# Kingston Anchors . . . any experiences ?



## Dog8It (Jan 2, 2007)

I am planning on getting a new plow / CQR type anchor to use as a primary, main anchor. Lewmar CQR is a bit pricey so I was thinking of perhaps buying a Kingston anchor (plow). However, I cannot find it in any reviews. Has anyone used it ? Any experiences ?

The boat I sail is a 35 footer, light-to-moderate displacement. The bow rollers are of closed-type (not open) and thus Delta, Rocna, Manson anchors are out of question.

Primary area of cruising is Chesapeake. I usually day-sail, with occasional week-2 week cruise. 

Thanks in advance for your comments, suggestions.


----------



## scottyt (Jul 19, 2008)

my feeling on plows are simple. 

plows are designed to move dirt, not resist it. they are designed to dig in and turn the dirt over, but move thru it.

if you are cheap go to bacons and get the knock off lewmar for 100 bucks. better than a plow in our nice soft mud


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd point out that skimping on ground tackle is a really stupid idea IMHO. Anchors are not only important when staying out overnight, but also an important piece of safety gear. Getting a cheap anchor or an undersized anchor could put you and your crew at risk, not to mention your boat.

Just curious, but why do you say a Rocna, Manson Supreme, and Delta are out of the question? A photo of the bow roller would certainly help.

You might also want to watch some videos of the differences between the older CQR type anchors and the newer "next generation" anchors like the Rocna. Maine Sail has posted this video of one of the tests he did.


----------



## CaptainForce (Jan 1, 2006)

Anchors can show a lot of use and surface corosion without a loss in their function. I have purchased prime quality anchors at used marine supply and consignment shops for a fraction of their new price. Of course, anyone that has spent time following a mule knows that the angle that the plow enters the soil determines wether it moves the dirt or becomes embedded. Take care and joy, Aythya crew


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

To answer your question about Kingston anchors I had a Kingston knock-off CQR for many years. I used it as a secondary to my Bruce primary. This was in the days before the new generation of anchors. It is a decent plow, stamped rather than cast like a CQR. I sold it when I got a Manson Supreme which is now my primary with a Bruce as secondary.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

sailingdog said:


> .....Maine Sail has posted this video of one of the tests he did.


Is this really a good test? It seems to simulate the anchor rode/chain laying flat for 50+ feet and pulling directly across the bottom. That would require a lot of chain out for there to be no upward pull at all. That would be poor setting technique, but I see the point that the Rocna would accommodate it better.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Minnewaska said:


> Is this really a good test? It seems to simulate the anchor rode/chain laying flat for 50+ feet and pulling directly across the bottom. That would require a lot of chain out for there to be no upward pull at all. That would be poor setting technique, but I see the point that the Rocna would accommodate it better.


 Just curious, what scope do you set your anchor at? IIRC, he had it set for a specific scope, probably 7:1 or so. You'd have to ask him. He's also done similar tests at very clearly known scope with very similar results.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

Minnewaska said:


> Is this really a good test? It seems to simulate the anchor rode/chain laying flat for 50+ feet and pulling directly across the bottom. That would require a lot of chain out for there to be no upward pull at all. That would be poor setting technique, but I see the point that the Rocna would accommodate it better.


The CQR did not set in that location on ANY scope down to 2:1... Infinite scope or 8:1, what that was in the first video, is about the best you will get for setting just about any anchor. Also, until the anchor begins to dig in the shank will not raise if you have any amount of chain in your rode so 3:1-7:1 makes little difference while the anchor is dragging across the bottom. Once the tip begins to bite you'll likely want a minimum of 4:1+ for a good solid set.

Until that tip digs in you have chain on the bottom. The CQR tip NEVER dug in. Even at a 2:1 scope, a CQR will never set well with this BTW, the shank lies almost always flat until the tip digs in which it just does not like to do in hard bottoms as seen in the video. The videos are what they are and the anchors did what they did..

Because this was done near a local anchorage a nice older gent was watching carefully while we were doing these tests. He was dumbfounded at how poorly the CQR performed even when treated exactly the same as the Rocna.

