# Please Help Me Decided Which IOR Boat



## bizirka (Mar 15, 2011)

Hi Guys and Gals, 

I am new to posting but far from new to this forum. The time has come, I am buying my first "bigger" boat. 

I cannot decide betwen a 1982 San Juan 34 or a 1973 C&C 39. 

The C&C is a proven racer and not easy to single hand, while the San Juan is also fast, it is a fair bit more set up for single handed fast cruising. I am new to racing but have many experienced friends and wish to get involved in our local racing scene. 

I am from the Puget Sound area so light wind performance is a big plus. I also do plan on living on the boat part time. 

As a new user I cannot post links, but the boats are both available at: Marine Service Center in seattle. 


Any discussion will be very helpful!


----------



## Tim R. (Mar 23, 2003)

Consider the Crown 34. It came from the same mold as the SJ34 but was better built.


----------



## olson34 (Oct 13, 2000)

*choices and options*



treilley said:


> Consider the Crown 34. It came from the same mold as the SJ34 but was better built.


Ah Yup. The SJ was not built to the same standards as the Crown product (or a C&C).
I note that there is a C&C34 for sale in Seattle now, and a Maxi also.
Then there's this deal on another modern classic, up North of you a ways...
E 35II for sale - EY.o Information Exchange

Happy hunting,
L


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

The Sceptre 36 is a reworked Crown 34 - another option if that's what you really want. Agree these two are likely better, the older C&C 39 is an interesting, classic boat but I suspect the Crown/Sceptre is a bit more nimble and may well have more space below too. The 39 may not be quite so prone to the typical IOR downwind dance.

The C&C 34 would be rather a different beast from the older 39 - on many levels. Also a nice boat, though.


----------



## YeahJohn (Nov 4, 2010)

This boat is nice... Wauquiez 33 Sailboat, Ready to Cruise.


----------



## bizirka (Mar 15, 2011)

Thanks for the input! Sadly I have looked around and cannot find the crown nor the sceptre in my area, I think my question was more specific to these two boats, if you google marine Servicenter seattle you can see these two boats. 
In reality I would prefer the 39, i like its racing pedigree, but the inside is a bit dated and well used, and the equipment has been repaired as needed for the past 40 years, but never completely reworked. The SJ34 on the other hand has more up to date (expensive) equipment. I will do lots of cruising and will be getting more into racing. 

Thanks for your help!


----------



## bizirka (Mar 15, 2011)

C&C 39
Marine Servicenter - Seattle (Seattle, WA)

SJ34
Marine Servicenter - Seattle (Seattle, WA)

I can post links now!


----------



## bizirka (Mar 15, 2011)

YeahJohn said:


> This boat is nice... Wauquiez 33 Sailboat, Ready to Cruise.


Thanks for the link, I have looked at the boat it is a bit out of my price range, 45K with taxes and haul-out.


----------



## YeahJohn (Nov 4, 2010)

I would go with the San Juan. There are a few owners you can pm... check out this thread if you haven't. http://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-review-purchase-forum/48240-san-juan-34-a.html The SJ34 is 10 years newer, still 30 years old but not 40. I personally like my 80's era boat. Like you said too equipment is everything. You can spend 10k just making sure you have the right safety gear, so make sure flare guns, fire extinguishers etc. are all up to date and included. Also electronics and rigging are a big deal. Make sure that it is all upgraded and decent. On my boat the first few sails I broke every single clutch handle because they had not been touched for a few years. $500 later I had new clutches. If the fuller had gone out that would have been $2500. If you discover a winch in bad that could be more. Obviously you are going to have the boat you choose surveyed along with that look at what you are willing to and not willing to spend money on right away. In the end buy the boat you will be happiest on, or the one your wife likes best?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

You have described this as being a boat that you would like to race and cruise, but like many IOR boats neither of these are especially good boats for either. These were fast boats for their day and their racing rule, but their day and rule was nearly forty years ago. To be competitive, or even get around a race course safely in a breeze, these are both boats that take very skilled helmsmen and large, strong, skilled crews to race well and which are not very competitive without large (in number), high tech sail inventories. Boats like these lose speed easily but are hard to get back to speed and are a real handful in heavier going. 

