# Pearson Vanguard 33 reviews?



## soulsail737 (Mar 17, 2012)

I am seriously looking at downshifting from my Santana 20 racing boat to a 1966 Pearson Vanguard 33, that my neighbor is offering in becoming a half-owner with him. I love the look and performance of my 2002 Tuna 20, but it is not comfortable at all for my wife and 6-yr old daughter. I bought the Santana 20 before I met my wife (who is not a sailor), and was looking for a fun OD racing experience. With a family now, I'm having hardly any time to race, and I really want sailing to be a fun family experience and lifestyle. My wife wants something with an enclosed head, and something that will make her feel safe when out on the ocean. My daughter wants something that she can get out of the cockpit (without being duck-taped to me) and something that isn't so "tippy".

Our neighbors (who are wonderful people), are half-owners and the other half-owner is in his mid-80's and suffering from health issues. We have sailed on the boat, but it was a light/no air day and we spent most of our time motoring. I realize that I will be giving up quite a lot in performance, and a bigger boat means more maintenance issues (even with being able to split it down the middle). However, having the family out with me means more than performance issues. The boat is in relatively good shape: rebuilt mast, new standing rigging, new bottom paint 2011, Atomic 4 engine still very strong - the bones are all great. Negatives would be the sails need updating, as does the interior, and the general cosmetic condition of the boat. The buy-in to be a half-owner is $5000. I do love the classic look of the boat. We are located in SoCal.

Can anybody comment on the overall ownership experience of the boat? Also, the culture shock of going from a racing machine to a 47-year-old cruising machine? Any thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks very much!


----------



## JimPendoley (Jan 17, 2005)

Hi,
I have owned a 32' Pearson Vanguard for 15 years or so and can testify to the qualities and drawbacks. I raised a family of four cruising the coast of Maine aboard her and she always kept us safe and comfortable. The kids and the wife at the time, loved her. The boat is great in any conditions, will not point high though and will slow way down when beating too high into a stiff chop. In that case, stop pinching, fall off five points and the boat will sail quite well into a head sea. Initially tender by design (heeling on a CCA era boat equals an increased waterline), they firm up at 15 degress and stay there. One reef point at 15 knots of wind and the helm becomes well balanced.

Many have done long voyages, though they are certainly minimally configured for long distance cruising-the primary drawback being tankage-they only carry forty gallons of water in the original monel tanks. The atomic four is fine as long as you are sensible about fuel safety. Much is made of the risk of gas aboard-but most cruisers have propane tanks aboard for cooking (and sometimes heat) and think nothing of it. The old alcohol stove is a nuisance and best replaced with propane if you will be cooking aboard. A good sniffer and common sense will eliminate the risk of explosion for either propane or the A4. A diesel would be nice and I want one eventually, but the engine is apt to be worth more than the boat so the upgrade must be well deserved.

The interior can be upgraded pretty inexpensively. The hull deck joint will leak if not resealed, but that is not a difficult job. Watch for soft decks-mine need work, but that in no way stops me from using the boat-its just a project somewhere off in the future.

Boat heaves to perfectly, which is great when a kid needs attention or you just want to wait out some weather or even for meal preparation underway. Turns on a dime, but backs up like a drunken elephant. She will handle the big stuff with grace and sails fine in light airs as long as you don't pinch. Lots of room for upgrades like a furler and self tailers-all of which are not necessary, but fun and useful to add over time. If the one you are considering is in good shape, $5K for a bullet proof classic designed by one of the worlds most famous naval architects is a fair price. You can do the upgrades if and when you want over time-its a low cost entry point for a minimal safe cruiser that you can upgrade to whatever level you like or need over time. There is a great users group on yahoo that has 400 members who share all kinds of information about thier ships. Search yahoo groups and request membership-you'll be able to see photo albums of dozens of boats and all of the upgrades they have made over time. The group is very well moderated. Best of luck.
Jim


----------



## soulsail737 (Mar 17, 2012)

Thank Jim, this is a big help. Appreciate you taking the time to respond with all of your observations. She does have the monel tanks and a roller-furling system. Hoping to get back aboard her soon so I can really start looking at her from a buyers standpoint, rather than just as a passenger (as I was before the offer was made). 

Some previous posts on other threads - one author in particular who had also owned a PV33 - bashed the boat pretty heavily for poor construction and sailing qualities. Have you had those issues at any time?

Also, can you tell me what kind of tacking angles you might have while going upwind in a 10-15 kt breeze? Do you have a traveler or the original mainsail trim system?

Thanks again - this website (and those that respond) have been fantastic!

Most sincerely,

Derek


----------



## JimPendoley (Jan 17, 2005)

I have the original, inefficient mainsheet setup. The boat benefits from a real traveller to help control twist and many have installed them. I have not because the aft deck is soft and needs to be repaired first. I don't think that represents shoddy construction, just construction typical of a 1960's era boat. None of the thru deck fittings were likely properly sealed off from the core and some have allowed water intrusion with the subsequent problems that entails.

I've upgraded the portlights with bigger New Found Metal ports as the original opening ports were aluminum and in poor condition. The hull deck joint leaked, but removing the half round rail and reefing out the old filler and pumping full of 5200 pretty much eliminated that problem. A one day job and not a big job as boat jobs go. The deck is thoroughly bolted onto the hull flange with 5/16" bronze bolts-its not going anywhere. I think the biggest headache would be the decks as they almost certainly have some rotten core. It's not likely to be enough to stop you from doing anything with the boat-just something to consider if you want to have it perfect "someday".

I will say this, I've cruised mine extensively along the New England coast-its easy to singlehand and I did it with toddlers aboard. A dodger adds a world of living space and keeps you a lot drier going to windward, though I never found mine to be a submarine by any stretch. When the wind picks up beyond 20, one reef keeps her on her feet and handling very easily. You will fight the helm in 15 mph winds until you put in a reef and then you will love the ride. A traveller would help with the initial weather helm.

As for pointing, I cruise and figure 50 degrees for a tacking angle. Bear in mind I'm a cruiser, don't have a traveller to speak of and I'm flying a 130 on a profurl. Other vanguardians may do much better-I can't say.

I personally know of three young guys who circumnavigated, know of several that crossed the pond multiple times and one was just sold after eleven years cruising in asia after departing Maine. Spoke or corresponded with all of them and they expressed complete confidence in the ship. Two of them are active captains.

