Bristol 34 ?
Fin keel, spade rudder version? Built much better than Columbias of similar vintage. The Columbias invariably had terrible print-through in the hull layups and a high variation in build quality. I can usually identify a Columbia because I can see the roving through the paint, particularly in a dark boat. The Pearson brothers split circa 1966, one stayed with the buyer of Pearson, Grumman Aircraft, the other started Bristol Yachts. I guess I can''t say that overall there''s a huge difference in build quality in those years, but I went with Bristol. Again, and again, and again, if you like the boat, the hull is good, and it''s what you can afford, it''s up to you. Go sailing. Wait around too long and you''ll wind up with nothing. Calculate rebuild expenses carefully. Start with floating/sinking, go to locomotion, then instrumentation/electronics, then safety gear, then comforts. The Bristol 34 is the large end of the lighter-build Bristol line. I''ve noticed the rigging is less beefy, hull layup a little thinner and odds and ends of trappings less substantial than the 35''s, 39''s and 40''s. There''s a world of boats out there. Nothing wrong with kicking some gelcoat. I think the PHRF on my Bristol Alden 35 is something like 185 or 189 or some such. Dog downwind, when I''m used to clicking 10kn in a frac rig 39, but comfortable. The Columbias are NOT comparable in any respect of the word, as evidenced by the selling prices. Bristols began surpassing Pearson in build quality circa late ''70''s. 2cents.