# 1971 C&C 35 is a "Go" or "NO Go"



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

I found a 1971 C&C 35 in my area for 14K. Cosmetically, she is in bad shape and comes with no sails. Is it worth of rebuilding this boat say spending $20K or so in 12 to 18 months time? I am handy and with tools, so I can do a lot myself. 

Is she worth to save? Can she takes me to Blue water and is likely to bring me back alive?


----------



## FrankLanger (Dec 27, 2005)

Doesn't sound like a good deal to me, if she's as rough as you indicate.
Frank.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

rockdawg, it might or might not be a good deal. I like the "no sails" because it means the seller KNOWS there are no sails, and you don't have to pay for decade old rags. You can start with new good ones.

On the other hand...what's "rough"? Assuming the hull and deck are chalky and you're willing to live with that, instead of doing a repaint? That might be tolerable. But how's the engine? Electrics? Other systems?

Take a look at Yachtworld or any boat listings, see what a really top notch C&C35 is selling for, no problems, ready to sail. Now, make up a list of what you need to match that, with prices for all the equipment AND a labor schedule. I like to figure labor on a 3-way split. I'll cheat and let Excel do the numbers<G>. Best case / best guess / pro labor.
Best case is called "Maybe it just needs to be tightened up" or "I only need to drop in a new...". Best guess is what I suspect it really will take, the value of my time, at my rate, if I do the labor. That's a very personal and individual number, some folks figure their own work is worth $6.50/hour, others actually make $150/hr. And the "pro labor" rate is what a yard would quote you, i.e. if you ask them to paint your bottom and they say "$600 for paint, $4500 for labor" that's the labor figure.

When you add up all the parts, add another 10% for the inevitable, and add each of the three labor totals. Compare your three totals to what the boat sells for in prime condition. Now, you'll see if it might be a bargain.

And that's assuming you, or a surveyor, have looked close. Keel bolts, engine, rigging...if the bones are sound and clean and you're just getting a "stripped" boat at a good price, GREAT. Gives you the chance to make it your way.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Agree with "Hello", it really depends on exactly what you mean by "in bad shape".
Bad cosmetics can be dealt with and are a great way to get basic quality for a reduced price.

The trick is making sure that the deficiencies are indeed cosmetic, and that they don't hide more serious underlying issues. A good C&C 35 of that vintage would list around $30-40K in this area depending on condition.

Have a REAL GOOD look at what's what.


----------



## FrankLanger (Dec 27, 2005)

I agree that a good C&C of that vintage would sell for about 30,000 - 40,000. If he is buying for 14,000, and wanting to put another 20,000 into it, he is spending that 30 - 40K, having to do all the work or organize for it to be done, and still not be much further ahead. Granted, he would have newer/replaced components, though 20K wouldn't buy much more than new engine, sails and a few odds and ends. I still don't think it's a great buy given other options and the uncertainty of what it will cost to make it a good boat.
Frank.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Frank, the only major thing I'd disagree on is that no $30-40,000 boat in the 35; range is going to some with a couple of new sails. Usually, by the time a boat is that old and has hit that price range, the owner has put off the purchase for so long that at best they'll be "decent" five year olds. Gotta figure, what, a fast rough $5500 for a main and 150? Give or take (and more easily give<G>) a couple grand for season and loft?


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

Gentlemen, I really appreciate you taking time to share you thoughts. Obviously, it is impossible to say Go or no Go. But I hope through this informal discussion I can gain a bit more knowledge in buying a right boat for me to take her to the oceans.

I know there were quite a few sentiments suggested to buy a boat that meets your need rather to buy a boat and fix her up to meet your need. Personally, I would rather buy a boat to rebuild her so that I know every bolts and nuts on her. 

Let take this C&C 35 MK1 as an example. FWIW, I pay 14K and spend 1 year to restore her completely. I will rebuild the engine and all interior work plus the top deck. I will sand blast the hull and have professional do the painting ($125/ft). I estimate I need 10K for sails and hull paint. I will put another 15K for other stuff (not sure is enough). In this case, I spend $40K for a relative new boat. 

On the other hand if I buy a relative well taken care of C&C 35 MK1 for 35 to 40K, and take her out in the ocean. I still do not know the boat. I would rather have a boat that I know her inside and out. If I am in the middle of the ocean when something goes wrong, I cannot wait until I get to the port. 

