Re butt al

I have somehow become important enough to get hate mail. You can bet that makes my day.

Here it is;

“There are plenty of great 44′ production catamarans at half the cost of an Antares 44.

 *The Antares 44 is an old design by today’s standards*.

 Most potential buyers should really think twice and then turn and run, do not look back, even for a second, just keep running. 

(Plus repeats & codas)”

This comes to me via a forum filter, complete with stars and bold lettering.

OK, let’s take it line by line;

There are plenty of great production cars at half the cost of the BMW you would like to own. The definition of ‘great’ remains subjective in both instances. The purpose of this web site is to assist owners in appreciating what they really get, an attempt to inform that subjective opinion. It looks like my effectiveness may not have been comprehensive as I had hoped.

Personally, I don’t make buying decisions based on price (presuming I can afford the options in the first place), especially when considering discretionary purchases. I believe that we all behave similarly, e.g.;

Should I buy a Turner print that really pleases me, or buy a black velvet Elvis that ought to cost a lot less but I am not so pleased with?



OK, some research shows me that is a bad example…shooda priced out the real Turner.

Perhaps there is a suspicion that the purchase price doesn’t reflect costs; (not unreasonable in a society that extolls a ‘what the market will bear’ philosophy). Ipso facto, Antares Yachts has demonstrated that a product’s manufacturing cost may readily enough approach or exceed its price tag. Lest you think that unwise expenditures have contributed, consider that the material cost alone for the Antares 44 approaches 45%+ of its price tag, (that is pure and hard content). Those of you who have business heads will appreciate a tight ship when they see one.  Building an equivalent 44 catamaran for half the sale price means the labour, overhead etc. must be virtually free? Something has to give.

Perhaps the resentment in this case is a declaration of generalized frustration? The difference between what is wanted and what is afforded. But in the case of a conveyance in which one may take one’s family out on the open ocean, can price be the deciding factor?

OK, on to the next line;

“The Antares 44 is an old design…”

The design is ‘old’?  Is that a bad thing? I thought 16 was an ideal age? Maybe I am old fashioned…

Should I perhaps recognize that ass-less jeans are a better garment

ass-less jeans

than the classics because they are newer?


him again?

At least one business survivor thinks that market endurance is a selling feature.


S’ok, not my size… and I don’t own two mules… two X’s is old fashioned version for three?

How does the marketing of jeans relate to cruising catamarans you are wondering? (as am I)

The Antares 44 design was conceived of at the end of the last century and has been in almost uninterrupted production since then, virtually unchanged in the basics. It has survived through over 15 years of fashion come-and-go in the boat industry (like Turner vs Elvis). Could this be the result of a massive marketing hoodwink as implied?

It’s not as fun, but could we not simply concede that the increasing sales have resulted from the recognition that the design serves its specific purpose well, apparently better than anything that has come along since?

This new/old bullshit is really not about suitability for purpose but about fashion and snake oil. To belabour a point; in the case of selecting a conveyance in which one may take one’s family out on the open ocean, can new/old fashion be the deciding factor?

Isn’t a boat design without proper transoms in fact an ‘ass-less’ boat, especially a catamaran?


BTW; do these steps make my stern look big?

The same line…

“…by today’s standards.”

Funny you should say that. The Antares 44 in fact conforms to all of the applicable standards for an offshore cruising vessel, e.g. ISO, ABYC. Contrary to expectation, it is probably one of the very rare vessels that actually does follow not only the letter but the spirit of those standards. For example, blatant infractions of standards related to safety on deck (handrails, toe rails, mooring points, jack line anchor points, visibility, etc.) are on obvious display at the boat shows (the visible is all that really counts in the new/old controversy). Take a look yourself and even if you are not familiar with the standards proper, imagine all of the possible scenarios that may occur while cruising the high seas and judge for yourself if the prevailing common arrangements look strong enough, high enough, complete enough, or even convenient and workable.

And Finally..

“Most potential buyers should really think twice and then turn and run, do not look back, even for a second, just keep running.”

Really? I don’t remember an occasion when I have given much street cred to advice regarding my purchase of an item in the million dollar range, but thank god you came along with your convincing argument. I don’t normally think twice, until I surpass the 2 M. threshold.

‘Turn and run’? What a lubber. Does he imagine some check suited salesman with a butterfly net chasing him down the dock?

Shouldn’t the metaphors be confined to the marine field at least; ‘swim, don’t look back, just keep swimming’? This way at least I may be able to imagine an enormous boat marketing shark biting the ass out of my bathing suit. (Sorry no pitchur)

Stupid Vikings in the old design boat, could’ve taken the plane.

Stupid Vikings in the old design boat, could’ve taken the plane.