| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 661.1 | wazzitfor? | GRAMPS::WCLARK | Walt Clark | Tue Oct 06 1987 18:00 | 18 |
| What do you want to do with the boat? Weekend cruises, racing,
offshore cruising, summer home, etc.
Where do you sail? Mostly protected water, mostly offshore, New
England, Southern California, etc.
What is too expensive for you? You can play age and equipment
against model to come close to a suitable boat within your budget.
Knowing what your sailing expectations will help you and others
point up the strengths and weaknesses of particular boats.
You dont want a heavy displacement boat for weekend racing in a
bay, or an under-rigged floating condo for ocean passages.
Walt
|
| 661.2 | what are your goals? | MSCSSE::BERENS | Alan Berens | Tue Oct 06 1987 18:14 | 12 |
| I agree with Walt. The most important boat buying decision is deciding
what your sailing goals are. The boats you mention all have somewhat
different characters or personalities if you will. Yet all are most
suited for casual weekend cruising and racing. They aren't serious
racing boats and they aren't really adequate for offshore sailing. They
would be fine for short coastal cruises (a week or so). For longer
cruises they would be a little small for a crew of more than two adults.
Boats are easily bought and not so easily sold, so choose carefully.
Alan
|
| 661.3 | further clarification | MIZZEN::DEMERS | Do the workstation thing | Wed Oct 07 1987 09:38 | 38 |
| < Note 661.1 by GRAMPS::WCLARK "Walt Clark" >
-< wazzitfor? >-
Let's give it a shot!
> What do you want to do with the boat? Weekend cruises, racing,
> offshore cruising, summer home, etc.
All except offshore (for now). Small cruises to the Cape and Islands.
I plan to spend weekends aboard with wife and two small children, so
comfort and safety are important. I don't want a floating pig, though,
as I do like to race.
> Where do you sail? Mostly protected water, mostly offshore, New
> England, Southern California, etc.
I'm in the Boston, South Shore area.
> What is too expensive for you? You can play age and equipment
> against model to come close to a suitable boat within your budget.
Hmmmm.... Let's say the $50K range (new). Definitely need to be
educated on the art of purchasing used boats.
Knowing what your sailing expectations will help you and others
point up the strengths and weaknesses of particular boats.
You dont want a heavy displacement boat for weekend racing in a
bay, or an under-rigged floating condo for ocean passages.
Walt
|
| 661.4 | My kingdom for a source | CSSE::COUTURE | | Wed Oct 07 1987 12:25 | 16 |
| I have a copy of Practical Boat Buying which is a somewhat dated
collection of articles from Practical Sailor on many aspects of
purchasing used boats along with appraisals of several of the
boats you name. I'd be glad to loan it out as long as it's
returned. Just send me your mail stop.
I have to agree with Walt & Alan. You'll be happy with your boat
if you understand what you're buying it for. I do a lot of Coastal
Cruising, no racing and have a crew that "needs" shore power to
run hair dryers. I love my Catalina 30 because she's great at
that kind of sailing. I don't ever plan to take her to Bermuda
or have an IOR measurement. If I ever change my mind, I'll change
boats.
Encore
|
| 661.5 | a few more.. | RDF::RDF | Rick Fricchione | Wed Oct 07 1987 22:09 | 19 |
| Additionally think of things like centerboard vs shoal draft vs
deep keel. You can lock yourself out of many harbors by having
a deep keel (I draw 7'). The southern part of the cape is like
this. It also means you will have that many more places to shop
around at when you are looking for a place to moor or dock your
boat. On the other hand, the pointing ability and superior performance
of a deep draft or well designed centerboard design makes a difference.
Speaking of docking, there are numerous articles in this file on the
incremental costs of owning a boat, not the least of which are mooring
or slip fees. Be prepared for more than the initial outlay of funds.
Rick
* Who is waiting two years longer to buy a new house because he
bought a new boat last year. We all have our priorities..
|
| 661.6 | some options | GRAMPS::WCLARK | Walt Clark | Thu Oct 08 1987 09:35 | 47 |
| I dont want to steer you towards a specific boat, because we all
have our "druthers" and pet peeves.
As you must know by now, the price of a boat isnt arbitrary. In
general, the more it costs (for a given length), the better the
boat.
In order to step up a notch in quality from the ones of which you
are thinking (if you would like to that is), without going over
the $50K figure, you might consider a worthy used boat.
In general, I suggest you look for one under 10 years old. That
has little or nothing to do with useful life or quality, but the
insurance companies have a step imcrease for boats over that age,
so a good price could be eaten away by increased premiums. In all
cases, a used boat should be professionally surveyed so you know
what you are buying. That said, I noticed some interesting boats
just under your price, listed in this months Sail and Cruising World
magazines. These are just samples, since there are lots of good
boats that never reach these type ads (Soundings is a pretty good
source of leads for used boats), and the advertised prices are usually
a bit above the actual selling price.
'79 Moody 33 '83 Newport 33 '82 Morgan 32
'79 Bristol 30 '84 Dufour 32 '81 Niagara 31
'83 Seidelmann 30 '82 Sabre 28 '83 Beneteau 32
'84 Sea Sprite 30 '79 Cal 34
Regardless of how you end up going, you owe it to yourself to look
at some used boats around the same price you are thinking for a
new one, so you know what you can get for your $. Used boat shopping
is different than new boat shopping, in that you must find THE BOAT
you want not just settle on a model. On the other hand the used
market has been soft lately and prices are still good (which means
you can get a lot of value).
BTW: Dont underestimate the operating expenses and hassles. Dockage
is getting tighter (most marinas have waiting lists) and the fees
are climbing everywhere (looks like '88 rates all over New England
will start a about $50/foot, with most being above $60). Insurance
rates jumped after Gloria, with inexperienced owners and over 10
year old boats getting hit hardest.
Its still a lot of fun though.
Walt
|
| 661.7 | Can you rank them please ? | HPSMEG::REG | | Thu Oct 08 1987 12:17 | 8 |
| re .6 Without wishing to step on anyone's feelings, is there
an approximate quality ladder that most people agree on ? I hate
the auto analogy, but the Chevy to Caddie scale is sort of what
I'm looking for.