For the price, its a lot of boat with a lot of upgrade potential. They have all the usual problems of boats of that era, soft decks, wide tacking angles, large mains and less room below. The hulls are very stout and not prone to blisters. In exchange, they offer security, simplicity, a sweet sheer and an easy entry price to cruising.


----------



## appick (Jan 20, 2014)

Just out of curiosity, I too happen to be looking at moving into a Pearson Vanguard and am curious as to the bunk/ berth lengths? Would you happen to know Jim? How tall are you? I'm 6'2" and one of the reasons I'm getting rid of my 1961 Columbia 29 is that I need just a few more inches in the vberth.


----------



## JimPendoley (Jan 17, 2005)

Hi,
Just visited my Vanguard under her winter cover. Bunks are all long-I'm 6'1" and feel the bunks are generous in terms of space. there were two layouts produced, a standard layout with an aft galley and a dinette with a starboard galley. I have the dinette layout which I really like. The cooking space is pretty extensive. I have two roomy quarterberths, salon table drops to make a really roomy double and the vberth has the standard port and starboard berths. Many make the vberth into one large bunk for two with a filler cushion.
Happy to answer any questions at all-have had the boat for 18 years and love it.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I apologize that this long and was written for a different discussion but it does represent my views on the Vanguard:

I probably come at this with a different perspective than most people. I have been sailing since 1962 and my family actually owned a Vanguard for 5 years in mid to late 1960's. I have sailed on and worked on Vanguards at various times over the period since. I know the problems that we had with the boat as a new boat and I know how the boats behave compared to more modern designs. While the boats have become venerable to some people, many of whom are just now getting into the sport or have never sailed the boat, the reality of these boats never lived up to their current reputation. 

In their day Tritons and Vanguards were seen as the least expensive cruising boats that could be bought. They were seen as the Hunters of their day. I know there is no comparison between early Pearson’s and the current crop of Hunters but the point is they were built to be as cheap as they could be and were popular because they were less expensive than anything else out there at the time. Pearson fans like to claim the Triton as the first production fiberglass cruising boat. It was not by a long shot but it was the most popular of the early production boats mainly because of price and hype about Fiberglass's low maintenance.

My concerns with these boats are as follows:
Sailing ability: I keep seeing people call these boats great offshore boats. That is hogwash. These were never designed to be offshore boats. They were CCA racing rule derived race boats and coastal cruisers. By the time these boats were designed the CCA rule, promoted boats that were really not very wholesome. The CCA had very short waterlines, full bows (especially on Carl Alberg's designs), and a lot more weight and a lot less ballast than they should have. They used low aspect ratio rigs and huge genoas. These design decisions derived from the goal to beat a racing rule and not from any objective criteria based on sailing ability. The short waterlines made them slow and wet and miserable in a chop. It made for hard to drive hulls that needed a lot of force to be propelled (as compared to earlier and later designs) and so you had to carry a lot of sail even in a breeze to make head way. 

To get any speed these boats were sailed heeled over at very large angles. This allowed the waterlines to lengthen a bit. It did not make them fast, just faster than they were on their feet. It made the boats wet and it meant a lot of weather helm. It meant a lot of strain on crew and gear. 

Weight in and of itself does nothing good for sailing ability. Weight, in and of itself, does not add stability or strength or even comfort at sea. It only adds weight, which means more stress on every part of the boat and the need for more sail area to propel the boat. To stand up to this sail area requires a lot of stability The Vanguards were comparatively quite tender even when compared to their contemporaries. In a conversation that my father had with Phillip Rhodes shortly after buying our boat, Mr. Rhodes indicated that the Vanguard was supposed to have had 10% more ballast than it actually received. Part of that discrepancy came from the fact that the original design assumed external ballast and some moveable trim ballast, and the Vanguard received incapsulated ballast and no trim ballast. 

Then there is the rig. Since headsail area was untaxed, CCA boats used huge headsails. Ours had a 180% Genoa. This was an enormous sail, and a pain in the neck to sail with, but the boat did not sail worth a darn in winds less than about 7 knots without these huge sails. Today's better sailcloths have allowed these sails to be reduced a bit in size, but they still take a lot of sail area to go. 


Age: We are talking about 45 or more year old boats. They were designed to be race boats and coastal cruisers. They were never intended or engineered to be offshore boats. Forty five years of sitting and rocking, forty five years of thrashing to weather, forty five years of sun and rain and ice- and all of this takes a toll. The electrical systems of the day were simple and frankly troublesome as connections would routinely corrode and things would just stop working. 

Construction: 
My biggest single problem with the Vanguard’s construction is the encapsulated keels. It is very difficult to proper glasswork in the sump or a keel. The leading edge of ours was damaged in a fairly mild grounding, which led to water getting into the cavity between the ballast keel and the skin. During the repairs we exposed areas of dry glass and lenses of unrienforced resins. We kept grinding larger and larger areas of the keel away trying to fix this problem and were never 100% successful. We kept getting into areas of poor glasswork. I don’t see how this problem ever could have been repaired completely. 

Another issue is the use of plywood with Formica over it. Formica traps moisture and prevents one from being able to properly observe the condition of these key structural elements. Beyond that I seem to recall that much of the plywood was not marine grade. 

These were some of the first boats to use balsa-cored decks. This was before the industry knew about using bonding resins or vacuum bagging. Even in the 60's we were finding small, delaminated areas in the deck. 

Then there is the sail handling hardware, which was pretty advanced for its day. By today's standards the sail handling gear is simple but sorely lacking in mechanical advantage and it is hard to find replacement parts for such items as winch pawls and handles. The roller reefing main never worked properly and the reel winches were an absolute hazard to ones health. (I assume that some of this may have been upgraded on most Vanguards)

The original rudders were of wooden construction, built like a wooden boat’s rudder. These were notoriously fragile and needed more care than an all glass rudder. There was a problem with the cutlass bearings. Cutlass bearings of the era were made to have water flowing through them. When they were adapted from dead wood installations in wood to full encapsulation in glass they had a very short life span and would tend to score the shaft. We ended up installing a monel shaft and drilling a hole to provide intake water to the bearing. 

