# Beneteau vs Hunter



## TSOJOURNER

Trying to decide between a Beneteau 473 and a Hunter 460. Costal crusing with liveaboard reguarly for up to 3 weeks. I like the layout and storage space of the Hunter, but the standing riging and fit/finish win on the Beneteau. All comments appreciated.


----------



## Denr

Try opening up your scope of consideration. If it is a new boat you''re looking for, consider the Tartan, Dehler, J-Boat, or Sabre, you''ll be much happier with a boat that was meant to be sailed rather than motored and have picnics in the cockpits. Both of these boats come from the factory with fixed three blade props, does that tell you something about their intended use? Why are people drawn to such mediocre boats? Sorry sometimes the truth hurts.


----------



## SailorMitch

The boats Denr suggests also come at a much higher price than the Beneteaus or Hunters. As with all things related to boats and life, there are trade offs. Comparing Beneteaus, Hunters and Catalinas is a lot like comparing Fords to Chevy''s to Chryslers, not to get into this car comparison thing too much. If you want to step up to something of a higher quality, it will cost more $$$ whether it''s a boat or a car. Thing is, there are thousands of people out there sailing the "Benehunterlinas" who love their boats and would have nothing else. Those boats suit their needs and wallets, so who''s to criticize them? People even sail around the world in them (not that I would.)

As the saying goes, different strokes, etc. 

In case anyone is wondering, I own a Pearson (now would that be more like a Buick, or .......does it really matter?)


----------



## Denr

It is unfortunate that Pearsons are no longer manufactured as they would be on the above list of boats to consider. That said I qualified my statement by asking the question whether it was a new boat that was to be purchased. The originator of this string did not specify his or her budget. Of course these boats are more money but you really get what you pay for in this case. I believe the exact quotation is "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after low pricing is forgotten!

~ Leon M. Cautillo ~


----------



## SloopSailor

Personally for Costal cruising, between the two I would take the Bene. The Hunter with that no-backtay rig and small headsail making going down wind a bit tough. The boat also does not point very high. You are left with a boat that sails only really well in a narrow range of sail angle.


----------



## doubleplay

Both of the boats you are mentioning costs around $300000.00 each.
If you are willing to part that kind of money I would look at Sabre 402,Tartan 4000 or Dehler 41 Cruising, etc...
It does not matter what kind of sailing you will do, you will have a better return for your investment and a lot more fun sailing..
Good Luck


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Thanks for everyone''s reply. To answer a couple of questions that were asked, price is DEFINITELY a consideration. Also, these are both new boats and range, completely fitted, in the $265-275 range. Space/layout are also a definite concern because if the sopuse is not happy, it will not get much time away from the dock. I filled my racing need in the 70''s, I now strictly cruise.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

If I had that kind of dough (and wife), I wouldn''t bother with a beneteau or a hunter. I''d buy a nice power boat, park the old battle ax on the sundeck, and let her watch me cruise the harbor singlehanding my new J92. I think you can do both for $275,000!!!


----------



## SailorMitch

SEC,

I feel your pain with the spouse who wants all the creature comforts. But for your budget range, you could definitely have a very nice, albeit much smaller, boat from Sabre, Tartan, J Boats, etc. for that same money. Of course, smaller boat overall translates into smaller creature comforts (less volume below). Only you and your wife can make that call.

I will give you my personal opinion to answer your original question of Beneteau vs. Hunter. The Beneteau has the edge in my book. It will sail better and probably is better constructed overall. 

I admit to a bias against Hunters because the hull/deck joint with that huge rubber bumper is so inelegant, and the stern looks like it was designed with a chainsaw. I won''t even get into the "roll bar" on Hunters these days, although they are less obvious in stainless than when they were of FRP constuction.


----------



## Denr

SailorMitch, I like your reference of a roll bar on the Hunters. I always referred to them as picnic a basket handles, which is for the picnic tables in the cockpits. I cannot get past the BUTT UGLY design of all of the Hunters. I had a 28 footer next to me in the marina this year, even the novice people I took sailing with me commented just how bulbous and oddly proportioned it was. Hunter could do better with styling, Im not sure why they stick to the current design.


----------



## SailorMitch

Denr,

Main advantage that I can see for the Hunter roll bar is a really neat place to put the stereo speakers. otherwise, I''d pass on it. No doubt Hunter keeps that sterile, ugly design because it has to be really cheap to build them that way with that way too ugly stern. (I call it a stern designed by McCullough........as in chainsaw.) My boat is on the hard right now next to a H-29.5, so I have to see it every time I go check on my Pearson. I feel like asking the marina owner to cover that Hunter stern with a blue tarp so as not to offend my sensibilities every time I go down there.

There used to be a Hunter Vision 32 at my marina, one of those with the unstayed aluminum mast. I literally sailed circles around it with my Pearson 27 no matter what the windspeed. It was real nice below of course, quite roomy for 32 feet. But couldn''t beat a jellyfish under sail.

About 3 years ago I tried real hard to like Hunters. I devoted several hours to going through them at the Annapolis show, only because there are so many of them on the water. I wanted to find out what I was missing. the interiors were all gorgeous of course, as long as you didn''t look behind anything. Tons of room and light (God forbid all those fixed ports start to leak.) The cockpits also roomy, big enough for a party of course. Deck layout OK, no big shakes, but OK. Then there are the 2 struts attached to the mast, along with the extemely sweptback stays because there is no backstay. gonna be a dog downwind since the main can''t go out but so far, and the boats have smallish jobs for the most part.

I''ll shut up now. Obviously I am not a Hunter fan, but they are nice boats for some people, including the gentleman who started this string to begin with. Or maybe I should say, it would be a good boat for his wife, and that IS important, too. Sailing a Hunter beats not sailing at all.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Well, between a Hunter and a Beneteau, I like the Beneteau. It will perform better and is a better-built boat, although they are both pan-and-tab construction, which kind of puts them in the Chevy range as cars go. Or maybe the Hunter is a Chevy and the Beneteau a Buick, the point being neither is a BMW. Nonetheless, I think the Benenteau is substantially better. 