Reg
|
| 661.8 | one opinion | MSCSSE::BERENS | Alan Berens | Thu Oct 08 1987 13:08 | 32 |
| Rather than a ranking (which is very controversial) I'll offer my
opinion by catagory:
Acceptable Quality:
Irwin
O'Day
Pearson
Good Quality:
Bristol
Capy Dory
C&C
Freedom
Excellent Quality:
Hinckley
Sabre
Swan
Valiant
My opinions are based on a subjective overall assessment of design,
aesthetics, construction, workmanship, etc. As was mentioned previously,
price is a good indicator of general overall quality. Good construction,
materials, and equipment are expensive. There are some previous notes
that discuss buying a used boat and what to look for.
Alan
|
| 661.9 | Add J to your list | CAMLOT::BLAISDELL | | Thu Oct 08 1987 13:55 | 14 |
| To your list of possible's I suggest you add the J28. J builds top quality
boats, is a one design company, and won't abandon you two or three years down
the road. Translated, a J28 is less likely to go out of production and decline
in value.
I own a Catalina 22 and would agree that they are not the highest quality
boat, but they're not bad either. What Catalina also has going for it is that
it is also a one-design company and you can expect to enjoy the company of
other Catalina owners for years to come. I've been looking around for a new
boat myself (25 ft +/-), but I can't find a boat so much better than the 22 to
make the plunge.
- Bob
|
| 661.11 | its a matter of requirements.. | RDF::RDF | Rick Fricchione | Fri Oct 09 1987 01:13 | 70 |
| Well, if Alan and Walt put in their ranking....
Here's mine..
Acceptable Pro Con
----------------- ------------------------ ------------------------
HUNTER Lot-o-boat-for-buck construction so-so,
"fun-pac"?..cmon..
IRWIN Cruising comfort construction so-so,
lots of friends had problems
CATALINA Good cruiser, generally sail so-so, don't
well laid out inside like the hull/deck joint
MORGAN Good cruiser. Nice Sails like a pregnant cow
accomadations. swims.
Better Pro Con
------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
CAL Better constructon for $$ Deck hardware usually
Nicely laid up. too small.
O'DAY (ditto made by same company)
PEARSON Solid boat. Good hardware Don't understand
why it costs more
than others here
ELITE Supposedly fast, european More $$$, construction
design is average
BENETAU Good racer, nice designs, Not as good a value
hardware usually adequate as before.
MOODY (see pearson) (see pearson)
Erickson (see cal) (see cal) more $$$
Even Better Pro Con
------------------ --------------------------- -------------------
Tartan
J/Boats *** too much to say...
C&C the racers race and
Sea Sprite the cruisers cruise.
Cape Dory
Soverel *** I have to
CS ask if they
are worth 1/3
to 100% more
$$$$
Best Pro Con
------------------- ------------------------- --------------------
Bristol See one Find one
Hinkley (ditto) (ditto)
Little Harbor (ditto) (ditto)
As one who owns something in the "better" class (O'Day), I recognize
the shortcomings of my boat, but its a question of how much you
want to pay and whether you need the extra quality that goes into
a good offshore quality boat, or a high tech racer like a soverel
or Frers.
Rick
Rick
|
| 661.12 | one more time...with color | GRAMPS::WCLARK | Walt Clark | Fri Oct 09 1987 11:58 | 119 |
| Well, since I didnt go out on a limb with any comments in .10, I
deleted it and added my personal opinion to each item. Here it
is. Remember, I am not an expert or anything, just opinionated.
To borrow and add to Alan's scale:
"Lot of Boat for the Money" Quality:
Irwin Citation I am surrounded by Irwin Citations at my marina.
I cannot begin to tell of the shoddy workmanship
and design problems with these.
Catalina Not a bad boat really, but lightly rigged. My vote
for most likely to be dismasted in a breeze. Also
slow. Watched these split open like crazy during
Gloria.
Hunter Under everything. Hull is like an eggshell. I saw
fittings pull out and interior bulkheads collapse
during Gloria. Nothing is back plated or reinforced.
They are not even fast.
Seidelmann (pre '82) Many engineering shortcomings. Hulls oilcan under
rig loads. Weather helm is unmanageable at times.
Aluminum rudder posts break too often.
Acceptable Quality:
Irwin Cruising Heavier construction than Citation, not many owner
complaints as far as I hear. Not too fast, but
comfortable. Plenty of power.
O'Day Pretty good construction, but they change things
too fast, making used O'Days look out of date and
hurting resale value.
Cal Similar comments (same owner as O'Day). Older Cal's
actually have more personality and appeal to me.
Morgan Cruising Except OI series, which were charter bathtubs. Defunct.
Name now owned by Catalina. The classic cruisers were
heavy, well appointed and attractive. Slower than
they "looked".
Pearson The Ford of sailboats. Constant changes to design
and more expensive than it looks are asthetic negatives.
Seidelmann (post '82) Quite good engineering. The Amway sales approach keeps
them unknown. Asthetically uninspiring.
Dufour Long time French import. Typically good French
construction, but sometimes strange (for my tastes)
designs and layouts.
Islander Also defunct...I think. Their last production boats
were well done for the price and pretty fast.
Good Quality:
Bristol Pre-Hood design boats. Heavy full keel boats. Typical
of '60s cruising boat design.
C&C (Club Racers) Solid, lightweight boats. Very fast. More racing blood
than cruising comfort.
Sea Sprite Solid construction. A contrast in designs with a full
keel, bronze everywhere, but tapered fractional rig
and minimal cabinet work in the interior.
J-Boats (racing) Very strong, very light, very fast. Well thought out
but spartan interiors.
Elite Below par construction for French boats but still better
than many American.
Beneteau Good solid construction. A bit trendy over the last
few years, but some of the LeFirst boats a good value.
Moody A typically solid British boat. Pretty good speed in a
breeze. A bargan in the US up untill recently.
Tartan (pre-'78) The early S&S designs were nicely done. The 34 is
considered one of the 10 best boat values EVER.
Ta-Shing/Ta-Yang US Spec/Tiawan production in general (Baba, Tayana,
etc.). Early boats were "leaky-teaky's" but the stuff
done since about '83 is high quality. All are heavy
and slow feeling, except offshore, where tradewinds
and big seas are home.