Then there is the Atomic 4. I personally like Atomic 4’s but these are getting to be ancient engines with a scarcity of parts. Also the atnks were never properly installed in these boats and it resulted in problems that probably have been addressed on many examples but which is pending repair on most I heard about in the past decade.

Lastly there is the fact that the fiberglass and resins were not as good as our current materials. Shorter fiber lengths and more brittle resins meant a very flexible and at the same time fatigue prone material. It’s a myth that they did not know who strong Fiberglass actually was. They knew precisely, and these boats were intended to match the strength of wooden boats of the era. This made them heavier than comparable wooden boats, which meant greater stresses, and greater stresses meant more fatigue. 

Conclusion: 
I guess I see it like this. These boats are antiques. They were designed for a purpose in a different time. We tend to loose sight of just how long ago that was and how much has happened ever since. If you compare it to automobiles, as much as I always love to see someone who has maintained and used an antique sports car, I also understand taht no one would ever suggest that an MGA or a 356 (Bathtub Porsche) would make sense as daily drivers. Each of us who comes to sailing brings with us our own set of goals and senses of pleasure. Just having a boat of any kind and getting out on the water is a luxury none of us should take for granted. If your sense of pleasure comes from boats like the Vanguard, with their feel and aesthetics of a bygone time then these would be reasonable boats to own. If you are approaching these boats as bargain basement cruisers with all the comforts, sailing abilities, and strengths of a modern ocean criuser than I think you are making a mistake. If you are used to sailing modern boats, you will be pretty miserable after a while. 

Respectfully
Jeff


----------



## JimPendoley (Jan 17, 2005)

Sigh...
Jeff really dislikes Vanguards and he knows much more about sailing and naval architecture than I ever will-so think of this as more as a series of observations than rebuttal. I've lived aboard my Vanguard for 9 years so I am familiar with her shortcomings. I have also spent time and money upgrading her over the years. I've said before, these boats are dirt simple and the interiors should be thought of as more of a blank canvas than a finished design. Upgrades I have made include a rebuilt A4, refrigeration (reinsulated the box, a new propane stove and new formica countertop, new LED lighting, solar and upgraded batteries. But those are upgrades any older boat will likely need.

Phil Rhodes was a pretty well regarded naval architect at the time he designed the Vanguard. Boats of that era were designed to carry their crew from point A to point B in safety and comfort. Boat design is a blend of many compromises. Vanguards are slow by todays standards, but if you work with the design attributes they sail well. For example, they don't need to sail at a heel beyond fifteen degrees, nor were they ever intended to. 

If you heel over to twenty, put a reef in and she will sit right up. She will not go beyond twenty easily. A FARR or J won't heel at all when a Vanguard must, but that was by design not accident. I sail all over New England and never felt the need for anything larger than a 135 on a furler. I sail on the open Atlantic, not the Chessie where air does tend to be lighter, but I regularly do 6 knots continuously off the wind and average 5-5.5 into the wind if I don't pinch. That is with four crewmembers and provisions for a week of cruising. With one reef in, the helm is almost neutral and you do need to reef at 15 knots. The second reef goes in at 30 and you will switching to a storm jib. I sail often when nobody else will go out.

The rig came with a roller furling boom-switch to slab reefing at a cost of $50 and you won't regret it.

The mainsheet benefits from a traveler upgrade to help shape the main and dump a little wind up top when the breeze picks up. Cost about $250. The decks are wide, simple and clean. There is a real 2" toe rail to keep you aboard, not a half inch square of teak or an aluminum extrusion. The side decks are unobstructed by inboard shrouds, so she may not point as high, but deck work is easier, safer and more secure. 

That large underwater hull profile translates into more living space below. I have 6'2" of headroom. I've cruised extensively with my wife and kids and we always felt safe and comfortable, if a little cramped as they got larger. The bunks are roomy. The boat does not pound or sound like a resonating drum as it beats to windward. Flex in a Vanguard hull is unheard off. The deep vhull and mass combine to yield a much quieter and more comfortable ride. The boat tracks well, is not squirrely at all downwind or running in a sea. She heaves to easily, forereaching only slightly under backed jib and centered main. Speaking of the underwater profile, we have bazillions of lobster pots up here-folks won't even attempt a night passage in some parts due to all the lines. The attached rudder has a very well protected prop in an aperture which has never tangled in twenty years of cruising through thousands of pots.

The A4 is a fine and elegantly simple engine. I rebuilt mine a few years back for $1500 and expect it to last another forty years. I can order you a block, a crank ,a cam-virtually any part you would conceivably need in fifteen minutes or less from multiple sources on the web. Would I like a diesel? Sure, but for $8000 I'll save my money for now. For long distance cruising, the A4 is limited in power and range given the inefficient power curve and the limited tankage. For coastal cruising, it's smooth, quiet and has adequate power. Mine pushes me upriver regularly against the outgoing tide of the Merrimac River which ebbs at 1.5 knots. A Beta diesel upgrade would give a cruising range under power of a couple hundred miles-which for a small boat is not terrible. Many Vanguards have already had a diesel upgrade.

It is true, I guess, that you can cross oceans in just about anything, but it is extraordinary how many long voyages have been made in Vanguards. Three college grads circumnavigated on a Vanguard after graduating college. A couple from Maine went as far as Indonesia-I know several who have crossed the pond multiple times and I know one that races in the PACCup which is 2070 miles. I've spoken or corresponded with most of them and they all tell me the boat was safe, dependable and easy to handle in a seaway. We see them all over the coast of Maine where they are very well regarded. There is a very active users group on yahoo where you can correspond with hundreds of happy Vanguard owners and learn of virtually any upgrade you can imagine.

Having said all of the above, I will share that I am looking for a new boat. My girlfriend wants more room. She's new to sailing and does not yet realize the exponential difference in cost between maintaining a 32 footer and a 38 footer. Those cavernous interiors of newer designs, with aft cabins and large galleys look so appealing-but she has not had to brace herself in rough conditions. If I do relent, we'll postpone our cruising a couple of years (at least) in order to fill the kitty after outfitting a newer design. The thing is, every newer design I look at does not look 1/2 as pretty as my Vanguard in profile. Every time I row away from her, I take one more look to take her in-I am having a really hard time imagining letting her go.


