Welcome to the board Chris! I enjoyed your book and believe that it is a great resource for new builders. If you have read more than the CLC v. Pygmy posts you will understand that boat design and building techniques are freely shared and often questioned. The CLC v. Pygmy debate is one presented to nearly every person that is considering home-building a S&G kit. I went through the debate several months ago (and am still debating, but leaning toward a strip-built at the moment). After reviewing both the CLC and Pygmy brochures and web sites I came out with the opinion that both companies are very good, both use similar techniques, and both had strong opinions about the other company's techniques when the technique differed. I am VERY surprised that you accuse Pygmy (correct me if you meant another "certain competitor") of negative advertising. The discussion on BOTH of your brochures/sites are critical of techniques used by the other. The consumer needs to read between the lines and look for the truth, and, more importantly, look for which design/technique they prefer. As you stated, these are all great boats and the most important thing is to build them and go paddling. I believe that the decision in choosing a boat should be based on your chance to paddle the different designs, as opposed to getting into a war over scarfing. I hope not that I am not overly aggressive in questioning your comments below, but I had the impression that they were more advertising spin than substance.

> I have been watching this thread and wanted to correct a few errors in the
> post below.

> 1) CLC includes 2.5 gal of epoxy in most kits. I think that's more than
> the competition gives. Jon K. said epoxy and cloth. I don't believe there is any dispute that Pygmy gives more cloth due to their encapsulation building technique.

> 2) All but the ultralight Patuxent series have 4mm decks. we can achive
> the same strength as a 'glassed multi-chine deck due to the arched shape,
> but we will gladly include glass for the deck for $10 extra if you just
> ask.

I guess that Jon K's friend had a Patuxent, or didn't follow the plans.

> 3) Multi-chine decks must be glassed to hold them together - no choice
> here.

Arched decks require shear clamps and screws - no choice either.

> 7) Any high end or custom boat builder who substituted butt joints for
> scarfs in a sailboat or most other type craft would be laughed out of
> business.

I am not sure what "fact" you are seeking to correct here, unless you wanted to take the opportunity to aggressively dig at your competitors. We're not talking about thick-hulled boats, or joints that are going to be severely curved. I also don't believe that the curve required in any of the scarf joints (of either CLC or Pygmy designs) is ever as severe as the photograph you have on your web site. Both companies spend a lot of time on the scarfing issue, but it doesn't seem to matter that much. I do applaud you in coming up with a stepped scarf that sounds like it is easier to match up pieces.

> 8) A deck seam does not make a boat stiffer than a true cambered deck.
> Cambered decks have the highest stiffnes to weight ratio.

I have thought alot about this claim. Does the weight include the extra weight of the shear clamps? Also, are you comparing the stiffness of an encapsulated deck versus an unencapsulated cambered deck? I would think that would affect the stiffness. If you are merely saying that an arch is strong, then I am not sure where that comparison takes you, particularly when there are people who have cracked a CLC deck.

> 9) Rubrails are a pretty and practical option that a lot of folks pay
> extra for. It beats putting a strip of electrical tape over the sheer
> joint to hide it, as you will see in the catalog from our esteemed
> competitor.

This appears to me as a cheap shot. Readers that have made it this far in this post can check out the photos on Pygmy's site. Some have a black line on the level of the deck, others do not (with NO unsightliness). Check out the photos of the Goldeneye for example. I am not going to assume that CLC's pictures of its painted hulls are hiding poor quality wood, I am surprised that Chris assumes the tape is hiding poor craftsmanship. I think Jon K's comment about rubrails was regard to the width of the boat at the deck. He found the Pygmy-style deck easier to paddle. Personally I do like a rounded deck, but also like an upswept bow and flush hatches (hence my leaning towards a strip-boat).

> 10) CLC kits are cheaper because we buy full containers of wood from
> European mills. Do our own cutting on our own CNC machine, and buy massive
> quantities of epoxy. We also sell close to 2000 kit a year. But maybe the
> real reason is that I am not greedy enough - we make a very nice profit as
> it is.

We would need to know Pygmy's numbers to decide why a kit is cheaper. I think that it is great that there are two strong competitors out there putting pressure on each other's designs and costs.

> Now I'd like to offer three opinions.

> 1) Negative advertising (as practiced by a certain competitor) often
> attracts and sells to people who have a negative and aggressive attitude.
> I certainly don't want to deal with customers, or anyone else, with that
> sort of attitude.

Each company says bad things about the other (see the above post for example). I was under the impression that BOTH companies have fantastic customer service and care about their customers. I have met John and the others at Pygmy and NEVER would I call them negative or agressive.

> 2) It's only a kayak. If you spend all you're time concerned about which
> one is a pound lighter, 2% faster, or 4% stronger you'll turn into one of
> those silly obsessed gear-heads that just sits around reading spec sheets
> and playing with his equipment. THESE ARE ALL GREAT BOATS; JUST TOSS A
> COIN, BUILD THE DAMN THING, AND GO PADDLING!

> 3) GO PADDLING! (in case you missed this in opinion #2)

Agreed.