopelessly biased observers. They spend their lives making postings on this site, and love to bash Taratn. WE NEED TO ASK WHY? None are Tartan owners!!!!!!Obviously, a sensible person doesn't spend their idle hours chasing down negative stuff on someone for no reason.
> 
> I am a proud Tartan owner and am sick of the nonsense on this site. I am interested in HEARING FROM TARTAN OWNERS, not you screwballs who like to spend your lives spewing negative stuff.


Really?? Go chew on a tyre..

What financial reason?? I am from Europe, I don't really care about Tartan or not..I SAW REAL BOATS, WITH REAL ISSUES.your beloved company didn't solve address or helped...

how do you know that I am a screwball..you seem to be one, not me...the boat I chose isn't falling appart, and the manufacturer serves me right with assistance, guarantee issues and any other stuff I throw at him...something YOU, can't claim, do or request...do I need to own a Tartan to prove me right?? nope...and to be honest...this puts you in the screw deprtment..not me..

By the way do you know there are ways to see if you are who you really..and your IP can be checked? And that can be compared with the IP's of the other "loyal" Tartan owners of the "twilight post"??

Let me be honest..I don't think you are who you claim...I really think you are someone at Tartan, or with interest in Tartan..

See we all are know here, we have posted our boats and live as a comunity here, we show who we are..we show our boats...

You...you're just whole bunch of black letters in a white background..you're not even who you claim to be...

Beat it Sputnik...you have nothing positive to add here..get a life...or better..prove me wrong....Mr. Tartan...

Each day, a brand I actually liked is getting deeper and deeper in my consideration...what a shame...it's sleeze ball moves like this that sink your company.


----------



## Giulietta

camaraderie said:


> Funny how so many Tartan supporters post from Ohio for their first post on this board..and then accuse me and others of being biased and having a self interest.


Cam...is it possible to sail in Ohio? Why do you say Ohio, are you implying this guy is actually someone from Tartan??

Were the other Tartan "defenders" from the same address?? CAn you compare IP addresses?

Love to see his address compared with the other "crusades"..
It's funny, when these guys come here, I allways have a gut feeling they are the tartan owner guy, the other one from Novis or someone else in that company...I really do. I'd love to prove that


----------



## SimonV

I don't know or care what all the fuss is about. If every manufacturer of sail boats took umbrage of what a few here on Sailnet wrote, this site would not exist. Two come to mind and they are Hunter and Catalina, they get hammered here as does most every brand and one time or other. I don’t know of a production boat ever built, that did not have a build problem at some stage, and any perspective buyer needs to be aware of any short comings. This is just t My Humble Opinion with none existent expertise. But if I knew something as fact, who is to say that fact can’t be passed onto a fellow sailors who ask questions.
And If not fact but concern, it may enable the asker, to delve deeper before making an informed decision.


----------



## sailingdog

Jim-

Just curious as to exactly how asking questions about the problems with hull integrity is "bashing" Tartan. How is asking what is going on with the company, and what it is doing to honor its responsibilities to its customers, when they're pretty clearly looking to dump any liability for the existing warranties, given the attempts at asset only sales is bashing the company???

Only a complete @ss and idiot would think that asking reasonable questions and expecting to get some sort of explanation for questionable actions and behavior is "bashing".

If Tartan/C&C was more forthright and honest about what was going on... there wouldn't be the problem that exists currently. However, the fact that they apparently pressured Sailnet into removing a forum thread that explored the current status of the company, the many lawsuits against the company, and the problems with the recent epoxy-based hulls, shows that the company is being less than open and honest about what is going on.

Just curious... if you're really a Tartan owner.. what is the make, model, name and hull number of your boat??? Anyone can claim ownership of a Tartan on the internet...


JimWitherspoon said:


> It is most regrettable that this site has been hijacked by a few people with an obvious grudge (and probably a financial reason) against Tartan. Camaradarie, Sailing Dog, Giulietta and others are clearly hopelessly biased observers. They spend their lives making postings on this site, and love to bash Taratn. WE NEED TO ASK WHY? None are Tartan owners!!!!!!Obviously, a sensible person doesn't spend their idle hours chasing down negative stuff on someone for no reason.
> 
> I am a proud Tartan owner and am sick of the nonsense on this site. I am interested in HEARING FROM TARTAN OWNERS, not you screwballs who like to spend your lives spewing negative stuff.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Sailing Dog has averaged 30 postings a day on this site! What kind of life is that???
He apparently owns something called a Telstar 28, and like to act as an authority on other boats. MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS REPEATEDLY DOESN'T MAKE THEM TRUE. 

Before I bought my Tartan 3700, I checked out the company extensively because of all of the false statements that you and others have made on this site. I went to the factory 3 times and spoke with the Tartan management. 

Tartan has responded timely to each warranty claim I have made since I bought my boat. I couldn't be more pleased with the boat.

I think that you and others on this site have an ax to grind. 

By the way, who are you Sailing Dog?


----------



## camaraderie

Exactly what false statements are you accusing me of making? It would be nice to know so I could refute them. Instead you provide sweeping generalities and vague accusations of self interest and "bashing"...none of which has any specifics. 

You have 3 posts here and don't know anyone. All three posts are from Ohio close to the Tartan plant. All three posts bash me and other long term community members who many members have met and know personally and who have NO self interest in anything to do with Tartan or C&C. All three posts are devoid of any factual content to back up your accusations. 
I will leave it to the readers of this thread to decide who has an axe to grind and whose posts are suspicious.


----------



## Giulietta

camaraderie said:


> You have 3 posts here and don't know anyone. All three posts are from Ohio close to the Tartan plant.


AHAHAHAHHHAHA

I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!!!

I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!!

HE IS IN "BED WITH THEM"...

These guys play really low...what a shame..to drag the Tartan name in the MUD like that...what a shame....

Istead of geting out thru the door with dignity, they chose to jump of the window of the 4th floor....no class....

Vito Corleone takes on sailing....

Beat it loser.....get lost.........


----------



## sailortjk1

> Sailing Dog has averaged 30 postings a day on this site! What kind of life is that???


What does that have to do with what we are talking about?

Lawsuits and litigations pending would certainly throw up a red flag to most perspective purchasers. Nothing false about it, No false statements here, they are all open for public record.
I think it has been very clear from the very beginning; the objective of this board has been simply to educate the boating community.


----------



## bubb2

I think, I just saw Mr. Witherspoon on CNN. He was at Capital Hill looking for bailout money.


----------



## camaraderie

Giu...I did NOT say he was from Tartan. Just that it is suspicious that so many one post "Tartan Owners" seem to emanate from that particular slice of Ohio. He can easily prove he is an owner and not a Novis/Tartan associate should he choose to do so. Otherwise I will remain suspicious.


----------



## Giulietta

camaraderie said:


> Giu...I did NOT say he was from Tartan. Just that it is suspicious that so many one post "Tartan Owners" seem to emanate from that particular slice of Ohio. He can easily prove he is an owner and not a Novis/Tartan associate should he choose to do so. Otherwise I will remain suspicious.


Off course, you did not, maybe the way I wrote..reads like I said you said confused:   )..sorry..

I still think he is


----------



## smackdaddy

Daisies are pretty.


----------



## Giulietta

Thanks....


----------



## JomsViking

and Violets are blue


----------



## Michael201

My Mom used to tell me "where there is smoke, there is usually fire". We've all heard that before. I was at the last boat show. I looked at the largest Tartan they had on display. It was impressive. That said, when I choose to purchase a new boat, one of the things I did was to look as hard as I could for negative information about the boat, company, support and such. I know there are all not perfect but when you see the UNDISPUTABLE ISSUES and LEGAL dealings currently in play, it should give one pause. I did look at Tartan before I choose to purchase a different boat. I'm glad I went another direction. There is no way I would invest the kind of $ it takes to purchase a 50 to 60 ft new boat with the kind of background legal noise existing currently. Enough said. Good luck with those who do.

How long until this thread is REMOVED?


----------



## bubb2

smackdaddy said:


> Daisies are pretty.


Yes they are!! Good on you, Smack


----------



## northptsailor

A Tartan owner - NOT from Ohio!

Mr. Witherspoon, 

You have asked that people who actually own Tartans write to offer testimony. I am the owner of 3700 hull 16. I could not be happier with the boat's design and the quality of the components used. My boat is both beautiful and quite fast for a comfortable cruiser. However, the quality control and the support of the factory with problems that came with the boat was not what I would have expected for a boat as costly as a 3700 Tartan.

I would guess that Tartan owners haven't joined the discussion for fear that in the long run they will be hurting the resale value of their boats. I have spent a great deal of time re-sealing all my ports, freeing up the bind in my rudder bearing, and varnishing all the missed spots in the interior. If I ever sell my 3700, the new owner will get a truly wonderful boat!

I honestly believe that there is nothing wrong with Tartan's products that could not be corrected with an attitude change in management. The fact that the factory has chosen to stonewall problems, rather than acknowledge them and work at solutions, tells me that nothing has changed since I purchased my boat. When I took delivery, the water gauge did not work. Not a big deal. My dealer never got around to fixing it, so I bought a new gauge, installed it and discovered that the problem was actually in the fluid level sending unit. A cadmium plated (poisonous) gasoline sender was installed in my fresh water tank. I purchased the proper stainless and plastic unit(much more expensive) and called Tartan to tell them that they might have a problem with other boats. The customer relations person told me it really wasn't a Tartan problem, since the water tanks were supplied by an outside contractor!! I hung up flabbergasted!

I would like see more discussion about problems with manufacturers and dealers because it should serve to keep the people who supply us with boats, equipment, and services on their toes, rather than be viewed as a witch hunt.

Bruce Miller owner of Pegasus, 3700 #16


----------



## Cruisingdad

northptsailor said:


> A Tartan owner - NOT from Ohio!
> 
> Mr. Witherspoon,
> 
> You have asked that people who actually own Tartans write to offer testimony. I am the owner of 3700 hull 16. I could not be happier with the boat's design and the quality of the components used. My boat is both beautiful and quite fast for a comfortable cruiser. However, the quality control and the support of the factory with problems that came with the boat was not what I would have expected for a boat as costly as a 3700 Tartan.
> 
> I would guess that Tartan owners haven't joined the discussion for fear that in the long run they will be hurting the resale value of their boats. I have spent a great deal of time re-sealing all my ports, freeing up the bind in my rudder bearing, and varnishing all the missed spots in the interior. If I ever sell my 3700, the new owner will get a truly wonderful boat!
> 
> I honestly believe that there is nothing wrong with Tartan's products that could not be corrected with an attitude change in management. The fact that the factory has chosen to stonewall problems, rather than acknowledge them and work at solutions, tells me that nothing has changed since I purchased my boat. When I took delivery, the water gauge did not work. Not a big deal. My dealer never got around to fixing it, so I bought a new gauge, installed it and discovered that the problem was actually in the fluid level sending unit. A cadmium plated (poisonous) gasoline sender was installed in my fresh water tank. I purchased the proper stainless and plastic unit(much more expensive) and called Tartan to tell them that they might have a problem with other boats. The customer relations person told me it really wasn't a Tartan problem, since the water tanks were supplied by an outside contractor!! I hung up flabbergasted!
> 
> I would like see more discussion about problems with manufacturers and dealers because it should serve to keep the people who supply us with boats, equipment, and services on their toes, rather than be viewed as a witch hunt.
> 
> Bruce Miller owner of Pegasus, 3700 #16


Bruce,

When did you purchase your vessel? Were you aware of the considerable legal issues and potential sale of Tartan before purchase? Have they not handled any warranty issues, or are you simply mentioning a few of the problems you have had?

Thank you for taking the time to post.

- CD


----------



## sailortjk1

Thank you Bruce.
The more educated we are the better.


----------



## Giulietta

Northptsailor.

I am standing up from my chair (where I post a lot because I have no life and can't sail for crap according to Jim), and am actually applauding you...

You are a gentleman, and a real man....

I also fear that many tartan C&C owners don't post because they fear more aggressive law suit threats from Tartan lawyers, and fear that their issues in the future may not be answered...it's called a silent majority, where I come from...

You are a true man with BIG BLACK HAIRY BALLS....

YOU ARE HERE INVITED TO SAIL WITH ME ANY TIME!!!!

Thanks

Alex


----------



## Giulietta

CP..what are those?? Thanks


----------



## northptsailor

CD,

Tartan, as a company, did not have problems when I bought my boat (2001). The Tartan dealer took about a month to commission the boat and still delivered it with a multitude of problems. The quality of work done was so poor, that I chose to do all the corrections myself rather than give the dealer another chance to screw up my boat. My late wife was heartsick over the way we were treated. We wrote a letter to Tartan outlining the dealers behavior and we actually received a letter of apology from Tim Jackett. Of course, nothing was done at the time to correct the problem.