----------



## appick (Jan 20, 2014)

Thanks for all the great info and reviews. Both good and bad  . Actually getting a mid 1965 boat for me would be a move up in years. I wont directly disagree about the fiberglass as i know there have been many advances in the last 50 years. However, I'll say the glass in the early 60's is a far cry better than the 70's osmosis bs. 

I actually have what may be one of the first or second (I seem to recall finding and earlier boat) fiberglass production boats. It's a 1961 Columbia 29 Hull#64, they were a S&S design but... guess where Phil Rhodes was working before he went out on his own... So he drew the lines for the Columbia 29 while working at S&S. I know the design was commissioned in 1958/59, and production started in 1960. 

I also agree no naval architect or engineer would design and build with something they didn't have good data on. 

I've raced on a Farr 37 for years. I've gone fast and wet. Pounded through the waves and done 12knts on the downwind almost planning the thing! That was a scary day! I've also sailed my old modified full keel C-29 for 1000 cruising miles here on the great lakes in 10-13' seas that are always close packed here and in 30-60knts of wind. I'd rather be in the C-29 for ride comfort than the Farr 37. I know the Vanguard won't point as high or go as fast but from where I'm standing on my C-29 it'll go faster and be roomier, for the wife currently and the kids in the near future. 

As to the A4 I have one currently, but the prospective boat has a Universal diesel. It's a great little engine as you say smooth quiet and reliable. The model I have actually has a production date of 1959, and was rebuilt in 2004. I haven't found anything that has been beyond my abilities. The best improvement was putting on a PCV kit from Indigo electronics made a world of difference. I've been able to achive some really gph with it but the diesel will be nice. Apparently the boat was repowered sometime in the 90's. Currently no info on engine model or cylinders. The broker yard guy just wants it gone doesn't want to do any extra work filling in details ect.
He said I'm more than welcome to come crawl through it to my hearts delight. He said if I want or need to stay on it to feel free as most of the hotels in the area close for the winter... Otherwise it's a 2 hour drive to the next bigger town.

Thanks so much for confirming the bunk length, that has been a burning question as right now I'm a good 2" longer than my bunk...  . You'd be surprised how hard it is to find that info. I didn't want to drive the 9hrs to take a look only to find the same problem. The boat I'm looking at has been stored indoors in winter for the last 30years, and has been inside unlaunched for the last 11yrs. The wood looks great, it has a traverler already installed along with many upgrades. It's a dinnette version but the port quarterberth has been turned into storage/ chart table. The boat is owned by the yard and has been for sale for over 8 years so it sounds like they are ready to deal on price! Wish me luck, I'm planning on a visit in a few weeks. Anything particular other than soft decks/ mast step to watch out for that hasn't already been mentioned?


----------



## appick (Jan 20, 2014)

I just realized I made it sound like the boat was abandoned. The former owner was elderly and eventually fell ill and then later died. While he was ill the family made the decision to sign over the boat in leu of yard/ storage fees ect. It definetly isn't a boatyard queen that's left to rot.


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

If you ever feel the need to mod your future Vanguard, check out what this fellow did. The ad is expired, but the pic is still there. He said the rudder mod made a huge difference, so much so that he had to go back and slow down the ratio as it was turning so much faster. 
Pearson Vanguard 33 yacht for sale
Also, while JimPendoley, I believe, represents an honest informant on his boat, warts and all, here's a link to another review that, surprise surprise, backs him up. Go here, and click the bullet on the left that says "American Beauty"
The Pearson Vanguard Page
Finally, it amazes me how there's constantly this question of the durability of fiberglass boats. We read about the plastic trash island in the pacific, the plastic bottles that will "never bio-degrade in our landfills," and blah, blah, blah about the evils of plastic. Well, does it bio-degrade or doesn't it? Does it last 100 years in the sun, or doesn't it? Duplicitous, me thinks. And this is said about discarded light plastic items, not a maintained, much heavier glass/plastic boat. Do the bottles last forever, but the boats don't? And spare me the stress analysis comparing a working boat vs a soda bottle. It is what it is. Either plastic boats will last forever, or the plastic bottle invincibility theory is sunk.


----------



## appick (Jan 20, 2014)

Thanks for the info I've been there and yes they make a good read. I've heard from many about the pluses and minuses of the boats. I appreciate the article on the rudder mod I'll dig into it. I've been googling for a couple of weeks and surprised I missed that one.


----------



## appick (Jan 20, 2014)

Actually that's the 2nd Vanguard I've seen with a spade rudder. I seem to remember reading an article about how towards the end of production they weren't very competitive so they redesigned the rudder to a spade and several came from Pearson this way... It would be interesting to compare the sailing qualities side by side. I bet the spade is quicker/ points better but, somehow though I like the keel hung rudder better. It's better supported and less for things to get tangled on ect.


----------



## slap (Mar 13, 2008)

appick said:


> I actually have what may be one of the first or second (I seem to recall finding and earlier boat) fiberglass production boats. It's a 1961 Columbia 29 Hull#64, they were a S&S design but... guess where Phil Rhodes was working before he went out on his own... So he drew the lines for the Columbia 29 while working at S&S. I know the design was commissioned in 1958/59, and production started in 1960.


Phil Rhodes worked for Cox & Stevens, which changed its name to Philip Rhodes Naval Architects and Marine Engineers in 1947.

I had a Vanguard for a number of years, and I agree with what Jeff H said.


----------



## JimPendoley (Jan 17, 2005)

Yahoo Groups


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

appick said:


> Actually that's the 2nd Vanguard I've seen with a spade rudder. I seem to remember reading an article about how towards the end of production they weren't very competitive so they redesigned the rudder to a spade and several came from Pearson this way... It would be interesting to compare the sailing qualities side by side. I bet the spade is quicker/ points better but, somehow though I like the keel hung rudder better. It's better supported and less for things to get tangled on ect.


He said it was basically what you'd expect. Better for maneuvering, backing, racing, and catching stuff, but in some decent waves it'd ventilate and lose tracking, so it depended on your use and prefs.


----------



## appick (Jan 20, 2014)

slap said:


> Phil Rhodes worked for Cox & Stevens, which changed its name to Philip Rhodes Naval Architects and Marine Engineers in 1947.
> 
> I had a Vanguard for a number of years, and I agree with what Jeff H said.