May be I was/am a hardcore Jeeper. There is a saying: Jeeps are built—not bought. In a way, I do believe that. Self reliance is essential for survival either on the top of 13K feet mountain in Colorado or in the middle of Atlantic.


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

I did a search, not much info I could find regarding C&C 35 MK1 on ocean crossing. The only thing I have found is a paragraph by Jeff H. He praised this boat and said she was a boat ahead of her time. Does anyone can chime in more on this?

Between CS and C&C, which one can survive better in the open ocean?

As always...... thanks


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

'DawgThe C&C 35 and the CS (I'm assuming 36?) are boats from different eras in design and are in very different market segments. CS36Ts still regularily command prices in the $90Ks CDN if well kept. The BEST kept C&C35 Mk1 might go to 45/50K but it would have to be pristine and updated to the max. Even the CS33 still commands prices in excess of the C&C 35 Mk1, in the $50K plus range.I know of CS36Ts that have made many ocean passages without trouble, and I know of a C&C 35 Mk1 that did a major passage to Alaska, the Aleutians and back across the Gulf of Alaska to the Queen Charlottes a few years back. I think both designs are inherently capable, it comes down to individual condition, equipment and the crew.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Rockdawg, the other thing that comes to mind about C&C is that they are usually rod rigging. That's a good thing (arguably<G>) but it also means you need to do a rigging inspection a little differently, check for stresses at the rod ends, and to see the ball fittings aloft haven't frozen or chewed into the mast. As with any rigging, if you're planning to go deepwater with it, and it is over 20 years old, you might want to replace it all before you head out.

In the last few years there's been more of a consensus that no matter how good rigging looks, no matter what kind it is, after 20 years even the best of it from the best of climates probably needs replacing.


----------



## jgeissinger (Feb 25, 2002)

There is a 1971 C&C 35 on Boat Trader right now that needs NO cosmetic work for $18,000, and that's the asking price. I'm sure it will sell for less. A '71 is an old boat, and lots and lots of little things need repair. There is no way I would ever pay anything even close to $30K for a 35 footer that's 35 years old. There is just too much else out there to choose from. By the same token, $14K for a major fixer upper that old is a no deal.


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

Not thrilled with the bolt-on keel.


----------



## yotphix (Aug 18, 2006)

Seabreeze
Is this an unusual bolt on keel? Or do you mean you would only consider one of the very few boats with an encapsulated keel?


----------



## yotphix (Aug 18, 2006)

http://www.boatus.com/jackhornor/sail/C&C35.htm
a review if you haven't found it yet


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Bolt-on keels (normally called just external keels) are the norm for larger sailboats. C&C are famous for "the C&C smile" meaning their keel attachments are designed on the lighter side for racing, and often open up a little bit. Which also means you'd check the rear of the keel carefully, because in a grounding the rear pushed up and back and the damage would be most apparent. But structurally...that's how ocean racers normally are built, with external keels, bolted on.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

jgeissinger said:


> There is a 1971 C&C 35 on Boat Trader right now that needs NO cosmetic work for $18,000, and that's the asking price. I'm sure it will sell for less. A '71 is an old boat, and lots and lots of little things need repair. There is no way I would ever pay anything even close to $30K for a 35 footer that's 35 years old. There is just too much else out there to choose from. By the same token, $14K for a major fixer upper that old is a no deal.


That one must have sold, the cheapest one tonight--and the only 35 they show tonight--is:

"Onancock, VA $32,000 
1971 C&C MARK I 35' 0'' 1971 C&C 35 MARK 1 SAILBOAT. THIS BOAT JUST WON THE 2004 BERMUDA RACE! FULLY CERTIFIED IN MEETING ORO CATEGORY 2 RACING STANDARDS. COMPLETELY RE-WIRED AND RE-RIGGED. GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS:  LENGTH: 35  BEAM: 10 - 8  DRAFT: 5 - 3  BRIDGE CLEARANCE:  ENGINE: ATOMIC 4 GAS  CRUISING SPEED: 6.5 KNOTS  MAXIMUM SPEED: 15 KNOTS+  FUEL CAPACITY: 18 GALLON\&#8230; "

Which still isn't bad for a Bermuda Race winner, Atomic4 or otherwise.


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

Well, it's just that. I'm not thrilled about the bolt-in keel. If I were a racer, it would be fine, but for a long-term ownership day-in, day-out boat, I'm not thrilled with a bolt-in.


