A. Mason
10-02-2002, 09:02 AM
The two recent threads "Adapting Designs" and "Design Ethics" brings up a third aspect that can be a real irritant to both Designers and Buyers - bogus design claims.
If a builder builds a boat to the design, the designer appreciates being credited with creating the design. It is an important form of advertising for the designer. Their reputation is based on the quality of their designs, and they take great pride in being able to say "that's one of my designs!"
On the other hand, if the builder makes substantial alterations - i.e., lengthening the hull; changing the size, shape and appearance of the cabin trunk; changing the rigging; etc. - to the extent that the actual boat no longer looks like the design , the designer tends to frown on be having the boat directly attributed to them.
In this situation, the proper way to describe the boat is to say that the design was "derived from" or "based on" the designer's work, "with builder/owner alterations." Designers themselves have often identified where their ideas originated.
If one of Al's designs incorporated elements from another source, whether it was one of his previous designs or from another designer's work, he would identify that source in his "Designer's Remarks."
From a Buyer's point of view there can be, and has been, great disappointment when they discover too late that the boat was not what they were lead to believe were the attribution. Many people desire to own a ChrisCraft, PenYan, Lyman, Alberg, Alden, Rhodes, S&S, Mason, Atkins, Garden, etc. designed and built boats. There have been a number of threads in "Building & Repair" where people have questioned whether they really have acquired what they had been told they acquired.
For me personally, that is the most irritating aspect of maintaining my father's legacy - separating the lies from the truth. I have no problem with someone stating that a boat was based on or derived from one of Al's designs. I have major problems when I can't match up a boat's description with anything in my files. What is most painful is when the Buyer says they bought the boat because Al designed it. If I don't have the plans, then Al didn't design it.
Long Beach Yacht Sales is currently advertising a "43' 1967 Mason/Pacific Enterprises Cutter" for $119,000. They claim that Al designed the boat in 1958 and it was built in 1967 of fiberglass in Taiwan. There is no such design in Al's files. He designed two Mason 43s - one in 1954 of steel in Holland and one in 1978 of fiberglass in Taiwan.
As far as I'm concerned, the only reason they are falsely claiming Al designed the boat is so they can charge more money for it and deliberately deceive buyers. I really hate having to tell people they were lied to and spent more money than they needed to spend for a boat.
Thus, if you decide to make substantial changes in a design, do everyone a favor and acknowledge that you "did your own thing" and not claim the boat was built as designed. This is not something exclusive to Al's work, every designer has had this problem for many decades. [There's a thread in B&R about a fellow who acquired what he was told was an "International Star" but is four feet too short to be a Star.]
In the "Adapting Designs" thread, the resulting boat should be described as "based on Glen-L Marine's Yukon and Argosy designs" but never as "a Glen-L Marine design." [Please don't take offense Tom, I'm only using this as an example!]
Purists want the real thing - there are plenty of other folks who just like a boat for its own individual merits. A little honesty in advertising would really be nice!
Anita
If a builder builds a boat to the design, the designer appreciates being credited with creating the design. It is an important form of advertising for the designer. Their reputation is based on the quality of their designs, and they take great pride in being able to say "that's one of my designs!"
On the other hand, if the builder makes substantial alterations - i.e., lengthening the hull; changing the size, shape and appearance of the cabin trunk; changing the rigging; etc. - to the extent that the actual boat no longer looks like the design , the designer tends to frown on be having the boat directly attributed to them.
In this situation, the proper way to describe the boat is to say that the design was "derived from" or "based on" the designer's work, "with builder/owner alterations." Designers themselves have often identified where their ideas originated.
If one of Al's designs incorporated elements from another source, whether it was one of his previous designs or from another designer's work, he would identify that source in his "Designer's Remarks."
From a Buyer's point of view there can be, and has been, great disappointment when they discover too late that the boat was not what they were lead to believe were the attribution. Many people desire to own a ChrisCraft, PenYan, Lyman, Alberg, Alden, Rhodes, S&S, Mason, Atkins, Garden, etc. designed and built boats. There have been a number of threads in "Building & Repair" where people have questioned whether they really have acquired what they had been told they acquired.
For me personally, that is the most irritating aspect of maintaining my father's legacy - separating the lies from the truth. I have no problem with someone stating that a boat was based on or derived from one of Al's designs. I have major problems when I can't match up a boat's description with anything in my files. What is most painful is when the Buyer says they bought the boat because Al designed it. If I don't have the plans, then Al didn't design it.
Long Beach Yacht Sales is currently advertising a "43' 1967 Mason/Pacific Enterprises Cutter" for $119,000. They claim that Al designed the boat in 1958 and it was built in 1967 of fiberglass in Taiwan. There is no such design in Al's files. He designed two Mason 43s - one in 1954 of steel in Holland and one in 1978 of fiberglass in Taiwan.
As far as I'm concerned, the only reason they are falsely claiming Al designed the boat is so they can charge more money for it and deliberately deceive buyers. I really hate having to tell people they were lied to and spent more money than they needed to spend for a boat.
Thus, if you decide to make substantial changes in a design, do everyone a favor and acknowledge that you "did your own thing" and not claim the boat was built as designed. This is not something exclusive to Al's work, every designer has had this problem for many decades. [There's a thread in B&R about a fellow who acquired what he was told was an "International Star" but is four feet too short to be a Star.]
In the "Adapting Designs" thread, the resulting boat should be described as "based on Glen-L Marine's Yukon and Argosy designs" but never as "a Glen-L Marine design." [Please don't take offense Tom, I'm only using this as an example!]
Purists want the real thing - there are plenty of other folks who just like a boat for its own individual merits. A little honesty in advertising would really be nice!
Anita