The Tartan is the only new boat that I have ever purchased, so I really don't know if my experiences are shared by the buyers of other brands.But once again, I think that a forum like this is the best quality ensurer that you can have. When someone complained recently about the New York Sail Time person being non responsive, the fellow got right on Sailnet with an apology and seemed to really want to correct the problem. 

Bruce Miller Pegasus Tartan 3700 #16


----------



## Cruisingdad

cardiacpaul said:


> alrighty then...
> I'm puttin' a dawg in this hunt.
> 
> this is PUBLIC RECORD, taken directly from the lake county clerks office.
> 
> just from my short tally, the novis/tartan/c&c/fairport/ross/navstar/northstar "group" is on the hook for about 5 million. MANY cases have been closed due to the numerous bankruptcy(s) of the various corp. entities. Without the slide rule, I'd say a little more than 15 million went "oops, sorry, we're not paying, 'cuz we're filing bankruptcy"
> 
> Deal with it. I've been sued before, by better.
> I'm also the guy that hunted down a slimy texas lawyer and put him into the texas prison system because he thought I was some hick without a couple of neurons firing. So, pick up the fone, and call your carpetbagger barrister, I'm waitin'.
> 
> heres the list.
> 
> NAV STAR AKA DFNDT Closed 94CV000152
> NAV STAR MARINE AKA DFNDT Closed 94CV000105
> NAVSTAR MARINE CO DFNDT Closed 93CV001843
> NAVSTAR MARINE CO DFNDT Closed 91CV000762
> NAVSTAR MARINE CO DFNDT Closed 93CV001314 NAVSTAR MARINE CO DFNDT Closed 94CV000105
> NAVSTAR MARINE CO DFNDT Closed 94CV000152
> NAVSTAR MARINE CO DBTR Closed 50-079A
> NAVSTAR MARINE CO DFNDT Closed 93CV001421
> NAVSTAR MARINE CO DFNDT Closed 93CV000280NAVSTAR MARINE COMPANY DBTR Closed 63-115B
> NAVSTAR MARINE COMPANY DBTR Closed 63-152B
> NAVSTAR MARINE COMPANY PLNTF Closed 94CV001597
> NAVSTAR MARINE COMPANY DBTR Closed 57-143B
> NAVSTAR MARINE COMPANY DBTR Closed 60-039B
> NAVSTAR MARINE COMPANY DBTR Closed 03JL002387
> NAVSTAR MARINE COMPANY DBTR Closed 03JL002403
> NAVSTAR MARINE COMPANY DBTR Open 07JL000306
> NAVSTAR MARINE COMPANY DBTR Open 07JL000308
> NAVSTAR MARINE COMPANY PLNTF Closed 93CV001751
> NAVSTAR MARINE COMPANY DFNDT Closed 93CV001840
> NAVSTAR MARINE COMPANY DFNDT Closed 93CV001213
> NAVSTAR MARINE COMPANY DBTR Open 06JL002833
> NAVSTAR MARINE COMPANY DBTR Open 07JL0003
> NAVSTAR MARINE COMPANY DBTR Closed 63-115A
> NAVSTAR MARINE COMPANY DBTR Closed 56-072B
> NAVSTAR MARINE COMPANY DBTR Closed 00JL002276
> NAVSTAR MARINE INC AKA DFNDT Closed 93CV001843
> NORTHSTAR YACHTS INC AKA DFNDT Closed 91CV000762
> NORTHSTAR YACHTS INC NKA DBTR Closed 50-079A
> NOVIS COMPOSITES LTD DFNDT Open 08CV001716
> NOVIS COMPOSITES LTD DFNDT Closed 06CV000964
> NOVIS COMPOSITES LTD DBTR Open 08JL000164
> NOVIS MARINE DFNDT Closed 06DR000484
> NOVIS MARINE LTD PLNTF Closed 07CV002697
> NOVIS MARINE LTD DBTR Open 08JL002719
> NOVIS MARINE LTD DBTR Open 07JL002192
> NOVIS MARINE LTD DBTR Open 08JL003159
> NOVIS MARINE LTD DFNDT Closed 06CV000965
> NOVIS MARINE LTD DFNDT Closed 08CV000971
> NOVIS MARINE LTD PLNTF Closed 07CV003537
> NOVIS MARINE LTD DFNDT Closed 08CV000845
> NOVIS MARINE LTD DFNDT Closed 07CV000104
> NOVIS MARINE LTD DFNDT Closed 06CV001189
> NOVIS MARINE LTD DFNDT Closed 07CV003662
> NOVIS MARINE LTD DFNDT Closed 08CV001463
> NOVIS MARINE LTD PLNTF Closed 07CV003008
> NOVIS MARINE LTD DBTR Open 08JL000164
> NOVIS MARINE LTD DFNDT Open 08CV002643
> NOVIS MARINE LTD DFNDT Open 08CV001716
> NOVIS MARINE LTD DBTR Open 08JL001506
> NOVIS MARINE LTD DBTR Open 08JL001126
> NOVIS MARINE LTD DBTR Open 08JL001931
> NOVIS MARINE LTD DFNDT Open 08CV002565
> TAPTAN YACHTS DBA DFNDT Open 08CV002565
> TAPTAN YACHTS DBA DBTR Open 08JL001506
> TAPTAN YACHTS DBA DBTR  Open 08JL001126
> TAPTAN YACHTS DBA DFNDT Open 08CV001716
> TAPTAN YACHTS DBA DBTR Open 08JL001931
> TAPTAN YACHTS DBA DFNDT Closed 08CV001463
> TARTAN YACHTS DBA DFNDT Open 08CV002565
> TARTAN YACHTS DBA DBTR Open 08JL001506
> TARTAN YACHTS DBA DFNDT Open 08CV001716
> TARTAN YACHTS DBA DBTR Open 08JL001126
> TARTAN YACHTS DBA DFNDT Closed 08CV001463
> TARTAN YACHTS DBA DBTR Open 08JL001931
> FAIRPORT YACHT LTD DBTR Closed 03JL001597
> FAIRPORT YACHT LTD DFNDT Closed 03CV001810
> FAIRPORT YACHT SALES LTD DFNDT Open 08CV001716
> FAIRPORT YACHTS LTD DBTR Closed 04JL001519
> FAIRPORT YACHTS LTD DFNDT Closed 07CV001202
> FAIRPORT YACHTS LTD DFNDT Closed 03DR000528
> FAIRPORT YACHTS LTD DFNDT Open 08CV002565
> FAIRPORT YACHTS LTD DFNDT Closed 01CV000308
> FAIRPORT YACHTS LTD DBTR Closed 03JL002474
> FAIRPORT YACHTS LTD DFNDT Closed 04CV000965
> FAIRPORT YACHTS LTD PLNTF Closed 99CV000890
> FAIRPORT YACHTS LTD PLNTF Closed 00CV001588
> FAIRPORT YACHTS LTD DBTR Closed 02JL002306
> FAIRPORT YACHTS LTD DBTR Closed 05JL000729
> FAIRPORT YACHTS LTD DFNDT Closed 02CV001924
> FAIRPORT YACHTS LTD DFNDT Closed 00CV000041
> FAIRPORT YACHTS LTD DBTR Closed 01JL000650
> ROSS, WILLIAM DFNDT Closed 92CV000203
> ROSS, WILLIAM DFNDT Closed 99CV000955
> ROSS, WILLIAM J DBTR Closed 03JL001597
> ROSS, WILLIAM J DFNDT Closed 08CV001463
> ROSS, WILLIAM J DBTR Closed 02JL002306
> ROSS, WILLIAM J DFNDT Closed 02CV001924
> ROSS, WILLIAM J DBTR Closed 03JL002474
> 
> Anybody wanna sue me? knock yourself out:hothead


Holy crap!!!!!

- CD


----------



## sailingdog

If Mr. Witherspoon were as open and forthright as Bruce was, it would be a totally different story, but he's sounding more and more like a Tartan goon trying to intimidate members on this forum. He might want to pay attention to the bold faced sections.



northptsailor said:


> A Tartan owner - NOT from Ohio!
> 
> Mr. Witherspoon,
> 
> You have asked that people who actually own Tartans write to offer testimony. I am the *owner of 3700 hull 16.* I could not be happier with the boat's design and the quality of the components used. My boat is both beautiful and quite fast for a comfortable cruiser. *However, the quality control and the support of the factory with problems that came with the boat was not what I would have expected for a boat as costly as a 3700 Tartan.*


Tartan was not traditionally a typical "production" manufacturer, and owners generally pay a premium for the boat...and as such should not have the quality or support issues that have been reported IMHO.



> I would guess that Tartan owners haven't joined the discussion for fear that in the long run they will be hurting the resale value of their boats. *I have spent a great deal of time re-sealing all my ports, freeing up the bind in my rudder bearing, and varnishing all the missed spots in the interior. *If I ever sell my 3700, the new owner will get a truly wonderful boat!


There should be no need to seal ports on a brand new boat. The rudder shouldn't bind and there shouldn't be a need to touch up the varnish on a brand new boat either. PCI, the makers of my boat, build a boat to a much different price point than does Tartan, and I've not had problems with the ports leaking on my boat. The current owners of the Tartan brand are taking advantage of and ruining the Tartan brand image.



> I honestly believe that there is *nothing wrong with Tartan's products that could not be corrected with an attitude change in management.* The fact that the factory has chosen to stonewall problems, rather than acknowledge them and work at solutions, tells me that nothing has changed since I purchased my boat. When I took delivery, the water gauge did not work. Not a big deal. My dealer never got around to fixing it, so I bought a new gauge, installed it and discovered that the problem was actually in the fluid level sending unit. *A cadmium plated (poisonous) gasoline sender was installed in my fresh water tank. I purchased the proper stainless and plastic unit(much more expensive) and called Tartan to tell them that they might have a problem with other boats. The customer relations person told me it really wasn't a Tartan problem,* since the water tanks were supplied by an outside contractor!! I hung up flabbergasted!


So Mr. Witherspoon apparently thinks that poisoning the customer is a good tactic for a company...



> I would like see more discussion about problems with manufacturers and dealers because it should serve to keep the people who supply us with boats, equipment, and services on their toes, rather than be viewed as a witch hunt.
> 
> Bruce Miller owner of Pegasus, 3700 #16


IIRC, Cam and several others have asked Tartan to respond on the Tartan related threads with no success. The fact that the company apparently would rather pressure Sailnet into closing threads that deal with the existing and real problems rather than open a honest discussion regarding them... says a lot. Granted, some of this may be due to legal restrictions on the company's part or as advice from their legal team. However, a simple acknowledgement of the discussion and statement to that effect would be the least they could do.

P.S. Thanks for your post Bruce.


----------



## Cruisingdad

northptsailor said:


> CD,
> 
> Tartan, as a company, did not have problems when I bought my boat (2001). The Tartan dealer took about a month to commission the boat and still delivered it with a multitude of problems. The quality of work done was so poor, that I chose to do all the corrections myself rather than give the dealer another chance to screw up my boat. My late wife was heartsick over the way we were treated. We wrote a letter to Tartan outlining the dealers behavior and we actually received a letter of apology from Tim Jackett. Of course, nothing was done at the time to correct the problem.
> 
> The Tartan is the only new boat that I have ever purchased, so I really don't know if my experiences are shared by the buyers of other brands.But once again, I think that a forum like this is the best quality ensurer that you can have. When someone complained recently about the New York Sail Time person being non responsive, the fellow got right on Sailnet with an apology and seemed to really want to correct the problem.
> 
> Bruce Miller Pegasus Tartan 3700 #16


Bruce,

I have purchased four new sail boats, all from Catalina. THey are responsive and thoughtful. I have been called by Frank Butler himself to make sure I was happy and satisfied. I have met their entire team. Considering the difference in volume between a Catalina and a Tartan, for example, that really says something!!! And you know what, I am not the only Catalina owner with a similar story.

You buy a new boat, not because nothing will be broken, but because someone else will fix it for you and you know what you are starting with. I tell people that all the time. Most of the equipment on boats comes from third parties (especially a sailbaot). As such, you cannot blame the sailboat manufacturer for a failure, say, of your winch made by Lewmar. HOWEVER, they (your manufacturer) have a right and responsibility to fix it for you. You first 12-24 months as a new boat owner should be free of having to work on your own boat.

In many cases, these issues are dealer issues (not fixing problems) and not manufacturer (like Tartan) issues. The dealer is really supposed to be the proactive one to fix it, while being reimbursed by the company (Tartan, in our example). It is another money making potential for the dealer (though some of them screw it up). Still, the ultimate responsibility does lie with Tartan and not your dealer.

At least that is the way it is with Catalina. I can only assume it would be the same with Tartan.