Better Quality:
Bristol Hood Designs. Rugged construction, nice finish. Rather
heavy but move well (a Hood trademark). Pricey new.
Resale value good on a stripper but marginal on a
gold plater (like options on cars).
J-Boats (cruising) Look real good to me from a layout and construction
standpoint. Might be a bit light for comfort in a
seaway.
Freedom You got to lov'em or hate'em. Construction quality
first class, as is the price.
Cape Dory Might be slipping in quality. Still substantial
boats, but too slow and expensive.
C&C Landfall Cruising C&C. Nice finish, solid construction.
Tartan High quality construction and finish, rather light
displacement for cruiser, but comfortable. S&S
design. Fast. Tasteful designs which do not change
year to year. Good resale value.
Sabre Same comments as Tartan, except designed by Sabre.
Erikson Stiff, well built. Slow to change, which helps
maintain resale value.
Gib' Sea Just first impression. Cannot make judgement due to lack
of first hand experience
Hood (< good ones) Earlier Tiawaneese quality variable. Still sound design
and well appointed.
Excellent Quality:
Hinckley The US made reference for excellence.
Swan Ditto, but European
Valiant Very solid world cruiser.
Shannon Amazingly expensive. Solid construction. Nice people.
Alden Tillotson-Pearson flagship. They also make Freedom,
and J-boats.
Hood (good ones) Maybe the best designed luxury cruiser. I think
they are the best of the Far East built boats.
Again, these are my opinions. I added to and adjusted (slightly) Alan's list
to suit my perceptions. Notice, I added 2 categories and did not change
the names of the original 3 from Alan's.
I probably missed a bunch that I will remember later.
Walt
|
| 661.13 | two more in the pot | EXPERT::SPENCER | | Fri Oct 09 1987 13:18 | 20 |
| Two additions to the "Better-plus" Quality (not quite Hinckley level, in
other words):
Pacific Seacraft -- They make a range of comfortable, serious cruising
boats: 20' Flicka, 24' Dana, 27' Orion, 31' (I forget),
Crealock 34 & Crealock 37. Comfort, capacity (esp. 20'-31')
and safety first, speed second. Very well constructed.
Not many make their way onto the used market.
Hinterhoeller -- A Canadian company, best known here for their Nonsuch
cat sloop series, which make nifty coastal cruisers; the
easiest boat to sail (in less than really heavy conditions.)
They also make the Niagara series, 31', 35', and 42' I think.
Owners love 'em; there's a high degree of brand loyalty
(owners move up but stay with Hinterhoeller.)
All are rugged, well-done and well laid out. Clear attention
to detail and quality, as the high resale prices indicate.
J.
|
| 661.14 | Every maker has better and worse.... | CNTROL::HAYS | Welcome to the nuthouse | Fri Oct 09 1987 14:53 | 17 |
| RE:.12 by GRAMPS::WCLARK "Walt Clark"
> Remember, I am not an expert or anything, just opinionated.
Me too...
> Catalina Not a bad boat really, but lightly rigged. My vote
> for most likely to be dismasted in a breeze. Also
> slow. Watched these split open like crazy during
> Gloria.
Catalina does a lot better in the 22, 25 and 27 than in the 30 and
bigger. I own and love a Catalina 27. I would never buy a 30...
Phil
|
| 661.15 | About your garbage scow . . . | CSSE::COUTURE | | Fri Oct 09 1987 17:03 | 41 |
| Okay, now you've insulted my boat re. the integrity of her rig
and her performance. I now quote from Practical Sailor:
"The rig is a simple masthead sloop with a straight section aluminum
spar, double lower shrouds (triple in 1987) . . . The mast is stepped
on deck, supported by a wooden compression column belowdecks. All
the boats we examined showed local deflection of the top of the
cabin trunk in the way of the mast step . . . there was no evidence
of stress in the form of cracks around any of these steps, however.
It is difficult to assess the method of attachment of the chainplates
and bulkheads to the hull. The interior of the hull is completely
lined, showing no raw fiberglass . . . Lower shroud chainplate
attachments have been beefed up since the first hulls were produced.
Owners warn that when considering the purchase of a used Catalina
30, be sure that the chainplates have been installed."
(note: the chainplate problem only existed on the first 100
boats. Over 5,000 Catalina 30's have been produced).
Now for performance:
"The Catalina 30 is a very stiff boat. The combination of a high
ballast/displacement ration, extraordinary beam, a deep fin keel,
and a fairly small sail plan produce a boat that stands on her feet
very well. Owners consider the boat to be just about as fast as
other boats of the same size and type. PHRF ratings suggest that
the tall rig boat is substantially faster than the boat with normal
rig. With the tall rig and well-cut racing sails, the boat should
be competitive with other cruiser-racers that are actively raced,
such as the Pearson 30, the O'Day 30 and the Erickson 30-2."
Like any boat, the Catalina 30 has drawbacks and I'll readily
admit to them. But please don't give her criticism she doesn't
deserve.
Would I defend my wife as readily? If anybody insulted her rig
or her performance, of course!
Encore
|
| 661.16 | Not an insult I hope.. | CNTROL::HAYS | Welcome to the nuthouse | Fri Oct 09 1987 17:45 | 21 |
| < Note 661.15 by CSSE::COUTURE >
-< About your garbage scow . . . >-
Catalina 30 problems as I see them:
1) Poor interior layout for tall types.. I'm 6-8, Darlene (wife)
is 6-2. I really don't know if smaller people would find it so bad.
I also can't imagine moving around below in any sort of a sea..
> Would I defend my wife as readily? If anybody insulted her rig
> or her performance, of course!
I am a little afraid to mention the next fault, but you admitted to
it, so..
> ... extraordinary beam, ....
Of the Catalina 30 of course. ;_)
Phil
|
| 661.17 | | GRAMPS::WCLARK | Walt Clark | Fri Oct 09 1987 18:27 | 23 |
| Lets be honest about racing. Every boat carries a handicap which
is designed to make it possible to compete fairly. It doesnt take
a fast boat to win handicap races.