After we were done he came up to me and said he went for nearly 7 years without anchoring because he had had such a tough time setting his CQR, had multiple draggins, and his wife was scared to anchor. He just accepted that all anchors perform this way and he was not comfortable anchoring anymore. When I asked he stated and described that he was using proper techniques including proper scope and setting or backing down on the anchor to check the set. He asked for the name of the Rocna and told me he was going to buy one. It was an interesting day to say the least.

P.S. I have two genuine CQR's if the OP wants to buy one of these door stops/decorations. You will have to sign a waiver though that I will not be held liable/responsible when or if your boat winds up on the rocks..

CQR 2:1:
YouTube - CQR Hard Sand Setting 2:1 Scope

Here's a CQR @ 4:1
YouTube - CQR Setting In Hard Sand 4:1 Scope

Here's a Rocna @ 4:1
YouTube - Rocna Setting On Hard Sand At 4:1 Scope

Rocna - No matter how it lands it seems to set almost immediately:
YouTube - Rocna Anchor - Flip Flop & Dig - At 4:1 Scope


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

*$0.02*

Dog8it,

Puhleezez don't cheap out on your anchor. I would hate to see another thread like this one. While the SVDistantStar was on an anchor, when he should have been on a mooring, the root cause of his situation is that he couldn't afford proper ground tackle.

I just bit the bullet and purchased a Rocna 15 for my new-to-me 35 footer. (Craig's support here was a factor.) I haven't brought it to the boat yet, as she is covered for the winter. I don't know if it will fit on the bow roller, and frankly don't care. I'll make whatever modifications are necessary. The new anchor has also driven me to buy new rode, shackles, and chain...

When I bought her, the boat was outfitted with this woefully undersized plow (Simpson-Lawrence aka Delta #14);









I read through the PO's log and saw that he had issues in several places with his anchor dragging... I'm giving this anchor to a friend with a 28' Sabre.

Finances are a big issue for me, but I don't want to be penny wise and pound foolish.


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

Maine Sail said:


> The CQR did not set in that location on ANY scope down to 2:1... Infinite scope or 8:1, what that was in the first video, is about the best you will get for setting just about any anchor. Also, until the anchor begins to dig in the shank will not raise if you have any amount of chain in your rode so 3:1-7:1 makes little difference while the anchor is dragging across the bottom. Once the tip begins to bite you'll likely want a minimum of 4:1+ for a good solid set.
> 
> Until that tip digs in you have chain on the bottom. The CQR tip NEVER dug in. Even at a 2:1 scope, a CQR will never set well with this BTW, the shank lies almost always flat until the tip digs in which it just does not like to do in hard bottoms as seen in the video. The videos are what they are and the anchors did what they did..
> 
> [/URL]


I had the same question about the scope issue and you've cleared that up in your response above....thanks. One other comment about the test is that I notice that the pull is straight. How would that CQR react if you varied the pull so that the hinge moved from side to side as the anchor was pulled slowly along the bottom...?

Several years ago I did replace my 35 lb CQR with a 45 lb Mason Supreme, but for over 20 years that little CQR did a good job even holding up well in a Cat 1 hurricane. Did have problems in soft mud so I relented to the newer designs, but still feel the CQR is a good anchor if time is taken to set it.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

IIRC, Maine Sail gave that poor CQR almost every possible advantage to try and get it to set, and still...bupkis. 

THere's a reason many of us are using Rocnas or Manson Supremes... and why the two have become very popular among bluewater cruisers—they work in a wide variety of conditions better than just about anything else to come along. 

I'd also point out that Maine Sail has several next generation anchors, including the Spade, the Manson Supreme and the Rocna... and that the Rocna is his primary anchor for a reason. 

Frank, of s/v Felix fame, the previous owner of the boat, equipped it with a Rocna after owning a Manson Supreme as well.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

I have A 25lb genuine CQR and will be replacing it with a Rocna 15. This will involve a custom bow roller.

You pick your anchor based on it's ability and modify/change your roller to suit it. 

It makes no sense to buy an anchor because it fits the roller you have.


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

Here's mine.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

sailingdog said:


> Just curious, what scope do you set your anchor at? IIRC, he had it set for a specific scope, probably 7:1 or so. You'd have to ask him. He's also done similar tests at very clearly known scope with very similar results.