- CD


----------



## camaraderie

*Paul*...you missed a whole bunch of cases outside of Lake County! 
AND..actually there is more info in the list you provided. A debtr is indeed a debtor and you will note that wherever Tartan or Novis is a debtor there is a case with a JL in the #...which means judgement leins....i.e. they lost the case and have to pay. Where a JL case is OPEN...it means the debt is still outstanding where it is closed...the $$ has been collected.

All... just for the record...since I do check BOTH sides out. Mr. Miller is exactly who he says he is and owns exactly what he says he does. He registered here several years ago with that exact info (and more) and continues to post from the same place.Thanks for your forthrightness Bruce.


----------



## Giulietta

Good lord..they have more actions in court than boats sailing.....

The guy that build my boat had a law suit also, so my boat must be really good too....

(he built a gate that opened to the wrong street, but he won, the local government actually considered a piece of land behind his house, that was his, to be theirs..he won)


----------



## CalebD

This is a sad state of affairs.
As an owner of a Tartan 27' built in 1967 (#328) I can only say that back then the boats they built were like the 'Cadillac' of the boating world. The fact that so many T27's are still around and being sailed by proud owners is a testament to the build quality and design (S&S) of these older boats. Of course the T27 was the first model made by Tartan that became something of a production boat that gave the Tartan brand its start. 
I can't comment about speculation but it seems sad to me that a brand with a pedigree like Tartan is apparently sailing on such murky waters.


----------



## Giulietta

CalebD said:


> This is a sad state of affairs.
> As an owner of a Tartan 27' built in 1967 (#328) I can only say that back then the boats they built were like the 'Cadillac' of the boating world. The fact that so many T27's are still around and being sailed by proud owners is a testament to the build quality and design (S&S) of these older boats. Of course the T27 was the first model made by Tartan that became something of a production boat that gave the Tartan brand its start.
> I can't comment about speculation but it seems sad to me that a brand with a pedigree like Tartan is apparently sailing on such murky waters.


indeed..it is.

I remeber when I was a kid, hearing about Tartan ans the wonderful boats they made...and all of a sudden you get this..

It is quite sad...I understand the times are hard, and it is rather difficult for a business like this, working off a restricted niche market...to survive, hence the need to adapt..

maybe Tartan should have created on the side, a line of boats built on purpose to a smaller financial capabilities clientelle..we will never know...

I really hope someone buys them, and the btand can go back to sea, as proud as it once was, maintaing it's heritage....look at Harley Davidson...(they had those weird bowling ball owners once), but they are now stronger than ever...this market iss cyclic...lets wait for the tide to rise.

I really wish tartan the best


----------



## scottbr

Similar circumstances as CS Yachts ( Canadian Sailcraft). I grew up 10 minutes away from their factory, got bitten by the sailing bug on a CS27 and learnt most of my bigger boat sailing on a CS33. Boats were too well built and thus more expensive to survive the recession of the early 90's.


----------



## Vasco

CS simply stopped building boat when they weren't selling in the early nineties. They did not go bankrupt nor did the stiff any of their suppliers or customers. I started with a CS30 and still have the Merlin I bought in 1988, a few years after the 30.


----------



## scottbr

Rick, yes CS did not have quality issues and wound down the business when they ran out of customers. Thanks for the clarifications. I was only implying the similarities being the difficulties in building a reputable boat in times of slowdown.


----------



## Vasco

Tartan seems to have been having problems the last few years and those were relatively good boat selling years.


----------



## night0wl

Vasco said:


> CS simply stopped building boat when they weren't selling in the early nineties. They did not go bankrupt nor did the stiff any of their suppliers or customers. I started with a CS30 and still have the Merlin I bought in 1988, a few years after the 30.


You can only do this if you dont have debt...which is honorable, but keeps you a small small company.

I think whats happening to Tartan/C&C is that they probably thought that as the 9/11 recession ended, they figured good years would last a little longer. Liquidity was everywhere, people were taking home equity by the 100s of thousands...and buying boats. So, they probably took on piles of credit and expanded their production and upgraded their tooling.

But this boom, unlike the sustained boom of the 90's wasn't jobs based, and therefore entirely unsustainable. So, when it collapsed, it collapsed quickly...leaving massive debt bills to be paid, and only leveraged assets to pay them back with (ie boat molds bought/paid for with credit)


----------



## sailingdog

Don't forget, Tartan moved to epoxy-resin based hulls, which requires curing ovens to cure the epoxy resin hulls and the ovens aren't cheap. It also added to their production costs considerably—the curing step wasn't necessary with the older polyester/vinylester hulls, and the resin was considerably less expensive.


----------



## JohnRPollard

It's really a shame, isn't it?

I have said before (on the "suspended" thread) that I really admire many of their designs. I find the overall format of their smaller-to-mid-size boats very appealing. The CCR rig in particular would be a nice plus for how we sail.

It's too bad the business model chosen to produce them apparently doesn't hold up well in downturns -- they're not the only ones discovering this, though. Tough lesson, all around.

In the other thread I also asked if similar docket searches could be run on other boat builders, to compare how Tartan's legal predicament stacks up with other builders. If Catalina or Hunter or Beneteau or [fill in the blank]'s legal activity is similar, that would say something too, wouldn't it?


----------



## camaraderie

JRP...per your request, I did a court record search in Hunter Marine's home court and found the following *since 1994*. Note...it appears that the 4 cases they were involved in were either settled or dismissed and there is no evience of any outstanding judgements. Of course, there may be cases in other venues but I can't search the whole country! Maybe one of the lawyers here can take a stab at that. I tried to get Catalina's data too but the LA county courts require a case # and don't let you search by name. 

Party AfflParty TypeD.O.B.Case StatusCase NumberHUNTER MARINE CORPORATION
 DEFENDANT
 99 CLOSED01 2003 CA 004268HUNTER MARINE CORPORATION
 PLAINTIFF
 CLOSED01 2006 CA 003671HUNTER MARINE CORPORATION A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION
 DEFENDANT
 CLOSED01 1995 CA 000995HUNTER MARINE, INC. 6 COUNTS: I,II,III,IV,V,VI
 DEFENDANT
 CLOSED01 1999 CA 000349HUNTER MARINE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION COUNT I
 DEFENDANT
 CLOSED01 1994 CA 001558


----------



## smackdaddy

Good thinking John - and good work Cam. Stats like this tell a far more compelling story than all the conjecture.


----------



## Cruisingdad

camaraderie said:


> JRP...per your request, I did a court record search in Hunter Marine's home court and found the following *since 1994*. Note...it appears that the 4 cases they were involved in were either settled or dismissed and there is no evience of any outstanding judgements. Of course, there may be cases in other venues but I can't search the whole country! Maybe one of the lawyers here can take a stab at that. I tried to get Catalina's data too but the LA county courts require a case # and don't let you search by name.
> 
> Party AfflParty TypeD.O.B.Case StatusCase NumberHUNTER MARINE CORPORATION
> DEFENDANT
> 99 CLOSED01 2003 CA 004268HUNTER MARINE CORPORATION
> PLAINTIFF
> CLOSED01 2006 CA 003671HUNTER MARINE CORPORATION A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION
> DEFENDANT
> CLOSED01 1995 CA 000995HUNTER MARINE, INC. 6 COUNTS: I,II,III,IV,V,VI
> DEFENDANT
> CLOSED01 1999 CA 000349HUNTER MARINE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION COUNT I
> DEFENDANT
> CLOSED01 1994 CA 001558


THAT IS BECAUSE CATALINA HAS NONE... SO WHY BOTHER!!! (smile)

- CD


----------



## Giulietta

All boat manufacturers have court actions..look at mine


DC Marine Corporation - Defendant - Closed by Mayor shame - 1800-call-sex - reason - idiot city hall clerk got the wrong address


----------



## night0wl

not just any boat builder...every business has court actions. It could be as simple as recording a judgement against a dealer that goes under to get their share in bankruptcy. Hell, it could be a property tax fight as is happening with marina's in FL


----------



## blt2ski

If I knew how many liens I have placed on builders etc being a sub contractor over the 25 yrs I have been in biz.........well, ok, so I have been pretty lucky overall, but could probably count the number of times on both hands, might need one foot too........

But what Novus/Tartan/C&C are having done to them for whom knows what reason, that will eventually kill current owners, stockholders etc, and a new person in charge........at least we all hope! They are good boats for the purpose of there designs.

marty


----------



## night0wl

They need to use their tooling for new purposes other than boat molds. Get into new business lines like pre-molded swimming pools or koi ponds. Sailboat biz is dead for a few years


----------



## sailingdog

I find it very interesting that none of the "Tartan owning" Ohio-based posters have seen fit to reply in the last few days...  A bit suspicious IMHO... and doesn't say much for their integrity or honesty.


----------



## camaraderie

For anyone following this thread...the issue of the deleted Tartan thread is further addressed on this thread.
http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...-related/49305-i-have-resigned-moderator.html


----------



## Boasun

It is good to know the character of the person you are doing business with. And forums such as this will educate us about the companies CEO's characters.
Good going Cam.


----------



## SEMIJim

Giulietta said:


> Cam...is it possible to sail in Ohio?


It certainly is: Ohio's Lake Erie Shores & Islands. One of the boats we looked at, a Sabre 28, was in a marina off Lake Erie.

Jim


----------



## Joesaila

Would it be oxymoronic [is that even a word?] for a *sailboat* company to apply for a *bailout*?


----------



## sailingdog

Tartan/C&C's problems go way past just being financial.


----------



## T34C

sailingdog said:


> Tartan/C&C's problems go way past just being financial.


There is nothing you could name about Tartan that throwing large sums of money at couldn't fix.


----------



## sailingdog

Except the complete lack of corporate ethics and responsibility... 


T34C said:


> There is nothing you could name about Tartan that throwing large sums of money at couldn't fix.


----------



## T34C

I would guess the are doing all of that in an effort to minimize bad PR that might affect a buy out. (Money) The reality is that it is likely to blow-up in their face. However, if they had large amounts of capital they wouldn't be worried about it and could start re-marketing their brand.


----------



## xort

They've dug a big hole for themselves and then it started raining; so they dug some more to keep the hole from filling up.


----------



## petmac

*Tartan Yachts*

I always liked Tartan Yachts. During the past couple of years I've had exposure to two new boats and wasn't that impressed.
I saw a new one on the dock at a very reputable boat yard in Maine a couple of summers ago. The service crew was trying to repair several deck leaks. I was very suprised as it was a new boat.
Two years ago I looked at the Tartan 3400 at the Toronto International Boat show. The dealer told me that she was the Rolls Royce of yachts. I wasn't impressed with the build quality compared with older Tartans.


----------



## apkaplan

I'm not afraid, just purchased the domain "tartansucks" send me the thread and I will be happy to post.


----------



## sailortjk1

Dude, I guarantee you that you will be sued.


----------



## Mipcar

In the pen next to my boat there had been a what appeared to be a very nice Tartan. Not sure of the model (a big one), chatting to the couple that owned it they were going away for a weeks cruiseing in the local bays. Over 3 weeks later they have not returned, maybe it sank from hull leaks.. lol. 

Mychael


----------



## WaterView

Maybe it sank? I would hope you don't really think that's funny. Of course you don't I know. I did see on the Tartan website, they commented on the online community negative conversation thats been going on.


----------



## T34C

*Fyi...*

Hope this hasn't been posted before. This was taken from the Tartan website:

*Interview with Tim Jackett 
Quality and Warranty Issues*

*Question: How does the recently announced sale of the company affect claims for boats purchased and delivered prior to the transaction?

Jackett: The new company is committed to all owners of Tartan and C&C yachts and will continue to support the warranty for boats that predate the sale. All claims are being reviewed and administered through our dealers and by Andy Drumm on an uninterrupted basis. While there has been speculation by non Tartan and C&C owners on some of the sailing chat sites regarding this issue, our owners who have had recent claims know that their claims are being processed in our normal manner. Current Tartan and C&C owners are our greatest asset. We plan to increase our communications with them on service, technical information and other areas of common interest in the future and to not only provide continuous but improved support for all their boats.*


----------



## JohnRPollard

sailortjk1 said:


> Dude, I guarantee you that you will be sued.


Perhaps not entirely germane to the Tartan issue, but possibly of related interest. Here is an article from today's Washington Post that suggests caution to anyone hoping to shield themselves from liability via internet anonymity and/or free speech doctrine. Following the lead of some other states, the lower court in Maryland ruled against, and I'd wager the appeals court will sustain.

Internet Anonymity?


----------



## sailingdog

Yet, he doesn't mention the fact that he's been trying to engineer an assets-only sale of the company that would allow them to duck warranty liability as has happened previously. 