Actually, I was thinking more of the 27 rig (I have watched 2 of
them break the stick after a shroud or swag fitting let go). Both
in breezes no higher than 20 kts.
The 30 carries her beam so far forward, she has to club her way
into a sea, making her slower and point lower (again into waves).
I suspect that is why we sail past so many under power when the
wind is up...or maybe I am just crazy. For protected water and if
not pushing it in weather, I would say its rig is adequate.
By the way, the newer 34 isnt as bad in this regard. They can almost
stay up with me (smug look here).
See, I knew I would tick someone off. Sorry Adam, nothing personal
about your boat (which I never have seen since you were not able
to make the Block-Newport, or Cuttyhunk trips).
Walt (waiting for the other foot {Hunter/Irwin Citation owners} to fall)
|
| 661.18 | oh really? | MSCSSE::BERENS | Alan Berens | Mon Oct 12 1987 10:08 | 15 |
| >>> Every boat carries a handicap which
>>> is designed to make it possible to compete fairly. It doesnt take
>>> a fast boat to win handicap races.
Utter nonsense. PHRF ratings seem to assume that you have a full set of
mylar/kevlar sails, folding prop, full hydraulics, multiple spreader
rig, and every other go fast item known to (very rich) man. The PHRF
ratings are heavily biased toward the latest light designs (eg,
J-boats). If you own a boat designed and equipped for offshore cruising
with heavy weather dacron sails several years old (as we do) the only
place you'll finish is last, every time. But, of course, you'll finish,
no matter what the weather!
ex-racer
|
| 661.19 | Valiants & Sabres | NECVAX::RODENHISER | | Mon Oct 12 1987 13:42 | 38 |
| Re: .12
Walt, I think you came very close to matching my opinion of the
various lines. But I think we've got to stir up Alan a little.
I'd move the Valiant into the same category as the Tartan/Sabre/Ericson
grouping.
No question that Valiant are exceptional Perry designs and if you get
one that has been built properly you'll have a fine boat. But the issue
here is QUALITY. The fact that the line has been built by at least
three different builders, some of which have been notorious for poor
hull lay-up (delaminations and gelcoat pox), not to mention poor
financial situations which has got to lead to corner cutting would
prevent me from ever grouping them with Swan or Hinckley, et al.
By the same token, I've owned four Sabres and have sort of a
predisposition towards them. I've heard it said many times that Sabre
makes the "best" production boat in the US. But I'm here to tell you
that by no stretch of the imagination can Sabre production QUALITY be
compared to Swan, Little Harbor, Hinkley, Cambria, Alden, Baltic, and a
whole host of other semi-custom builders. I've had enough 'minor bugs'
with my Sabre 42 to last a lifetime.
That said, you'll have to watch future sailing magazines for ads
showing my wife and I cavorting around Buzzards Bay in our Sabre. We
spent last Friday afternoon in a photo session as they shot
innumerable rolls of film and video tape for promotional material.
Great sailing day but not too much fun for photo taking. We had wind in
the 22-25 range, but promotional people wanted us to carry full sails,
all the while trying not to heel more than 15 degrees while keeping
the sun to windward. I think we spent more time heeled at 45 degrees
and I have no idea where the sun was.
JR
|
| 661.20 | Valiant quality | MSCSSE::BERENS | Alan Berens | Mon Oct 12 1987 14:11 | 19 |
| I'll certainly admit that Valiants have some problems (as do boats from
any builder). However, as I said earlier in this discussion, my opinions
are based on a personal overall assessment of design, aesthetics,
construction, workmanship, etc. I assess the quality of a boat compared to
other boats built to the same design goals. Valiants are designed and
built for offshore cruising. They are not built with the finest possible
joinerwork or finish detail. Nonetheless, a Valiant 40 sucessfully
completed the first BOC, a Valiant 47 sucessfully completed the second
BOC, another Valiant 40 successfully circumnavigated singlehandedly,
another doublehanded Valiant 40 earned its crew the Blue Water cruising
medal for a circumnavigation that included gunkholing in the Straits of
Magellan, another Valiant 40 survived a 360 degree roll undamaged, and
so on. Swan, Baltic, Hinkley, Sabre, etc cannot say the same. Ask my
crew about the quality of my Valiant 32 as we slammed through and often
fell off 15 foot seas for three days returning from Bermuda this past
July.
Alan
|
| 661.21 | one category difference not too significant | GRAMPS::WCLARK | Walt Clark | Mon Oct 12 1987 15:54 | 28 |
| In a slight defense of PHRF (and way off the subject):
This rating system is implemented at the local level. This means
that rule beater boats will do well untill the local comittee
figures out what the REAL rating should be. It also means that
a cruiser with a 3 blade prop, etc., can protest the low rating
after repeated demonstrations that it is too low. Whether the
local administrator of the rule is willing to adjust, depends on
that person, and other human factors. Thats how racing clubs get
formed in the first place.
I have high regard for Valiants, mainly as a result of the events
referred to by Alan. I have no first hand, on board experience.
I also have a high regard for Sabre, especially since they have
updated the line starting in '84. I have listened to some of the
things Jeff Rudy has had to address with his 42' and think they
are more "start-up" problems than lack of workmanship or predictable
design problems. I also put Sabre in the same quality class as my
Tartan, even there are differences in design which might make one
prefer one over the other, I think durability and long term value
are similar (up untill about '82 Tartans were somewhat less expensive
than Sabres, but mostly because Tartan made more things optional
untill then) as indicated by used prices vs. purchase price when
new.
Walt
|
| 661.22 | I have seen a E-22 rig go while sailing my Catalina 27... | CNTROL::HAYS | Welcome to the nuthouse | Mon Oct 12 1987 16:19 | 17 |
| RE:.17 by GRAMPS::WCLARK "Walt Clark"
> Actually, I was thinking more of the 27 rig (I have watched 2 of
> them break the stick after a shroud or swag fitting let go). Both
> in breezes no higher than 20 kts.
Although I can't quote a Popular Sailer article, I would point out
that the Catalina 30 and the Catalina 27 rigs are almost identical in
design. I would also point out that any mast will fail if a shroud or
swag 'let go' occurs. My rig has seen use and abuse, and it's still
there..