I have no dispute that the Rocna seems to be a better anchor and I've now seen Maine's 2:1 video as well, which was more compelling, IMHO.

For the record, I "set" my anchor at a maximum of 2:1, then let out 5:1 in calm conditions or 7:1 in rough conditions and check holding. All chain.

I have a huge 75 lb CQR (I had to look it up in the survey, that's what she says) and have never had a problem, although, I've mostly anchored in gravel or mud. I wonder if a heavier CQR performs the same a these videos.


----------



## Bilgewater (Jul 17, 2008)

Dog8it, I use a 50lb Kingston with 350 ft 3/8 chain rode and my boat is 33'. This is an oversize CQR type anchor for this size of boat and having said that, I am *NOT* overly pleased with my setup. I do occasionally anchor in areas where I get pounded and it seems to hold well even with a short bit of rode out. However, it is quite often difficult to set which when in tight quarters can be problematic but I have been able to live with that. On occasion in clear shallow seas, I've been able to watch it sliding on it's side as we're backing down and finally digging in but it sometimes takes what I can only guess to be about 50 or 75 feet before catching and in a tight little nook, this is not fun to say the least. The biggest worry is with a change in wind or current direction forcing the Kingston to re-set, very common where I am and this is a real problem that I'm not willing to live with for long.



Dog8It said:


> Primary area of cruising is Chesapeake. I usually day-sail, with occasional week-2 week cruise. quote]
> 
> IMHO An oversized Kingston may be *JUST OK* for the type of sailing your doing. I have been using mine for many years in all kinds of nasty conditions and bottom types and I find it to be much less than OK. If I'm not mistaken the Chesapeake can be nasty on occasion, so I wouldn't go this route if I were you. I would change out your anchor rollers and put on a modern disigned anchor.
> 
> I will soon be putting my Kingston aside as a backup anchor or kellet along with my old bruce and get a Rocna or similar as a primary anchor.


----------



## CaptainForce (Jan 1, 2006)

Minnewaska said:


> Is this really a good test? It seems to simulate the anchor rode/chain laying flat for 50+ feet and pulling directly across the bottom. That would require a lot of chain out for there to be no upward pull at all. That would be poor setting technique, but I see the point that the Rocna would accommodate it better.


I do appreciate the excellent design of the Ronca, but the test is flawed. As Minnewaska has pointed out boats are well above their anchors. A CQR or any similar designed plow type anchor is designed to set with a boat pulling above the level of the anchor. It is true that a plow will not set unless there is an upward vector to turn the tip of the anchor into the substrate. Once again, the Ronca is a great anchor, but the test is bogus! Take care and joy, Aythya crew


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

CaptainForce said:


> I do appreciate the excellent design of the Ronca, but the test is flawed. As Minnewaska has pointed out boats are well above their anchors. A CQR or any similar designed plow type anchor is designed to set with a boat pulling above the level of the anchor. It is true that a plow will not set unless there is an upward vector to turn the tip of the anchor into the substrate. Once again, the Ronca is a great anchor, but the test is bogus! Take care and joy, Aythya crew


Considering I have observed the SAME exact behavior while diving under water and watching a CQR try to set your claim of bogus is pretty much just that. This is EXACTLY how I have observed them land and try to set on the bottom from under water.

Sail Magazine observed the same. Sadly many CQR owners would consider this "set":









2:1, 4:1, 7:1 does not care if there is water there or not it is merely a measurement of length of rode to height of bow or pull point. Until the anchor tip bites you are dragging the shank at basically infinite scope unless less than 2:1 but I can assure you that the CQR won't set on that type of scope...

Interestingly enough the Bruce, Spade, Manson Supreme and others ALL set here or at least bit, some better than others, but they all bit. The CQR did not and is what it is in hard sand.

I used CQR's for about 15 years so I have a very intimate understanding of the flaws of the design. If it was a good performer I would have never searched for a better mouse trap and never amassed the quiver of anchors pictured below..

I own and have extensively tested all my anchors both above water and below via diving on them and observing sets. Not all anchors are created equal or perform equally. The Rocna and Manson Supreme thus far have been the best all round performing anchors I have used. I prefer the Bruce for an old tech anchor.