You simply can''t compare BeneHunterlinas to premium boats (J, Sabre, Tartan, etc.). I mean there comes a time when you have to look at how many hours in a year you spend on the thing, divide that into the yearly cost, and figure out what it costs you per hour to own the thing (don''t forget to include maintenance, storage, mortgage, taxes and insurance by the way). Now, of course, you will poo yourself when you do this no matter which boat you buy, but the Beneteau/Hunter will result in substantially less poo, and that is why they are purchased by many people after a reality check. 

That said, DAMN BOY! You''re going to spend all that money for a Hunter? Even the Beneteau? If you''re going to throw that kind of money out the window, can''t you scale back the size a bit and get into a premium boat? Maybe a Tartan or something in the 36-40 foot range? I mean, you''re talking about more than a quarter million dollars for a depreciating asset, and it''s still only a Hunter.


----------



## halyardz

If it were limited to those two choices, I''d go with the Bene. But, having said that, I support many of the above posts...there are
a number of higher quality boats, just several years old, on the market. They''ve
already taken a big depreciation hit (reflected in a lower price)... hopefully the bugs have been worked out with the factory...and they often look showroom ready.
And when you consider the actually below deck space you need, maybe a 38 would do just fine...if, ah, the Admiral will concur.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

If I was to spend that much money on a Beneteau, I''d put it into a First 47.7. You should get a better ride out of her, and a at 47'' a good amount of creature comforts, especially if it''s only two of you.

I dont'' know much of the deck layout on the 47.7, but the similarly designed 40.7 looks like she''ll shorthand well.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Of course for about that much money you could also get a J/42, Sabre 402, Tartan 4100 or a Dehler 41, all within a couple of years old. As someone else observed, let the first guy pay the depreciation to launch it.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Lots of opinions here, but, at the risk of adding one without personal attack on any design, my wife and I have owned a Beneteau 41 for just over a year and we find it to be a perfect fit for our 1000+ mile/year use mostly on the Chesapeake. We have guests almost every weekend, find it to be fast and responsive, yet roomy and comfortable. Our newest addition is an asymetric spinnaker for the light wind during the heart of the summer. Bluntly, whatever you choose, someone else will have opinions one way or the other. Both Beneteau and Hunter are good boats or they wouldn''t sell so many. Don''t listen to the naysayers. Buy what you like after lots of evaluation of your own requirments. We happen to love our Beneteau and you will love whatever you eventually decide on. Good luck.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

I agree with the last few posts. My 2 cents says you haven''t found the right boat yet. Look at them all, new. used, almost new... when you find the right one you won''t have to ask. It will be the correct boat for both you and your wife. You may give on a little sailing ability and she may give on a little creature comforts but you both have to love her. The boat is not an investment, there are as many boats as there are sailors all with different likes and dislikes. When you find the correct boat you''ll both know it. You''ll love the way it looks, sails, sleeps and stores everything you need.
Good hunting

John
_/)_/)_/)


----------



## TSOJOURNER

At one point in my dream I said I would never buy a Hunter. We bareboat chartered Beneteau all over the Caribbean and the Chesapeake. We finally realized that to cruise for an extended period would require a boat large enough to be comfortable or the dream would end quickly after one two many times kicking my wife in the head to get out of a quarter berth. A 40-44ft boat was the size we settled on an started the search. We quickly realized looking at moody, tartan,or sabre, would break our budget and we would never get" out there" Beneteau''s out of the charter fleet were reasonably priced but beat to crap. We found a Hunter Passage 42 (one owner) in excellent condition. The liveability is incredible for the price and for our plan to cruise the ICW and the Caribbean via island hopping to Granada from Florida the boat is perfect. The boat came with so many extras and they all worked! Is it a blue water boat? are you a blue water sailor? If money is a factor Hunter can get you on the water.


----------



## Denr

In the latest edition of Practical sailor the author describes the vessels built by Beneteau, Hunter and Catalina as entry level boats, not more, not less. If a cabin the size of a dance hall, picnic table in the cockpit and tugboat prop for motoring the byways of the ICW is what you want go for that bad boy! Just remember "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after low pricing is forgotten!


----------



## Jeff_H

When you ask about the relative quality of boats by the big three, Beneteau, Hunter and Catalina, there is no one universally right answer here. To use my favorite analogy, it is like trying to say that vanilla ice cream is always better than strawberry or vice versa. They have very distinct differences but the differences are more a matter of style, details, and personal preference. 

In my book, most of the big three''s boats really are not intended as offshore boats. They lack the kind of details that are really a part and parcel of offshore cruising. Some of these are philosophical such as proper seaberths for half of the crew, galleys and heads that work offshore, hand holds at shoulder level where they do some good when a boat is heeled. Some are more significant such as high freeboard, large Plexiglas areas and large open deck areas without footholds. 

Of the three, Beneteau has introduced a couple new boats (473 and 393 two-cabin layout) that look to be a little better suited to offshore work than the standard fair from the other two manufacturers. 

When you talk about the big sellers in the U.S.- Hunter, Catalina, or Beneteau, you can not make a blanket statement that one or the other is better built or worse built than the others. They each have things that they do very well and other areas that they do not so well. My take on each is as follows:

BENETEAU
Beneteau has a number of different lines. The First series is their performance line and generally seem to be better built and finished than their Oceanis or Beneteau ''number series''. 

My experience with Beneteaus number series is that they have nice layouts with cleaver little details. Like the other two manufacturers, they tend to be lightly built and place an emphasis on accommodations over performance in this size range. I like Beneteau''s hull deck joint best of the three. I also like their fit and finish best as well. 

On the negative side, Beneteau does not publish ballast for their boats but from past data on similar models they tend to be a little lightly ballasted. I am not a big fan of Groupe Finot designed boats (although the new Finot and Berret designed 473 and 393 looks like neat boats). Their boats tend to be overly beamy and do not handle a chop or have as comfortable a motion as well as a narrower hull form. Still Finot is a good as anyone in the world in modeling this form and their boats have reasonable performance for what they are. I do like their hull shapes better than the Hunter in question. 