Catalina is more than a step ahead of Hunter, Irwin and Macgregor..
Phil
|
| 661.23 | + | OCCAM::FANEUF | | Tue Oct 13 1987 13:42 | 9 |
| From Alan's crew -
A plus vote for Alan's Valiant 32. The most confidence-inducing
boat I've ever sailed in; it was clear the boat would handle everything
on that trip with no overt sign of strain or fuss. SOLID.
Ross Faneuf
|
| 661.25 | Resale Value as measure of "quality" | MTBLUE::BELTON_TRAVI | Travis Belton | Tue Oct 13 1987 14:21 | 78 |
| Taking another tack at determining the "quality ladder", Bay Yacht Agency
of Annapolis has apparently tried to make sense of what a boat's resale
value should be. Resale value could be considered another measure of the
quality of a boat.
Last March, I got a 4 page handout on their method which involves
both inflation (in the overall economy) and depreciation (of boats). For
the depreciation piece, they came up with a range ("after analyzing 100's
of transactions"). To figure a particular boats place in the range you use
the following scale. The scale "isn't based solely on any one factor".
They have used actual used boat sales, BUC data, and their own intuition.
Without going into the rest of it here, I thought I'd just present the
resale scale as they figured it. Boats with the least depreciation are at
the top, most depreciation at the bottom. They have also seperated from
left to right performance boats and cruising boats.
Reprinted from Bay Yacht Agency:
RESALE
SCALE
|
10| Hinckley
| *
|
|
Swan 9| Shannon
* | S2 (cruise) *
| *
Erickson
8* Sabre
Baltic | *
* C&C | Morgan Cape Dory
* | * *
Kaufman 7| Tayana
* | * Pac. Seacraft
| *
| Freedom
S2 Performance 6| *
* |Tartan
| * Gulfstar Non-such
PERFORMANCE | * * CRUISING
---------------------------5|Cal---Pearson----------------------------------
RACING | * * Cheoy Lee
| O Day *
| *
4|
|
Beneteau
| *
3| Catalina
| * Endeavour
| Moorings *
| *
2|Elite Hirsh
| * *
J Boats |
* |
1| Hunter
| *
| Watkins
| **
0| Irwin
Buccaneer *
This is mostly in line with what others have said in these notes. Some
surprises:
-Catalina places quite a bit higher than Hunter or Irwin.
-Ericson is higher than Sabre.
-Tartan is in with the Cal-Pearson-ODay bunch.
-Is J boats resale really that low? Maybe all the beatup, raced out J24's
have lowered its placing.
-Why is Cape Dory more a cruising boat than Shannon--I thought Shannon's
couldn't get out of their own wake.
If anyone would like the complete text, send me mail (do not reply in
Notes) and I'll photocopy it.
|
| 661.26 | No suprise | CNTROL::HAYS | Welcome to the nuthouse | Tue Oct 13 1987 15:15 | 10 |
| RE:.25 by MTBLUE::BELTON_TRAVI "Travis Belton"
> This is mostly in line with what others have said in these notes. Some
> surprises:
> -Catalina places quite a bit higher than Hunter or Irwin.
No suprise to the Catalina owners.
Phil
|
| 661.27 | Missing the point. | NECVAX::RODENHISER | | Wed Oct 14 1987 10:27 | 23 |
| Re: .20 & .23 (Alan and crew)
Don't miss my point. Valiants are exceptional boats. They are solid
as tanks and one couldn't find a better boat to go offshore in.
From a design, aesthetic, and lesser extent, construction aspect they
are top notch. But as you agree, their workmanship, specifically in
the area of joinerwork and finish detail leaves something to be desired.
I simply think that for this reason alone they shouldn't be classified
with the Cadillacs.
Of course, my sense of quality may be warped, because, last night
I read an old article in the Bible (Practical Sailor) that described
Morgan OI 41's as 'quality' boats. Mediocre sailing ability, but
quality nonetheless. How can that be? I never sailed one but always
went along with the crowd that classified them as 'clorox bottles'.
PS: While rummaging around PS I found an interesting article on
wheels vs tillers that I can't resist quoting over in the other note.
JR
|
| 661.28 | more irrelevence | MSCSSE::BERENS | Alan Berens | Thu Oct 15 1987 10:48 | 18 |
| > From a design, aesthetic, and lesser extent, construction aspect [Valiants]
> are top notch. But as you agree, their workmanship, specifically in
> the area of joinerwork and finish detail leaves something to be desired.
.... but only when compared to Hinckley, Swan, Baltic .... :-)
But speaking of missing the point, my view is that the quality of a boat
is the sum of all the parts of the boat, not just, say, the quality of
the joinerwork. A boat need not be the best quality in every respect to
be an excellent boat overall. In addition, quality is in relationship to
the design goal of the boat. While I agree that the Morgan Out Island
boats are not very good boats (terrible, really), if what you want in
your boat is comfortable living aboard tied to a dock, then an OI 41 is
a better quality boat than a Swan or Sabre or Valiant.
Alan
|
| 661.29 | Hey, my Catalina 34 is great! | AITG::BEANE | Art Beane | Thu Oct 15 1987 17:59 | 15 |
| Well, bet the checkbook and bought a Catalina 34 this June, and got
to put it through lots of testing. It's plenty fast enough; we get
close to half wind speed up to 15 knots, good pointing and a very
comfortable ride.
We went with Doyle's StackPack full battened main, which reefs like a
dream! Double reefed and main only, we sailed from Newport to
Providence two Sundays ago with 40+ knot winds at 6-6.5 knots.
Exhilarating!
The LWL is long for the LOA (29'10") which makes for good speed,
but means that the bow is pretty vertical and the deck is often
wet, about the only complaint we might have. All-in-all it's really
been a fun boat.
|
| 661.31 | good data | MIZZEN::DEMERS | Do the workstation thing | Mon Oct 19 1987 14:20 | 13 |
| Yow! I didn't think I'd stir up this much good data. But then
again, buying a boat is a religious issue (right behind
VMS vs. Unix and other related topics)!!! I plan on
putting together a list of 4-5 boats for a start and then
narrowing it down. As I learn what I want (and what I
can affort), I'll substitute in and out of the list.
