As always, my standard advice about buying homebuilt aircraft remains:

1. Recognize that every builder has different sensibilities and
standards of workmanship, and adheres to the designer's plans to a
different degree. Some homebuilts make me proud to be a fellow
tool-bearing mammal. Others make me feel unsafe just walking under
them. Most are somewhere in the middle. Caveat emptor, and your
mileage may vary.

2. Have it pre-buy inspected by someone familiar with the type;
preferably someone who is familiar with the blueprints and can
recognize deviations from the plans. Don't buy an airplane
sight-unseen unless you've considered and prepared for the possible
worst-case scenarios.

3. Be aware that, if you're not willing and able to work on it
yourself, it will likely be no less expensive to own than a factory
aircraft. Depending on who you hire to work on it, it could be
substantially more expensive.

4. Get familiar with the 14 CFR (or relevant national) rules regarding
amateur-built experimentals. The most salient points a Anybody can
work on them; but the annual condition inspection must be signed off
by an IA, an A&P, or the holder of the repair(person) certificate.

That said, I'd like to address some of the points that Tim Mara raises
in his post on a branch of this thread. For the most part, I tend to
agree with him, but I'd like to elaborate a bit on his ideas:

most pilots who would have the experience
and enough knowledge to reasonably safely
fly one also have enough experience and
knowledge to know they no long want to fly one....

It depends. It took me several years to consistently fly to the edges
of my HP-11's potential. Expanding on that, most actual glider
_pilots_ have the skills and techniques to handle the average
homebuilt sailplane. For most well-established homebuilt designs, the
skills and aeronautical knowledge that got you a private pilot rating
will probably suffice. Based on what friends have told me, that
includes a properly built and tested BG-12. Glider _drivers_ and other
sub-par variations on the theme, on the other hand, may find
themselves slightly challenged. That said, I allow as that I prefer to
see better-than-average piloting skills in HP-18 transitions. The
uber-reclined seating, the side-stick, and the Schrederon flaps are
three new experiences all at once, and if you get behind the ship late
in the game it can be hard to catch up.

I owned 2 BG12's back when I was more
in the former category....I would not want
one today...

Not that we'd expect him to, what with Tim being a big-shot sailplane
dealer and all these days...

...you have to remember they are all
experimental, and are all homebuilt,
without any requirement to use
aircraft grade material or hardware,

That's pretty much covered in Part 1 of my standard advice. The good
news is that experienced folks can generally tell aircraft materials
just by looking at them. The nuts and bolts are yellow cad plated, and
the bolts have the X on the head. And in my experience, US sailplane
homebuilders generally stick with AN-type hardware since they can get
it from AS&S or Wicks for less than nuts and bolts at the local
hardware store. Also, many homebuilts are specifically designed with
extra strength margins to account for the use of less than top-grade
materials. Many such designs actually specify relatively low-grade
materials in the plans.

Going off on a tangent, in contrast to the US AN-style aircraft
hardware used in most homebuilts, the hardware used in European
sailplanes is very hard to grade and identify by inspection. There are
many different systems of plating, drive types, head stamps, and
thread pitches to deal with.

without the requirement to have to
inspections completed by A&I's,

However, as I've written elsewhere, they have to be inspected by
either an A&P or the holder of a prepair[person] certificate. Of
which, as I've written elsewhere, I prefer to use the A&P or AI. I
continue to believe that anyone who built an airplane cannot view it
with the impartiality necessary to inspect it properly.

... and of course have no FAA support
through the issuance of AD's or service
bulletins to warn of potential failures...

Yes, the FAA generally takes a hands-off approach to homebuilts. But
the same applies to many factory-built European ships licensed as
Experimental, Racing and Experimental, Exhibition.

For most experimental types, though, there are type-specific
organizations that compile and distribute safety and service
bulletins. The HPs, for instance, have a strong network centered on
Wayne Paul's Schreder Sailplane Designs Web site. There are several
safety and service bulletins on the site, and regular exchanges on the
Internet email forum about operational concerns. There are similar
Internet fora for the Duster, BG-12, and other designs.

... I think a BG12 or a Monerai would make a
terrific Wind Tee at a local gliderport!

Well, maybe for a while. But assembled out in the elements, a BG would
only give a few years of such service.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com