One issue that I have with Beneteau comes from conversations with surveyors. In looking at the design of Beneteaus systems they do not do as good a job as Hunter at meeting U.S. safety standards. This is especially true when it comes to the design of their systems. (For example in examining a Beneteau 38s5''s propane locker I noticed an opening that was not properly sealed and connected that locker to the interior of the boat. That is a very serious no-no. It may have only been a missing finishing detail but a serious one.) 

They all tend to do things in a way that is cheaper to build and perfectly sound until it needs to be fixed. For example, the Beneteau that I know most intimately used crimped hose connectors that cannot be reused. Another example is the sprayed varnish finishes. They look great but cannot be easily touched up once scratched without removing and spraying the whole panel. (This is becoming more common in the industry due to air emissions and speed of finishing the work.) 

I really do not like that Beneteau is pushing in mast furling mainsails. In my mind In Mast furlers are a really bad idea, especially on boats of this size. In-mast mains really kill performance and shorten sail life spans. They are not good in light air (lose too much area to the hollow leeches) and not too good in a blow (they slip down the luff and power up at just the time when you really need flat sails.) 

Beneteaus also tend to use a lot of materials and methods of construction that are not readily available over here. Plumbing connections, through-hulls, deck cleats and misc. hardware are often non-standard in the U.S. market. This is somewhat offset by the Beneteau USA''s (in Marion, S.C.) willingness to be very helpful in getting obscure spare parts very quickly and at surprisingly reasonable prices. I have been extremely impressed with Beneteau''s customer service and warrantee support. 

HUNTER
Hunter is the most maligned and controversial of the big three. 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, would prefer not to buy their look. They tend to be over sold 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. 

Things I dislike about Hunters; I really do not like the huge plastic port lights. This will deteriorate (my experience about 10 to 14 years in Maryland) and these big panels will be become unsafe and in need of replacement. That will be very expensive. I don''t like the rolled out hull deck joint. While it provides a nice rubrail, it is highly vulnerable and from an engineering standpoint has the most bending stresses and highest strains compared to almost any other kind of hull deck joint. My prior 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 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.

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. 

CATALINA

My experience with Catalina is that they are no better-built and no better sailors than the other two. They have their strengths and they have their weaknesses. The thing about Catalina (at least in the US) they are seen as being the most normal. They are not great boats, but they have no big faults either. Catalina uses a lot of well-known hardware and details. They tend not to walk down the path less traveled which depending on your perspective is both a real strength and a real disadvantage. They definitely care about how they are perceived. I raised some issues with Catalinas on another BB and Frank Butler, the founder and president of Catalina, called me personally and explained to me why I was wrong in my opinion. (I have actually met both Frank Butler and Warren Luhrs from Hunter and both are people who are trying to do the right thing. They each have a vision of what that right thing is and (and even if their detractors question their definition of what is the right way to go with their boats) they seem to pursue their goals with a lot of personal integrity.) Catalinas are generally roomy and generally sail reasonably well. They don''t have the kind of quirky details that can drive you crazy with the other two companies. 

The negatives on the Catalinas are somewhat subjective, but in terms of fit and finish, Catalinas seem to be the worst of the three. (The flip side is that they have finishes that the average guy can maintain.) Their boats have a dated look to my eye but to many people that can be seen as a traditional charm. 

Then there is the cored hull issue. The other two manufacturers use some coring in their hulls but really limit the use of coring to limited areas above the waterline. Cored hulls are considerably lighter and stiffer. This means less heeling and less flexing which can fatigue the glass over time. (Obviously this is not a universally held belief and I am sure that there are people out there who would not buy a cored hull on a dare.) Cored hulls are actually more expensive to produce if they are produced with care. In any event, per conversations at the Annapolis Boat Show, Catalina is in the process of switching over to cored hulls on a number of their newest models with a couple models that have already switched over. To me building a boat intended for coastal use without a cored hull is just plain backwards BUT I emphasize that this is only my opinion and its not hard to make the case for either side of this argument. 

In any event it all comes down to how you will use you boat. If all you are doing is coastal work then any of the three should work. I have spent a lot of time on examples of all three manufacturers and none of the three are compellingly superior to the other two. It''s a matter of what you wish to accomplish and which one moves you most. 

Catalina like Hunter uses glued hull to deck joints. As Mr. Butler pointed out to me, Catalina uses a space age adhesive caulk developed for the aerospace industry and it is very tenacious stuff. The bolts are only there for alignment during construction. I think that this is a reasonable hull to deck joint but it is not may favorite. 

The biggest complaint with Catalinas is the lack of warrantee support. I have had quite a few Catalinas complain about this issue and although when ever I say this I ask anyone with a good Catalina warrantee experience to please talk about it, I have yet to have anyone defend Catalina''s record. The stories that I have encountered are reprehensible and negatively color my view of these boats. In one conversation with a gentleman dumping a new boat, I came to realize that in theory it is possible to get a comparatively new Catalina with some pretty expensive but curable problems that were dumped after a warrantee battle. 

In conclusion, it all comes down to how you will use you boat. If all you are doing is coastal work then any of the three should work. I have spent a lot of time on examples of all three manufacturers and none of the three are compellingly superior to the other two. It''s a matter of what you wish to accomplish and which one moves you most. 

In any case good luck in your search and let us know what you decided to do. Your decision making process might be helpful to others making this kind of decision.

Respectfully
Jeff


----------



## tsenator

Denr (Leon)
You stated that in ths "latest edition of Practical sailor the author describes the vessels built by Beneteau, Hunter and Catalina as entry level boats, not more, not less".......Please if you are going to quote a magazine do it right. They were discussing 30-32 foot boats !!! The implication was NOT about the manufacturers!!! Its was about the size of the boats!!

With that said I think SEC has it pretty correct when he said " like the layout and storage space of the Hunter, but the standing
riging and fit/finish win on the Beneteau."....If you want to sit and party at the dock the Hunter is better, but I must give the nod to Beneteau for sailing and fit n'' finish.

A few more points even though, I am not a fan of the Beneteau iron keels...too bad they don''t use lead which is superior. Also I am a traditionalist, but I do see an advantage to the Hunter Roll bars. It probably places the Mainsheet and traveller in one of the most convenient locations possible . Right next to the helm.....ok..... I still probably wouldn''t want a Hunter.