By the same token, they are not especially good cruising boats (although the C&C 39 is the better of the two) and neither are especially easy boats to sail short handed. 

You might want to step back and rethink how you are approaching this. While I doubt that these are the only two convenient boats within your price range in your area at the moment, I would suggest that there is a reason that these boats relatively inexpensive, but if you take a little time to catch yoru breath, you should be able to find better suited designs within your budget that better suit your stated needs. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## bizirka (Mar 15, 2011)

Thanks for the input!
I should clarify, by race I mean, local beer-can type racing that is more for fun than anything else. By cruise I mean sail up to the san juans for a week max. I know non of these boats are perfect for either, but the last thing I want is a slow boat here in the NW. I read about people with westsails in seattle who rarily get to throw up a sail in the summer months. 

I am trying not to get too excited about any particular boat, I am the type of guy who loves to buy  I mostly want a boat that wont require endless hours of work and money.


----------



## YeahJohn (Nov 4, 2010)

You can get late 90's early 2000's hunters in the 30 to 36 foot range for around your price range. Most people have choice words about them but I think they are pretty sweet deals and fun boats. May be worth a look.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

The local SJ 30 and 34's frankly, do fairly well racing when raced well. As do the 24's, 28's, 21's............

Not sure who you are talking with at MSC, but all of the ones I know are very knowledgeable folks. If it were me, not sure which way I would go. I've always had a fondness since a teen growing up in the area for SJ's, especially the 24....Then again, when I finally looked at one, a bit smaller than my teen brain said it was! altho bigger than the 21cb style boat I was used to or my 8' pram!....but C&C's have for what ever reason also a place in my heart for boats. 

I can not remember what those are selling for, but there might be some other boats better suited. then again, depending upon price, livability etc...

marty


----------



## bizirka (Mar 15, 2011)

I checked out the SJ34 it has 6 foot head room, I am 6'3"...so that is a no go. So any opionions on the C&C 39? How does she sail, is she too old?

Thanks for your comments.


----------



## YeahJohn (Nov 4, 2010)

Did you check out that o'day 34 listed with your broker? 

I think 39k for the C&C a 70's boat is a big risk. Plus that is going to be a lot of boat for you and a friend. May be fun with 8 guys on a friday evening race at the club but besides that...


----------



## bizirka (Mar 15, 2011)

Hi John, 

Why do you think it is a risk? It has had the same owner for the past 29 years, he took really good care of the boat, the latest survey says "the boat is very well maintained with pride of owndership eveiden, etc..." He is selling it because he is getting old. 

I have not checked out that O'day, I am interested to see that boat, it is at another location so I have to wait for the weekend.


----------



## djodenda (Mar 4, 2006)

John:
I really don't know if this is something that you might be interested in. This is a boat being sold by an acquaintance of mine who has "aged out" of local cruising.

I have agreed to manage the Craigslist posting for him.

35' Columbia 10.7 Sailboat

http://home.comcast.net/~djodenda/Columbia_10_7.html


----------



## djodenda (Mar 4, 2006)

That being said, with similar parameters, I wound up with one of these:
1988 CS Merlin Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

I don't know if this meets your price requirements, but she's been a great boat.

Oh, and you are welcome for muddying the waters for you further!


----------



## bizirka (Mar 15, 2011)

I have looked at both of these boats, strongly considered taking a look at the 10.7. The engine hours scared me away. Any insight on the C&C 39?


----------



## YeahJohn (Nov 4, 2010)

Here is a good review on the C&C 39 
C&C 39
You have probably read it.