Thanks for the info and I'll keep you posted.
Cmmmmmooonnnnn spring...
chris
|
| 661.32 | Resale Scale applied | GRAMPS::WCLARK | Walt Clark | Fri Oct 16 1987 17:15 | 36 |
| Reply Travis Beltons reply in note 661 which shows a scale of
different boat brands got me curious. I asked Travis for a copy
of the handout.
From it I created a Decalc spread which utilizes the scale shown
in Travis's note as well as the handout author's inflation and
depreciation tables. The result is a year by year table of a
given boats value.
From it I am able to determine that if I had purchased a Sabre in
late '83 it would be worth the purchase price in 1991 as a used
boat. My Tartan will be at that worth in '92. Just for fun I took
the Catalina scale and applied it to the same purchase price and
date, the result is inconclusive but I estimate it would not reach
its purchase price used untill '96. I say its inconclusive because
I think the change in the insurance structure has purturbed the
price of boats over 10 years old making the depreciation curve
deviate after year 10.
To look at it another way, if I had purchased a Sabre in late '83,
(for the same price as I paid for the Tartan) I would be able to sell
it next year for $4000 more than the Tartan. If I chose a Catalina
at the same price, it would sell for $4000 less than the Tartan.
Now before the Catalina owners open fire with their LK-201s, let
me say that I didnt do this to single out a brand. I did it to
see what that graph meant in terms of relative dollars (and to see
how much these guys would figure my boat to be worth). The resulting
value seems to fit with what I see my boat and similar Sabres' selling
for today. I was rather surprised to find the dollar spread so little.
An interesting exercise...Thanks Travis.
Walt
|
| 661.33 | possible bias | GRAMPS::WCLARK | Walt Clark | Mon Oct 19 1987 15:09 | 35 |
| One more thing.
I thought I would look up what I could about the BAY YACHT AGENCY,
which put the handout together...just to see if there might be
any biases to throw the RESALE SCALE out of whack.
Well, they sell Ericson, Morgan, Tayana, and S-2.
Does this affect the unbiased accuracy of the scale? Read on.
To quote the handout, "Based on our findings to date (which we
are continuing to update) the BUC book and our intuition; we have
developed the following RESALE SCALE."
Is it possible that their intuition about the boats they sell has
them ranking things differently? Or did they decide which boats
to sell after developing the scale impartially?
Another possible problem with "timeless" rankings like this:
Boat makers change. If the scale is based on a large population
of used boats and a manufacturer has made a significant change in
the "quality" of his boat recently, when your new boat reaches trade-
in time, its value may be much better or worse than the scale would
lead you to believe. In this case, the weight of historical evidence
is a burden to the prediction.
Those thinking of buying or selling (especially buying) should obtain
a copy of this handout. Even with the flaws (you can apply your
own "intuition") it gives you the basis for making some decisions
about a purchase aside from just asthetics.
Walt
|
| 661.34 | Biased? :^) | NECVAX::RODENHISER | | Mon Oct 26 1987 09:07 | 19 |
| I'm a little late reacting to this latest info, having spent the
last week in Acapulco (I know, tough duty etc.) but Walt beat me
to the punch on this resale scale issue.
I asked Travis to send me a copy of the article because some things
seemed WAY out of whack. In fact we swapped mail wondering what
particular axe Bay Yacht Agency was grinding - particularly with
S2.
I too made a few calls to find out just what Bay Yacht sold. Does
anyone have any further questions about the suspicious rankings
of S2, Ericson, MORGAN, and Tayana? Any bets on how many of their
direct competition in their local area were rated unusually low?
It's too bad because the concept they used was sound. Just a little
too much "intuition" thrown in.
John_R
|
| 661.35 | TICON 30?? | MAST::SCHUMANN | | Tue May 28 1991 20:42 | 4 |
| Does anybody know anything about a Canadian-built TICON 30? The one
in question was built in 1983, is well-equipped, and might be a bargain.
--RS
|
| 661.36 | Halmatic Motorsailor? | MAST::SCHUMANN | | Wed May 29 1991 10:02 | 4 |
| Any opinions on a Halmatic 28' Motorsailor?
--RS
|
| 661.37 | | MSCSSE::BERENS | Alan Berens | Wed May 29 1991 13:16 | 5 |
| re last two replies:
Hmmmm, rather different boats. What are you looking for (eg, see note
661.1)?
|
| 661.38 | schizoid sailor | MAST::SCHUMANN | | Wed May 29 1991 21:07 | 21 |
| >Hmmmm, rather different boats. What are you looking for (eg, see note
>661.1)?
Yeah, Alan, I figured you'd notice that...
The TICON is probably closer to what I'm looking for: a well-equipped
30' coastal cruiser.
The Halmatic is offered for $12K, and telephone conversation with the owner
was not very reassuring as to its condition. I wouldn't mind having a
motorsailor because it's easier to stay out of hot sun and cold rain.
Is the Halmatic a dog, or a gem in the rough?
Both boats appear to be suitable for coastal cruising. They have different
relative strengths, and I'm a bit schizophrenic as to which appeals to me
more.
Actually, neither of these boats is at the top of my list at this point,
since I don't know anything about them. The front runner is a Sabre 28.
--RS
|
| 661.39 | | HAEXLI::PMAIER | | Thu May 30 1991 04:03 | 26 |
| This is a reply to your note concerning the Sabre 28. (Its write
locked)
Before buying the boat,check the Volvo Penta.Fresh water cooled Volvos
have the bad habbit of deposit in the cooling "holes" going from the
cylinder-head to the cylinder.They work fine for a long time and then
need a "rebuild".They will tell you,you had no engine oil.
Its easy to check.At the bottom of the cylinders are screws to vent
the cylinders during winter layup.(to prevent freezing)Open them up and
see if there is water flowing.If there is only a trickle,the holes are
nearly closed and the engine is cooled by the engine oil.
The second check is the temperatur gauge.The needle should be somewhere
between the "T" and the "E".If its below (yes,below) this reading,something
is wrong.If the cooling channels are blocked,the temparatur reading will
slowly rise for 30 second and then fall down below the "T" (the T from
TEMP).