T34C said:


> Hope this hasn't been posted before. This was taken from the Tartan website:
> 
> *Interview with Tim Jackett
> Quality and Warranty Issues*
> 
> *Question: How does the recently announced sale of the company affect claims for boats purchased and delivered prior to the transaction?
> 
> Jackett: The new company is committed to all owners of Tartan and C&C yachts and will continue to support the warranty for boats that predate the sale. All claims are being reviewed and administered through our dealers and by Andy Drumm on an uninterrupted basis. While there has been speculation by non Tartan and C&C owners on some of the sailing chat sites regarding this issue, our owners who have had recent claims know that their claims are being processed in our normal manner. Current Tartan and C&C owners are our greatest asset. We plan to increase our communications with them on service, technical information and other areas of common interest in the future and to not only provide continuous but improved support for all their boats.*


----------



## T34C

True, but in the big picture their warrany liability is probably a drop in the bucket compared to some of their other debts they appear to have. Besides, any buyer would want to honor existing warranties. Otherwise they'd never sell another boat. The only scenario I can envision where they wouldn't want to honor those warranties is if they were going to "part out" the company and sell off everything.


----------



## camaraderie

T34...That post by Jackett dates back to the proposed asset sale to Grand River and was only posted on 5/7/08...months after the initial asset sale was announced in January. Since THAT deal never happened...it means nothing at this point. It has NOTHING to do with the current proposed sale to new buyers. There is NO info on the new deal, how it is structured, whether it is going through or what the treatment of existing owners will be. 
I like to think the original post was at least somewhat in response to the ruckus we raised here about the warranties of existing owners. Nevertheless...a careful reading will reveal that even here...no LEGAL responsibility for the warranties was assumed...just an intent to support them. If they decided YOUR boat did not deserve the warranty service you believe it did, you would have no LEGAL recourse. 

We shall see how the new buyers handle things if the deal goes through.


----------



## T34C

Cam- Agree, I was just posting this info since it appeared to be what waterview- was referencing above.


----------



## sailingdog

T34C-

Unfortunately, there's documented proof that Jackett has done just that with Tartan previously. When the company owning the Tartan brand went from being NavStar to Polk Industries, Jackett did just that. See this *post. *


T34C said:


> True, but in the big picture their warrany liability is probably a drop in the bucket compared to some of their other debts they appear to have. Besides, any buyer would want to honor existing warranties. Otherwise they'd never sell another boat. The only scenario I can envision where they wouldn't want to honor those warranties is if they were going to "part out" the company and sell off everything.


----------



## sailingdog

I think CP is bored... 


cardiacpaul said:


> I'm not going to hide behind some curtain, I want the sumsabeeches to sue me... I can't wait for Discovery!


----------



## apkaplan

I'm not afraid of being sued, and will vigorously defend the first amendment. When I learned of this horrible breach of our freedom, I purchased the domain "tartansucks" and would be happy to publish a site that presents an unbiased, factually account of this issue. 

I am eager to hear Tartan side of the storey and happy to post their response. To this end would someone be so kind as to post a clear, cogent summary of this issue. My plan is to first show it to an attorney that I know that is well versed in this matter, he has been sailing in Maine for over 4 decades.


----------



## xort

apkaplan said:


> would be happy to publish a site that presents an unbiased, factually account of this issue.


And call it tartansucks?????


----------



## T34C

xort said:


> And call it tartansucks?????


Exactly! The domain name alone shows that you went in with preconcived notions and you would end up owing Tartan a bunch of money. You'd basically be providing them with a fall guy for the reason their company name has gone down hill.


----------



## sailingdog

I think Tartanissues.com would make much more sense...


----------



## ckgreenman

How about tartansucks-or-not


----------



## sailortjk1

apkaplan said:


> I'm not afraid of being sued, and will vigorously defend the first amendment. When I learned of this horrible breach of our freedom, I purchased the domain "tartansucks" and would be happy to publish a site that presents an unbiased, factually account of this issue.


Do you realize how much it would cost to do this?
How many years?

I would imagine that your attorney fees would be a minimun of $100,000.00 and it could go on for two to three or more years.
(even if he is a friend of yours) (Our perhaps you attorney friend works for free)


----------



## T34C

sailortjk1 said:


> Do you realize how much it would cost to do this?
> How many years?
> 
> I would imagine that your attorney fees would be a minimun of $100,000.00 and it could go on for two to three or more years.
> (even if he is a friend of yours) (Our perhaps you attorney friend works for free)


I've never met an attorney that works for free. Doesn't seem to matter if they are a friend/relative/neighbor/etc...


----------



## magnusmurphy

Could someone PLEASE summarize the "alleged" issues with Tartan/C&C!

I've read and read but still cannot figure out what the supposed problems and claims are. Summarizing those cannot carry liability since you don't have to say it is so; simply that "these claims have been made..." 

I (and many others who have no clue what you guys are talking about) will really appreciate it.

Thanks

M Murphy


----------



## denby

Murph,

Did you read the original Tartan thread which was deleted? If not PM Cam and maybe he can fill you in, he's trying to reconstruct it.


----------



## travler37

sailortjk1 said:


> Do you realize how much it would cost to do this?
> How many years?
> 
> I would imagine that your attorney fees would be a minimun of $100,000.00 and it could go on for two to three or more years.
> (even if he is a friend of yours) (Our perhaps you attorney friend works for free)


 Drat,
Said upright looking like human beings see that MINE ARE BETTER...
Every penny i own is tied up in a trust that is basically bullet protected for reasons that are best left off shore if you want to do it right...Costs more to go offshore in the short but.........

So if i had thought of it first then they could try to sue but.....drat.....best of luck to them...

Was forced offshore by the same system that would want to sue me here.Sticks out toung........best of luck to you lawers..{nope,no Y}
Mark


----------



## sailortjk1

T34C said:


> I've never met an attorney that works for free. Doesn't seem to matter if they are a friend/relative/neighbor/etc...


Exactly my point. I never seem to be able to say it right.LOL!


----------



## sailortjk1

travler37 said:


> Drat,
> Said upright looking like human beings see that MINE ARE BETTER...
> Every penny i own is tied up in a trust that is basically bullet protected for reasons that are best left off shore if you want to do it right...Costs more to go offshore in the short but.........
> 
> So if i had thought of it first then they could try to sue but.....drat.....best of luck to them...
> 
> Was forced offshore by the same system that would want to sue me here.Sticks out toung........best of luck to you lawers..{nope,no Y}
> Mark


Mark,
Where are you from? Perhaps if we knew where you are writting from it would help us to understand you better. Do we need an internet translator?


----------



## camaraderie

magnusmurphy said:


> Could someone PLEASE summarize the "alleged" issues with Tartan/C&C!
> 
> I've read and read but still cannot figure out what the supposed problems and claims are. Summarizing those cannot carry liability since you don't have to say it is so; simply that "these claims have been made..."
> 
> I (and many others who have no clue what you guys are talking about) will really appreciate it.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> M Murphy


Magnus...the issues that were raised in the deleted thread were:

1. Novis/Tartan/C&C may have made some epoxy boats (i.e. models since about 2001-2) whose hulls split or had other serious problems that could potentially cause injury or death to those aboard. That at least one boat had a hull split is not in dispute as Tim Jackett of Tartan addressed this in an interview published on the Tartan site. 
2. Novis is further accused of not standing behind their warranty and has suits pending by at least 3 owners over defect issues and Novis disputes these accusations. None of these has yet made it to court with two cases presently scheduled for February. Some members here have seen one of the boats in question and expressed strong opinions about the defects being factory quality build issues. 
3. In the course of investigation it was discovered that Novis has a long and public list of court judgements against it that are unpaid and exceeds $1million dollars. 
4. In addition to the owner suits, there are also several other large suits pending against Novis including suits from their resin supplier (Ashland), Ullman Sails, West Marine and their own former laywers. This called into question their financial viability especially since their former lawyers asserted in their public complaint to the court that they believed Novis was insolvent and asked for a receiver to be appointed. 
5.This past January...while all this was going on, Novis announced a pending sale of assets to a new company called Grand River Investments. Many of us immediately focused on the fact that a sale of assets only would possibly leave present Tartan owners without warranty support unless the new owners legally assumed the burden of such warranties. We pressed for such a commitment to be made on the thread. The sale was also viewed by some as a way for Novis to shed assets and shield them from judgments. Grand River was immediately added as an additional defendant in many of the pending lawsuits. Ultimately it appears as if the sale did not go through but now a new company is apparently in the mix as a potential buyer. 
6. Novis (Bill Ross) called Sailnet and asked that the thread be taken down as it hurt the company and making clear that a lawsuit was a possibility if it was not removed. Sailnet complied.

There is much more, but I think that is a fair summary of the essential elements of the discussion.


----------



## sailingdog

One additional point I'd add to what Cam said. Tartan has previously used the "asset-only" sale technique to ditch warranty liability. Jackett was responsible for doing so when the Tartan brand was owned by Navstar Marine, and was sold to Polk Industries... so a precedent for such tactics has been set... *any claims that they'll honor the warranties of existing customers in an assets-only sale is highly suspect. *


----------



## Brezzin

sailingdog said:


> One additional point I'd add to what Cam said. Tartan has previously used the "asset-only" sale technique to ditch warranty liability. Jackett was responsible for doing so when the Tartan brand was owned by Navstar Marine, and was sold to Polk Industries... so a precedent for such tactics has been set... *any claims that they'll honor the warranties of existing customers in an assets-only sale is highly suspect. *


Just as an observation. You make it sound like Jackett had a nefarious plan here. The reality is that an asset sale is the default method of selling/buying a company. For a company owner to get a stock deal is the trick.

Asset sale favors the buyer for tax purposes. The Buyer can't do jack with the stock. At least with an asset sale the buyer can deprecate the assets and do write offs. Buyers WANT an Asset deal. They also don't want any outstanding liability issues be it employee or product suits as was stated. A stock deal favors the seller because it's taxed at capital gains. I bust my hump to get stock deal when I sell one of my companies. In order to get a stock deal, usually the company must be profitable and have a squeaky clean history and have something the buyer wants badly. Usually that means a lower price for the company and the seller willing to escrow money. It's not easy to get a stock deal on a privatly owned company.

I don't think Jackett had to do anything to get an asset deal. That's how they come out of the box.

Mind you I'm not an accountant nor do I have any knowlage of above mentioned deal with Tartan. Just a person that has bought and sold a few companies. I just don't think that Jackett should get credit for being sneaky.


----------



## sailingdog

Dave-

My point is that Jackett has used the asset-only method of sale to dodge liability/responsibility for warranty repair issues for the Tartan brand previously. The fact that the seller may want an asset-only sale has little, if anything to do with the past history of Jackett's actions.


----------



## Cruisingdad

*A GREAT WAY TO GET THIS THREAD SHUT DOWN TOO IS TO START POSTING OPINIONS AS FACT. I AM NOT POINTING OUT ANYONE. I AM SIMPLY TELLING EVERYONE TO KEEP THEIR THINKING CAPS ON WHEN THEY PRESS REPLY HERE.*


----------



## xort

sailingdog said:


> Dave-
> 
> My point is that Jackett has used the asset-only method of sale to dodge liability/responsibility for warranty repair issues for the Tartan brand previously. The fact that the seller may want an asset-only sale has little, if anything to do with the past history of Jackett's actions.


dog

we know jacket did an asset-only sale...how did you determine that the asset sale was SPECIFICLY done to 'dodge liabilty/responsibility'??


----------



## SEMIJim

Cruisingdad said:


> *A GREAT WAY TO GET THIS THREAD SHUT DOWN TOO IS TO START POSTING OPINIONS AS FACT.*


The other problem being that if said opinion can be interpreted as derogatory, the writer or speaker might find him- or herself facing a liable or slander suit.

N.B.: IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.

Jim


----------



## sailingdog

Xort-

Never said he did it specifically to dodge warranty liability...but that was one of the things that ended up happening... You're the one saying that he did it specifically to dodge liability... I don't believe I ever said that... just that he dodged liability via an asset-only sale...


xort said:


> dog
> 
> we know jacket did an asset-only sale...how did you determine that the asset sale was SPECIFICLY done to 'dodge liabilty/responsibility'??


----------



## xort

"used the asset-only method of sale to dodge liability/responsibility"

to me that has specificity. 'used...to dodge'


----------



## sailingdog

Xort-

That says he used it to dodge warranty liability, not that he engineered the asset-only sale for that specific purpose, just that it had that possibly unintended but beneficial to him consequence.


----------



## T34C

sailingdog said:


> One additional point I'd add to what Cam said. Tartan has previously used the "asset-only" sale technique to ditch warranty liability. Jackett was responsible for doing so when the Tartan brand was owned by Navstar Marine, and was sold to Polk Industries... so a precedent for such tactics has been set... *any claims that they'll honor the warranties of existing customers in an assets-only sale is highly suspect. *


Do you have any evidence that any warranties were not honored as a result of the previous sale of Tartan?