I would say for me the atomic 4 is the big risk, then again I know a lot of people who love there atomic 4's. It all depends what you are trying to do with the boat. If you just want a fun boat I would say go with something for much less money that will match up well with the C&C in motion comfort and capsize ratio... the only sacrifice would be hull speed. Get a diesel engine and a boat at least from the 80's unless you like 70's boats. If you just want to race and occasionally sleep on your boat then I would say go with the C&C because you will hardly ever be using the atomic 4 anyways. If you are looking to cruise more and race for fun a few times a month, any boat can compete in its specif class, so I would go with something a little more cruiser friendly. Not saying full keel, but just a little more family oriented production boat like a Catalina 320 or a Hunter 33. Also this may help you down the line in comparing boats Sail Calculator Pro v3.53 - 2500+ boats
Even if you were looking to go C&C something like this may be ultimately a better purchase... http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listing/boatMergedDetails.jsp?boat_id=2256434&ybw=&units=Feet&currency=USD&access=Public&listing_id=75315&url=

Plus you may want to try to find a boat for sale by owner or something that you can talk down the price on, by thousands. The C&C 39 seems like it is priced on the low end but you maybe able to get similar 15 years newer and with better equipment for similar cost. Shipping is also kind of affordable if you can find a boat that you have to have. Either way the survey will tell all, so I would not get hopes up, until after survey then decide, based on repair and upgrade cost.


----------



## YeahJohn (Nov 4, 2010)

That Columbia looks fun.


----------



## djodenda (Mar 4, 2006)

John:
3220 hours is not necessarily a bad thing. Depends on how well the engine was maintained and how it was run. In general, an engine like that should be good for 5,000 hours or so.

Of course, that being said, you want to make sure that the engine is in good shape. It would be a killer to replace. I'd get an engine survey for sure.

But I want to make sure there is no conflict of interest here. If you want to speak to the owner, I can set that up. He's a nice guy, and the boat is in Lake Union. I probably shouldn't comment further.

But, to keep things interesting, if you are seriously considering the Merlin, let me know and I will show you mine and take you sailing. The boat is in Edmonds.


----------



## bizirka (Mar 15, 2011)

Thanks for the input guys. Lots to think about.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

I'd go with the 39. I don't care what Jeff says, these boats are stiff in heavy air and will probably out-point and sail the flat bottom boats on upwind legs. They are well built and designed by actual Naval Architects (not wannabees). Where they suffer is in downwind sailing because they are not a planing hull. So you race PHRF and correct your finish time, who freakin cares if the boat is fast off the wind?? Competetive go fast downwind boats that race on non-corrected time (one designs) are for rich folks who have way more money to spend on a boat than someone looking for a 30-50k boat that sails well.

The 39 is a nice looking boat, although the double settee salon looks a bit cramped for her narow hull form (a dinette and single settee would have worked better). I think it would be fine for daysailing and weekending however. Living aboard might be tiny bit cramped but then again it would also make a nice conversion into a bluewater boat because of her construction and hull form. The boat will sail nicely in everything but very light winds (5kts or less). I know; I have a C&C designed Newport 41. You can easily refit that atomic 4 engine with an equivalently sized Beta Marine Diesel (kubota). At 39.5k her asking price is a bit high for her age and condition. You might offer 30 and see if it's accepted.


----------



## zz4gta (Aug 15, 2007)

I wouldn't buy any IOR boat. But that's just me. I don't think the rule promoted sea worthy. Plenty of other boats that are easier to sail with less people and won't go pearshaped in big breeze downwind.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

zz4gta said:


> I wouldn't buy any IOR boat. But that's just me. I don't think the rule promoted sea worthy. Plenty of other boats that are easier to sail with less people and won't go pearshaped in big breeze downwind.


The 73 and my 60's era hull design 41 are *not* IOR designs. They are late CCA and do not suffer from the issues that the *late* IOR boats did. They do get a bit rolly when running downwind with swell in light air but that's about it. I know of more than one C&C 39 has circumnavigated.

