Some people may wish to only use an anchor that has been 'classified' by an 'authoritative' body to its 'code' standard.   Should you wish to have the ARK anchor so 'classified' or 'approved' by any known or reputable organisation then that is your prerogative.  Please do not ask 'me' to do it for you.  My product receives the 'blessing' of God, and requires not the 'approval' of man.

It also is a fact that as it is of a similar design to the 'old' stock Admiralty anchor, but having a larger and better designed fluke, that it will have a better capacity to 'hold' than the 'old.' I have carried out my own testing of the ARK anchor, and in my opinion it is a 'superior' design due to the fact that it sets 'surely' and quickly with a very good 'hold,' and that is my requirement of an anchor when faced by 'disaster.'

Hi Ken, I hope by now you have been contacted by Timothy.  It appears that your 'criteria' for purchase being, that 'we' accompany the anchor with a classification certificate issued by some 'other' organisation cannot be met.  *

Note: cannot be met.  * - It could be met if I had the time, money, and inclination to pay some 'other' to issue me with a certificate.  However, I am quite competent enough to do my own testing and, I would not be offering an inferior product to the public.

Having spent some years at sea I am aware that many anchors of the day are 'classified' as having 'certain' holding power or capacity, however I am also aware that under certain conditions many are inadequate, and it was due to this fact that I sought to 'invent' or find a better 'anchor' solution.

Not only this, but I am also aware that the average 'pleasure' craft is fitted with what I see as 'inferior' anchors.  Not necessarily * inferior design or quality, but of inferior size for the 'task' that one day will be asked of them.  Thus it is my intent to have an educative web site where lookers will find information that will assist them if they ever need to 'anchor' in difficult conditions.

Note: necessarily * - In many cases there are 'copies' of proven anchor types that in fact give a very low performance.  I have personally tested some, and the general public may be purchasing an anchor 'similar' to a certified one, but in fact one manufactured by people that have 'copied' designs 'poorly,' without realising some of the finer points needed to ensure correct operation.

I have today 'updated' my The Anchor 'classification' section on the Index of my web site, and I have included this note thereon to assist other readers.  I do know that many sea goers are happy with the usual styles of anchors, and I simply wish to give an alternative one that will set quickly having a good holding capacity on any 'ground.'

I have 'heard' from more than one Tasmanian professional fisherman that the CQR style that is very popular does not set easily or at all in some weed situations, and the Danforth style is also known to 'skip' over the sea bed at times and fail to hold.  My personal experience with the properly designed CQR is that if the correct size is used it is an extremely safe anchor.

I believe that as the ARK is a direct 'copy' of the original Admiralty anchor, that it should require no 'latter day' classification.  For in fact the ARK anchors have 'obviously' much larger and better designed flukes, which adds considerably to its 'holding' capacity.

If I lose 'customers' due to my new design not being 'Classified,' then so be it.  I can only ask you to advise your clients that there is a new style anchor available, and then they can come to a personally informed decision as to whether they are interested in one after they have viewed my web site.

I would like to add, that as the ARK style has two 'opposite' flukes, that for any comparable single fluke size anchor the ARK will be heavier.  Thus a person wishing to have an anchor with a fluke size of any given dimension will find that the ARK is heavier overall.