1981 C-dory Angler hull # 8, Hunkey Dory

I decided to post here so all y'all could relax a bit and not have to form a defensive line in front of me (as much as I appreciate it and the comments).

I do not believe that T-Dog is in any way calling into question my personal integrity or honesty about the 1981 C-Dory. I've pushed for a survey right from the start which I think is only prudent on a 1981 hull for the cost involved. Initially he wanted to conduct the survey himself and I lobbied hard to have a pro look at it and save T-Dog a long trip if the survey didn't come out well.

I totally agree on everything that's been said about surveys and almost always I go right along with all the normal procedures. Not this time and perhaps I'll pay for that in the end but my heart was in the right place.

On my side of the fence the biggest factor was the potential buyers timing. He had hoped to finish up the deal within a day or two. Rather than give him list of potential surveyors I told him I'd do my best to find one that could respond on very short notice. I had 3 to choose from and I picked the closest one because he is close and also because he's got years and years and years of experience and knows the C-Dory boats. He's a retired Navy officer and as honest a person as I've met. I set up the survey so that he was working directly for T-Dog and told him (T-Dog) that he'd pay around $200 for the survey. That's what I thought was going to happen.

What happened to that plan was basically me. I told the surveyor to really check the boat out well because if the survey showed a problem that would keep T-Dog from buying the boat that we wanted to know what needed to be done to make it right. To that end I had told T-Dog that if he did the survey and bought the boat that he'd pay for the survey but if he decided against the boat based on the survey that we'd pay for it. That's unusual but if T-Dog didn't or doesn't buy the boat I wanted the information anyway so that we could address it. That way T-Dog wouldn't be out any money for a boat he didn't buy and we'd know what issues to address.

As far as the surveyor goes we're not in a position to feed him a lot of surveys. Not only do we not do a lot of surveys but it's been pretty well split up over the years between 3 or 4 of them. Also, the surveyor had no motivation for not wanting to report everything he found since both T-Dog and EQ want all the details. T-Dog of course wants the survey for purchasing purposes but we wanted a well done survey for two reasons: I absolutely wanted to make sure the boat was in good shape if it was going to T-Dog (my insistence on a survey was as much for me as for him), and I wanted to know what to repair on the boat if it came to that (with no withheld information). I suppose I could have had T-Dog do the survey and then if he refused the boat offered to purchase the survey from him but I chose to make it an easier situation for him.

Yes, the surveyor is supposed to be working for the buyer and his/her interest and I too insist on that to avoid possible influence from the seller (and/or broker). In this case the seller and buyer are fully aligned and we both want nothing but a full disclosure, which is exactly what has happened and I was still able to insist that the surveyor work for the buyer.

I told T-Dog I didn't want to sell him the boat without a survey and I meant it. I don't want anyone to ever purchase anything from us that isn't what they thought it was. Having a boat is supposed to be a fun thing and buying it shouldn't give you (more) gray hairs and heartburn.

From what I can tell (and I haven't asked the surveyor directly) he didn't charge T-Dog for a couple of reasons: he feels he didn't do a full survey since he was able to call after using the moisture meter, and because he feels that it's likely to end up in our (EQ's) court and we'll have to work with him further to get more specific information.

What's specifically at issue is a matter of personal interpretation. If two folks went to look at a used car and the automatic transmission slipped slightly you could get two completely different reactions. One person might say "Oh, no big deal, this model of transmission does this and with a good service will probably work just fine." and another might walk away thinking "I'm not getting involved with a transmission problem."

What's been found so far is about an 8" in diameter area just starboard of the centerline just aft of rear cabin bulkhead that sounds duller when hammer tapped, shows a higher moisture reading, and show some indications that there was an impact there (you can see the marks on the outside but there's no caved in portion or something like that). There's also an area a few inches wide and maybe 18" long along the starboard chine about 3' ahead of the transom that sounds a bit hollow when hammered and also shows an elevated moisture content.

We found that the rest of the hull bottom is uniform and doesn't indicate the presence of elevated moisture nor does the transom.

So if I'm the first guy in the transmission scenario I'm looking at the hull and thinking "Oh, interesting, so I have an couple of areas I need to keep an eye on and ought to check them in the next year or two to see if they're changing". I say that because there's no indication on the boat that anything has weakened or is shifting with regard to spider cracks, pulled loose joints, breaking gel coat, etc and the surveyor has indicated in general that the hull looks good for its age and he feels like it will go for years and years without doing a thing. Would he take it 50 miles offshore...not likely (but he wouldn't take a CD22 there anyway). Would he cruise up the Inside Passage to Alaska...yes.

