4 thoughts on “Wairuna”

1. There are several issues with “owner’s mythology”.
   1. It muddies the waters for nit-pickers, rivet-counters and anoraks (into any of which categories I’m happy to belong) who see real value in getting the provenance right.
   2. The mythology is infectious. I have no doubt that the current owner genuinely believes the “1940 Bailey & Lowe” bit because that’s how she was described when he bought her or because some “expert” whose opinion he respected told him. I can’t recall a case of a totally eyes-shut invented provenance (well, not for a week or two).
   3. Finally, I guess I am appalled by the contractual issues, the downside of misrepresentation, however innocent. That’s my particular trade. Most brokers don’t give a damn. They repeat what the vendors tell them. Only a few are knowledgeable about old launches, like Brian Worthington in Tauranga, and can get some “honesty in advertising”.
   4. It’s no longer an issue with yachts because the legion of nitpickers, rivet-counters and anoraks like me have already done their jobs there.

   LikeLike

2. Harold, I love your term “new mythology”. That covers a lot of bases, and it’s likely we are all guilty of it at times, but we do our best. . Regards Judith W

   LikeLike

3. Well, obviously, if she IS Bailey & Lowe, she wasn’t built in 1940 because they ceased trading in 1927 after Walter Bailey’s death and Bill Lowe set up as W.G. Lowe & Son. I did query this with the owner but didn’t get anywhere.
   As usual, the fog has descended and the truth of her provenance is gone with her owner’s new mythology.

   LikeLike

4. The bow looks more Sam Ford to me — compare JULIANA. – KEN R

   LikeLike