One other point Jeff, What Catalina is using a cored hull today !?! I was at the AC Sail Expo and talked to Gerry Douglas and I do not think there are any (unless they are the smaller sailboats) that use a cored hull. What Catalina''s did he say were slated for Cored hulls....the new C350 ?

And last but not least your comment about not ever finding anyone with a good Catalina warrantee experience sounds like you don''t look very well. Just go onto any of the Sailnet lists (go now and search in the archives !) You will find hundreds of stories and comments from very satisfied Catalina owners ! I''m sure that there is always going to be a few people that aren''t happy, but the loyalty of Catalina owners I think exceeds the others. In fact just as someone brought up Practical Sailor before, just go back and look at their last reveiw of a Catalina (It was a Catalina 36) It notes how savvy Catalina owners are (they know their boats are Hinckleys, but still great boats for the money). And they must be doing something right.....


----------



## ndsailor

After reading all these posts, especially the topic post, and looking at what boat I am comfortable sailing, and then realizing that for that amount of money I could buy about 30 centaurs or outfit my own to the enth degree and sail the world for a long long long time.....I''m just overwhelmed....maybe I''m just poor and don''t realize it.....lucky me...


----------



## Jeff_H

A couple quick comments here, 
Beneteau offers a lead keel on most of their models as a comparatively inexpensive cost increase option. In talking to my local dealer about just that issue, few buyers take that option. That said I had the chance to sail back to back weekends on older First 35s, one with and one without the lead keel option and it was very noticeable on a beat. 

Regarding coring, at the Annapolis Show I discussed coring with the Catalina sales person. He indicated cited one of the models at the show as being cored and indicated that Catalina was moving that direction with newer models. I do not recall which model he cited as this came in the course of a much larger discussion. To me coring is actually a good thing. It costs more to do, but done properly it really makes a better boat. 

On the Catalina warranttee issue, I have posted the issue of alledgedly poor warrantee covereage whenever I comment on new Catalina''s for almost two years now since a disgruntled Catalina owner first discussed this problem with me. I have discussed this statement with quite a few Catalina Owners. To the person they all have concurred to one degree or another with some citing some pretty awful horror stories, that the Catalina has not responded properly to warrantee claims. I have not gotten that kind of response out of Hunter or Beneteau owners. I ahve asked because I wanted to see if this was a normal ''new boat owner carping'' syndrome. Its not. I have yet to have a Catalina Owner say anything contrary about the Warrantee being handled well. I am not saying that Catalina owners do not like their boats. In fact, most that I have met like their boats alot ''for what they do'' and seem to understand the relative merits and issues of their boats. They seem to have the normal list "You know what I would change" items rather than massive complaints about the boats themselves. But with regard to the warranttee, I have posted that statement here quite a few times, as popular as Catalinas are, there hasn''t been a response here from Catalina Owners contradicting that statement and I have recieved email supporting it. I always try to post this issue in a manner that is looking for comments supporting Catalina''s warrantee response. I just have not gotten it. I would love to be wrong here. 

Jeff


----------



## Denr

tsenator:

It is certainly true that I did interpret the author''s intent in the Practical sailor article when he described the Benehuntalinas as entry level boats to mean their entire product line. Are you suggesting that the boats the three companies in question outside the scope of the ones reviewed in the article are built any differently? You should attend a few more boat shows to look a little closer at these Hinckley wannabes! I might also recommend a trip to the optometrist for you!


----------



## gershel

It''s funny how discussion of "the low price three" always brings out the elitests(snobs). I guess they need someone to look down their noses at.
Marc


----------



## tsenator

Denr,

Sorry, When I typed the reply what I meant to write is that "they know their boats are *not* Hinckleys".. (And yes there are differences in design/build between a 31 foot and a 42 foot Catalina......of which many have been taken on open oceans quite often. I know of at least three Cat 36 that have circumnavigated, but I don''t know of any Cat 310''s. As with the Hunter,s some of their smaller boats are Rated Class B for the Ocean) And by the way, I have attended every AC Sail Expo since it''s inception (1992) and a lot of the design seminars . I was just at the seminar called "the future of boat designs" it was chaired by many designers (Dave Gerr, Gerry, Douglas, Designer of Image Station, the Designer of Freedom Yachts, etc, etc,...) Also I have REALLY looked at the boats through the years and by no means would I imply that the detail and woodworking fit/finish/workmanship of the these boats equal the premium boats. Hell yeah! the Sabre''s, Gozzard and Hinckley''s, et.al. are beautiful ! But they cost 3x as much !! Are they 3x better...hmmm, I don''t know...If I had all the money in the world I would probably purchase one,...but then again maybe not.

So I have crawled around on a lot of boats at the boat shows over the years and the quality from 1992 to 2001 of the boats have improved. Especially the Hunters. When I first started looking at the Hunters at the boat shows , they were a disgrace. I kept thinking to myself "how could they even show these boats?" (The quality of the Hunters have increased and are at an acceptible level).The Beneteau''s always had the best fit and finish of the 3, but I thought they "cheaped out" in small amenities and I felt the boats were a little more "stark". But still I thought the quality was there. As for the Newer Beneteau 473 (original question to this list), I thought that was a HELL of alot of boat for the money much more than the Hunter and on par with the Catalina 47, but a lot less money.


And to Jeff....I will say it again....when you make that statement "have yet to have
a Catalina Owner say anything contrary about the Warrantee being handled well". Of course the ones who want to complain are going to tell everyone who wants to hear. (you sighted...discussion with quite a few ....exactly how many???....Catalina has produced about 100,000 boats over the years !!!) Typically warrantee repair are done by the Dealers and there might be a dealer or two out there that is causing the problems. But, please do what I suggested, go into these Sailnet Discussion list archives for Catalina and do a search using the words "warantee". Just because you don''t find something doesn''t mean it doesn''t exist !! That''s like saying I have never seen Australia so it doesn''t exist !....That''s like me taking a survey on who likes or dislikes the president, but only going to a rally for the National Association for Woman to ask....How many existing Catalina owners do you talk to? And don''t you find it amazing that you can still talk to the CEO/Founder of the Company (Frank Butler). What other boat company can you do that with!! If its so easy for you to talk to him, what makes you think that a paying customer couldn''t get his ear and discuss warantee issues !!....Well I have heard MANY times where someone calls and get taken care of. Sorry I think you are way off base here and you are making a statement from a myopic perspective.