We'll it looks like I've been grossly misinformed. I apologize I read an article and forum contents on the C-29 and thought it was true. I guess what they say about everything about everything on the internet being true doesn't hold up! 

Thanks for your input. So you agree they are somewhat poorly built layup wise and obviously won't point as high as modern fin keel boats? Or was there some other aspect you are wanting to share. Thanks again for all the input.


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

Jeff H. You were speaking on the construction materials and it appears you said this about the Vanguard?

"Shorter fiber lengths and more brittle resins meant a very flexible and at the same time fatigue prone material."

Short fibers? In woven roving? How do you figure? Short compared to what? I would consider short fibers to be more like the chopper gun products that have been manufactured the last 30 some-odd years to be the champion of short fiber lengths. And what's this about vacuum-bagging? There were companies working without vacuum systems into the 1990's, only relenting to closed systems, not for the end product quality, but for the demands of the EPA, so I'm not seeing how that's relevant either, be it on Vanguards or any other fiberglassed anything made (in an open setting) up til the EPA mandated it be a closed system.


----------



## appick (Jan 20, 2014)

Ohh I figured it out I got my designer wires crossed so to speak. I was thinking of Carl Alberg... my bad.


----------



## appick (Jan 20, 2014)

Seabreeze, I'll agree that comment doesn't make alot of sense to me either. I wouldn't be looking at one of these boats if I wasn't interested in the warts and all as you put it. One persons experience that goes contrary to a long list of others experiences isn't a determent to me. I'm the type of person that gets bored if I don't have a project or something to fix. I guess that's why I like old boats, and sailing in general, there's always something!


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

For my money, the Vanguard is one of the prettiest boats ever. The biggest reason I didn't seriously consider buying one is the attached rudder design. I just couldn't live with the daily terror of trying to back that thing up in my crowded marina. But if money becomes no object, I would seriously consider buying one and sending her to Tim Lackey to completely renovate, including one of those spade rudders.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

seabreeze_97 said:


> Jeff H. You were speaking on the construction materials and it appears you said this about the Vanguard?
> 
> "Shorter fiber lengths and more brittle resins meant a very flexible and at the same time fatigue prone material."
> 
> Short fibers? In woven roving? How do you figure? Short compared to what? I would consider short fibers to be more like the chopper gun products that have been manufactured the last 30 some-odd years to be the champion of short fiber lengths. And what's this about vacuum-bagging? There were companies working without vacuum systems into the 1990's, only relenting to closed systems, not for the end product quality, but for the demands of the EPA, so I'm not seeing how that's relevant either, be it on Vanguards or any other fiberglassed anything made (in an open setting) up til the EPA mandated it be a closed system.


You are still asking these same questions after all these years? 

To addresss your "Short fibers? In woven roving? How do you figure? Short compared to what?" :

I have explained much of this to you before and referenced my comments with a roughly 10 to 12 year old marine insurance industry study that looked at the strength of older fiberglass boats. The study was produced because the insurance industry was finding that older boats seemed to be having greater impact damage claims than would seem to be expected from the impacts that they were actually encountering. The study tested actual hull and deck panels cut from older boats and discussed the reasons that were believed to have caused the unpredicted decrease in strength in these materials. That study was available online when you and I first discussed this, but regretably, I am no longer able to find this report available online since if available I would have liked to have provided a link.

In any event, to address your short fiber question, the glass fiber in the fiberglass fabrics (mat, woven roving and woven cloth) that was used in the early days of GRP boats was produced using a process that called a staple fiber process. This produced individual fiber lengths that were comparatively short in length (typically less than 2 feet) which were then bundled into the yards used in roving and cloth. This process not only produced fibers which were comparatively short in length, but which were also less uniform in diameter and more prone to breakage if the woven fabics were not properly handled at the boat builder.

Generally, boat builders of the 1960's were not aware that fiberglass fabrics needed special handling. When I visited Pearson during the 1960's fabrics were precut, then labeled and folded, and stored in neat piles on racks ready for lay up. This folding of the fabric caused some breakage of the individual fibers, and concentrating fiber ends, along the fold line further shortening the fiber length along the fold lines.

At some point in the late 1960's and into the 1970's, the method of producing fiberglass fibers used in boat building changed to a continuous fiber method, which as the name suggests produces longer, nearly continous fibers that were also more uniform in cross section. Also by the 1970's and early 1980's manufacturers also had routinely adopted better fabric handling techniques, storing cut fabrics flat or on rolls.

Fibers produced using the continuous fiber method, and where the fiberglass fabrics are handled properly, are less prone to fatigue and are less brittle over the life of the laminate.

Fiberglass construction during the 1960's was a more casual affair. In the 1960s metering of the resin mix was not done with the high level of precision that is routine today. Resin admixtures were very popular during the 1960's to allow a longer working time, while accelerating the ultimate cure to allow the parts to be removed from the molds sooner. The imprecise mix ratios and the accellerators in use back then, made for a comparatively brittle and factigue prone cured resin as well.

In the 1960's, resin to cloth ratios would vary widely within individual laminations with the layup. Looking at plug cut from a 1960's era boat, you would see variations in the layup with lenses of resin that varied in thickness from layer to layer. And ideal resin to cloth layup results in a material with better flexural strength and resistance to fatique and rupture. This combination of shorter fiber length, less ductle resin formulations, and the lenses of resin rich laminate that was typical during the 1960's boat industry, resulted in a comparatively brittle and fatigue prone laminate.

So while slightly thicker than hulls which followed, hulls like the 1960's era Vanguard, lacking in internal framing and with laminate which the marine industry study showed to be comparatively brittle and prone to fracture, are not the excessively strong hulls which many people assume them to be.

To answer your other question "And what's this about vacuum-bagging?" I know of no boat building company that adopted vaccuum bagging as a way to address air polution problems. There were cheaper ways to do that. In the 1980's, some manufacturers began using vaccuum bagging as a way of better controlling the resin content within the laminate. The problem with hand laid up construction is that it is hard to completely wet out the cloth to a uniform resin to fabric ratio. What happens with vaccuum bagging is that the laminate is fully wet out and then air and resin is sucked out through ports in a membrane. The process compresses the laminate and removes excess resin before the resin sets. It guarenttees a more complete wetout, while reducing the resin left in the laminate to a closer to ideal level. Its an expensive process in that it requires more labor, equipment and there is more resin used, the excess of which is vaccuumed out before cure. But vaccuum bagging produces a much stronger and durable panel.