If T-Dog is the second (and I'm not saying that he is but he's on the buying end of this deal and has more at stake) he's thinking "Oh my, I don't want to get involved replacing the entire bottom on this boat". And if that's his thought process then it's his prerogative as he's the one laying out the cash in this case. He knows what his personal threshold for risk is and should stick to that if he's uncomfortable with the results of the survey. I'm using T-Dog here but of course this goes for anyone. So this is not a matter of me trying to persuade a reluctant buyer to overlook some "issues" and just go for it, not in the least. I'm quite sure there's quite a difference in our reaction to what news we've received so far: I'm thinking it's a 30 year old hull that's generally in better than average condition and has a couple of areas I might have to do something about some day and he's likely thinking about the check he'll have to write to get the boat and trying to ascertain whether or not it's worth the potential risk. And to my mind that's a good thing.

I'm pretty sure T-Dog's motivation was not to take me to task on the C-Brat web site but rather to try and gather more independent information that might allow him to make a decision. Where better to come than to the repository of all things C-Dory? If there had been someone here that could have spoken directly to problems (or not) with the bottoms of pre-1987 CD22's it might have been very helpful to him so I for one don't mind for a moment that he came here for that information. I wouldn't have minded reading about it myself.

I'm sorry for the wall of text above but those that know me know that I don't do succinct very well. :) Bad trait perhaps but I got paid good money for too many years to stand up in front of a class and keep them going (and now I don't know how to stop!).

All the best,

Les
 
Wow--what a wealth of information--and the C Brats do it again! I must say that both Matt and Les are people who I would absolutely trust--and there are only a few of those in the marine industry!

I think that both of these professionals have laid things out very well and very honestly. T Dog is fortunate to be dealing with Les.

I also realize that the decision to go ahead with this boat purchase lies alone with T dog--and no matter what anyone says, he knows his own comfort zone.
 
Les,

Thank you for your post regarding the boat you currently have listed. I do feel compelled to respond to something you stated in your last post.

"I'm thinking it's a 30 year old hull that's generally in better than average condition and has a couple of areas I might have to do something about some day and he's likely thinking about the check he'll have to write to get the boat and trying to ascertain whether or not it's worth the potential risk. And to my mind that's a good thing."

Specifically, "a couple of areas I might have to do something about some day." I guess this is where we can agree to disagree on what is serious regarding a boat condition. I know having water in a cored boat hull bottom is bad all-around and needs to be addressed now, not some day. Finding delamination in a plywood cored hull needs to be addressed now, not some day, especially when 95% of all plywood core failures are secondary to being soaked with water. Finding an area that sustained outside damage that also shows elevated moisture content needs to be addressed now, not some day. Additionally, please don't make assumptions about how a boat will be used as this could potentially put people's lives at risk. I had plans to take the boat Tuna fishing this summer which requires trips offshore up to 50 miles. I spoke with a couple of fisherman that do this trip routinely off the Oregon Coast with their C-22 Angler. Despite being informed through my posts that the surveyor stated, "there was no survey", you reference the survey numerous times in your last post, I am confused.
 
I received a phone call today from the Surveyor who reported that 3 cores were taken from the hull and they "looked good, not wet and not delaminated." My question is, if the core samples are taken in the suspect areas, areas that showed delamination as well as high moisture content...through hammer testing and moisture meter readings, how could they be ok....would appreciate others thoughts. Looks like I may be the proud owner of hull #8 afterall, given the latest news about the hull bottom.
 
T-Dog. I don't know the specific answer to your questions - especially if the hull looks like it was showing delamination. However, moisture meters can be confused by a number of things. Moisture meters read capacitance and capacitance can vary due to a number of factors other than moisture (variations in thickness, air voids, nearby metals etc). Hammer testing may also give varying results as even sound hulls may sound differently to a tap depending on structural supports in the area etc. If an area was previously damaged and then repaired with more epoxy or glass that could result in both different moisture meter readings and different sounds when tapped. The core samples are probably the most instructive since then one gets to really see what is happening inside the hull. If you fly up, I'm sure myself or someone else can give you a ride up to see the boat. I have a sense that the best way to find out if this is really something you want to do is to get some face time with both Les and the boat.
 
This thread is good timing for me.
As some may have read in another thread, I had a wiring issue on my motor come up a few weeks ago.
Due to the age of the boat, also a 1981, I have gambled and not had insurance on my boat, the main reasons being;
1) I would need a survey
2) For what I paid for the boat and motor ($8,000.00 US) it wasn't worth it

When I bought the boat I went and did my own transom meets the hull test with a small pocket knife, and used a rubber mallet to sound out the floor.
After I put the new motor on I thought about insurance again as now the main value was in the new motor but let that thought pass.

I still feel that the hull is sound but any now considering a survey simply because after having the wiring issue on the new motor, which is going to cost about $3,000.00 to fix, insurance should be considered.