----------



## yotphix (Aug 18, 2006)

Seebreeze, that means most fiberglass and all wood boats are not good enoug for you. An encapsulated keel outside of metal boats is a rare thing. Notwithstanding hellosailors account of the candc smile, most bolt on keels give decades of service without significant attention. Though I recently refaired my 33 year old keel hull joint I did it for cosmetic rather than structural reasons, the joint being as solid as the day it was made. Again, unless you specifically mean that this particular bolt on keel doesn't thrill you I can't imagine how limited boat shopping becomes if you discount them all!


----------



## FrankLanger (Dec 27, 2005)

The C&C "smile"--ie. slight crack at the keel/hull joint is well-known, but many other boats also develop a slight crack there. Does anyone have any knowledge or information as to what effect this has on the keel bolts over time? I am assuming that the slightly open joint must let some saltwater in; as stainless bolts corrode to some extent without the protective aspect of oxygen (which is likely in short supply inside the keel/hull area), are these boats more prone to corroding keel bolts? Did C&C suggest any ongoing maintenance for them, aside from periodic inspection or rebedding?
So how much of a concern is a crack at the keel/hull joint?
Thanks,
Frank.


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

It doesn't mean they're not "good enough" it just means it's not something I like. I do prefer the encapsulated ballast. Running aground isn't as big an ordeal. I've seen what happens to a a grounded boat when the bolted keel gets ripped out. The boat sinks, immediately. So, in the list of features, bolt-ins aren't my preferred setup.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Seabreeze, did you ever see what happens when a big boat with an encapsulated keel (like a Pearson 424) runs aground and punches a whole in the keel capsule?

It floods and sinks anyway!

Most of them are *not* filled in and even when they are filled, they are *not* designed to be waterproof when hit, the 'sealant' is usually just bedding to keep the keep from shifting.

Plus, an encapsulated keel now becomes a safety problem, because there's no good grounding path for a lightning strike. Ooops. With an encapsualted keel, a lightning strike blows holes through the keel sheath like a shotgun on steriods. Then you sink anyway.

There's a big difference between grounding, and ripping the keel out. No matter how the keel is designed and built. One might suggest, if you are worried about grounding damage?

You need to get a metal boat, a chart, and stay in deeper water.<G>


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

If you hit something that hard, an encapsulated keel is going to open up as well...

Unless the boat is severely neglected, the keel falling off is beyond the "norm". way beyond.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

How to do keel repairs:
With an external keel, you unbolt it, make a simple repair, rebolt it.

With an encapsulated keel:
First you TAKE OFF THE DECK <G> so you can remove the keel ballast.
Then you do the simple repair, lower the ballast back in, rebed it. Wait, might have to trim it down a bit to fit now. Rebed it, and "just" reinstall the deck on the boat.

Ohwait, I forgot, you have to UNRIG the entire boat before you take the deck off, and rerig it afterwards.

Sound about right Paul?<G>

Hmmm.....Maybe keel bolts ain't so bad?


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

You know, it's amazing to me how bent-out-of-shape you guys are getting over my not liking bolt-on keels. I prefer other ways of handling that issue. Get over it.


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

hello,
yup, thats about it...
look, its not that I don't like encapsulated keels, they're fine. My little thorn is the logic you state is not really valid. If you want a encapsulated keel, go nuts, have one. Its fine by me, I've got no dog in this hunt. When a failure comes because your opinion was that it couldn't happen, then well, thats on you. 

If you can provide empirical evidence that provides data that encapsulated keels are in some way superior, bring it forth, otherwise it's just personal preference. There is NOTHING wrong with personal preference at all. I base my decisions on it. Who doesn't? But I'll wager that the scenario that you painted regarding the bolt-on being ripped off, the same result would happen with an encapsulated keel. 

The purpose of the divergent opinions is to offer insight, experience, and informed opinions. Just because you don't like the answers given is of no consequence. Theres nothing to really "get over. "

As an attorney once told me, "Don't ask a question when you don't know the answer." (and I don't like lawyers) Point being, its ok that you like encapsulated keels. I like them too. I also like bolt-ons. 
The keel attachment method, in almost all instances, matters very little, in real world, long-term, day-to-day operations.