The only issue with the 39 is that the hull is balsa cored; but they used plenty of resin back then and very few C&C's have had core failure of the hull. The decks were a bigger problem as is true for all balsa cored decks; the deck hardware allows water to penetrate into the core if there is a leak. This is prevented by epoxy potting the holes while re-bedding or installing new deck hardware.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

If you compare the early C&C 39 to the C&C38MKIII suggested earlier in this thread you'd see the marked difference between the two.. The later 38 is a result of the latter IOR era and has some strong distortions, esp from certain angles that you won't see in the older 39.

I'm sure the 39 is better mannered boat - but probably has 2 feet of more less beam.


----------



## bizirka (Mar 15, 2011)

I agree with the interrior comment, I wish it didnt have the pilot births. I agree they are extremely useful for passage making but I would prefer a better use of the room down below. I guess I cant be too picky when buying an under 40K boat. I just don't want to spend my entire income on upkeep with the hydrolics and the balsa core.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

KeelHaulin said:


> The 73 and my 60's era hull design 41 are *not* IOR designs. They are late CCA and do not suffer from the issues that the *late* IOR boats did. They do get a bit rolly when running downwind with swell in light air but that's about it. I know of more than one C&C 39 has circumnavigated.
> 
> The only issue with the 39 is that the hull is balsa cored; but they used plenty of resin back then and very few C&C's have had core failure of the hull. The decks were a bigger problem as is true for all balsa cored decks; the deck hardware allows water to penetrate into the core if there is a leak. This is prevented by epoxy potting the holes while re-bedding or installing new deck hardware.


I've surveyed ten 39 - 44' older C&C's in the last two years. 8 out of 10 had seriously wet balsa core in the bottom which would cost far more than the value of the boat to repair. Their day is over.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

How do you explain that the original Balsa Cored Hull C&C circa 1965 is still sailing with no core rot? Google "C&C Red Jacket" or go to cncphotoalbum.com and look it up. The boat was inspected several times by removing core sections and no core failure was ever found. What methods did you use to measure 'core moisture'?? If you did not cut core sections and check inside you can't know for sure. Most owners will not allow this to be done; and many boats are incorrectly deemed 'wet' when they are dry as a bone (by surveyors who think a moisture meter is the all telling device to be used on hulls with wet copper clad bottom paint).

I would argue that many of the C&C's that have been wet over the years really were not. I have seen cored C&C's with thru-hulls that go directly through the balsa core with no potting have internal cores that are just fine.

If you have a C&C surveyed find a surveyor who specializes in the inspection of cored hulls!!


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

KeelHaulin said:


> How do you explain that the original Balsa Cored Hull C&C circa 1965 is still sailing with no core rot? Google "C&C Red Jacket" or go to cncphotoalbum.com and look it up. The boat was inspected several times by removing core sections and no core failure was ever found. What methods did you use to measure 'core moisture'?? If you did not cut core sections and check inside you can't know for sure. Most owners will not allow this to be done; and many boats are incorrectly deemed 'wet' when they are dry as a bone (by surveyors who think a moisture meter is the all telling device to be used on hulls with wet copper clad bottom paint).
> 
> I would argue that many of the C&C's that have been wet over the years really were not. I have seen cored C&C's with thru-hulls that go directly through the balsa core with no potting have internal cores that are just fine.
> 
> If you have a C&C surveyed find a surveyor who specializes in the inspection of cored hulls!!


I have never relied on moisture meters as an absolute answer. I much prefer to rely on my hammer. When the hammer sounds like it it hitting a leather armchair..... the balsa is rotten. I have also seen dozens of balsa cored bottoms opened up over the years and have yet to be mistaken in my conclusions. I guess Red Jacket was one of the 2 in 10


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Yeah... And you guys running around with hammers are the reason for so many delaminated cores and blistered hulls...

How many of the 8 boats are the same ones over, and over again??


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

KeelHaulin said:


> Yeah... And you guys running around with hammers are the reason for so many delaminated cores and blistered hulls...
> 
> How many of the 8 boats are the same ones over, and over again??


Let me guess......C&C owner eh!


