Three entries, which were quite varied in subject matter and style, were received last year. They may be criticised by taking the three parts of Rule 2 in turn:

(a) The poor season’s weather is probably to blame for the fact that two were tales of unfulfilled Continental yearnings. The scope of one was very much restricted once the prime proposal had been abandoned but the fact that the cruise was entirely singlehanded adds greatly to the achievement. The other, though very ambitious and nearly successful was carried out in a boat which was, whatever the claims, at least more comfortable than a simple dinghy. Another, which was a good straightforward yarn of a cruise carried out very early in the season, introduced a little used anchorage, and was a typical pleasurable holiday cruise of the type the average member might undertake and which the Association aims to encourage.

(b) On the whole the seamanship was uniformly good, but was it high water when one entrant could not get into a certain port without using an engine?

(c) One account was well in the lead in literary value as, in addition to being very readable, it gave a lot of information about times so that the examiners were able to get some idea of speeds and could calculate tides if necessary. It was, however a little deficient in this respect during the ditch-crawling parts. The other two were poles apart, one being written as a (very entertaining) account almost free of any mention of time, indeed the date is not even very certain. The other, especially at the start, is written more in the form of notes, full of information, but not quite so readable as the others and rather long. The ideal is for the log in submitted form to be composed at leisure from notes taken during, or shortly after, each voyage. The essential times etc. must be given but the whole highly edited and made readable.

The net assessment of the entries brings them almost running neck and neck, but Eric Coleman’s wins by a short head.