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

I dunno. You see something, and just don't like it. Whatever. I guess the ripped keel thing is a bit dramatic, but I'd guess at least if that happened, most likely you'd be pretty close to shore. Worse would be when they drop off at sea without hitting anything. Just "Crack!" and I guess the rapid flipping over would bug me. If a builder follows Nevin's Rule the bolt-in keel would have a 40:1 safety margin. That's my kind of excess margin. Still, there's just something about 'em. Even when all the numbers add up.....something about 'em that just doesn't sit well with me. Nothing personal to those who have them. I will not eat green eggs and ham.


----------



## Rockter (Sep 11, 2006)

To each his own.... but for heaven's sake don't mention keel bolts made from stainless steel.

I got my knuckled wrapped because I was very cautious of stainless steel keelboats.

My ears are still ringing.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

I have several comments on the C&C smile and bolt-on keels. First understand that the so-called crack always represented a trivial cosmetic issue. C&C owners would fair it annually because only to feed their performance demon, after all they own C&Cs. There would be 4-5 inches of in-place sealant between the superficial crack and the first pair of keelbolts, I doubt that any moisture from the "crack" ever reached a keelbolt. I suspect of the thousands of '60-'70s C&C owners, few or no owners of a fin keel ever experienced a leak around a keelbolt (other owners please feel free to chip in otherwise...). The keel attachments on these boats (first and second generation C&Cs) were extremely robust - the keels bolted to a fiberglass stub/base certainly formed from an 1"+ of solid laminate. During our years racing and cruising a C&C 30 Mark I we hit many a rock at hull speed plus. These impacts could put a baseball-sized divot in the lead keel, but even then the C&C smile was no bigger than that following a season with no such incidents. I do not believe that any form of operational impact or accident could rip a keel off a C&C, and I'd bet with thousands of boats, that has never happened (readers again feel free to chip in...). The only way a keel could come off a C&C would be to take the mounting stub with it, by seperating the entire stub laminate from the surrounding hull. I am sure that C&Cs aground in a seaway where continuing wave motion has broken the boat apart, resulting in a seperated keel stub, with the keel itself still tightly bolted on the stub.
I share this opinion only because strength and quality of construction found in the '60-'70 C&Cs (and similar boats from builders like Cal, Tartan, Pearson and Sabre) are characteristics owners greatly valued, and should be recognized. There are other things to worry about in this age /type of boat, but this ain't one of them...


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

Fool, 

Amen!

Some Catalinas have smiles as well. It really isn't "that" big of a deal.

And who is the moron using SS keel bolts? LOLOLOLOL???????????

Just KIDDING!!!!!!!!


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Seabreeze?
Bent of out shape? Heck no, I suspect most of the rest are, like me, ROFLMAO that anyone could be afraid of bolted-on keels. But, perhaps we are just easily amused.<G>

Last time I heard of "Worse would be when they drop off at sea without hitting anything." was...geee...20 years ago? When the owner of Hunter Yachts (Warren Luhrs? IIRC) was racing in his custom-designed Thursday's Child and the keel did indeed fall off. Or when Coyote went Transatlantic, I quite forget why she lost her keel and went belly-up, but in both situations what you are looking at is a tricked-out one-off racing boat, intentionally built to be just strong enough to last through the races--and not a production design. Coyote was a new design with new materials all around, and also took structural damage to her bow from simply smacking into too many waves, IIRC. I've totally forgotten but both issues may have been related to early failures of carbon- or other exotic FRP composites. Something akin to the way that Airbus crashed in Rockaway NY (out of JFK) a couple of years ago when the entire TAIL fell off the plane. Another FRP production failure, and one hopes Airbus knows more about composites than most racing yacht designers do. Then again, I have a friend who simply won't fly Airbus.

Racing boats (like race cars) are built under the philosophy "if nothing broke, you built it too damn slow and heavy". What may be confusing you, is mistaking one design choice (keel type) with a different design choice (speed versus durability).

I can't think of *any* single incident where a production boat's keel has simply "they drop off at sea without hitting anything." None. Never. Even the old junkers where negligent owners have allowed keel bolts to corrode, with the possible exception of the boats where "well, I ran the bilge pump for a couple of hours a day for the past five years, but gee, I didn't think there was anything wrong with the keel." Not that I recall ever hearing about one of those, either.