----------



## sailordave (Jun 26, 2001)

djodenda said:


> That being said, with similar parameters, I wound up with one of these:
> 1988 CS Merlin Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com
> 
> I don't know if this meets your price requirements, but she's been a great boat.
> ...


David, I like the CS MERLIN and I race on a CS 40, both Castro designs.

I am curious though, that oh so short traveller looks to be about useless. Does it really function?

BTW the CS36M is on my short list!


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

Check out the CS36T (T= traditional ) a much stronger boat than the 36M


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

slap said:


> George Cuthbertson and George Cassian were not Naval Architects. George Cuthbertson was a Mechanical Engineer, and George Cassian was an Aircraft Designer.


George Cuthbertson is not was. at 82 I still see him around.


----------



## djodenda (Mar 4, 2006)

sailordave said:


> David, I like the CS MERLIN and I race on a CS 40, both Castro designs.
> 
> I am curious though, that oh so short traveller looks to be about useless. Does it really function?
> 
> BTW the CS36M is on my short list!


Dave: Happy to share any information on my Merlin that you wish.

Yes, the traveler is crazy-short. In the original configuration, it was on the bridgedeck, which was great for traveler efficiency, but made fitting a dodger impossible.

The boat has a strong, rigid boomvang, which helps. The short traveler hasn't been a big deal, but you can bet I'd move it back forward if I didn't want/need a traveler.

Boatpoker: Hey, stop picking on my boat! 

But, seriously, boatpoker knows the Merlin well. He will tell you that many of them have a problem with the hull liner moving and other issues. If you are seriously considering one, make sure that the surveyor is familiar with the boat and those issues. BoatPoker gave me some great advice during my search.

Merlins also have a reputation for pounding in a chop due to their flat bottom. I find the resultant shallow bilge annoying. Still, though, I love how the boat sails and am delighted with her. She sails like a dream.. or at least way better than my old Catalina 30.

I went with the Merlin instead of the CS36 Traditional because I wanted the aft cabin.

Good luck!


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

slap said:


> George Cuthbertson and George Cassian were not Naval Architects. George Cuthbertson was a Mechanical Engineer, and George Cassian was an Aircraft Designer.


So you don't think a mechanical engineer and an airfoil designer (think keel design) were qualified?? Don't forget about Hinterholler who pioneered fiberglass hull construction and coring with balsa...


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

boatpoker said:


> Let me guess......C&C owner eh!


No, Newport 41 owner. It's a C&C hull design but the hull is not balsa cored.


----------



## sailordave (Jun 26, 2001)

djodenda said:


> Dave: Happy to share any information on my Merlin that you wish.
> 
> Yes, the traveler is crazy-short. In the original configuration, it was on the bridgedeck, which was great for traveler efficiency, but made fitting a dodger impossible.
> 
> ...


Yeah,I like the look of the 36T also, just was familiar w/ the Castro design from having raced on the 40. Thanks for the heads up on the liner issues. I really dislike liners for a variety of reasons but whatya gonna do? (other than buy a really old boat?) 
Aft cabin is nice but not a necessity. 
I really hate this searching for boat stuff; too many boats I like have some very undesirable characteristic. Sometimes it's even the $$$:laugher

sigh.

Thanks, D


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

I really don't understand why you feel the need to debate the merits of a design group (Naval Architecture Firm) who was one of the most successful of their era. Cuthburtson has his roots in building boats since he was in his his late teens. Revise my comment to "Yacht Architects" if you wish:

The History of C&C


Dan Spurr said:


> A tale of two designers, three builders, and the publicly held company that crossed the Canadian border to compete with America's best racers and builders - and won.
> 
> C&C YACHTS, THE LARGEST-EVER builder of sailboats in Canada, was named for two of its founding partners, George Cuthbertson and George Cassian, both yacht designers. But the story of C&C Yachts runs far deeper, to George Hinterhoeller, to two other boatbuilding firms - Belleville Marine Yards and Bruckmann Manufacturing - and to a stockbroker who had the bright idea of bringing them all together to form a single company that would shape and profoundly affect the entire North American sailboat industry. A number of the company's innovative building techniques were widely adopted by others. C&Cs rakish designs and lightweight construction excelled on the racecourse and were cruised by many families around the Great Lakes and around the world.