A few of the anchors I own. Note that many of them are "new generation" and not all perform the same:









It is always amusing when someone can look at the SAME TEST conducted SIDE by SIDE mere inches from one another, with two different products, one performing tremendously well for the chosen test and one not performing at all, and can call the test bogus. If it was "bogus" neither anchor would have performed.

What is bogus is the lame performance of the CQR in hard bottoms, been there done that. It is also bogus that of all the times in my 35 years of boating that I have been dragged down on or into it has most often been a CQR on the end of the rode... In 2008 I set a new personal record when two different boats dragged into us within 24 hours, both dragging CQR's...

Like this clown who dragged into us with a CQR while I was enjoying my morning coffee.. Had to wedge my RIB in between us as a giant fender to save an 11k paint job. Claimed he was using 5:1 all chain but the "tidal swing" caused his anchor to unset.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

As I said, Maine Sail has experience with a fairly wide range of anchors, including the Spade, Rocna, Manson Supreme, Bruce, CQR and Fortress, as you can see in this photo... and he's using a Rocna as his primary...for a reason.


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

CaptainForce said:


> A CQR or any similar designed plow type anchor is designed to set with a boat pulling above the level of the anchor.


No it isn't. Like all anchors, it's designed to set in response to a pull parallel to the seabed.



CaptainForce said:


> It is true that a plow will not set unless there is an upward vector to turn the tip of the anchor into the substrate.


No it's not.



CaptainForce said:


> Once again, the Rocna is a great anchor, but the test is bogus!


Any excuse eh?

Since this obviously needs explaining, the initial setting stage of any anchor sees the rode parallel to the seabed. As all the old traditions will tell you, chain forms a catenary which guarantees this. It's only once the anchor has started to set and can provide some resistance that the rode will begin to straighten and lift.

Anchor designers model their developments to suit... The CQR shank is articulated to allow the fluke to supposedly begin to set with the anchor effectively upside-down, doing away with the need for either heavy tip ballast or a roll-bar to self-right it. Of course it just doesn't work in anything other than the soft mud it was designed for. If you want to see what the logical conclusion for the 'plow' concept is, and what the CQR should have been from day 1 (and might have been with a little more experimentation), take a look at a Delta.



Minnewaska said:


> Is this really a good test? It seems to simulate the anchor rode/chain laying flat for 50+ feet and pulling directly across the bottom. That would require a lot of chain out for there to be no upward pull at all. That would be poor setting technique, but I see the point that the Rocna would accommodate it better.


Come again? The Rocna will 'accommodate' far lower scope than a CQR.



Minnewaska said:


> I have no dispute that the Rocna seems to be a better anchor and I've now seen Maine's 2:1 video as well, which was more compelling, IMHO.
> For the record, I "set" my anchor at a maximum of 2:1, then let out 5:1 in calm conditions or 7:1 in rough conditions and check holding.


Don't do that, it's pointless and you will not get a good quality set until you actually set the anchor while you 'check holding', while increasing the risk of fouling the anchor beforehand. Just use the same scope you will swing on.



Vasco said:


> To answer your question about Kingston anchors I had a Kingston knock-off CQR for many years. I used it as a secondary to my Bruce primary. This was in the days before the new generation of anchors. It is a decent plow, stamped rather than cast like a CQR.


The CQR is not cast, it's forged, with a few exceptions. Not that it really matters, since we're no longer in the 1930s when it might have been a sensible selling point.



Dog8It said:


> I am planning on getting a new plow / CQR type anchor to use as a primary, main anchor. Lewmar CQR is a bit pricey so I was thinking of perhaps buying a Kingston anchor (plow). However, I cannot find it in any reviews. Has anyone used it ? Any experiences ?


The CQR is just about the worst choice for an asymmetrical anchor that anyone could make. Going for an imitation is never going to improve the situation.

While MaineSail's video shows a CQR failing, here's a genuine CQR working in soft sand while an imitation completely fails:
http://www.petersmith.net.nz/distributable/cqr_manson_rocna_testing.pdf
It's not a Kingston but you get the idea. Avoid copies.


----------



## Dog8It (Jan 2, 2007)

Thanks for everyone's input and comments.