----------



## Gramp34

T34C said:


> Do you have any evidence that any warranties were not honored as a result of the previous sale of Tartan?


Have a look at Practical Sailor "Special Report - When Deals Go Bad" from July 1, 1997. The relevant parts were posted to the removed thread.

At the risk of this thread being removed too, here's the key paragraph:



> Matters deteriorated further when Salamon pressed Jackett for payment in June, 1996, and he encountered a change in Jackett's tone. He was informed by letter that the company that had manufactured his boat and issued the warranty, NavStar Marine Company, was no longer in business, having been reorganized as Tartan Yachts, Inc., in October 1993. The new owner, Polk Industries, an investment company, therefore disavowed responsibility for warranty work because only the assets of NavStar had been purchased.


Mr. Salamon had a Tartan 372 with a lot of issues.


----------



## sailingdog

Yes, as Gramps posted.. BTW, I'd also point out that the sale of the company from NavStar Marine to Polk Industries, had basically the same corporate officers involved in both companies, including Mr. Jackett IIRC. *My question to you is why would they engineer an assets only sale that was basically from themselves to themselves if not to shed liabilities, like warranty support???* 


T34C said:


> Do you have any evidence that any warranties were not honored as a result of the previous sale of Tartan?


----------



## T34C

sailingdog said:


> Yes, as Gramps posted.. BTW, I'd also point out that the sale of the company from NavStar Marine to Polk Industries, had basically the same corporate officers involved in both companies, including Mr. Jackett IIRC. *My question to you is why would they engineer an assets only sale that was basically from themselves to themselves if not to shed liabilities, like warranty support???*


dog- I know what you are saying, just wanted to get some documentation on it in this thread before some one at Tartan decides to send a strongly worded text message "forcing" Sailnet to remove this thread too.


----------



## camaraderie

*Tartan wins a decision*

As many of you know...MackBoring Yanmar was seeking additional discovery from Novis to track assets available for settlement in their suit over non-payment of $138k in invoices for saildrives. 
The NJ federal district court has denied this further discovery today saying:

"The fact that Mack Boring cannot obtain pre-final judgment discovery pertaining to Novis's ability to satisfy its judgment does not mean it is without recourse. Indeed, Mack Boring as judgment creditor may obtain discovery "in order that [it] may find out what assets exist or have been fraudulently transferred. In addition, [it] may use the discovery mechanisms provided under state practice." Ranney-Brown, 75 F.R.D. at 5 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 69). *As a legal (if technical) matter, Mack Boring must wait until final judgment is entered to seek the discovery it
wishes.*"

We now await the final decision in the case itself which is reportedly favorable to Mack Boring on the debt itself but there are apparently a couple of other outstanding issues awaiting a ruling.

The case citation is:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
MACK BORING & PARTS COMPANY :
: Civil Action No. 06-2692 (HAA)
Plaintiff, :
:
v. ::
NOVIS MARINE, LTD : OPINION

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/doc1/11913511897 Access to the Pacer system may be required but this particular opinion is free of charge for those wanting to read the whole decision. 
I have a copy of the opinion in pdf format that I can provide to anyone who sends me a PM with e-mail address....but suggest you do not bother as it is almost entirely a technical denial based on prior case law.


----------



## Giulietta

camaraderie said:


> As many of you know...MackBoring Yanmar was seeking additional discovery from Novis to track assets available for settlement in their suit over non-payment of $138k in invoices for saildrives.
> The NJ federal district court has denied this further discovery today saying:
> 
> "The fact that Mack Boring cannot obtain pre-final judgment discovery pertaining to Novis's ability to satisfy its judgment does not mean it is without recourse. Indeed, Mack Boring as judgment creditor may obtain discovery "in order that [it] may find out what assets exist or have been fraudulently transferred. In addition, [it] may use the discovery mechanisms provided under state practice." Ranney-Brown, 75 F.R.D. at 5 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 69). *As a legal (if technical) matter, Mack Boring must wait until final judgment is entered to seek the discovery it
> wishes.*"
> 
> We now await the final decision in the case itself which is reportedly favorable to Mack Boring on the debt itself but there are apparently a couple of other outstanding issues awaiting a ruling.
> 
> The case citation is:
> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
> DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
> :
> MACK BORING & PARTS COMPANY :
> : Civil Action No. 06-2692 (HAA)
> Plaintiff, :
> :
> v. ::
> NOVIS MARINE, LTD : OPINION
> 
> https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/doc1/11913511897 Access to the Pacer system may be required but this particular opinion is free of charge for those wanting to read the whole decision.
> I have a copy of the opinion in pdf format that I can provide to anyone who sends me a PM with e-mail address....but suggest you do not bother as it is almost entirely a technical denial based on prior case law.


*HEY HOFFA..I MEAN..CAM..

BETTER SHUDDUP..OR ELSE.......BADABIM....BADABUM....​*


----------



## magnusmurphy

Thanks for the summary Cam. I must say I find the whole smelly business more sad than anything else. I once seriously considered purchasing a Tartan since I thought (and still do) that they are beautiful yachts and I was also persuaded that the epoxy building method is superior. Just shows again that the "latest and greatest" innovation is not necessarily the best. Better to wait a few years.... How true that is also in my own profession.

Anyway, I believe the last thing we need with the economy as it is is to tarnish a brand unfairly. If there were deceptions and worse, criminal intent it should be exposed. However if mostly bad luck or great ideas that didn't work out, I do wish the company can overcome the problems, help those who own the defective products and continue to exist in the future. I'm very afraid that the current economy is going to severely shrink the number of boat manufacturers and therefore choice, in the near future.

M Murphy


----------



## neilmcd

*Big T and the Wolf Pack*

Last night I took the time to read the more or less full thread on this topic that has now been created elsewhere on the internet. An interesting history of an energetic wolf pack trying to chase down the Big T and bring it/them to account. Cornered at times, the Big T has occasionally tried to fight back and both sides seem to have scored some decent hits. I for one am content to let the courts and the various "lawers" sort it all out.

One image that comes to mind from reading between the lines is of Sailnet's unfortunate management standing on the sidelines and wringing their hands with anguish at the situation that they have been dragged into. "Should we defend free speech or defend our business?". Not a tough decision to make!

One factor that might have made their decision a little easier is the fact that one of the pack leaders was a Sailnet moderator. I am sure that any competent Big T lawyer would want to say "Volunteer or not, moderators represent management and Sailnet carries some responsibility for their utterings". So perhaps with the benefit of hind sight, it might have made Sailnet's position a little easier if this moderator - great guy that he apparently is - had not emerged as a pack leader while wearing a Sailnet moderators hat.

My only other comment is that its fun trying to figure out which posts are from forum members trying to make a serious post and which ones are merely intended to bait others on the forum. I will now run for cover before the replies start arriving.


----------



## Mipcar

magnusmurphy said:


> and I was also persuaded that the epoxy building method is superior. Just shows again that the "latest and greatest" innovation is not necessarily the best.
> M Murphy


Just to hijack this thread a little. Does not Hanse also produce an epoxy version? How are their boats standing up to wear and tear?

What about other makers using epoxy?

Mychael


----------



## WaterView

Welcome to Sailnet neilmcd. I think you'll find this a very friendly and informative place. I enjoy hours of reading a week, it's very entertaining.


----------



## camaraderie

neil...welcome. I think your points are valid. While I certainly did my share of posting on the thread and dredging up info that Tartan would prefer not to be in the public domain, I am quite comfortable with my role in the thread. Moderators posts here are solely their own opinions as the rules clearly state so I am sure sailnet would prevail in any action but the cost of that action would be prohibitive to them. Anyway...I am glad you read the thread. It is all about people reading the facts and opinions and then making up their own minds. 

Mychael...I believe Hanse and J-Boats both use Epoxy construction in at least some of their boats. Nothing I've heard says they have had any problems. I don't think anyone has ever said that Epoxy is not a suitable material for building good boats.


----------



## sailingdog

Many boats are made with epoxy... however, it seems that Tartan's implementation of building epoxy hulls has some kinks that need to be worked out. Epoxy is an excellent material for building boats, and properly used can result in a lighter, stiffer, stronger boat than you would get with polyester or vinylester resins.

As for Hanse-haven't heard much in the way of problems with their epoxy-based hulls.


Mipcar said:


> Just to hijack this thread a little. Does not Hanse also produce an epoxy version? How are their boats standing up to wear and tear?
> 
> What about other makers using epoxy?
> 
> Mychael


----------



## sailortjk1

sailingdog said:


> Many boats are made with epoxy... however, it seems that Tartan's implementation of building epoxy hulls has some kinks that need to be worked out. Epoxy is an excellent material for building boats, and properly used can result in a lighter, stiffer, stronger boat than you would get with polyester or vinylester resins.
> 
> As for Hanse-haven't heard much in the way of problems with their epoxy-based hulls.


Doesn't J use a vacume bagged approach?


----------



## sailingdog

Tim-

TPI, who makes the boats for J/Boats, uses the *SCRIMP process*, which is a vacuum infusion process, which J/Boats mention *HERE*.

Hope that helps.  BTW, you do know that J/Boats doesn't actually make any boats, right??? They design and market the boats, but the boats are actually built by TPI in the US, and in other countries as listed *HERE*.


----------



## tranmkp

Im trying to find the other thread on this but Tartan does not make a TRUE epoxy like West or System 3. Its is a type of polyester that has epoxy components. True epoxy construction would be too expensive for Tartan to use. They can get away with advertising epoxy boats, but dont think for a second you are getting a real epoxy boat...


----------



## camaraderie

Tran...you have no proof of that and are just spreading rumours and speculation as fobbing it off as fact. Do you KNOW the exact brand name and type of resin they are using? Got an invoice or a lab analysis to point to? 
Yes...there is such a rumour...but don't make the jump and post it as a fact unless you can prove it. THAT is how threads like this get deleted. You should prove it or edit your post.


----------



## camaraderie

*Deleted by Cam pending further resolution of court records. *


----------



## denby

Might be last legs.


----------



## T34C

I think I hear the death rattle.


----------



## sailingdog

Not surprised at all... nope... just feel sorry for anyone who bought a Tartan or C&C recently and has any problems with it, since the company may not be required to honor the 15 Year warranties on these boats...


----------



## Giulietta

camaraderie said:


> *BIG NEWS...The Cuyahoga Court has appointed a receiver for Tartan/Novis *
> Case Number: CV-08-647213 Case Title: PORTER, WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR vs. NOVIS MARINE LTD. ETAL
> 
> 
> 12/15/2008  P  JE  PLTF. PORTER WRIGHT MOTION #2511044, MOTION FOR A RECEVIER IS HEREBY GRANTED. BRIAN BASH , BASH & HOSLETIN IS APPOINTED. NOTICE ISSUED.
> Don't know yet what this means to the company, to boat owners or potential customers. Here is what seems to be the relevant Ohio law regarding appointment of a receiver:
> 
> *CHAPTER 2735: RECEIVERSHIP*
> 
> *2735.01 Appointment of receiver.*
> 
> A receiver may be appointed by the supreme court or a judge thereof, the court of appeals or a judge thereof in his district, the court of common pleas or a judge thereof in his county, or the probate court, in causes pending in such courts respectively, in the following cases:
> (A) In an action by a vendor to vacate a fraudulent purchase of property, or by a creditor to subject property or a fund to his claim, or between partners or others jointly owning or interested in any property or fund, on the application of the plaintiff, or of a party whose right to or interest in the property or fund, or the proceeds thereof, is probable, and when it is shown that the property or fund is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured;
> (B) In an action by a mortgagee, for the foreclosure of his mortgage and sale of the mortgaged property, when it appears that the mortgaged property is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured, or that the condition of the mortgage has not been performed, and the property is probably insufficient to discharge the mortgage debt;
> (C) After judgment, to carry the judgment into effect;
> (D) After judgment, to dispose of the property according to the judgment, or to preserve it during the pendency of an appeal, or when an execution has been returned unsatisfied and the judgment debtor refuses to apply the property in satisfaction of the judgment;
> (E) When a corporation has been dissolved, or is insolvent, or in imminent danger of insolvency, or has forfeited its corporate rights;
> (F) In all other cases in which receivers have been appointed by the usages of equity.
> 
> *2735.04 Powers of receiver.*
> 
> Under the control of the court which appointed him, as provided in section 2735.01 of the Revised Code, a receiver may bring and defend actions in his own name as receiver, take and keep possession of property, receive rents, collect, compound for, and compromise demands, make transfers, and generally do such acts respecting the property as the court authorizes.
> 
> *2735.05 Examination.*
> 
> On application of the receiver or of a creditor, the court appointing such receiver as provided in section 2735.01 of the Revised Code may, upon reasonable notice, require any person, or officer or director of a corporation, or member of a partnership for which a receiver has been appointed, to attend and submit to an examination on oath as to its property, trade, dealings with others, accounts, and debts due or claimed from it, and as to all other matters concerning the property and estate of the person, partnership, or corporation for which such receiver has been appointed.