Where vaccuum bagging is especially effective is in sealing coring in balsa or foam cored decks to the skins where the vaccuum does a more effective job in clamping the core to the laminate and drawing resins further up into the core materials.

I hope this clears this up for you,
Jeff


----------



## JimPendoley (Jan 17, 2005)

Most of what Jeff says makes a lot of sense to me. It's easy to believe manufacturing improved over a 50 year period, resulting in a stiff and lighter weight ship. As for framing, the surveyor who surveyed my Vanguard, when asked about framing, said the hull was over framed given the laminate thicknesses. He was a very experienced surveyor. I believe it based on the lack of oil canning or any visible flex anywhere when working into a head sea (or colliding occasionally with a dock!). While resin mix and vacuum bagging has improved hull layup, the early Pearson's did not seem to suffer from blisters either-that was a product of later manufacturing processes.


----------



## flo617 (Mar 3, 2010)

Nice discussion

So, my candid question is: is it possible to correct these defects somewhat by adding partial bulkheads and knees?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I would like to touch on a number of other points in this discussion. I too have heard of Vanguards that had spade or skeg hung rudder, but I would be skeptical that these were actually built that way at the factory. Pearson was a comparatively late adopter of spade or skeg hung rudders. 

When I visited the factory around 1966, Pearson was already building the Coaster and Wanderer, both of which had long keels (the Wanderer with shoal draft and a centerboard) with attached rudders. 

When we were looking at the Coaster, the last Vanguard that was ever built was still at the factory. It had remained unsold due to gelcoat defects, but was under contract when we saw her. That boat had the same keel hung rudder that was on our Vanguard. 

The first Pearsons constructed with spade rudders were the Renegade 27 (a really nice but seemingly forgotten design) and the Pearson 22 and these were designed and built several years after the last Vanguard was constructed. My best guess is that any Vanguards that have a spade rudder were probably owner modified. 

Obviously, I could be wrong on this since Pearson may have built one or two custom spade rudder Vanguards along the way. 

Jeff


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Jim:

You and I probably agree on more points than we disagree on. Its more a matter of how the points that we agree on end up impacting our view of the Vanguard as boat being bought to be sailed today. I am not sure that I would say that I dislike the Vanguard, its more that I don't raise them high up on the pedestal that seems to be the norm these days. Anyway, please see my comments in red below.



JimPendoley said:


> Sigh...
> I've said before, these boats are dirt simple and the interiors should be thought of as more of a blank canvas than a finished design. But those are upgrades any older boat will likely need.
> 
> I completely agree that as designed the Vanguards were very simple boats. This makes them easy to work on, update and maintain. if you are handy its is pretty easy to return one to original condition or upgrade it with modern hardware and amentities. Where you and I may disagree is that there are a lot of boats in the same general size and price range which can be purchased with all of the updates already onboard and operational. I also believe that if you are the one doing the upgrading, it is very hard to get even a reasonable percent of your dollars spent on the upgrades out of the boat when you are done since the prices on these boats are somewhat limited by the broader limitations of their age and design.
> ...


Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## appick (Jan 20, 2014)

Jeff and Jim,
Thanks again for all the great info. Jeff it your explination of the fiber length sounds knowledgable makes perfect sense to me. I'm under no illusions that Vanguards are any stronger than later boats or in some way the pinnacle of yacht design. Owning an even older fiberglass boat currently moving up to a 1964/65 Vanguard sounds like a move up for me. Besides I've done all the fiberglass, epoxy, woodwork, engine work ect I can on my current boat  So I'm in need of something else to tinker with! That and an extra few feet of space witll be more than welcome when compared to my Columbia 29, especially in the bunk/berth department. Wonder where the OP went?


----------



## appick (Jan 20, 2014)

Also for my purposes of cruising and occasional cross lake race I think it will suit us well. Also for the wife when sailing on the Farr 37 she would get seasick quite readily, however with C-29 she seems to do better, that and the large windows below so she can keep an eye on the horizon whilst grabbing beers and sandwhichs!  

All of that and the boat I'm considering is in my price range is a big plus.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

Jeff_H said:


> The first Pearsons constructed with spade rudders were the Renegade 27 (a really nice but seemingly forgotten design)


Plus 1 here. My ideal boat looks like a Triton/Vanguard, but has a spade rudder. And since I can't afford an Alerion, M Series or Friendship, the Renegade has always struck me as a great option. In my price range for sure!


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

the renegades are nice...very nice lines..strongly built too

the wanderer mentioned before is a battle tank


----------



## JimPendoley (Jan 17, 2005)

Jeff, 
Thanks for your usual balanced and thoughtful reply. I learn a ton from this forum and your insights are some of the most informative. I am guilty of falling in love with the design and should probably view it more as a tool-albeit an old one.

I will also suggest that anyone interested in the design join the yahoo groups forum. It is very well moderated and has several hundred active owners. It is a treasure trove of information about projects, modifications and upgrades-oodles of photos and a searchable database of conversations.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Thank you everyone for the lively discussion, and for the very kind words.

MStern, I have never understood why the Renegade has such a small production run followed by instant obscurity. They have always struck me as one of Bill Shaw's nicest designs for its era. The Renegade design was moving away from the extremes of that era with a proportionately longer waterline, finer bow, more moderate wetted surface and foils. Very clean lines; not too heavy, not too light. Both the traditional aft galley layout and the alternate, dinette layout were quite workable for a boat this size. The only slightly odd thing about the Renegade was the propeller shaft exiting the back of the keel on the inboard versions. What is there not to like?

There is a seemingly nice example for sale on Yachtworld for $4,500.

1968 Pearson Renegade Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Jeff


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

I've seen that ad; I almost convinced my wife to take the short ride over to look at her!

Take a look at this example:

1968 Pearson Renegade sailboat for sale in Colorado

Seems to me that this is a classic case of someone putting an awful lot of time and money into a boat, and wanting to get some of that back. Regardless, check out that door to the head!