The reason for this strange behavier is that the cooling water only
circulates in the cylinderhead due to clogged holes going down to
the cylinder.The cooling water gets heated up (ca. 30 sec) and the
thermostat opens fully.This cools the engine head down below the
normal level.
Peter
|
| 661.40 | Help evaluating the situation... | GAUSS::FGZ | Federico Genoese-Zerbi -- Flamingo 2D DDX | Mon Feb 24 1992 10:37 | 26 |
|
Saturday, a friend of mine (an contributor to this conference) looked
at an '81 Pearson 26. The boat has been greatly neglected for 3 years.
The hull had about 10" of water inside it that had formed a nice block
of ice. I looked for possible cracking around the edges of the ice, or
any deformation on the outside, but saw none. Unfortunately, due to
the ice we could not see the keel bolts. The outboard was imbedded in
the ice and I think it's pretty much a "goner". Even if it can be made
to start, the lower unit is probably shot.
Other than that, the boat was in OK shape (very neglected but basically
sound). Do any of you have any idea how much risk making an offer on a
boat such as this "as is" might be? Melting the ice and getting a
surveyor would be the best approach, but given the amount of money
involved, I can't imagine it's worth it.
What damage could the ice cause (other than possibly cracking the hull
-- how likely is this anyway) besides destroying the outboard that
would not be evident?
What is the general reputation of the Pearson 26?
Thanks.
F.
|
| 661.41 | ex | EMDS::MCBRIDE | | Mon Feb 24 1992 15:41 | 7 |
| The pearson 26 is a sturdy little boat. I raced on one a few times
and was fairly impressed. Depending upon where the ice was, I would
say it may not be a big deal if it had room to expand. If it was
trapped in a confined area, there may be big trouble. I would be more
concerned about why the ice was there in the first place.
Brian
|
| 661.42 | Neglect->water->ice | GAUSS::FGZ | Federico Genoese-Zerbi -- Flamingo 2D DDX | Mon Feb 24 1992 16:59 | 12 |
|
The ice was there because the guy went to California and left his boat
in his back yard without a cover over it for 3 years. The ice is about
10" deep and has room to expand upwards as much as it wants.
Any chance the outboard imbedded in the ice may be salvageable (silly
thing is that the engine is an '86). Can't believe this boat was
allowed to sit by itself that long.
F.
|
| 661.43 | ask someone who knows | EPS::SAMUELSON | | Mon Feb 24 1992 17:38 | 7 |
| Get a professional surveyor. I would do this if it were a new boat in
the process of being constructed, an old boat that looked in pristine
condition, or a yacht that is clearly a handyperson's special. Just
think of how much it would cost to fix something you overlooked. And,
of course, anyone you were going to sell it to because it cost too much
to fix would have it professionally surveyed - and adjust the price
accordingly (e.g., what you should be doing to begin with).
|
| 661.44 | Survey? This is not an expensive boat... | GAUSS::FGZ | Federico Genoese-Zerbi -- Flamingo 2D DDX | Mon Feb 24 1992 17:51 | 13 |
|
Seems stupid to pay $300+ for a survey, when the money being talked
about on the boat is on the order of a couple thousand $$. I mean,
what's the worst case? Total loss, right? Why bother with a survey
for a boat this cheap? A survey is just insurance, and why insure when
you can take the loss?
BTW, I think that if we get this boat, we will only get insured for
liability.
F.
|
| 661.45 | take a risk, get a bargain? | MAST::SCHUMANN | | Tue Feb 25 1992 09:50 | 20 |
| There is some risk that the ice has expanded and has caused a nasty crack. You
might not necessarily be able to see the crack, but I would guess that any
serious crack would be visible. Some taps with a mallet will likely tell you
whether there is anything amiss.
If the ice is in an area with steep sides (e.g. a deep bilge) the likelihood
of cracking is higher than if the ice area has v-shaped sides. This is because
ice in the v-shaped area will "pop" itself out of its mold as it expands,
whereas ice in a vertical-sided area will pop the sides instead.
Even if you later find a serious crack, the repair cost may not be exhorbitant.
(There is an earlier note about a grounding repair that will give you a feeling
for cost associated with fixing a crack at the keel. Note number anybody?)
Whether to hire a surveyor is a personal decision based on your aversion
to risk. For a $3k - $5k boat, with no plans to insure against loss, I wouldn't
bother with a survey.
--RS
|
| 661.46 | Why not insure the value of hard work
| CARTUN::OLSALT::DARROW | The wind is music to my ears | Tue Feb 25 1992 17:01 | 9 |
| If you do get the boat and with much hard work bring it back to good
sailing condition, I would you suggest that you should consider insuring
the results of your labor. If you put $3,000 cash in and another $3000
in repairs and cleanup, you may well have a boat that even in this
depressed market could have an insurance value of several thousands more.
Insurance for 10k agreed value and liability would still be less than $200
per year.
Fred (USDEV::DARROW) (OLSALT, my 3100 is hidden somewhere in MRO3)
|
| 661.47 | | DNEAST::OKERHOLM_PAU | | Wed Mar 04 1992 15:56 | 4 |
| Can you melt the ice and pump it out? You can rent kerosene or oil
space heaters fairly inexpensively. There may be factors which I'm
unaware of that make this impractical or unsafe but I thought it would
be worth considering.
|
| 661.48 | | VMSSPT::PAGLIARULO | | Wed Mar 06 1996 12:56 | 44 |
| I've entered a similar note to this in the power boat notes file but
I'd like to get the same type of information for sail boats. Now, before
anyone jumps all over me, I realize that the decision to buy a power or sail
boat goes far beyond financial considerations and these other factors will be
well considered.