Sorry, I think I made the mistake of saying that Cuthburtson worked for S&S (although his boats waxed their designs on several occasions), and he may not have been a Mechanical Engineer either (no reference to it in the above article). But he was one hell of a Yacht Designer (and some Engineers who revere his work might even be willing to grace him with the title "Naval Architect").


----------



## slap (Mar 13, 2008)

I've deleted my posts on this thread because the thread was drifting off topic.


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

Just a thought for the OP. Just remember that running a 39' boat is expotentially more expensive than a 34'. Don't underestimate this cost. Price out a new halyard, traveller system, bottom paint, or headsail for a reality check.


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

Jeff_H said:


> You have described this as being a boat that you would like to race and cruise, but like many IOR boats neither of these are especially good boats for either. These were fast boats for their day and their racing rule, but their day and rule was nearly forty years ago. To be competitive, or even get around a race course safely in a breeze, these are both boats that take very skilled helmsmen and large, strong, skilled crews to race well and which are not very competitive without large (in number), high tech sail inventories. Boats like these lose speed easily but are hard to get back to speed and are a real handful in heavier going.
> 
> By the same token, they are not especially good cruising boats (although the C&C 39 is the better of the two) and neither are especially easy boats to sail short handed.
> 
> ...


 I respectfully say that there are many good old IOR boats that are happily and successfully cruised (and quickly!) in many parts of the world. Many have lost their 'winch farms' and have been upgraded with much better sail handling gear, clutches, reefing systems, etc.. than their original equipment. Sure, you need a lot of weight on the rail at the top end of a large headsail to keep a boat flat and race fast, but this is by no means exclusive to IOR designs. And yes, racing sail inventories still require several jibs and spins to be competitive unless there are class limits. This again is by no means exclusive to IOR boats. For cruising and race deliveries, shorten sail. Everything will be fine. The C&C rigs are not spindly little things that are runner dependent, so that isn't and issue. These boats will still charge upwind racing or cruising. Downwind? Who is pushing a boat under spinnaker while cruising anywhere near the limits that one would racing? This is where the 'IOR boat stink downwind' doesn't really hold water. Racing? Sure. They can be a handful and require a deft touch on the helm, though many of the Farr IOR designs sail quite well downwind even when pushed. Cruising? Not so much. Of course not all IOR designs are good converts to cruisers, particular many of the custom one offs, but many of the production boats are absolutely fine and provide a lot of bang for the buck to their owners. IOR rule driven hull designs have many iterations. Some excellent, some kooky, but beware of vast generalizations. Baby, bathwater... that sort of thing. OK, end of my small 'r' rant.  Of course I have to say, your Farr 11.6 is a very nice boat indeed!

To the OP, I've seen the C&C 39 you're interested in many times before it was on the market. I'm pretty sure it's been nearly a one owner boat, but most certainly needs a good deal of upgrading and love. I'm guessing you could spend 25-35k right off the bat sorting things out as Jeff alludes. _(For the amount of money you're going to spend on this boat after purchase, it would be cheaper to make a deal and buy the Express 37 that's listed and you'd have one of the best racer cruisers available even 20+ years after the fact!)_

As a design (the C&C is a very early IOR mkI design), it could be great for cruising and is very sea worthy, but will need breeze to be competitive racing even assuming an updated sail inventory. This will be a major expense as it is for any boat that you're intending to race. I'm sure there are better examples on the market if you're patient.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Another boat recently listed at the same place, is the Jeanneau Sunshine 38. Not as fast as the Express, but a very capable boat none the less. I own a 30' version of it, same designer etc. The Express would be the best boat if it is affordable at that dealer for an all around boat. The Jeanneau would be the nicest interior. I may know who the current owner of that boat is.....

Marty


----------