Well, there was one, but that was after a giant narwal gored it several times and punctured the hull, Jules Verne wrote about the incident very clearly, that same narwal sank a number of naval vessels before being seen in a battle with a giant kraken and disappearing in a whirlpool.<VBG>


----------



## Gene T (May 23, 2006)

I have been mildly amused by this discussion too. Kind of like listening to keel or deck stepped mast opinions. Personally I won't own a boat with teak toe rails.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Yargh, another purist! I won't have teak toes on me peg leg, neither. Frills for girlie men.<G>


----------



## Sonofasonofasailor (Feb 22, 2006)

seabreeze_97 said:


> You know, it's amazing to me how bent-out-of-shape you guys are getting over my not liking bolt-on keels. I prefer other ways of handling that issue. Get over it.


SB97 I think that if you were more forthcoming with why it is that you don't like the bolt-on keel, or if you shared what you prefer instead it may not be such a big issue with others.


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

Thanks for all the input. I guess this particular C&C is not a good buy. That is OK. I still have time.

The side track on encapsulated vs. bolt-on was a surprise. Although it is heated debate but everyone is good and civilized. I love this type open discussion. It allows me to draw my own conclusion what my boat should be. Thank you Guys!


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

HelloSailor... while I agree in general with the premise that bolt on vs. encapsulated doesn't matter...you said:
*I can't think of *any* single incident where a production boat's keel has simply "they drop off at sea without hitting anything." None. Never. Even the old junkers where negligent owners have allowed keel bolts to corrode, with the possible exception of the boats where "well, I ran the bilge pump for a couple of hours a day for the past five years, but gee, I didn't think there was anything wrong with the keel." Not that I recall ever hearing about one of those, either.*

*I guess you are not familiar with this problem which affected quite a few boats *
*"Keel failure on Bavaria 42 Match * A group of Hungarians were partaking in an amateur regatta in stormy 
conditions in the Adriatic recently, in a fleet of virtually new chartered 
Bavaria 42 Matches. The keel fell off one, resulting in the death of a 
crewmember. Three other boats suffered rudder damage. Other boats reported 
that it became impossible to open the cabin doors while underway due to hull 
flexing.

http://www.sailing.hu/cikkek/vitorlazas_turazas/charter_hajozas/bavaria_havaria/

Report in German, in case you can't read Hungarian ;-)
http://www.seglermagazin.de/?id=4089

There have been other reports (here and elsewhere) of the dangerously flimsy 
construction standards of Bavarias. Very scary boats!"

In fairness I would note that the factory has recognized a defect in construction and provided a fix for existing boats. Does not inspire confidence though! 
*

*


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

Meanwhile, a little closer to home.....
http://www.thelog.com/news/newsview.asp?c=179603
And the coroner's, ahem, metalurgists report.....
http://www.sailinganarchy.com/general/2003/shock40keel.htm
Interesting, no?


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

sailingfool said:


> I have several comments on the C&C smile and bolt-on keels. First understand that the so-called crack always represented a trivial cosmetic issue. C&C owners would fair it annually because only to feed their performance demon, after all they own C&Cs. There would be 4-5 inches of in-place sealant between the superficial crack and the first pair of keelbolts, I doubt that any moisture from the "crack" ever reached a keelbolt. I suspect of the thousands of '60-'70s C&C owners, few or no owners of a fin keel ever experienced a leak around a keelbolt (other owners please feel free to chip in otherwise...). The keel attachments on these boats (first and second generation C&Cs) were extremely robust - the keels bolted to a fiberglass stub/base certainly formed from an 1"+ of solid laminate. During our years racing and cruising a C&C 30 Mark I we hit many a rock at hull speed plus. These impacts could put a baseball-sized divot in the lead keel, but even then the C&C smile was no bigger than that following a season with no such incidents. I do not believe that any form of operational impact or accident could rip a keel off a C&C, and I'd bet with thousands of boats, that has never happened (readers again feel free to chip in...). The only way a keel could come off a C&C would be to take the mounting stub with it, by seperating the entire stub laminate from the surrounding hull. I am sure that C&Cs aground in a seaway where continuing wave motion has broken the boat apart, resulting in a seperated keel stub, with the keel itself still tightly bolted on the stub.
> I share this opinion only because strength and quality of construction found in the '60-'70 C&Cs (and similar boats from builders like Cal, Tartan, Pearson and Sabre) are characteristics owners greatly valued, and should be recognized. There are other things to worry about in this age /type of boat, but this ain't one of them...