Initially, I was all excited about Rocna / Manson type of anchors. Then, I remembered to take another look at my anchor / bow roller to realize that those designs are pretty much out of question as I cannot see how those roll-bars would fit.



















I also considered Delta anchor from Lewmar, though I seriously doubt that the curvature of the shank will pass through the anchor / bow roller opening. This left me with two choices: CQR or Bruce / Claw type anchors. Having surveyed the boats in our marina, I noticed that probably a good 2/3's of the boats carry CQR type anchors. Not having had much experience in the Chesapeake, I decided to follow the crowd and look into those type of anchors.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

The majority isn't always right.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Maine Sail said:


> The CQR did not set in that location on ANY scope down to 2:1... Infinite scope or 8:1, what that was in the first video, is about the best you will get for setting just about any anchor. Also, until the anchor begins to dig in the shank will not raise if you have any amount of chain in your rode so 3:1-7:1 makes little difference while the anchor is dragging across the bottom. Once the tip begins to bite you'll likely want a minimum of 4:1+ for a good solid set.
> 
> Until that tip digs in you have chain on the bottom. The CQR tip NEVER dug in. Even at a 2:1 scope, a CQR will never set well with this BTW, the shank lies almost always flat until the tip digs in which it just does not like to do in hard bottoms as seen in the video. The videos are what they are and the anchors did what they did.......


I get it. While I've had good luck with our 75lb CQR, its almost always been in mud or gravel.

You were a great help in providing input for our trip to Maine in the spring. I know you would suggest the Rocna in an event, but are hard sand conditions going to be the most prevalent? Putting a couple of grand into a new anchor wasn't on my to-do list.

The upgrades necessary to the boat for a two week trip are getting humorous. This is another story. Here I've made one week trips with no upgrades and had no idea how crazy I was.


----------



## beanctr56 (Feb 19, 2003)

Has anyone used the Rocna in soft mud like the Cheasapeake or NC sounds?

Also is the Manson as good as the Rocna?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Yes, I've used the Rocna in the Chesapeake and in some of the muddy bottoms around New England... it holds quite well.


beanctr56 said:


> Has anyone used the Rocna in soft mud like the Cheasapeake or NC sounds?


The Manson Supreme IMHO is not as good...close but not the same thing. There is a reason that several sailors with many years of experience I know switched from the Manson Supreme to the Rocna.



> Also is the Manson as good as the Rocna?


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

beanctr56 said:


> Has anyone used the Rocna in soft mud like the Cheasapeake or NC sounds?
> 
> Also is the Manson as good as the Rocna?


I don't know never having used a Rocna. I do know I've never had a better anchor than the Manson Supreme in 20 years of cruising. In soft mud it's very difficult to break the Supreme out. Once in Fernandina Beach I thought I had snagged something, it was that difficult to break it out.


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

beanctr56 said:


> Also is the Manson as good as the Rocna?


What Manson? They do five or so copies. If you mean their Rocna copy -
About the Manson Supreme Anchor


----------



## beanctr56 (Feb 19, 2003)

Thanks for the info, so the Manson is a knock off of the Rocna. I have not kept up with anchors since I did the anchor of the month with my 28' boat (Forttress, Bulwagga). With my 34' I have a Delta, (Lewmar?) and a Bruce as a back up. The Rocna looks very interesting. Thanks, Rick


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

Vasco said:


> I don't know never having used a Rocna. I do know I've never had a better anchor than the Manson Supreme in 20 years of cruising. In soft mud it's very difficult to break the Supreme out. Once in Fernandina Beach I thought I had snagged something, it was that difficult to break it out.


I'll ditto that. I upgraded from a cqr to a Manson Supreme about 3 years ago and have not been disappointed. While I haven't yet encounted as severe a condition as I anchored under the cqr( a cat 1 hurricane), I have anchored in full gale conditions for several days and the Supreme held fine. Manson is a large company and after talking with both companies I decided that it was a better company than Rocna. After reading many posts here from the Rocna guy I think I made the right decision.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

When you look at the differences it is pretty obvious that the Rocna is a better anchor than the Manson copy. The original is usually a better product. And to buy an inferior product because you don't like someone's attitude is plain stupid.

