What would you buy for $100,000?
Gentlemen: (Red and Rich)
You obviously were upset by my earlier posts on this topic. When I go back and read yours and my posts on this topic I really do not understand what you are trying to say.
Lets start with the original question, in which swo104 was "looking to buy a cruiser for the Chesapeake bay." with "about $100,000 to spend." and who further said he "may be interested in cruising down the ICW in the off season."
He did not ask about Southwestern Florida. I did not answer about Southwestern Florida. Red, for the record, I don''t have a dislike of keel boats. Most of the boats on the list that I gave swo104 were keel boats. I suggested a few centerboard boats as well.
Red, I don''t know what you mean by "lack of perspective in the real world" but we each decide upon the venue that we chose to sail in and by and large that venue dictates our ''real world'' experience. In the forty years that I have been sailing I have sailed predominantly on the east coast of the US, and in sailing in a lot of differing venues, from Maine to the Gulf Coast of Florida,I have seen that each venue requires an adjustment in perspective and a redefinition of ''normal''in the term ''normal real world conditions''. Your own "lack of perspective in the real world" of the Chesapeake may have lead you to be somehow offended by my list of suggestions but I still don''t see your point even as seen from my experience in that the small microcism of the world that you choose to call home.
Red, I also don''t see your point about tankers passing under the Bay Bridge. They also pass under the Skyway Bridge in Tampa as well. Sure, you would not bring a tanker into Punta Gorda any more than you would bring one up the Severn River. Nowhere in my post do I argue that shallower draft in a boat is not a virtue in sailing areas like your home grounds but again your home waters were not included in swo104''s question.
I also don''t see where you are coming from when you seem to imply that I prefer new boats such as seems to be implied in your statement, "Used boats of older vintage have a lot to offer in allowing acessibility to a greater portion of the population." I posted a list of used boats covering a span of production eras from the early 1970''s through the early 1990''s. These were all used boats in a range from $30k to $100K boats. In my book that represents a pretty inclusive range a guy such as swo104 who has a $100K budget.
Then there is the discussion of the Dickenson Company. For the record, the Dickenson company actually died almost four years after stoppng production on the Farr 37''s. The company ceased production after it was sold to investors outside of the family that originally owned the company. That company tooled up and produced a whole new line of high end traditional cruisers. These were beautifully built and wonderfully finished but Dickenson lost their shirt on them. The final death nell came in the recession of the late 1980''s and early 1990''s.
Dickenson''s brief stint producing the Farr 37''s (which you will note I did not advocate and I do not especially like) was actually quite profitable. These boats sold in large numbers compared to the production numbers on Dickenson''s then current production line of cruisers. They were then state of the art IOR era race boats. They went of production when the IOR rule was rewritten.
BUT, It was the high profitability of the Farr 37''s that drew the out-of-town investors to Dickenson and they eventually bought the company and owned it when it went broke. At least that is the story that I have always heard up here on the Chesapeake.
I also never put down wooden boats and have no axe to grind against inexpensive boats that allow the ''average guy'' out on the water. When I lived in Florida (both coasts over a 10 year period) I owned and restored a hard chine OK Dinghy that I bought for $125, a wooden lapstrake Folkboat that I bought for $400 and a 1939 Stadel Pilot class cutter (that was so beautiful that she could bring tears to your eyes just looking at her)which I bought for $2500. These boats were quite affordable and afforded me great pleasure in the steadier breezes of South Florida. I have always been indebted that despute my sometimes meager income I could just get out there and sail. So, I don''t look down on people for the boats they choose to sail, but that does not mean that I want to own or even suggest that anyone else own, some of the miserable sailing craft that are out there in the used boat market. Nor does it mean that I feel the urge to sugarcoat an opinion when someone asks for an opinion.
To answer Rich''s comment and question, "Nothing can equal the pleasure of a fast boat; but, you don''t need to be ''state of the art'' or nervously adhereing to the latest transitory ''fads'' to enjoy oneself.... and still enjoy the full essence of sailing, more in enjoyment of the "trip" than hurrying manic-like to the destination. Why the rush?" I basically agree with the sentiment of his post and in most ways it is consistent with the boats that I recommended earlier so I don''t see where he is coming from. I will note again that the list of proposed boats span 20 years and the list stops about 10 years ago. I don''t see these as being "''state of the art'' or nervously adhereing to the latest transitory ''fads''". For the most part, the boats that I suggested repesent a point in an evolution that has taken place over a period of 123 years and evolved from the work of some of the best yacht designers during this long period of time; Nat Herreshoff, Starling Burgess,Olin Stephins and Phillip Rhodes, and to name a few.
I also don''t agree that getting the most performance from a boat represents, "hurrying manic-like to the destination." To further answer Rich''s question, "Why the rush?" It is not about rushing. To me its about good seamanship which includes getting what you can out of boat. I personally enjoy voyaging under sail without running my engine. (I say so as a premise of my recommendations so that someone reading my comments can filter them through that perspective.) On the Chesapeake that means good light air performance and a good turn of speed or else limiting your cruising grounds and sailing days to a much smaller sellection.
But even in Red''s neck of the woods, a turn of speed makes a big difference in safety and motoring time, at least when I lived there. Back then I owned the Stadel Cutter mentioned earlier. To sail from Sarasota to Venice in her meant setting sail at early light and flogging hard all day long to slip in before dark. In those days it was tricky getting into Venice after dark as the channel tended to wander a bit and bore little resemblance to the charts or marks. In a more modern design, like my current boats, this is an easy hop that can be typically be made on 3 or 4 hours without running the engine.
And to Red''s point about the wooden Dickenson winning a race against more modern designs, I suppose that could have happened. I have won races in really old technology on corrected time, getting in a metaphorical ''week and a day'' later, but that did not mean that there was a bit of beer left in the keg or that the buffet was not ravished when we got in. Sail what you like, but don''t put others down for chosing to sail something that is a bit more modern and better suited to where they chose to sail.