With that said, in the past (pre-mortgage, kids, college etc
etc) I have owned boats and I really miss owning one. Now, I'm getting tired
of going to the boat shows every year and saying someday.... Someday isn't
here yet but it's getting closer. The first thing I want to do is get an
accurate assesment of the costs of boat ownership. This probably enters into
the area of "if you need to ask...", but, my experience is years old and I
really have no idea what things cost these days. I'm sure slips cost a little
more then they did 11 years ago. As the basis for cost analysis, let's say
we're talking about a 30 ft Catalina for ocean use and overnight trips,
coastal crusing, no racing. The cost of the boat itself isn't a concern. Hey,
that's why they make loan companies! It's the added costs of getting the boat
in the water year after year that I want to get a handle on. It seems that
there are two types of costs. Those one time costs that actually make a
boat serviceable once you buy it, and then those year to year fees that you
have to put out. I've listed everything I could think of below (but I'm sure
that I missed a lot of items particular to sail vs. power). Anyone want to
take a crack at adding dollar figures to these?
George
Initial costs: Yearly costs
life jackets (5) registration (NH)
fire extinguishers (2) insurance
flares mooring or slip
horn maintenance
loran depreciation
depth finder fuel
other electronics? storage (if not trailerable)
anchor winterizing
anchor line and chain de-storage (getting it back in the water)
fenders what else?
dock lines
dinghy (if moored)
what else?
|
| 661.49 | boat ownership costs. | DECC::CLAFLIN | | Wed Mar 06 1996 16:00 | 28 |
| I have been off of the notes file for a year or so, but there should be cost
estimates and actuals from several people including myself.
Most items need replacing every so often, others every year.
Recurring costs (yearly)
storeage 25-35 / foot
hauling the boat from the water may be a freebie
dockage or 7/ft/month ?
mooring ~$150/yr if it is your mooring.
step and unstep mast 100/yr
bottom paint applied yourself 100/yr
insurance 500/yr
engine work (sail boat you do it) 50/yr
fuel sailboat 50-100 yr
total = ~1700/yr for my 30 foot Holiday II.
Raise that to 3000/yr for other goodies e.g. foul weather gear, new batteries
new sails, etc. These expense are part of the sport, but not necessarily
yearly ones.
Incidently, I am back in New England with my family high and dry in Colorado.
Hopefully Holiday II will be busy this summer with day and even sails. Free
loaders are welcome.
Doug claflin
dtn 881-6355
|
| 661.50 | Note 1118.* | UNIFIX::BERENS | Alan Berens | Wed Mar 06 1996 16:32 | 8 |
| re .48:
See also Note 1118. Costs haven't changed all that much in the last
couple of years. Owning a boat is expensive, very expensive. Costs vary
considerably depending on location, boat size and age, mooring or slip,
personal whim, and so forth. I suspect that many people stop being boat
owners (as did a good friend of our) because the expense becomes
disproportionate compared to the pleasures.
|
| 661.51 | My affordable solution... | UNIFIX::FRENCH | Bill French 381-1859 | Thu Mar 07 1996 07:41 | 25 |
| I want to echo one of the things that Alan said:
Costs vary considerable depending on location, boat size and age.
It costs me $1000 yr for a mooring in a boatyard on Lake Winnipesaukee.
But all of my other expenses run less that $1000 per year. I have
a heavy stable 20' Com-Pac yacht on a trailer. 2-3 weeks a year it
sails the coast of Maine. Yes, it's a small boat by most of your
standards, but it's affordable and I do almost all of the things
that larger boats do. I cruise, I race (on Winnipesaukee) - so what
if I have the highest handicap in the lake. I sail the coast of Maine
each year - and I can trailer it to Penobscot Bay in about 4 hours.
This summer, my daughter and I plan to live aboard for a week in
July.
Sure it would be nice to have a bigger boat but I have one that's
paid for, and one on which I can justify the annual costs.
I have had more than one person suggest to me that it's one of the
best equipped 20' boats that they have ever seen.
Where there is a will , there is a way. The alternative for me
is not to have a boat. This one I can afford.
Bill
|
| 661.52 | $3-$5K | WRKSYS::SCHUMANN | | Thu Mar 07 1996 12:03 | 4 |
| In my experience, it costs about $3-$5K per year to keep and use and
maintain a 30' sailboat in New England, not counting capital costs.
--RS
|
| 661.53 | | NQOS01::nqsrv312.nqo.dec.com::rogersr | Rod Rogers | Fri Mar 08 1996 23:16 | 17 |
| Much more than that!
My Soverel 33 cost $92k (not including taxes) very fully equipped in 1988.
Market value today at top condition (which it is) is $47k.
$45K depreciation over eight years is $6k/yr. Add this to the interest of the
note (approx $5k year), amortize the interest expense by 31% (tax deductable)
and you have $9.5k. Add to this the yearly slip, storage and insurance costs
of $3k and then the $1.5k maintenance (on a 'good' year) and we get to
$13.5k/yr for a brand new ultra fast racer cruiser.
My usage is now more like a passage a year, which can be done by charter for
$5k (long charter in very nice place). Therefore I have decided to sell at a
song. Break even on the boat, pay the broker out of my pocket and put this
years "investment" money into mutual funds.
Of course, if you buy a ten year old hull, the depreciation will be far less.
|
| 661.54 | tax writeoff | STARCH::HAGERMAN | Flames to /dev/null | Mon Mar 25 1996 10:09 | 10 |
| One non-obvious point is that your moderate-sized boat can qualify as a
second residence for (US) tax purposes fairly easily. Thus you can deduct
the interest on your boat loan just as you do for your house. The rules
are explained in the IRS instructions; basically you have to have a
kitchen, a bathroom, and sleeping quarters, and have to fulfil a
certain number of overnight stays (small, perhaps a week or so?).
So far I haven't bought a boat big enough to qualify...
Doug.
|
| 661.55 | got that.... | NQOS01::nqsrv533.nqo.dec.com::rogersr | Rod Rogers | Mon Mar 25 1996 16:00 | 9 |
| Reread the reply.....I covered that. (tax deductible interest) saves about
$1.7k of the $5k you spend.....not overly exciting.
The real secret is to buy a 10yr old boat and put nothing into it. Sail it
for a couple of years and sell it.
Or charter.......an idea which I like far better.
|
| 661.56 | Used is cheaper but be carefull | HIGHD::MELENDEZ | | Tue Sep 24 1996 15:12 | 15 |
| 661.57 | Used is the way to go.... | NQOS01::nqsrv213.nqo.dec.com::Rod.Rogers | | Wed Sep 25 1996 22:42 | 24
|