----------



## slax (Feb 17, 2013)

well a lively and informative thread. nothing as knowledgable or experienced to offer as the 4 pages before. But my personal take as a budget minded cruiser, is that I love my Vanguard 33'. Was perfectly in my initial budget, and have been able to maintain a consistent flow of improvements/reinforcements as we have grown to know one-another. Definitely friendly to the DIY mentality, the open canvas of the galley/cabin/head, minimal outfitting and age, have for me been a great benefit in designing the systems, stowage, and living space efficiently and to fit my needs. Its been a learning and growing process with everything though, fairly novice sailor which comes with its own learning curve . Good with electronic, systems and physics so we're getting it together... at ~33' she can be a bit to handle alone. But I pay great attention and go out on light days if I choose to single hand around the bay. Really for what I want/need and the end goal, I think from my research on her numbers/design/strength.. we can make it as far as I am competent enough to prepare for and voyage through. If not, that will be made known through the process... on the A4... its stinky and noxious, need to pull that out and put something in its place... was reading a really interesting thread on the vw single port 1600.. I have a lot of experience with these, and parts are everywhere.. might be something worth trying out. Was thinking for the engine upgrade going with a hydrolic pump exchange between the gearbox and the flywheel, so the range of options opens up a bit.. not committed to anything yet, just looking at options and what I know well already...


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

mstern said:


> I've seen that ad; I almost convinced my wife to take the short ride over to look at her!
> 
> Take a look at this example:
> 
> ...


Well that price might explain why it has been for sale for at least 2 years. I doubt he really wants to sell.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

mstern said:


> I've seen that ad; I almost convinced my wife to take the short ride over to look at her!
> 
> Take a look at this example:
> 
> ...


Wow! Ads like that make me sad. You are 100% right that the guy obviously put a whole lot of money and work into this boat. And while its easy to argue that way too much was spent on things that do little or nothing good for the boat, the sad part is that this is an outboard motor version, which combined with the length and age of the boat limits is price to about a third of what he is asking for the boat. I hate seeing things like this. It gets to the heart of my point earlier about the fact that most decent boats can be fixed up to be really nice boats, but if you are the one doing the fixing, its next to impossible to recover anything resembling the money and time put in.

But beyond that, as Jim rightly says above, the virtue of these boats are that they are simple, and that simplicity is what makes them reliable, inexpensive, and easy to work on. If you feel that you must restore one, and if you can try not to get too far carried away, staying close to the original concept, and not try to make a new boat out her, and can live with the understanding that part of the charm of an older boat is that she is an older boat and doesn't need to guilded and garnished; when you are done you will still have a nice boat to sail and own. If you can spread out the work over time, the old girl will only get better as you own her and will owe you nothing when you sell her for a fair price.

But boats like this, over done in some ways and under done in others, are impossible cases because in the end only an idiot with money to burn would pay anything near $30K for a boat this old, this size and this limited. Which is a real shame, since I can only figure that might be what the seller has invested in the ole girl.

Jeff


----------



## jfryer (Jun 4, 2010)

Not to high-jack this thread but that is a very nice example of a Pearson Renegade I wish mine (#88) looked like that. But I will say that they are nice sailing machine's. I have had mine now for three years, sailing on the Neuse river and spending a summer on Lake Seneca and the Erie Canal. Overall a great little boat.


----------



## CLOSECALL (Dec 11, 2012)

Speaking of old Pearsons cleaning up pretty nice, here's my 1966 Wanderer.


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

Jeff, you know of no boat company that used vacuum bagging? Don't take that "bag" reference too literally. The SCRIMP process is consistent and repeatable-ideal for one-design boat building." SCRIMP stands for Seemann Composite Resin Infusion Molding Process. It is a closed, vacuum-assisted, resin-transfer molding (VARTM) process used for the fabrication of fiberglass products.
"In the early 1990s TPI was forced to revisit the vacuum system-by the EPA. "At that time we were one of the biggest emitters of VOC's (volatile organic compounds) in the state. We had been trying for some time to develop the vacuum technology, but were still working with the resin outside of the bag. A salesman from Dupont suggested we talk to Bill Seemann who had been successful in developing a closed vacuum system. I took one look and said "you got it!" - Neil Tillotson.
The early 90's. Boat company. EPA. VOC's. You been asleep Jeff?
Note, that's Neil Tollotson, not me, talking. I'm making allowances that the Oracle of Jeff knows that name.
Since 1993, TPI Composites has established itself as a pioneer in the use of the process to build, among other things, buses, wind generator blades, SwimEx hydrotherapy pools and, of course, J/Boats. The advantages of SCRIMP "are huge," explained Jono Billings. "The fiber content of the laminate with the SCRIMP process is 70% by weight to 30% resin, with less than 1% trapped air spaces." In the world of balsa cored fiberglass boat building this is an important factor because by filling those spaces with resin you eliminate the ability for water to travel through the hull.

Is that what you were talking about? Thank you SOOOOO much for "explaining it to me." While I do recall your mentioning of the insurance study in years past, it was, I'm sure, buried in the page and a half reply to some simple question (yes, simple). Sometimes you just have to say yes or no. A dissertation just is not appropriate, and while YOU may have been discussing it, this was not due to me making any statement related to fiber length. Certainly nothing comes to memory. I have disagreed with you on strength issues, but I don't remember ever debating fiber length of woven roving.

However, if 2 ft lengths of woven roving are weak, that is a serious indictment against the (better according to you) current methods of construction that include the use of 1-2 inch fiberglass fragments in the chaos factor chopper gun technique. You cite an ancient study, but have yet to address the chopper gun angle and how it relates (newer is better?). You seriously cite an insurance agency-funded study? No bias there, huh? Riiiiiight.

So they didn't know how to handle fiberglass back in the 60's? Really. You cited the fiberglass strength myth, and I agree. They knew exactly how strong it was. They had to know. Weight being at a premium in aircraft (radomes) demanded they know exactly how strong it needed to be, and what thickness/composition was necessary. You also cite all the money the military invested in the development of fiberglass. All that, and they didn't know how to handle it? Or did they just keep that info Top Secret from the sailboat guys for over 15 years? Just last night I saw bags of folded woven roving in the auto section of Wally's. Wonder if they know they're selling an improperly packaged product that is weakening as it sits there? Agreed, wet out is more of an issue with woven roving. That's why you can't just come in off the street and do it correctly. That would seem to be an argument that when done properly, it's strong, and an unskilled worker is the issue, not the construction. I would think the report you cite would serve to encourage longer strands, not shorter as is currently seen, and better wet out techniques, not abandoning of the technique. Seems to me 2 ft sections are still stronger in old boast than chopper gun assembly in new boats. And if chopper gun construction is so good, a few fractured fibers in woven roving aren't an issue because they're still much longer than chopped strands.....but then, that'd tend to invalidate the insurance study, wouldn't it? Oh, but there's better wet out in chopper gun application, right? There's NO structural strength in chopper gun applications.