Lets be real . The big three have put more people sailing from one years production than most builders do in a lifetime! And thats a GOOD thing. No they don''t have 8 layers of hand rubbed varnish everywhere, but hey....I guess if you have an extra $200,000 to spend then go for it. And as for being built well enough, I think it is very rare that you will see a catastrophic problem occur on these boats. I think when you will see the difference between the "premium" boats is in a 30 years. I think that is when the small signs of aging will show up less.


----------



## SailorMitch

If anyone chooses to do an archive search on "warantee" or "warrantee" I also suggest a search on "warranty." You probably will get more hits on the last one.

I''ve written on these lists before what I know about Catalina warranty policy. Frank Butler still chooses to handle warranty claims himself. He always has and probably always will. The good part of that policy is that the man himself knows exactly what is going wrong with his boats. He can literally walk to the production line and make a change right then. The bad part of that policy is with the high sales volume of Catalina these days. I don''t see how the man can keep up--and obviously he doesn''t always.

I talked to a former Catalina dealer here in Maryland who partially stopped selling Catalinas because of the delays and confusions caused by Butler''s process. The dealer said he would get a single letter from Butler dealing with many boats and the dealer had to sort out which comment/decision applied to which boat. He said many dealers would fix simple things themselves to keep the customer happy, and that only served to piss the dealers off.

How do I know all this? I wrote an article on the history of Catalina for a national sailing magazine, which was published a year or so ago. I had numerous telephone interviews with Frank Butler, and also one face-to-face in Annapolis at the show. His is a terrific story, and he cares about his boats. But he tends to be a control freak, and that can be a problem with warranty work when you sell a thousand (maybe more?) boats a year.

Having said all that, and as pointed out by others on here, there are thousands of VERY loyal Catalina owners out there. It is not uncommon at all for people to buy 3 and 4 Catalinas of increasing size during their sailing careers. The company obviously is doing something right.


----------



## Denr

I like the cut of your jib SailorMitch. By the way, you were the one only one to nailed me to the cross when I asked the question on another topic about the best 42-45'' cruiser under a million. This was a red herring just to see who''d bite. I did not say I was in the market for one, I just asked the question about the best one! You''ve earned a sailboat ride on lake Michigan this year, a retail value of nearly $1,000!


----------



## SailorMitch

Thanks, Denr! Well, it''s not too often folks get on here and talk about boats costing a million or less, and I have noticed some of your evil ways in the past. nevertheless, I always enjoy looking at the Morris Yachts website just for grins.

Where on Lake Michigan will this ride be? Perhaps I need to plan a business trip to take advantage of it. And should you get to the Baltimore/Annapolis area, you''re guaranteed a sail on the Chesapeake.


----------



## Denr

SailorMitch

I too love to browse the Alden, Morris, Hinckley, Hallberg Rassy, Sabre, Tartan etc. sights. Some day I will own one. If you hit the send message tab on the yellow strip above one of my posts and include your email address, I''ll be the only one that can see your information. I am in a north shore harbor in the Chicago area, you must have business in this area. My boat gets launched the 25th of this month.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Denr,

You gotta watch the generalizations, especially in re: Beneteaus. If you''re going to insult my boat, please pick on her for something that''s true. Every manufacturer has a number of designs; some suck some don''t. Just ''cause someone only spent $200,000 or less on a new boat doesn''t mean it''s suited to only being a garbage scow.

I''ve asked you before where I can get me one of those picnic tables for the cockpit of my First 40.7. Seems they neglected to put ANY table in my cockpit, just some removable lockers to make space for my trimmer on Wednesday nights.

I bet if she didn''t come with a two bladed folding prop I could get her over 7.5 knots under power much more easily too.


----------



## halyardz

I''ve owned and chartered Benes. The First series is very good but I simply can''t justify spending top dollar on a new boat when there are so many solid boats only a few years old on the market. Our post originator said he''s done with racing. That''s fine but issues of construction, seaworthiness, and so on are still important. As such, in a match Bene wins.
You can get one helluva good, roomy boat the Admiral will "accept" for that level of coin on the used market.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

halyardz,
Very well said and right on the money. I totally agree.
I have never owned a new boat (but I''ve been on a few) Mabey thats why I don''t understand this practice. 
To me, buying a boat is all about getting the most boat for the least money


Dennis


P.S. A friend of mine has an absolutely gourgous Saber 38 Mk. 1 for sale.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Interesting discussion. I have owned a Hunter and quite frankly, I realized that I made a mistake buying it shortly afterwards. I think that they are better than they used to be, but these boats leave the factory with blatant flaws - quality control does not seem to be an issue.
Recently, I chartered a Beneteau 473 in the BVI''s and sailed circles around a Hunter 460 that was chartered by our friends. The side-by-side comparison of the two boats showed there to be no comparison. The Beneteau looked fabulous next to the Hunter 460. The fit and finish was excellent, the systems operated very well. The Beneteau by far outsailed the Hunter. I just ordered a Beneteau 473.
When comparing this to the "Premium" models, I believe that the differences are ever shrinking. The Tartan 4600, for example, is a beautiful boat. Rigging is comparable. Sail area is equal to the B473. Ballast - roughly 8500lbs for each. Displ: 28 to 29k for the Tartan and 24k for the Beneteau. LOA is the same. Beam is the same. The overall floor plan is almost identical. Where is the big difference? Money, for sure. The Tartan has some awesome furniture, but the Beneteau is certainly acceptable. Performance? Maybe. Is one more likely to survive an offshore Gale than another? I don''t know but I''m sure a lot would depend on the experience and skill of the captain and crew. Most of us will hopefully never get the chance to find out. I would expect resale to be a big difference, but if you took the balance between the cost of the Tartan and the cost of the Beneteau and invested it very conservatively over say 15 years, I am absolutely sure that the Beneteau buyer would come out on top. A base mode Tartan 4600 costs approx $450k and a similarly outfitted B 473 is roughly $250k. Can someone tell me what you''re getting witht he Tartan that is worth almost $200k? You could probably buy the Tartan 2017 model with your investment profit. Neither of these boats is an investment - both are expensive holes in the water that you pour money into. Both will depreciate. Again, the big difference that I see is that you are paying a lot of money for old world style carpentry and finish work. SB


