# Got religon...but a Hunter??



## fb22 (Jul 23, 2003)

I am new to sailing but have had a number of Powerboats over the years...Please don''t hold that against me... We got religon sold our Chapparral and now are looking in earnest for a good coastal cruiser. 

We were on an IP 35 not too long ago and were pretty impressed but $$ is a factor so we are looking on. A bit reckless in my youth now looking for the amenities and a kindly reasonably priced ride for my wife and two children (8&5) 

We have looked at Cats, Benny''s, and some high quality boats 12+ yrs old without the amenities like decent AC or Swim Platform...

I have been on the Hunter (99'')376, (00'')380,
(02'')386. They "seem" very nice and numbers look errrr ok?

Coastal (Chesapeake) Cruising, Occasional Blue Water. 

Would really appreciate comments about Seakeeping, Tracking, Ease of handling, heel... and... Quality in the context of this class of boat..

Close to pulling the trigger.. but if Jeff_H is out there with some others would really appreciate your advice.


----------



## sailorjim (Mar 31, 2000)

Hunters are expensive ''starter'' boats. Thyey do not hold their value, which explains why there are so many on the market. Friends I know that have them say they are great at the dock but prone to port leaks and definatley not offshore boat. I would not have one. Try looking to an older Morgan, Sabre or some other older and well built boat, boarding ladders make it easy to get on and off.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

This is not a simple question. Hunter is the most maligned and controversial of the big three boat builders. Hunter Marine marches to the sound of their own drummer and a lot of people don''t like the tune. Their aesthetics are very much an acquired taste and to many of us, who grew up with more traditional designs, we would prefer not to buy their look. They tend to be over marketed and many of us are somewhat put off by the implication of the "Goes the Distance" motto. 

Still looking at them objectively they are reasonable performers for coastal cruising. They offer a lot of accommodations and features for the money. They tend to be sold amazingly well equipped. According to the surveyors that I have talked to Hunter does an excellent job at designing and building boats that meet the various safety standards. Most of the larger older Hunters have a CE ''B'' Classification, which means that they are not certified for Open Ocean usage but the more recent bigger boats have a CE ''A'', which is an open ocean rating. 

On the flip side, few builders seem to draw the heavy fire in the court of "common knowledge". Some of this is just plain unwarranted but quite a bit reflects the reality of these boats. They are designed for a very specific clientele. This clientele typically are not circumnavigators but a family that is going to weekend and overnight. Hunters are not really set up with sea berths or offshore galleys but the interiors work well on the anchor. They have narrow side decks and rigs that are at their best reaching but give up a bit beating (headstay sag due to no backstay) and running (the mainsail ends up plastered against the shrouds). Their fractional rigs are easier to tack and are easier to deal with in changing conditions. Hunters seem to offer pretty good performance in a wide range of conditions but are certainly at their best in 10 -12 or so knots of wind reaching. The more recent models do not seem to be able to sail to their ratings on the race course while earlier models were good dual purpose boats. (my Dad went for several years with no finishes worse than a first or second.) 

Things I dislike about Hunters; I really do not like the huge plastic port lights that they have been using on recent models. The plexiglass will deteriorate (my experience about 10 to 14 years in Maryland) and these big panels will at that point become unsafe and in need of replacement. That will be very expensive. I don''t like the rolled out hull to deck joint used on recent models. While it provides a nice rubrail, it is highly vulnerable to damage while docking or in a colision and from an engineering standpoint places the largest bending stresses and highest strains on the joint compared to almost any other kind of hull deck joint. (My previous boat had this detail and it was the one single thing that I really hated about that boat. It is one thing to do this detail on a 28 foot, 4100 lb. Kevlar boat like my prior boat and an entirely different thing to do on a large all glass boat) 

I don''t like the B&R backstayless rigs. I have spent a lot of time on fractional rigs and masthead rigs. To me a fractional rig really makes a lot of sense for cruising but only with a backstay adjuster. Ideally, Fractional rigs can carry considerable larger working sail plans because of their ability to increase backstay tension and quickly depower the sailplan. This means few sail changes and few reefs. BUT the B&R rig does not use a backstay so rapid depowering is not an option. In that case much of the advantage of a fractional rig is lost. 

Compared to other builders, Hunter''s interiors also tend to be a bit more sterile although they have gotten considerably better on more recent models. 