Cam, can you please, as a favour to us foreigners here whose English is not first language, please explain in dumb talk what that means?

Thanks


----------



## bubb2

Alex thats means FORCED BANKRUPTCY!!!
I am feeling just like I did when OJ went to jail!!!!


----------



## sailingdog

Yup.. Tartan/C&C went the same way Dehler just did... Although I think it was probably more deserved in the case of Tartan/C&C.


----------



## bubb2

The bigger Question is will Cam come back as a Moderator? If he will have us!!!!!


----------



## blt2ski

who say's we want "HIM" back! Cam whom?!?!?!?!?!


----------



## sailingdog

brutally and simply put... thanks for clarifying CP. 


cardiacpaul said:


> in 'regular folks' terms...
> 
> It means the judge was so pissed at tartan and all the rest of the offending companies doing the paperwork shuffle and delaying tactics, he'd heard
> "just about enough"
> and appointed an accountant/lawyer type dude
> to take over the money end of the company. Jackett and Ross won't be able to buy a postage stamp, or get out of paying bills, or basically sell a spark plug unless this "receiver" says its okey dokey.


----------



## SEMIJim

cardiacpaul said:


> Jackett and Ross won't be able to buy a postage stamp, or get out of paying bills, or basically sell a spark plug unless this "receiver" says its okey dokey.


So... thinking here... no money to pay lawyers, filing fees, etc. to sue anybody, either, unless they paid for it out of their own pockets.... hmmm...

Ohhhh SailNet: About that thread you found necessary to remove recently...? 

Jim


----------



## camaraderie

*Deleted by Cam until court records are updated further. *


----------



## T34C

*Ohhhh SailNet: About that thread you found necessary to remove recently...? *

The folks running this place seem a little slow to figure that out.


----------



## blt2ski

While they may be a bit slow, if I was in there shoes, I would also be a bit slow to put it back, but considering there are 2-4 others in the same vain right now online here, along with a thread that says where the info is..........no reason to put if back sooner than later. Later may be to the better benefit of SN in the end.

Marty


----------



## T34C

It's pretty hard to sue someone without a lawyer, and last I checked those guys don't work for free.


----------



## sailortjk1

At one time Tartan was one of the leaders in the Marine industry.
Very sad.....(but they got exactly what they deserved)


----------



## denby

bubb2 said:


> The bigger Question is will Cam come back as a Moderator? If he will have us!!!!!


Cam? Coming back as moderator? 

Oh Cam old buddy. Listen pal, those post the last few days, you see it wasn't me. Yeah that's right, it was my twin brother, Yeah he signed on using my name, really if you don't believe me just ask him.

_The big red button is coming. _


----------



## T34C

denby said:


> Cam? Coming back as moderator?
> 
> Oh Cam old buddy. Listen pal, those post the last few days, you see it wasn't me. Yeah that's right, it was my twin brother, Yeah he signed on using my name, really if you don't believe me just ask him.
> 
> _The big red button is coming. _


I think you should submit a picture of said brother just to prove your case.


----------



## denby

T34C said:


> I think you should submit a picture of said brother just to prove your case.


Ah thought you would be tricky and get me to post a pic. I know those tricks. There are no pics of me on Sailnet, I've seen what happens. We're Identical twins so it wouldn't matter which one's in the pic.
Ask Dawg, he knows I have a twin and he knows his name.


----------



## T34C

I hope, for your sake, he doesn't look anything like dog- !!


----------



## xort

denby said:


> Ask Dawg, he knows I have a twin and he knows his name.


Butthead??????????????


----------



## denby

xort said:


> Butthead??????????????


Butthead? Who are you calling butthead?


----------



## sailingdog

Ahh...the weak minded, my evil twin did it excuse... doesn't matter that you actually have an evil twin... it is still a pathetic excuse... even if it is true... 



denby said:


> Ah thought you would be tricky and get me to post a pic. I know those tricks. There are no pics of me on Sailnet, I've seen what happens. We're Identical twins so it wouldn't matter which one's in the pic.
> Ask Dawg, he knows I have a twin and he knows his name.


Xort- That would be Denby... his twin's name is Beavis. 



xort said:


> Butthead??????????????



Bad dog...bad, bad doggie... Woof!!!


----------



## ehmanta

It's a sad day when venerable(WAS) brand such as Tartan falls prey to their own mis-deeds. As a classic Tartan owner, I have had much pride in my vessel knowing that the Tartan brand stood for quality and performance, so this turn of events does not sit well with me.  
If you could draw a lesson from all of this, I would say that customer service should be the *number one priority *and everything else will fall into place. If you were to look at Catalina, for example, their customer service is legendary in the industry and they sell plenty of boats. Tartan would have been better off "biting the bullet" and made the few owners with issues deleriously happy and this story may have had a different ending. And of course the economy isn't helping now, but it was not an issue when all of this started happening.
Perhaps, someone with deep pockets will want to come in and save the brand, but it will take someone with a committment to quality *and* customer service. 
(these opinions here are just that, opinions )
Tom


----------



## camaraderie

HOLD ON...I am NOW informed that there may have been a mistake in court and that *a receiver will NOT be appointed*. The court website still reflects a receiver being appointment...but in fairness I am retracting my previous post until the situation becomes more clear.

Anyone who posted here based on my post of the Cuyohoga court records yesterday may wish to reconsider their comments as well. 

*Further developments may be monitored at 
CJISWEBNET
and by searching for case: 
* 
CV-08-647213 PORTER, WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR vs. NOVIS MARINE LTD. ETAL 


----------



## Giulietta

camaraderie said:


> HOLD ON...I am NOW informed that there may have been a mistake in court and that *a receiver will NOT be appointed*. The court website still reflects a receiver being appointment...but in fairness I am retracting my previous post until the situation becomes more clear.
> 
> Anyone who posted here based on my post of the Cuyohoga court records yesterday may wish to reconsider their comments as well.
> 
> *Further developments may be monitored at
> CJISWEBNET Disclaimer
> and by searching for case:
> *
> CV-08-647213 PORTER, WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR vs. NOVIS MARINE LTD. ETAL 


ah...I wonder where they're keeping the Judge's daughter


----------



## ehmanta

Thanks Cam,
I think my opinion is still valid nonetheless....Customer service rules!!!


----------



## travler37

Mark,
Search google and deleated thread will come up.Personally have ben spanked enough about this issue but is nice someone is keeping it alive. 
Mark


----------



## T34C

camaraderie said:


> HOLD ON...I am NOW informed that there may have been a mistake in court and that *a receiver will NOT be appointed*. The court website still reflects a receiver being appointment...but in fairness I am retracting my previous post until the situation becomes more clear.
> 
> Anyone who posted here based on my post of the Cuyohoga court records yesterday may wish to reconsider their comments as well.
> 
> *Further developments may be monitored at
> CJISWEBNET
> and by searching for case:
> *
> CV-08-647213 PORTER, WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR vs. NOVIS MARINE LTD. ETAL 


I think I may have heard something about them calling the judge to threaten a suit if he were to indicate they may not have any money or the ability to pay their bills. Or, I could be wrong.


----------



## SEMIJim

camaraderie said:


> Anyone who posted here based on my post of the Cuyohoga court records yesterday may wish to reconsider their comments as well.


Ohhhh SailNet: About that thread you found necessary to remove recently... never mind.

There: Reconsidered! 

Jim


----------



## travler37

ehmanta said:


> It's a sad day when venerable(WAS) brand such as Tartan falls prey to their own mis-deeds. As a classic Tartan owner, I have had much pride in my vessel knowing that the Tartan brand stood for quality and performance, so this turn of events does not sit well with me.
> If you could draw a lesson from all of this, I would say that customer service should be the *number one priority *and everything else will fall into place. If you were to look at Catalina, for example, their customer service is legendary in the industry and they sell plenty of boats. Tartan would have been better off "biting the bullet" and made the few owners with issues deleriously happy and this story may have had a different ending. And of course the economy isn't helping now, but it was not an issue when all of this started happening.
> Perhaps, someone with deep pockets will want to come in and save the brand, but it will take someone with a committment to quality *and* customer service.
> (these opinions here are just that, opinions )
> Tom


 Actually am happy they got the big one,
Hopes the JUDGE freezes all there holdings for 7 years as he has the power to.

Cust service...Should be TOP OF THE LIST for all companys.....
actually hope that someone can afford to buy this and make it right.We need the industry.
Mark


----------



## tranmkp

They wont get a cent from Ross. The money is long gone. He will always be just one step ahead.


----------



## T34C

tranmkp said:


> They wont get a cent from Ross. The money is long gone. He will always be just one step ahead.


They won't get a cent from him because they are *incorporated* and he there fore has very limited liability.


----------



## WaterView

Why does everyone "some people" keep this this thread going negative? Why is there some reason to trash this company? Any prudent buyer will do their own research before buying a new boat, right? My guess is whom ever owns Tartan/C&C is doing their best to make a productive Sailboat Company from it. I'm sure they don't want to sink it as many on this site would like to see happen. It's as if you guys want the company to fail just to say "I told you so." I say shame on a bunch of you.


----------



## sailingdog

Just curious, but have you even been reading about what Tartan/C&C have been doing in the past few years.

I'd imagine it is hard to be a productive sailboat company if you rack up huge legal bills and don't pay your attorneys. THIS IS A FACT.

It is also probably really hard to be a productive sailboat company if you've forgotten to pay your resin suppliers for resin they delivered. THIS IS ALSO A FACT.

It is probably hard to be a productive sailboat manufacturer if the management is spending a good deal of their time tied up in court or looking for a way to dodge the companies current responsibilities to their vendors and customers. THIS IS A PRETTY GOOD GUESS, based on FACTS-like the fact that Tartan/C&C/Jackett/Novis are currently involved in dozens of lawsuits.

* You don't happen to be from Ohio, say near the Tartan factory??? *



WaterView said:


> Why does everyone "some people" keep this this thread going negative? Why is there some reason to trash this company? Any prudent buyer will do their own research before buying a new boat, right? My guess is whom ever owns Tartan/C&C is doing their best to make a productive Sailboat Company from it. I'm sure they don't want to sink it as many on this site would like to see happen. It's as if you guys want the company to fail just to say "I told you so." I say shame on a bunch of you.


----------



## T34C

WaterView said:


> Why does everyone "some people" keep this this thread going negative? Why is there some reason to trash this company? Any prudent buyer will do their own research before buying a new boat, right? My guess is whom ever owns Tartan/C&C is doing their best to make a productive Sailboat Company from it. I'm sure they don't want to sink it as many on this site would like to see happen. It's as if you guys want the company to fail just to say "I told you so." I say shame on a bunch of you.


I don't think anyone on this forum needs to sound negative or run the company down, they seem to be doing a pretty good job all by themselves, IMHO.


----------



## camaraderie

It appears that I was correct about some sort of settlement effort rather than a receiver. Court is now being asked to withdraw the appointment of the receiver and Fryberg Door has withdrawn it's request for a summary judgment. What is odd is that NOVIS is not among the companies looking to vacate the receivership order...Don't know if that will be filed later since Novis is NOT represented by Pangrace who filed the request... or if Ross is just going to let it happen without further proceedings. I am very confused at this point about what exactly is going on so I will not speculate further. 
A full listing of actions since the receivership judgment:


12/18/2008  D1  OT  D1 NOVIS MARINE LTD RESPONSE TO CROSS-CLAIMANT FRYBURG DOOR, INC'S MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE. WILLIAM J ROSS 0023196 
 12/18/2008  D   MO  DEFENDANT(S) *CHALLENGER PARTNERS, LLC(D5) and GRAND RIVER COMPOSITES, LLC FKA CHALLENGER COMPOSITES, LLC(D6) JOINT MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMETN ENTRIES AND PROPOSED ORDER MARTIN J PANGRACE 0073857 *
 12/18/2008  D4  OT  D4 *FRYBURG DOOR,INC. NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE. OWEN J. RARRIC 0075367* 
 12/17/2008  D4  MO  D4 FRYBURG DOOR,INC. CROSS-CLAIMANT BRYBURG DOOR INC'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT MATTHEW P MULLEN 0063317 
 12/17/2008  D  MO  DEFENDANT(S) CHALLENGER PARTNERS, LLC(D5) and GRAND RIVER COMPOSITES, LLC FKA CHALLENGER COMPOSITES, LLC(D6) MOTION OF DEFTS FOR LEAVE TO FILE ANSWERS TO CROSS CLAIMS INSTANTER MARTIN J PANGRACE 0073857 
 12/16/2008  D4  BR  D4 FRYBURG DOOR,INC. BRIEF OF CROSS-CLAIMANT, FRYBURG DOOR, INC., IN REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE. OWEN J. RARRIC 0075367 
 12/15/2008  P  JE  INTERVENING CROSS-CLAIMANT - FRYBURG DOOR'S MOTION TO APPOINT RECEIVER BRIAN BASH , BAKER & HOSTETLER. NOTICE ISSUED. 
 12/15/2008   P  JE  *PLTF. PORTER WRIGHT MOTION #2511044, MOTION FOR A RECEVIER IS HEREBY GRANTED. BRIAN BASH , BASH & HOSLETIN IS APPOINTED. NOTICE ISSUED. * 


----------



## T37Chef

Just curious what you think, could a owner of an older Tartan model (pre "00") sue Tartan/Novis for deflating the value of their boat? Just asking


----------



## gaha_1

Maybe we could get the GOVT.to bail them out


----------



## r.furborough

Looks like it really is in the public domain now. The latest issue of the BoatUS magazine has an article of the Tartan 3700 'Blue Heron' incident. It also makes mention of the amount of internet coverage this issue got. William Ross of Novis Marine, the holding company of Tartan and C&C makes reference to 'Internet Terrorists' in the article.