----------



## gershel

Saw-Bones, great reply. The original question was on Beneteus & Hunters, and all the answers were on Tartans,Sabres & Hinkleys. I suppose if money were no object,no one would be asking about Beneteaus, Hunters & Catalinas. Ya think?
Marc


----------



## TSOJOURNER

My wife and I live aboard a Beneteau Oceanis 370. Originally, I would not have bought a Beneteau to live on. I was only looking for older Tartan 37s, Morgan 38s, etc... However, when I looked at the Beneteau, there was a lot that made me think twice. The boat was newer. It had a lot more room. I can actually get to and work on the engine, transmission, etc... Almost every piece of working gear on my boat is very accessible. It has been a good live aboard boat and sails well.

I dont claim to be the worlds best sailor, but I have been sailing for 5 years on a number of different boats. The Beneteau sails very well on inland waters, but I must admit she can pound in a seaway in the right conditions. However, I am tall and can appreciate the legroom in the v-berth that is part of the reason she pounds. At first I didnt like the furling mainsail, but I have gotten used to it and am starting to like it. It has never jammed on me when I am furling it in.

I originally was concerned about the lighter displacement, but we havent seen much difference in sailing even with all our stuff aboard. We do try to keep the boat as light as possible, but doesnt anyone who is trying to keep their sailing performance up?

All in all, we are happy with our choice and would move up to another Beneteau. We like the new 393, but I just cannot see me buying a new boat unless it will be the last one.

Chris


----------



## Jeff_H

I don''t pretend that I have an answer explaining why a Tartan is worth $200K (actually I thought that the actual difference for a similarly equipped Tartan 460 was just over $100K) more that a similar size Beneteau 473 but I can centainly explain some of the difference. I do want to say that I am actually a fan of the Beneteau 473. I think these are a tremedous amount of boat for the money and certainly represent a major step forward for Beneteau''s ''number series''. I would take one that had a normal mainsail (i.e. you could not get me to go offshore with a in mast furling mainsail on a bet) offshore with no more trepidation than with most good quality cruisers. 

BUT there are big differences between the Tartan and the Beneteau. To start with the Tartan uses an injected and vacuumed epoxy resin intead of laid up polyester on the Beneteau. Epoxy is substanially more expensive but results in an extremely tougher laminate. Epoxy reduces the likelihood of blisters to less than zero and increases strenght, impact resistance and fatique resistance greatly over normal polyester resins used in the Beneteau. 

Tartans bulkheads and frames are hand glassed into place while the boats are in the mold resulting is a very stiff structure and one that is likely to last a very long time. glassing while in the mold means less distortion and potentially stronger connection because the contact area is larger and defects can be observed and worked out. Beneteau uses what they call a space age adhesive that is supposedly stronger than the fiberglass it is adhered to and will delaminate the fiberglass before letting go of its adhesion. The problem here is the small contact area of the adhesive limits the area absorbing the loads to a smaller skin area and so is more likely to be a problem over time. This opaque adhesive cannot be tested observed for holidays and poor coverage during layup like a glassed in component. Similarly Beneteau glues in its liner/ internal framing system. Again this has less stength and resiliency in an impact as well as being extremely difficult to repair in an extreme incident. 

Beneteaus decks are glued on with the glue serving as the primary bond and any bolting is solely for assembly alignment. Again this has become a very normal industry approach to installing a deck and with modern adhesives it does produce a strong joint. Tartan uses a bolted and adhered deck joint with frequent bolts and aluminum backing plates. This results in a potentially more impact resiliant joint and one that is easier to repair and less likely to leak over time. 

Tartan''s hull uses a high density closed cell foam coring which is vacuum bagged into place. That means an extremely strong and extremely durable way to build a lighter weight boat. Beneteau only cores their decks and they use balsa core which is much cheaper and more likely to succumb to deck rot. Tartan also used balsa core decks but they core and fill each fastening point with epoxy. Beneteau does not. 

Then there are little things. I haven''t specifically done this on the 473 and the Tartan 4600 but if you open the cabin sole access port and look at the plywood that is used, the Beneteau has noticably thinner top veneers than the Tartan (I have not done this in a couple years but last time I looked this was the case.) That thicker top veneer means that you can refinish the deck on a Tartan for many years to come but are less likely to be able to maintain the Beneteau deck at some point and are more likely to have to replace a deck panel at some point due to the simple damage that occurs putting the deck piece in or taking it out. 

Tartan 4600 use cast lead keels. Beneteau 473''s use cast iron. Cast lead offers the ability to absorb shocks of hard groundings without transmitting as much of the shocks into the structure and so are less likely to damage internal structure in a hard grounding. All other things being equal, the higher density of lead means greater ballast stability. That means a more comfortable motion and the ability to carry more sail. That means reefing later and also might mean the difference in being able to claw off a lee shore. 

There are a whole lot of little details as well. When you look at the 473 casework, the doors are plywood with an applied trim. Its a little clunky to my eye and the plywood edges will break down over time. The Tartan cabinets use a plywood door as well but at least the last time I looked they had flush hardwood edges which protect the plywood edge and permit the door to be shaved if it swells over time. Beneteau uses interior hardware that looks virtually identical to the hardware on Tartan but from experience I can tell you that in the past, and I assume its still the case, the Beneteau versions had potmetal and ferrous components and the Tartan versions were non-ferrous. Even the details of the Tartan interior seems to be a little more complete. 

Please don''t get me wrong here, I am not saying that the 473 is a bad boat. I really like the 473. I have had the chance to watch one sailing on a very gusty day and was quite impressed. Earlier this winter I had gone out to try to get a sense of how my boat would behave on a day predicted to winds into the mid-20 knot range. As it turned out the normal winds were in the high teens but there were very sudden gusts into the mid- to high 20''s. In cold air this feels like a lot more wind than the wind speeds would suggest. It was really very challenging sailing. In the whole afternoon of sailing I saw maybe 5 other boats underway and one was a Beneteau 473. Except for making gobs of leeway, the 473 was sailing quite well, looked balanced and under control, and was moving quite well through the short chop that had kicked up. At one point, when the two boats were quite close, we both were hit with a strong gust (probably in the high 20''s or low 30''s) and I was very impressed with the 473''s ability to take the hit and not round up out of control. 