I will be calling a surveyor that I have used on other boats I have owned and see what he comes up with.
I'll let you know how it comes out.
Tnx, Jimbo
 
T-Dog - I am confused a bit, you would not have a plywood cored hull, would you? Isn't it an end-grain balsa cored hull? Were any C-Dorys ever plywood cored?
 
Perhaps something else to consider in regard to tapping on the older plywood cored boats is that the plywood may or may not be of marine quality; that is, no voids. On my boat, the plywood core was full of voids between the plies. Some were as small as a tenth of an inch; the widest was about two inches as shown below:

Rough_Core.jpg


Voids or large tight knots in a ply might perhaps result in a noticeable difference in tapping resonance where the core and glass are otherwise well adhered; particularly in the sole where the core is just a single 5-ply 3/4-inch sheet. The plywood core sheets on my boat are oriented chine to chine providing a single piece over that 66-inch width. Fore and aft the sheets are simply butt jointed in their 4-foot widths, with the running strakes doing double duty as longitudinal stringers.
 
My gut instinct, and I haven't seen the boat, is that the delam areas are from bad adhesion of the fiberglass to the plywood core from improper wet out during lay up, and that this has existed for quite some time.

Would I be concerned about these areas? I'd have to see the boat to make a judgement.
 
Matt,

I would agree about the adhesion problem but there is a good chance the plywood has just failed from a structural standpoint. Per the Surveyor, he only drilled 1/4" down into the ply core from the top. For me to take any stalk in a core sample it needs to show a cross section of entire hull, not just the rather thin laminate on the topside deck and a fraction of the core. A side note, I wanted the cores to be cut all the way through the boat, getting to the bottom of the problems and I agreed to pay full agreed to price for the boat if cores showed that the boat was sound, yet the Surveyor/Boat owner are reluctant to do as I asked. I had no problem with repairing a half dozen 1" holes in the boat. I know the scantlings for plywood hulls have to be sized carefully as plywood cannot withstand repeated flexing, otherwise the internal plies fail which of coarse can lead to catastrophic failure, that is per a well respected naval architect. After looking at Tomherrick's photograph on his earlier post, I have decided not to purchase this boat. I had hoped a high quality marine grade plywood was used in the bottom of these boats, but clearly, that was not the case. I may be a little dramatic although that plywood core/laminate combo is the only thing between you and deep-blue.
 
T-dog,

I wasn't wild about the construction-grade core either. But, I have to tell this story. The first time I took this boat out was on Lake Herrington in Kentucky. When they flooded the area they didn't bother to cut the trees. I didn't know it, but there are a lot of still fairly sturdy trees standing under water whose tops are just below the surface. The reason I know this now is that I hit one of those treetops at 31mph. Scared - to - death I took the boat back to the ramp and onto the trailer. Not a scratch; no delamination; nothing; no problem.

Two years later, after I found the rot in the transom's balsa core and the moisture meter indicated water in the sole core (bad engine installation) I ripped up the glass in the cockpit interior. That's how I found the voids in the core. But there was no rot in the plywood and it's strong as hell. I will do my best to fill all the voids I can before I re-glass the cockpit.

We've all got our lines in the sand, but personally I'm not concerned about the sturdiness of the construction-grade core.
 
Fir plywood sold in the early 80's was of a higher quality than fir plywood available today. I built a ply/glass catamaran with fir plywood that is simply not available today.
 
The problem with putting a core sample all of the way thru the hull is that to properly repair the bottom you should grind out the hull on each side of the hole on a 6:1 ratio (total 12/1), even for a 1" hole.

What could be done--if the owner allows it--are a few 1" hole saws cuts down to the bottom of the plywood layer, but not into the outer glass. You can use the hole saw with the 1/4" pilot bit about 1/4" beyond the hole as you get about 1/2" into the core, then pull the pilot bit back and cut until you are down to the glass on the bottom of the hull. This plug can then be pulled and then put back in place with epoxy and high density filler, and a faired in glass patch on top, with no loss of intregrity to the hull. I would not do many of these--just a couple should show you what is necessary.
 
I think all 22 C-Dory's have plywood bottoms. The old pre-'85 boats have 5/8 inch 5 ply athwartships -- later ones have plywood with balsa core. Bob Austin knows the construction better than I do -- but if you get a C-Dory it's gonna have plywood AFIK. I've had 3 classic 22's over the years and all have been great sea boats. Sure they pound in a chop a bit more than the later ones, but they also have many advantages.

Dusty
 
Dusty - I don't think that's the case. At least in my 22 when I drilled out and epoxied the screw holes, all my drill (and dremel tool) went through were balsa core. Also, the layup I saw being done at Triton didn't have any plywood.
 
Back
Top