HA, what an A-Hole, the article makes him look a fool


----------



## camaraderie

Thanks for the alert RF. Anyone got a copy they can put on line?


----------



## blt2ski

Cam,

i would swag that if you're a member, the article is online. I'm a member, but have not signed on online, so I am not able to verify that it is online......at least at this moment in time!

Even "IF" I was able to see it online, not sure linking it would do non members any good.

marty


----------



## denby

r.furborough said:


> Looks like it really is in the public domain now. The latest issue of the BoatUS magazine has an article of the Tartan 3700 'Blue Heron' incident. It also makes mention of the amount of internet coverage this issue got. William Ross of Novis Marine, the holding company of Tartan and C&C makes reference to 'Internet Terrorists' in the article.
> 
> HA, what an A-Hole, the article makes him look a fool


What issue is that? I have November's, Can't find December's and don't know if January's is out yet. Unable to find it on their web site.


----------



## r.furborough

denby said:


> What issue is that? I have November's, Can't find December's and don't know if January's is out yet. Unable to find it on their web site.


Its the January 2009 issue.


----------



## rdstanley

If anyone wants the article pm me an email address and I'll scan and email it to you.


----------



## bubb2

RD, You guys rock, Internet terrorists my hindy!! Keep spreading the word. Do not let Cam's efforts go in vain. thanks Mike


----------



## TSOJOURNER

I think we should use the power of the internet. Everyone that comes here should email the owners of Tartan about the threats they made against Sailnet. Quite a few people come here and read every day. We would basically overload their email with thank you's.

Doesn't have to be anything bad, just a thanks for letting us know there might possibly be a real issue with their yachts and maybe they are trying to cover it up.

We should also post a note about the removal of the Tartan thread at every other sailing site we can find. Still nothing bad just a note saying that the owners of Tartain made Sailnet remove a thread about the issues with their yachts.

Is this possible? legal?

Sorry if this has been brought up already I just don't have time to read they entire thread


----------



## Mipcar

r.furborough said:


> Its the January 2009 issue.


.

For us overseas sailors, can you just give a brief summery of what the article was about?

Thanks,
Mychael


----------



## craigtoo

I am not on either side of this debate.. here's my summary....

Article Summary:

Blue Heron Synopsis:
Nearly sank after significant hull fracture. Cause - According to Tartan: "manufacturing deficiency".

Tartan acknowledges "not done a good job of communicating" with regard to the issue.

Company officals tolad BoatUS that they inspected a dew boats built at about same time "none were found to have defect of 'Blue Heron'.

Tartan: "No other Tartan 3700 owners have reported similar hull problems with their boats"

William Ross (Owner of Novis Marine Ltd. Parent Co. Tartan/ C&C): Blue Heron's hull failed because not enough fiberglass cloth and resin was laminated at the centerline just forward of the keel"

William Ross: Boat brought to Fairfiled Ohio, immediately following incident and completely repaired. Owners fully satisfied and consdering purchase of larger Tartan.

William Ross: Tim Jackett (designer) and COO personally inspected vessels with hull identification numbers just before and after 'Blue Heron' - No Problems found. Blue Heron was an "oversight in the Construction Process".

William Ross: Tartan's effort to alert owners to possible hull problems was the responsible, proactive approach but that criticism by bloggers exaggerated the situation.

Jan 2008 Novis announced sale of assets to Private Equity Group in Cleveland.

"Typically, legal liability for products and for wattanty obligations is transferred only when the corporate entity, rather than the physical assets such as real estate, machinery and designs, is purchased outright. New owners are not required to provide warranty coverage on the predeccessor's products. Ross said the bloggers siezed on this development as evidence that the company wanted to absolve itself of warranty obligations. He assured BoatUS that these allegation are completely false and that Tartan and C&C warranties will be honored."

Jackett in a memo: "We conlcuded that although we might now know the exact cause of the damage to the hull it was the result of several contributing factors including 'improper rig tuning'"..."There may have been an area just forward of the mast step and near the instrument through-hull penetrations where the centerline laminate overlap was less than ideal."

"During the previous two seasons the owner had complained that the rigging was too long and had provided photos showing shroud turnbuckles either close to or were bottomed out on their adjustment"

"Our experience has been that the only way to apply the amount of rigging tension that would allow this rigging to reach it's maximum adjustment is to tension the leeward shrouds while sailing."

The memo (from which come the above quotes from Mr. Jackett) clearly lays much of the blame at the feet of the Blue Heron's owner.

Tartan "makes good"
Tartan invets owners to tartan hulls 58 - 110 (3700). 2002 - 2007 for free inspection. Repairs will be made at no expense to owners if defects are found.

Jackett: We were slow to respond to concerns of owners in part because the company needed to thoroughly understand the causes of a problem with one boat... Our investigation revealed that (the Blue Heron) did not have the proper amount of overlap for a short section forward of the keel stib as required by the laminate schedule."

Gradual delamination occured.
Crack Happened 
Boat almost sank.


----------



## camaraderie

I am disappointed in the article as it focused solely on the issue of Tartan 3700 build quality and relied heavily on comments by Jackett and Ross. In all, the impressions left the casual reader are:
1. The Blue Heron Tartan did indeed have factory defects which almost caused it to sink. Ross also attributed the hull failure in part to the owner of the boat.Tartan took care of this amd made repairs and the owner is well satisfied with their resolution. 
2. Tartan inspected a few other boats and found no similar problems and notified all other owners of the 3700 of the issue but no similar problems have arisen. 
3. Internet bloggers who have filed suit against Tartan for reasons unrelated to the Blue Heron build issue have used the internet to disparage the company and keep this issue alive. Ross labled them "terrorists". 
4. The asset sale of the company to Grand River was jumped on by the internet crowd to assert that the company was trying to sell to avoid other warranty responsibilities to existing owners. Ross assured BoatUS that all Tartan and C&C warranties will be honored.

The impression is left that with this one exception, Tartan has built excellent boats, perhaps was a little bit slow in getting word out to other owners but has taken care of the problem for the original owner and has no other such problems. Furthermore, despite its actions, Tartan has been the victim of an ongoing internet assault that is without merit. 

There is no mention in the article of any of the financial, vendor and court related issues that have been at the heart of the discussion here. Nor is there any mention of the details of the consumer suits filed by the two "terrorists". The article focus is strictly on the separating hull issue as it pertains to one Tartan model. 
All of the quotes in the article come from Tartan execs and apparently no other comments were solicited. 

The article closes by saying that details from owners have been provided to the Coast Guard and if the CG determines that other boats have similar defects, a recall could be ordered. It asks other Tartan 3700 owners with observed hull damages to contact BoatUS. 

I really can't find fault with much in the article except for their sole reliance on Tartan execs for commentary which allowed a certain amount of spin to be applied. I said early on that the courts would be the only place where the truth about build quality could be judged...and we still await decisions on the existing consumer suits. 

The real story that we DO know about is about finances, and vendor non-payment and outstanding court judgments and none of that was included in the BoatUS article as it was strictly centered on the hull issue.


----------



## chucklesR

I read the article yesterday, and was slightly pissed.

Tartan originally said the problem was maybe delam and definitely the rigging being tuned too tight by the owner in a internal memo. I'm sure the internal memo was not originally thought to have had the light of day on it.

You know the owner caught crap and had to deal with it.

Tartan inspected an undisclosed number of hull's surrounding the Blue Heron. Undisclosed generally means minimal, like one on each side... Way to go butt heads - stick yourself out on a limb and see if there is a real problem..

BoatUS did not research diddly squat. As we all know a simple search on the internet would have revealed multiple sources of information and multiple problems.

Yet another boat mag in the pocket of the industry- I mean let's face it; have you ever read a bad review of a boat from any manufacturer?

I trust PS, and PS only.


----------



## bobd43769

I would be more impressed with this article if it interviewed the owners of "Blue Heron" and the other owners suing Tartan/ C&C. I felt the article was slanted to Tartan's point of view.


----------



## xort

I just read the Boat US magazine article and I agree that it was a one sided story.
here is the link to the magazine department e-mail: [email protected]


----------



## Brezzin

You have to take into consideration that BoatUS is not a news organization. They simply regurgitate press releases. This is true of most industry's trade magazines. 

If I was Tartan I would contact a Public Relations firm, have them draft an news looking article and distribute it to the organizations that would have street credibility and hope they print it. The goal would be to salvage the brand name and add value. It's also is a pretty slick way discredit bloggers as ignorant and should be ignored. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story so to speak. The fact that the article is one sided leads me to believe that this may be the case here.

It's pretty standard practice today for all industry's trade mags just not boating. It's a very cheap way getting filler between the advertisements.


----------



## camaraderie

BoatUS is not a Trade Magazine...it is an organization paid for by BOATER's annual dues and supposed to be all about supporting boaters rights and needs. Sure they publish trade announcements...but their consumerism reports should be more like Consumer Reports...thorough, investigatory and done in the interest of their paying readers.


----------



## chucklesR

camaraderie said:


> BoatUS is not a Trade Magazine...it is an organization paid for by BOATER's annual dues and supposed to be all about supporting boaters rights and needs. Sure they publish trade announcements...but their consumerism reports should be more like Consumer Reports...thorough, investigatory and done in the interest of their paying readers.


Precisely.

And as I said, on this 'article' they missed the boat for us (I made a funny)


----------



## T34C

camaraderie said:


> BoatUS is not a Trade Magazine...it is an organization paid for by BOATER's annual dues and supposed to be all about supporting boaters rights and needs. Sure they publish trade announcements...but their consumerism reports should be more like Consumer Reports...thorough, investigatory and done in the interest of their paying readers.


Totally agree. Have any of you dropped them a line as a concerned member?


----------



## nk235

That is very true of boat magazines in general. I have only been sailing 4 years but so far I have never read a bad boat review. They don't have to bash the boat model but I would love it if they could tell us what is wrong with the boat or what they don't like instead of why it is so great. All reviews are just glorified advertisements. Sorry for jumping off topic.


----------



## blt2ski

I'd have to go look, but this year I noticed that CS did NOT do dislike of a given boat in the BOTY issue I got yesterday. They do have the "we like" part of the review. I know the UK's Yachting World will do a "dislike" of a given boat for their BOTY issue. Some of the dislikes are granted being picky, but I recall a comparison review of the X34 and Dehler34, the D34 had a cabinet door that hit the head in the prototype, they mentioned it! BUT< they do give the manufacture in question the ability to answer the dont likes and how they will fix the issue if it is an issue like the door hitting the head, which was fixed at about hull #8 IIRC.

Sometime I feel the rags do not want to hurt the manufactures so they sugar coats things, when in reality, there is nothing wrong to say, IMHO this is not right. Because someone else may say it is the right thing to do. As in I look at boats with cabin topped main sheets and go yucko! I want to hold that sheet as I am steering, not have it some 8' away. 

Ok, enough of this slightly off topic rant within this thread. 

I was glad to see that the new T5300 was NOT a BOTY finalist, other than a candidate! Along with my favorite, the X34 getting some press, now to figure out how to afford it!:R:R:R

marty


----------



## boatpoker

Let me say first that I am a big fan of BoatUS for their efforts on behalf of all boaters but I agree there is something hinky about their feelings for Tartan/C&C. I and another surveyor up here in Toronto belong to BoatUS Technical Exchange which is a "forum / archive" for surveyors and others in the industry to post specific issues with specific boats. When we make such a post, BoatUS contacts the mfg. for a response which is published along with the complaint.

On several occasions my friend and I have notified BoatUS about issues (other than broken tubes and delaminated hulls )with these boats and none were published and in fact BoatUS declared surprise that we had found issues with these boats (a curious response).