There is a mythology surrounding the resale prices on Hunters. My father bought one new, owned it for 11 years and sold it for what he paid for it. My mom had a used one which she sold for more than she paid for hers. The only published data that I have seen on Hunter resale values, supported our anecdotal experiences. I''ve thought about this a bit and I think that the Hunter resale myth exists because Hunters tend to include a lot of gear in their base price. Most boats do not. When you look at a base price on a Hunter it reflects this level of equipage. Typically when you look at resale on one of these boats where everything is an option or aftermarket purchase, but compare the resale value to the base price, these other manufacturers look pretty darn good. On the other hand when you adjust the price of these other models to include everything that is included on the boat at the time of sale, Hunters look pretty good from a resale point of view. (I think that the hidden cost of fit out is one of the reasons that Island Packet resale values are seen as better than they really seem to be.)

In the early 1980''s my family did not have very good results with Hunter''s warranty department, but in my own casual survey of new boat owners, recent Hunter owners really seemed very delighted with their treatment and with the comparatively minor level of problems. 

Lastly if you buy a Hunter, you have to deal with the emotional issues about them. There are absolutely rabid Hunter haters out there. You can not under estimate the vehemence of their hatred. Then there are rabid Hunter lovers and defenders out there. They can be almost as bad. This roiling controversy results in a situation where you are left either defending the boat to detractors or defending you lack of defense to the rabid defenders. They are good boats for what they are made to do. They do offer a lot of boat for the dollar. They are not my idea of an offshore boats by any stretch of the imagination. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## eds928gt (Sep 28, 2001)

We have a 1983 Hunter 34, and it''s just fine for coastal cruising. We wouldn''t go offshore with it for an extended time, but with good weather windows we might consider going to the Bahamas from the Chesapeake.

As with any 20 year-old boat, things need to be repaired or replaced. So far, I''ve replaced two windows and I''ll probably replace a few more this winter. Also, at least one thru-hull pet-cock will likely need to be serviced. I''ve fixed the windex, and the speed indicator and the depth sounder are next. I''ve also upgraded the VHF radio, and installed a new mast antenna for it. Earlier this year I replaced all the running rigging, and a two fiddle-blocks.

As you can see, older boats require more TLC. Howver, aside from the items mentioned, the boat has been reliable and fun to sail. We don''t know if it''ll hold its value when it''s selling time, but we didn''t pay that much for it to begin with, so it really doesn''t matter much to us. I suspect most 20 year old boats have pretty much leveled off near the bottom of the depreciation curve. However, a 10 year old boat may still be on the steep part of the decline curve. :^(

~ Happy sails to you ~ _/) ~


----------



## fb22 (Jul 23, 2003)

Sailor Jim, JeffH & Frenzy... Thanks for the input...We read your emails tonight and are chatting about it this evening. We are going to look at some older higher quality boats and see if we can''t find one that fits the aesthetic''s that my wife and I can agree on with the endurging quality that you all alluded to... I am just concerned about spending alot of time fixing up an older boat at this point in our lives... but.. we''ll find the balance..

Good Sailing... ;-)


----------



## svdragonseeker (May 7, 2001)

Once again, if the boat doesn''t provide a proper secure spot to tie the anchor rode to than why would you assume that the rest of the rigging is any better.


----------



## eds928gt (Sep 28, 2001)

Dear Svdragonseeker:
I don''t get what you mean? My Hunter 34 has a very good and strong cleat in the anchor locker on which I can (and do) tie the anchor rode. Moreover, there are two more cleats under the bow pulpit where one or two rodes can be tied.

The rest of the standing rigging is just fine. I only had to replace the older (and worn) running rigging, which basically was two lengths of line for the main halyard and jib sheet.

~ Happy sails to you ~ _/) ~


----------



## 7470 (Jul 22, 2001)

Cherubini designed Hunters fall into the Classic mode. (The 34 mentioned above - or my 37 for example).

These haven''t been built since the mid 80''s. As a result, not one knows they are Hunters - people ask me if mine is an old Morgan.

The new Hunters are not Classic, but as someone said, they are one of the big 3. When you consider that so many boat builders went out of business, they must still be doing something right. But they aren''t my cup-of-tea either.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Actually the 34 (which was part of a series that included a 25,31,34, 37, 40/41 footer)was designed long after Cheribini''s association with Hunter''s design staff and were one of the first boats that really gave Hunter the ''Hunter Reputation''. The original series included 25,30,36,and 37 footers. 

Jeff


----------



## eds928gt (Sep 28, 2001)

As usual, Jeff H is correct in saying the Hunter 34 (from ''83 to ''87) were not a Cherubini design.

I almost bought a Cherubini ''82 37'' Hunter. It was a cutter with no aft berth. There was lots more room for storage, but the cabin plan was not as roomy as on the 34''s. Also, the chain-plates were located in the middle of the cat-walk, which seemed like a toe-catcher, although one learn to avoid them. :^(

~ Happy sails to you ~ _/) ~


----------



## jr438234606 (Apr 25, 2006)

What's this "CE" Classification all about? Where can I get more info?


----------