So, with all of that said, I am not sure that a Tartan 3600 is worth $200K (or even $100 K) more than the Beneteau 473. It really depends on how you intend to use your boat, how picky you are about little details, and how much you are willing to (or can afford to) spend for a better constructed boat. No matter how much or how little you have to spend there will almost always be a better built boat or a not as well built than the one you ultimately buy. We each set our own budget and our standards and hopefully that will be all the boat that we will need to be happy and comfortable. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Wow! Very informative answer. Thank you for the response - I learned a great deal from that. I am really up in the air about the main sail furling vs a fully battened stack pack main. My current boat has main sail furling, and while you do lose a bit in the performance category, it is so easy to reef at an infinite number of points, that it''s hard to say goodbye to that. Have you sailed anything with main furling? Sorry we''re getting off the point of this thread. MS


----------



## Jeff_H

I haven''t spent any real ''quality'' time on boats with in-mast furling but I have seen a lot of them underway. I''ve had the chance to watch two sisterships, one with in mast furling and one without, which gave me a pretty fair sense of the relative behavior in a breeze. I have talked to sailmakers who have consistently confirmed that in-mast furling shortens the life of the sail (especially if the sail is used in the partially furled condition). They have also confirmed my observation that if really needed in a blow, the leech creeps toward the foot and so the sail ends up with a powered up shape just when you need it bladed out. 
But the real deal killer for me is discussions that I had with friends who are delivery skippers who tell stories of how well in mast furling works until it doesn''t. Once it jams, which seems to be a pretty regular occurance in high winds you have a non-repairable mess to deal with. These brushes with disaster with in-mast furling in extreme conditions have convinced me that they do not belong on any boat that might get ever caught in a blow. I''m not taking about offshore, I mean ever. When they jamb as they seem to inevitably do in heavy conditions you''re stuck. You can''t reef, you can''t tension the luff, you can''t drop the sail, all you can do as one fellow discribed is cut away the sail and hope your motor runs long enough to get you home. 

Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*hunter vs ben*



SEC said:


> Thanks for everyone''s reply. To answer a couple of questions that were asked, price is DEFINITELY a consideration. Also, these are both new boats and range, completely fitted, in the $265-275 range. Space/layout are also a definite concern because if the sopuse is not happy, it will not get much time away from the dock. I filled my racing need in the 70''s, I now strictly cruise.


ha! that is so true! I am the wife of a captain/pirate! Actually, my husband is a 777 airline pilot and we have been Hunter owners of various sizes.
Even though we admire the Jeanneaus, beneteaus, Swans, Islanders, etc... the newer 42 Hunter center cockpit gives us the most cruising fun time! 
P.S. Our boat plays in San Diego and Catalina. It's perfect. 
And i used to race as well.


----------



## k1vsk

SEC
If you are still following this discussion, it seems to contain a lot of the same denegration of a particular boat or brand common to Hunters, Catalinas and Beneteaus that some like to perpetuate. 
For what it's worth, I suspect I am among the very few who have owned all three at different times and now own an Alden so I may be both more objective and less biased.

In that context, my opinion is simply that there is little difference in quality among these three very competitive companies all competing in the SAME market; hence the differences are subtle.

Among the things I found to be different among them are:
Beneteaus - fit and finish seemed to me to be below that of the other two, particularly the sole plates, bulkhead tabbing and deck hardware mounting which always proved to be the sources of various leaks. Coupled with it's relatively flat bottom which promotes pounding, it was the most disconcerting boat I've ever had in bad weather.
Catalina - better fit and finish but still prone to leaks at all ports and hatches, difficult logistics and accessibility for routine maintenance and sailed the slowest of the three, pointed the worst and went downwind like a barn door.
Hunter - never quite got used to the huge salon windows but my wife preferred them so what that proves is debatable. Had to sail off the wind dead down wind because of the spreaders but found that was often a better VMG angle. Preferred the B&R rig which is actually stronger that a traditional one and since we had a backstay as well, this was a non-issue (some H models do not apparently).

I should mention each was a new boat so wear/tear was not an issue in comparison.

Bottom line - as I've said previously, internet experts are usually worthless. Years ago when I had the opportunity and time to travel, we sailed from the east coast to the S Pacific and *never, ever throughout that trip during which we spent time with many cruisers on all type boats did I hear anyone denegrate any boat mfg like we routinely see here.* Everybody had problems maintenance issues and breakdowns regardless of who made their boat. Coral doesn't care what the nameplate says nor does a 30 ft wave.

Ignore the so-called internet experts and pick the best maintained boat within your budget, take care of her and try to anticipate your future use to choose the best candidate accordingly.

Everything else is pure BS


----------



## CaptainForce

When considering all the variables, there is far more impact resulting from the skill and prudence of the captain than any trait of these three vessels. I'd buy the Hunebenelina if you want one and enjoy it! 'take care and joy, Aythya crew


----------



## gene80

I'm also considering a Beneteau/Catalina due to the cost to quality ratio. Does anyone have any thoughts they could provide in choosing between a B373, B393, B36.7, or C380? 

We'd be based out of Ft. Laurderdale and would be mostly sailing to the Bahamas and Caribbean. 

Thanks for any advice.