I have seen one T34 up here in the Great White North with a cracked thruster tube which when removed by the repair tech came out way too easy. The hull directly under the thruster tube was less than 1/2" thick and the tube itself was only 4mm thick. This factory installed tube was held in place with wads of chopped filler which could be peeled from the hull interior. Externally there was no FRP on the tube/hull joint just filler (which was soft).

I will no longer survey these boats as the liability is just too much and there is no way of absolutely determing their structural condition without destructive testing.


----------



## xort

boatpoker said:


> When we make such a post, BoatUS contacts the mfg. for a response which is published along with the complaint.
> 
> On several occasions my friend and I have notified BoatUS about issues (other than broken tubes and delaminated hulls )with these boats and none were published and in fact BoatUS declared surprise that we had found issues with these boats (a curious response).


poker
Please clarify, you are talking about Tartan boats you have reported problems with to Boat US and they don't report these problems like they usually would with other issues from other manufacturers???


----------



## T34C

boatpoker said:


> Let me say first that I am a big fan of BoatUS for their efforts on behalf of all boaters but I agree there is something hinky about their feelings for Tartan/C&C. I and another surveyor up here in Toronto belong to BoatUS Technical Exchange which is a "forum / archive" for surveyors and others in the industry to post specific issues with specific boats. When we make such a post, BoatUS contacts the mfg. for a response which is published along with the complaint.
> 
> On several occasions my friend and I have notified BoatUS about issues (other than broken tubes and delaminated hulls )with these boats and none were published and in fact BoatUS declared surprise that we had found issues with these boats (a curious response).
> 
> *I have seen one T34 up here in the Great White North with a cracked thruster tube *which when removed by the repair tech came out way too easy. The hull directly under the thruster tube was less than 1/2" thick and the tube itself was only 4mm thick. This factory installed tube was held in place with wads of chopped filler which could be peeled from the hull interior. Externally there was no FRP on the tube/hull joint just filler (which was soft).
> 
> I will no longer survey these boats as the liability is just too much and there is no way of absolutely determing their structural condition without destructive testing.


I assume you are refering to a 3400 and not a T34 which is a totally different animal. (Just from the same zoo. )


----------



## boatpoker

Courtney, My apologies I did mean a Tartan 3400 and used T34 as an abreviation.

Yes Xort you have read it correctly

Dirt people scare me.


----------



## xort

That is a pretty serious issue for Boat US. They are apparently hiding reported issues with Tartan boats. Issues reported by professionals.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*New info*

I certainly wouldn't want to utter the "T" word but has anyone seen the January 2009 issue of BoatUS magazine. They have a full article about what happened, when, and who was holding the smoking gun! Based on that article, I don't see where "T" word has anything to be ashamed of. I was on their 53' model at the Annapolis show and I'll buy it as soon as the lottery check comes in. BTW, is it true that you have to buy a ticket to win?

Steve
Irwin 34 "Dulcimer"
Danville, VA


----------



## xort

Steve
You haven't been here long so you haven't seen "The rest of the story". I suggest you take a look around for more information. Would you be enamored with that new boat if the hull started splitting? And Tartan wouldn't pay for the rapairs?
Boat US published a one sided PR piece.


----------



## sailingdog

Steve-

You might want to re-think getting a new Tartan. Some very recent Tartan owners have had serious problems with their boats, and have had to resort to legal suits against Novis/jackett/Ross/Tartan in order to get any relief.

These issues were the subject of a previous thread on Sailnet, which was removed when Tartan/Jackett/Ross/Novis threatened to sue sailnet if the thread was not removed.

Please also be aware that Jackett et al. have used the tactic of an asset only sale to dodge warranty liabilities in the past, and were attempting to engineer an asset-only sale of the present company earlier this year, meaning that the 15-year warranty that the Tartan and C&C boats come with would be largely meaningless.

It is also telling that Tartan/Novis/Jackett/Ross are being sued by many of their OEM vendors as well as the law firm that previously represented them in their suits by many companies.

Are you sure you want to be spending upwards of near half-a-million dollars with people with this kind of track record?? I know I wouldn't.



sbradfor said:


> I certainly wouldn't want to utter the "T" word but has anyone seen the January 2009 issue of BoatUS magazine. They have a full article about what happened, when, and who was holding the smoking gun! Based on that article, I don't see where "T" word has anything to be ashamed of. I was on their 53' model at the Annapolis show and I'll buy it as soon as the lottery check comes in. BTW, is it true that you have to buy a ticket to win?
> 
> Steve
> Irwin 34 "Dulcimer"
> Danville, VA


----------



## camaraderie

Steve...there is a separate thread here on the BUS article. BTW...is Dulcimer a fairly new purchase? I know a guy named Lance that sold one...same boat?


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*Tartan 3700 - For the Record*

I just read the Boat US article on the cracked Tartan hull and want to put in my 10 cents worth. I live in Montana and own a 3700 (2005 #102) and keep her in the water year round in the Pacific NW. When I heard about the 3700 hull cracking on the internet last spring, I contacted Tim Jackett directly and he responded within the hour and instructed me on how to have my hull inspected through my dealer for any issues relating to the same area. Close up hi resolution photographs were taken also and sent to Tartan for their inspection and everyone concurred everything looked in order and we have not had any problems since. I also have the original equipment SD 50 saildrive on the boat which is in excellent condition after 3 1/2 years of use. I change the zincs every 6 to 7 months and generally have about 75% remaining when I change them. (I am mentioning the SD50 because of all the bad press I have heard on that one too.) My wife and I love the boat and use it typically at least once a month year round. All the systems are working great and the few issues we have had have been corrected by the Seattle dealer under warranty by Novis. There have been a few fit and finish issues which I think should have been caught prior to delivery but all in all its a wonderful boat and she sails beautifully. Just some food for thought.


----------



## camaraderie

MTsail....welcome aboard! Glad you are happy with your boat. I think the vast majority of Tartan/C&C/Novis customers are...and they remain beautiful boats. 
Stay warm.


----------



## Chriscross

*C&c 115*

I purchased this boat 2 years ago and have had no problems with her. Race and criuse in the pacific north west . She is a fast, easy sailing boat and her performance is definately being held back by her crew :laugher , We are satisfied with her and the service to date.


----------



## JohnRPollard

The BOAT/US article on issues with Tartan is now available on-line:

Boat U.S. - January 2009

I wasn't able to direct link to the article, you'll have to flip through the magazine to page 44-45.


----------



## T34C

Is it just me, or is it an interesting trend that happy Tartan / C&C owners just happened to find this site, this thread, decided to join, and make their only post here, this month. Hate to sound paranoid, but kinda makes you say, Hmmmmmmm.....


----------



## ckgreenman

T34C said:


> Is it just me, or is it an interesting trend that happy Tartan / C&C owners just happened to find this site, this thread, decided to join, and make their only post here, this month. Hate to sound paranoid, but kinda makes you say, Hmmmmmmm.....


Things That Make You Go Hmmmmm - C + C Music Factory

Oh wait. wrong thread..


----------



## blt2ski

The two most recent appear to be from near me locally, ie Seattle. THAT dealer is an excellent dealer to deal with with ALL(Jeanneau, Nauticat, Dehler, Vanguard, C&C/tartan) of the boats they sell. So i can see why some locals are happy overall. I do know of one 115 owner that has some issues with gel coat coloring, not sure if they have been taken care of yet......

They hold roundesvouz's for all of the brands they sell but Dehler at this time. The Jeanneau ones held in conjuction with fraser yachts in BC have been fun to go to, along with typically a dryland evening dinner here in Seattle too. 

marty


----------



## T34C

blt2ski said:


> The two most recent appear to be from near me locally, ie Seattle. THAT dealer is an excellent dealer to deal with with ALL(Jeanneau, Nauticat, Dehler, Vanguard, C&C/tartan) of the boats they sell. So i can see why some locals are happy overall. I do know of one 115 owner that has some issues with gel coat coloring, not sure if they have been taken care of yet......
> 
> They hold roundesvouz's for all of the brands they sell but Dehler at this time. The Jeanneau ones held in conjuction with fraser yachts in BC have been fun to go to, along with typically a dryland evening dinner here in Seattle too.
> 
> marty


Makes sense. I great dealer can make-up for a lot. I still have to question the timing and what may have promted them to voice their support at this time.


----------



## Cruisingdad

T34C said:


> Is it just me, or is it an interesting trend that happy Tartan / C&C owners just happened to find this site, this thread, decided to join, and make their only post here, this month. Hate to sound paranoid, but kinda makes you say, Hmmmmmmm.....


Both seem to be legit.

- CD


----------



## T34C

Cruisingdad said:


> Both seem to be legit.
> 
> - CD


I was thinking more along the lines of a back channel request for happy owners to log in here and post. (?)


----------



## Cruisingdad

T34C said:


> I was thinking more along the lines of a back channel request for happy owners to log in here and post. (?)


Cannot answer that one.

- CD


----------



## xort

They'd have to be happy owners to begin with, which says something.

If I was a tartan owner, I would want to brunt the damage to the value of my boat by posting my good experiences.

I doubt the manufacturer would solicit this stuff but I could see the dealer putting out the word, they have a more personal relationship with the owners.


----------



## T34C

xort said:


> They'd have to be happy owners to begin with, which says something.
> 
> If I was a tartan owner, I would want to brunt the damage to the value of my boat by posting my good experiences.
> 
> I doubt the manufacturer would solicit this stuff but I could see the dealer putting out the word, they have a more personal relationship with the owners.


Not to mention an interest in continuing to sell new boats.


----------



## camaraderie

Hey lets face it...probably 95 out of 100 Tartan/C&C owners are happy owners without problems. Why shouldn't they speak out just like the MacGregor owners do etc. ?? 
I've got no problem with them talking about how happy they are. 

It is the ones who try to defend the data that we have turned up about unhappy owners and unhappy vendors and warranty and unpaid bills lawsuits and unpaid court judgments that I get suspicious of. (And of course the ones from certain suburbs in Ohio!) 
It is sufficient in my opinion that potential new and used Tartan buyers understand that there may be significant issues that you don't find in the brochures and are thus able to take measures to protect their deposits, investment and personal safety.


----------



## Cruisingdad

camaraderie said:


> Hey lets face it...probably 95 out of 100 Tartan/C&C owners are happy owners without problems. Why shouldn't they speak out just like the MacGregor owners do etc. ??
> I've got no problem with them talking about how happy they are.
> 
> It is the ones who try to defend the data that we have turned up about unhappy owners and unhappy vendors and warranty and unpaid bills lawsuits and unpaid court judgments that I get suspicious of. (And of course the ones from certain suburbs in Ohio!)
> It is sufficient in my opinion that potential new and used Tartan buyers understand that there may be significant issues that you don't find in the brochures and are thus able to take measures to protect their deposits, investment and personal safety.


How many people actually check Sailnet before making a purchasing decision?? Nah. It is just like every other boat show I have ever been to:

1) They know of Tartan.

2) They are walking the show and moderately interested in buying a boat.

3) They walk on board. They like it better than the others.

4) A good salesman "sales" them.

5) They sign the contract.

6) They get financing.

7) They own the boat.

Then...

8) THEY READ SAILNET AND GO CLEAN THEMSELVES UP!

- CD


----------



## camaraderie

I guess it may still work that way in some cases CD...but if I were gonna drop a 1/4 mill or multiples of that on a boat today, I'd be heading to the internet to see what others thought of it and what to look out for....just like the posts we see here all the time. 
Now Boat US is reporting stuff....a google search can do the rest. Wish the other industry magazines were more independent and did some actual reporting, but hey...we certainly have broken the cone of silence for those buyers who do their homework.


----------



## bubb2

camaraderie said:


> Hey lets face it...probably 95 out of 100 Tartan/C&C owners are happy owners without problems. Why shouldn't they speak out just like the MacGregor owners do etc. ??


Cam, That is very ugly speech!!!! You should not be insulting MacGregor's like that. Comparing them to Tartans, Have you no shame!!!!!


----------



## camaraderie

Well...I thought about Catalina's only but then decided not to embarass CD again. JRP keeps changing my signature!!


----------



## cnc33voodoo

*"a defect and its aftermath"*

just got the magazine in the mail.


----------



## Mipcar

The guy that owns the Tartan in the berth next to mine has just returned after an absence of several weeks.. now with more knowledge I asked him a bit more about his boat.
It is 12 months old/new and a 3400. He says he has no knowledge of the issues and thought the Tartan had bought out Novis..... I did not ask further as he is a good pen neighbour and I don't wish to bring about ill feeling.

I did hear (2nd hand) from our local rigger that he (the owner) had to have some of his safety wire replaced as it pulled clean out of the swaging when someone leaned against it.

Mychael


----------