I agree. Many never get it. I have a '79 C&C 36 (on the market) that never showed signs of a smile.


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

seabreeze...

nice articles, but I doubt you're looking at a 1800 lb, canting keel, 40ft race boat, are you? 

and it was the weld on the struts that failed... ON A PURPOSELY BUILT SPECIAL DESIGN RACE BOAT. 
not a cruiser.. unless you're into that kind of thing...
bavarias...well known problem.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Seabreeze-
As Paul points out, Schockazulu is a one-off custom racer. "Tom Schock's own Schock 40 SchockaZulu. ...
...Dr. Praful Patel, the metallurgist at Smith Emery, has determined that the strut of SchockaZulu broke off because of four cracks in the welds."

That was NOT a "bolt on keel" that was an active moving system which failed.

And that, by the way, is why BOLT-ON KEELS are bolted on, so they don't have to rely on welding. The issue of "proper" welding and crack inspection is well known and documented in that trade. When Exxon-Mobil went to repair their MARS platform, one of the biggest oil platforms damaged after Katrina in the Gulf, they flew in teams of some of the most experienced high-tech welders in the world to make crucial repairs. And, once the inspection team got done examining the welds? They still had to tear apart large sections and redo the job, because the welds were not done correctly.

That keel was related to a conventional bolt-on keel in the same way that a top-fuel dragster is related to a Model T Ford.

Just ain't the same animals. And, neither one of those cars could make it cross-country today, on or off road. They were never built for such a "simple" trip.

As to the Bavaria 40 "match" special edition boats? I'm not sure I'd call a special *new* model of match racers production boats. The various bits of article say " The technical primary investigation found out: The error is of the same origin, it results from the structural weakness. The injury of the ships is to be due thus to the error in the draft and in production. " and that some apparently were built with two reinforcement plates instead of the three found on others. This sounds like the old problem of quality control combined with "racing boats" being built too light. I have no idea if Bavaria builds to Lloyds' or ABYC specification--but I expect you will find they are not built to the same specifications as the boats generally in the US market.

If you read the reports, and notice the surprise in them, consider that folks were surprised by these failures PRECISELY because keel failures in production boats are so extremely rare and "it just doesn't happen!" type of events.

Or, perhaps it is simply a batch of Bavarians still mad about losing WW1 and 2. <G>

It doesn't make me worry about keels, but it sure does tell me I won't want to look at anything Bavaria has built.


----------



## catamount (Sep 8, 2002)

rockDAWG said:


> Thanks for all the input. I guess this particular C&C is not a good buy. That is OK. I still have time.


Sorry I came to this thread late. That particular C&C may not be a good buy at $14K _BUT_ that's only the asking price. You don't know what the seller will actually take until you make an offer. What if you could get it for, say, $5K?

As for whether the design is suitable for the ocean, I would say yes.

Regards,

Tim


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*too much knowledge...*

I currently own an S2 11.0A and have thoughts of cranking it up a notch to a blue water boat in the 40 foot range. The problem is as you learn more about design especially as at relates to used boats you start seeing the flaws in every design and you realize every design is a compromise and every used boat has problems. At some point you just have to jump in and go for it. I suppose a Shannon 43 also has some peoblems.


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

catamount said:


> Sorry I came to this thread late. That particular C&C may not be a good buy at $14K _BUT_ that's only the asking price. You don't know what the seller will actually take until you make an offer. What if you could get it for, say, $5K?
> 
> As for whether the design is suitable for the ocean, I would say yes.
> 
> ...


Tim, thanks for the input. Based on the broker, the seller is unlikely to lower much. I will continue to look more. I certainly will keep C&C in mind when I look. Tartan, CS, Valiant and Caliber are also in my scope. But valiant and Caliber might be a bit beyond my reach for now. I will have two kids in college next year with a price tag of $44K each is tough for the old man - a total of more than $350K. I guess I'm just too poor to buy a decent boat, but am too rich for my kids to recevie any financial aids from the university. Oh well..... just 4 more years we will be done. I hope we don't have to pay for Grad or Med school.


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

Dawg, Dawg, Dawg...