And Merry Christmas


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I don't know why you think a company that is in the business of copying other people's designs is a better company. Personally, I prefer to support the actual innovators, rather than the thieves that copy their designs. Most copies are generally not as good as the original in any case.



lancelot9898 said:


> I'll ditto that. I upgraded from a cqr to a Manson Supreme about 3 years ago and have not been disappointed. While I haven't yet encounted as severe a condition as I anchored under the cqr( a cat 1 hurricane), I have anchored in full gale conditions for several days and the Supreme held fine. Manson is a large company and after talking with both companies I decided that it was a better company than Rocna. After reading many posts here from the Rocna guy I think I made the right decision.


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

mitiempo said:


> When you look at the differences it is pretty obvious that the Rocna is a better anchor than the Manson copy. The original is usually a better product. And to buy an inferior product because you don't like someone's attitude is plain stupid.
> 
> And Merry Christmas


While I disagree with your assumption that the Manson is an inferior product, I also think that a sales person's attitude is a reflection upon the company and as such I wish you the best should the need arise in getting any warranty service out of a company that allows their marketing people to post such attack on others . The most important aspect of any product is the people who support that product and the trust you put into what is being said. Many claims can be made on these message boards and all must be taken with a grain of salt no matter how slick the marketing.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

I have not seen any claims from Rocna owners that they have
been treated unfairly or rudely by Rocna, unlike Foley engines.
When someone steals a patent the original owner has the right
to point that out and state the differences as Craig Smith did:
About the Manson Supreme Anchor
Unlike the person from Anchor Latina, or something like that, Craig
does not make disparaging comments about other anchors. He
does, however, explain the limitations of other designs backed 
up by independent comparison studies. I don't see this
as an "attitude".

Dabnis


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

lancelot9898 said:


> While I disagree with your assumption that the Manson is an inferior product, I also think that a sales person's attitude is a reflection upon the company and as such I wish you the best should the need arise in getting any warranty service out of a company that allows their marketing people to post such attack on others . The most important aspect of any product is the people who support that product and the trust you put into what is being said. Many claims can be made on these message boards and all must be taken with a grain of salt no matter how slick the marketing.


I agree whole-heartedly!!!

While I have not always agreed with him, Craig Smith's support of the Rocna here on sailnet is one reason that I decided to buy a Rocna. His support is THE reason that I bought the Rocna over the Manson Supreme. Has anyone here ever received any support from anyone affiliated with Manson?


----------



## CaptainForce (Jan 1, 2006)

Wow! 'some dramatic stuff here! I can't imagine such allegiance to ground tackle....and it's as if some may toss in an achor and 100' feet of chain before backing. Of course an anchor is set with an "upward vector" if you're slowly backing when the anchor touches the bottom. None of the canternary reasoning that would make a pull like the test that I still say is flawed unless people are using a poor technique. And, Yes, the anchor's design can compensate for a poor technique. ...and sure, everyone who likes their anchors are justified...and many people drag with poor choices of location, anchor, rode, technique, etc. What's the motivation for all this,- is someone here trying to sell an anchor? Steadfast and holding, Aythya crew


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

dabnis said:


> I have not seen any claims from Rocna owners that they have
> been treated unfairly or rudely by Rocna, unlike Foley engines.
> When someone steals a patent the original owner has the right
> to point that out and state the differences as Craig Smith did:
> ...


I also have not seen anybody complaining about the performance
or durability of their Rocna anchors. I have no affiliation with Rocna
but based on the many positive comments about them I would buy
one if I still had a boat to put it on.

Dabnis


----------



## lickingcardboard (Oct 21, 2010)

Well i am looking into Anchor/s for my next Sailboat, its just a smal;l 25 Mac but i dont want to go out with anything that will not hold her in place, with 24+ years over the road i know how inportant your parking spot can be, i want to find myself in the same place when i wakeup as i was in when i went to sleep, and i see i have more looking thinking and reading to do......at this time sailing area will be the Fl coast and inland lakes. thank you all for you input in here, wish me luck. LnC


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

Duly wished 

But of course it ain't about luck, as you're no doubt aware already, and doing the research for yourself means you're already ahead of the pack!


----------

