[tdw]

Interesting. Remember i've not seen either in the plastic.

For cruising purposes I'd take the CT but teak deck ?

That said .... teak deck on a boat that old freaks me somewhat and then the Swan is eight years older.

By the look of it the CT has a much nicer interior for cruising/liveaboard. Personally I do not like the Swan companionway arrangement. Virtually impossible to fit a worthwhile dodger and while that design has its good points ease of access is not one of them.

Cost to maintain .... horses for courses .... presumably if you want to keep her original the Swan would be the more expensive.
Offshore ..... six of one half a dozen of the other but I'd think the CT would be the nicer boat to sail short handed. I'm sure they are both quite capable.

Warwick is/was a fine designer.

 

[tdw]

Bloke in Sydney we occasionally share an anchorage with has one of the Swan 41s of that age and yep she is a fine boat and he loves to sail her but still I'll stick to what I said earlier. For cruising that companionway is a pain in the butt and unless you are very young and very agile climbing up and down into the cave that is her interior could well lose its attraction quite quickly. The dodger installation problem should also be of concern to a cruiser.

One whoops on my part I do confess is that I thought for some reason that the CT was built in the US. Silly thought indeed but allowing for the removal of the teak and presuming for one moment that the deck itself is still solid then I'd still go for the CT .... of the two. Acknowledging my brain slip re the CT's origins one would also figure that by now any sub standard hardware would have already been replaced.

Speed wise one would have to think that the Swan would be the more rapid a machine all things being equal. Certainly the Swan would seem to have it all over the CT uphill but really as a cruiser you do pretty much anything you can to avoid more than the occasional bit of windward work. Arriving feeling relatively human is for me a priority and while a floating brick is not my idea of fun no matter how comfortable I'm still of the opinion that the comfort of the CT would make up for any loss when compared to the Swan.

btw .... and I'm not prepared to put money on this but weren't those Swans supposed to be a major handful off the wind ?

 

[tdw]

Was the first CT38 from Bruce's post also Asian build ? Taiwan ? Hong Kong ? I don't know where CT where/are located. It was the first version I was commenting on.

I'd hate to try and crawl under a dodger and down the rabbit hole. Then again I'm old and somewhat croaky.

No dispute from me btw that the Swan would be the better boat performance wise but I was presuming that the OP was after a cruising boat ergo my favouring of the CT.

 

[tdw]

Offset companionways have always been a tadge odd in my eyes. Very much from the inside out. That ladder in the Hunter ... oh my. Maybe Passport and Mason also used to do the offset thing. Made for a roomy quarter cabin I guess.

Bruce, when we went with the Malo one of the last issues to be decided was sleeping cabin. We very nearly bought a lovely Warwick designed CC with a glorious aft cabin but alas a lousy galley. The Wombet usually comes to bed after me, I usually get up earlier and that counted out any form of Pullman style double. In the end we accepted the quite roomy v-berth of the Malo. Until I can justify an HR48 ( oh lordy will those pigs ever get off the ground) it will have to do.