Where is your head?????
total outlay for college for the kiddos....
3.00 for two additions of the Sunday paper, help wanted section.
2.00 for two highlighters for said paper. 
show them where the bank is and say these magic words... "student loan"
show them a picture of a grocery store, point, and say these magic words...
"ramen noodles". 
Pat them on the head, kiss them on the cheek, give them the number of a bailbondsman and a lawyer.....wave like you mean it as you drive away.... Sell the house, sell the car...
Now you have the scratch to buy a MUCH BIGGER boat, to be gone for MONTHS at a time. 
go just far enough offshore so the cellfone doesn't reach.


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

Hey Paul, that is a good one; you crack me up. I have to show it to my kids when they tell me that their school mates drive M3 or Cayman and all they have the handed-down and beat-up Acura from my sister.


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

cuz i know about those...

heres what happened not tooo long ago. 
my spawn just turned 16, so its time for the Drivers lic. thing. 
ok, to get a permit, you need to go thru drivers ed. so, the driving school is is 4 miles from the house. 
I tell the boy, "you're 16, you can ride your bike to the driving school and back." 
Mom says, and I quote:
"Can't you drive him, 4 miles is a long way to go on a bike. "
My response is... "He's a wrestler, he runs further than that every day"
her retort: "It's too dangerous to ride a bike that far"
my response: "So, You're ok with letting him drive a 4000 lb car, but not peddling his bike up the sidewalk. the 18 speed, titanium alloy frame one hes been riding for oh, 5 years." 

I got that doe-eyes in the headlights look. 

Upshot, he didn't do to driving school this summer. 

Now school starts, and driving school starts again. 
Driving school is one mile away from his highschool, classes start one hour after he's out of highschool.
Mom says, "can you pick him up at school and take him to driving school?"
I respond... "let me get this straight, you want me to drive 9 miles one way, pick up the boy, deliver him one mile away then drive 9 miles back home, is that right?" 
Mom says "yeah"

I wonder when the cranial-rectal inversion happened. 
The boy now walks that one mile to driving school. 

This sense of "entitlement" is what gets me. I tell him to mow the lawn, he says "what am I going to get paid" without missing a beat, I say "lunch".

The boy loses his sneakers... What? didn't you have your feet with you most of the day? where the hell did your 90.00 sneakers go? Did you come home bare-footed? Did you pull a Rip Van Winkle and they were gone after you woke up from your nap? response ... blank stare... like I'm from another planet and this is some experiment.

I notice you haven't lost your bass guitar, playstation, xbox, skateboard, or anything else... just your shoes... 

And we're going to trust you with a car? You don't think you'll lose that, do you? 

gotta love the kids.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Paul, you spendthrift you.<G>
"total outlay for college for the kiddos....
3.00 for two additions of the Sunday paper, help wanted section.
2.00 for two highlighters for said paper. "
Wassamatta, you'd waste five bucks on the papers when they can read them for free, either online or at the local library?<VBG>

Rockdawg, You get each kid a passport, hop a flight overseas, sell the two US passports for about $50,000 (which is cheap), and you can be sure the kids will stay safely in the US while you've got down payment on the boat. Worst thing that happens is they get arrested, and since they're not a part of it, they'll get to sue for false arrest and make their first million the good old-fashioned American way, by lawyer.<G>


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Consider an alternative*

I have a C&C 35 Mk-I built 1975 for sale at $14,000. I have owned it 35 years, cruising on Chesapeake Bay. She has 5 sails, and working atomic 4 engine; very good main, genny and spinnaker. You can sail it away now.


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

http://www.boatus.com/jackhornor/sail/C&C35.htm


----------



## keysrock (Jan 24, 2002)

I am not sure that that is accurate information... the mark one was built between '69 and '73. 1975 would have been a mark 2 which is a whole different boat.


----------



## Rodz47 (Apr 2, 2006)

*strange math*



csailor said:


> I have a C&C 35 Mk-I built 1975 for sale at $14,000. I have owned it 35 years, .....


Hmmmm .... 35 years you said?? Don't you think it would be difficult to own something that did not exist???


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

Regarding a C&C bolt on keel. I have a C&C 30 MkI with such construction and can say that it was a first class job from the factory, with stainless bolts and hardware which are still bright and clean. No problems thus far, the bolts are fine and it doesn't smile any more than other boats with similar fin keels.

I like the external lead because when it is grounded, the lead takes the hit and not any part of the fiberglass hull. L. Francis Herreshoff and I agree on that one!


----------