I do have a link some may be interested in reviewing.
Fiberglass strength for ocean sailboats
Some will say this fellow has a bias towards building blue water boats as strongly as possible. Yeah, terrible isn't he?

All this because someone wanted to know which of two examples would be more comfortable. I may have missed one along the way, but I'm thinking I'm the only one to actually cast an opinion on that actual question and the cited examples. Yeah, yeah, I'm the pariah because my attitude is so acerbic, but to me, Jeff comes across as condescending. It's an imperfect world.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

So here is where you and I agree: (see my comments in red)



seabreeze_97 said:


> Jeff, you know of no boat company that used vacuum bagging? Don't take that "bag" reference too literally. The SCRIMP process is consistent and repeatable-ideal for one-design boat building." SCRIMP stands for Seemann Composite Resin Infusion Molding Process. It is a closed, vacuum-assisted, resin-transfer molding (VARTM) process used for the fabrication of fiberglass products.
> "In the early 1990s TPI was forced to revisit the vacuum system-by the EPA. "At that time we were one of the biggest emitters of VOC's (volatile organic compounds) in the state. We had been trying for some time to develop the vacuum technology, but were still working with the resin outside of the bag. A salesman from Dupont suggested we talk to Bill Seemann who had been successful in developing a closed vacuum system. I took one look and said "you got it!" - Neil Tillotson.
> The early 90's. Boat company. EPA. VOC's. You been asleep Jeff?
> Note, that's Neil Tollotson, not me, talking. I'm making allowances that the Oracle of Jeff knows that name.
> ...


Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

My mistake on the opinion comment. I let the Vanguard and another thread (a newbie asking about which of two small boats would be better) bleed together. In both, you posted extensive replies. What can I say, after a while it all looks the same to me. I forgot that they were two different threads.


----------



## arf145 (Jul 25, 2007)

seabreeze_97 said:


> J... but to me, Jeff comes across as condescending.


I've been following this great discussion, hopefully soaking up some knowledge, and I just can't see where Jeff is ever condescending. Knowledgeable, yes. Experienced, yes. Willing to post lengthy, detailed, well thought out replies, yes. Condescending tone, though? No.


----------



## JimPendoley (Jan 17, 2005)

I have learned more from Jeff's posts than any other on the forum. I appreciate his thoughtful writing backed up with solid evidence. We might like different designs, but that doesn't mean we can't exchange opinions. Isn't that what the forum is for?


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

"Big ships fine. Rowboats, long in tooth, make big noise, go nowhere."-Confucius.

Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## TJC45 (Jul 10, 2013)

mstern said:


> I've seen that ad; I almost convinced my wife to take the short ride over to look at her!
> 
> Take a look at this example:
> 
> ...


I see nothing wrong with putting this much effort into an old boat. Gives others an idea of what can be achieved. And if you are going to have the boat a long time, the value added is in the use and enjoyment of the work and money spent. Trying to get too much money out is a problem, but the same goes for almost all boats. This guy isn't the first owner in la la land with his asking price.

That said, when i look at the pic of the door to the head, what I see is a door jamb that is not square. Maybe a distortion in the pic caused by the wide angle lens used for the pic, but that compression post is right there. Hmm, how many old Pearsons have i seen with this problem? Not a biggie but first thing i noticed. The door is beautiful!


----------



## TJC45 (Jul 10, 2013)

Jeff, you mention your posts, that there are other better options than the Vanguard/Triton within the same price range. In your opinion, what boats would be on that list?


----------



## zigman (Nov 9, 2016)

Very good discussion, Jeff. Especially about the oil canning situation. My cs 22 also had a weather helm. Thanks! Zigman


----------



## Bravata (Jun 16, 2021)

JimPendoley said:


> Hi,
> I have owned a 32' Pearson Vanguard for 15 years or so and can testify to the qualities and drawbacks. I raised a family of four cruising the coast of Maine aboard her and she always kept us safe and comfortable. The kids and the wife at the time, loved her. The boat is great in any conditions, will not point high though and will slow way down when beating too high into a stiff chop. In that case, stop pinching, fall off five points and the boat will sail quite well into a head sea. Initially tender by design (heeling on a CCA era boat equals an increased waterline), they firm up at 15 degress and stay there. One reef point at 15 knots of wind and the helm becomes well balanced.
> 
> Many have done long voyages, though they are certainly minimally configured for long distance cruising-the primary drawback being tankage-they only carry forty gallons of water in the original monel tanks. The atomic four is fine as long as you are sensible about fuel safety. Much is made of the risk of gas aboard-but most cruisers have propane tanks aboard for cooking (and sometimes heat) and think nothing of it. The old alcohol stove is a nuisance and best replaced with propane if you will be cooking aboard. A good sniffer and common sense will eliminate the risk of explosion for either propane or the A4. A diesel would be nice and I want one eventually, but the engine is apt to be worth more than the boat so the upgrade must be well deserved.
> ...


----------



## Bravata (Jun 16, 2021)

Jim, I’m looking at a 65 vanguard. The vessel looks great but it’s been on the hard for 3-5 years. The rudder is made up of 3 planks and has separated. The owner says it’s dried out and will firm up in the water. I think the gap is too big for shirking. Looking for videos or something for a fix


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

Bravata said:


> Jim, I'm looking at a 65 vanguard. The vessel looks great but it's been on the hard for 3-5 years. The rudder is made up of 3 planks and has separated. The owner says it's dried out and will firm up in the water. I think the gap is too big for shirking. Looking for videos or something for a fix


I just looked at Jim's profile, and he hasn't posted here since 2017. Hopefully, he's still lurking about, or someone else has some suggestions. Is the wood otherwise in good shape? How wide are the gaps?


----------