----------



## pearle99

I agree with K1VSK - set your budget, set a range of LOA and go see what you can find on the market. What type of sailing are you doing? Hunters, Catalinas and Benes are built for easy cruising and have less aggressive sail plans, smaller winches etc. I personally looked at Beneteaus, Catalinas, Hanse and C&C's - mostly because they still make boats in my size range of 32' and under. The C&C owners I spoke to tell me the boat is very fast - it has way more sail area than the others and HUGE winches (40's and up). But it is more money and more performance means my wife as a novice may be intimidated by the tendency to heel. In the end, budget killed the C&C (among some other tidbits like sail drive issues and product build quality). The Hanse is very lovely but none were available and they too are pricey (built in europe and subject to import duties, shipping costs). The Catalina 309 and 320 we looked at - nice boats - no teak to worry about but I felt they were just plain - 'plain'. Which maybe isn't a bad thing. We did not look at Hunters - I personally like the idea of adjustable back stays like on the C&C but no back stay at all is just a little weird. Also the idea of going forward to unjam a line in rough water and getting past the extra B&G stay which seems to be at a perfect angle to ensure you will get it in the neck was disconcerting. I feel the Hunter looks and is disproportionately tall in the water. In the end a Beneteau 31 came on the market - for me it had more 'character', plenty of room - sails well in light wind (which is what we get here in the Pacific NW) and it was the right price. It has a huge beam - so I am trading off some rough water handling for extra cockpit room. And it has a rear stay (not adjustable) but alas - every choice has a trade off. 
I offer this information not as an endorsement of Beneteau but as an outline on my decision process. Take all opinions about this brand or that brand posted here or from your broker with a grain of salt - do you own homework. Enjoy the search - there is a lot to learn in the process. In the end the right boat at the right price will make itself known to you - whether it is a Hunter or a Swan or anything in between.


----------



## lexvold

Hatchet job by unscrupulous Hunter Dealer removed per forum rules


----------



## MarkSF

Just get yourself something like this.

1990 Bristol 47.7 CENTER CP CUTTER RIG SLOOP-TRUE ELEGANCE! Sail Boat For

Go on, you know you want to. Just look at all that teak.


----------



## ajdtiger

Too bad no one can get a straight answer


----------



## TakeFive

ajdtiger said:


> Too bad no one can get a straight answer


...even after 13 years.


----------



## chuck53

Don't you just love it when newbies join the forum and the first thing they do is resurrect posts that have been dormant for years.


----------



## jzk

I will second that endorsement



bporter said:


> If I was to spend that much money on a Beneteau, I''d put it into a First 47.7. You should get a better ride out of her, and a at 47'' a good amount of creature comforts, especially if it''s only two of you.
> 
> I dont'' know much of the deck layout on the 47.7, but the similarly designed 40.7 looks like she''ll shorthand well.


----------



## Viper

I find the roll bar/arch on Hunters very attractive and most functional as I do the sugar scoop rear. I just don't sail, I cruise and dive and fish and stay onboard long term. My Lab loves to swim off the stern as I do and getting into the RIB is much easier.


The traveler is up and out of the way and is very powerful at the end of the boom and not in a cockpit thanks to the arch. No one need duck on a tack. The B&R rig was designed for around the world solo racing. The very high aspect mainsail sail points far better than most boats. The small genoa functions much as a working jib, requiring less work. Downwind performance can be made up with an asymmetric cruising spinnaker.

Simple fact is for every Beni there are 3 Hunters and both together outnumber all other brands considerably. Both have models that are routinely sailed around the world. The large numbers of Hunters and Beni mean there is a supply of aftermarket parts more than 30 years after a model first appeared. Both have excellent live aboard qualities. The hardware, mast, rigging is the same as on your more expensive, single purpose boats, so its down to hull construction and design. 

You seem to be making the comparison that instead of going to work each day in a Ford or Chevy, we all need to drive a Bently. That is not true for cars nor sailboats. 


There are 40 year old Hunters still sailing. Mine is 18 years old. And I just bought a 3 bladed prop for it. Less vibration than a 2 blade, better handling and it is actually smaller. And some time motoring performance can be important. , You cant sail down the ditch and sometimes its 40 knots offshore.

Regards


----------



## Minnewaska

Viper said:


> .....Simple fact is for every Beni there are 3 Hunters .....


Welcome to SN. Good add to the discussion, although, you may or may not have noticed it was started 15 years ago.

In any event, I'm curious where you got the above stat. In terms of global production volumes, I would assume the opposite by an even larger margin.


----------



## Jeff_H

Viper said:


> Simple fact is for every Beni there are 3 Hunters and both together outnumber all other brands considerably.


As Minnewaska pointed out, the above is statistically inaccurate. The last time that I saw the numbers (roughly 2-3 years ago), worldwide Beneteau produced more sailboats in a year than the next three biggest builders combined. That particular year I believe that Bavaria was the second largest company worldwide, and then came Catalina and Hunter was fourth. Also that year, Beneteau's Marion Plant actually produced more boats in the US than either Hunter or Catalina. Obviously these numbers vary from year to year and I had hoped to find last year's statistics, but they are not available on line. At the 2016 Annapolis Boat show a rep from the Hanse group claimed that they have passed Bavaria last year.



Viper said:


> The large numbers of Hunters and Beni mean there is a supply of aftermarket parts more than 30 years after a model first appeared.


I suggest that statement is a bit misleading. While Hunter is still in business, based on my experience, Hunter does not provide aftermarket support for their older models. For example less than 10 years after my Mom's Hunter 30 was constructed, Hunter was unable to produce a lazarette hatch for her boat since they said that the tooling no longer existed. Similarly they referred us to the boom manufacturer for a boom end fitting. At the time, they said they can't support boats that old.

In contrast, Beneteau was able to supply a one of their curved doors with the correct hardware to a head in the correct matching finish and a Lewmar hatch with the correct Bene custom color plexiglass more than 15 years after a friend's First 38s5 was built.

Catalina also has a rep for supporting their earlier models. I have not dealt with them directly on that.



Viper said:


> The hardware, mast, rigging is the same as on your more expensive, single purpose boats, so its down to hull construction and design.


Again I would suggest that this is a bit misleading. Its true that Hunter buys a lot of off the shelf gear from the same manufacturers that the more custom manufacturers buy their stuff from, but the big manufacturers offer product lines with variations in quality between the lines. So while Hunter may buy their stuff in similar places, that does not mean its the same quality product line, or same size as might be used on a higher price or quality boat.

At the heart of it, I like many of the models that Hunter has produced over the years. They have generally been a good boat for the price. A whole lot of folks like their Hunters. But there is no value in presenting their virtues inaccurately.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## Towguy

A old thread like getting updated is actually very intresting and informative


----------

