Jeff,

[Tigerlily]

Obviously you would not reccommend the columbia, and you say that you would rather spend your money on one of many well designed sailboats in the same price range. Would you care to reccomend a few models that would sail better than a columbia in the same price range? I was unsure about the seaworthiness of the columbia until I found out that this particular 8.7 has been accross the pond a couple of times. Maybe the owner didn't know there were better boats out there.

[capt lar]

Tigerlily - I think you have to reread Jeff H.'s original post to your "Small Boat" thread. There are several good boats listed ther that might fit your search. Unless you really get lucky, they are going to cost much more than 10K. What I read is someone suggesting you increase your budget to get into a better boat, rather than buying a lemon. You could find a boat that sails well for 10 to 15K, but as a daysailor ( I slept in plenty) w/ cuddy cabin. You, like the rest of us, can't have it both ways.

Larry

[capt lar]

Actually, there are some Cape Dory boats pretty close to your number. They are tough smaller boats. If you find a well maintained one, it could fit most of your list very well.

Larry

[Catamount]

Tigerlilly, not sure what your region is, but I will assume Wisconsin from the Madison location. So there's a Columbia 8.7 for about $19K in Wisconsin, which gives me a sense of your budget. Searching Yachtworld.com for used sailboats from 28 feet and up (to say 36 feet) located in Wisconsin for asking prices from 0 to $25K, turns up several candidates that I would want to look at before the Columbia: Galaxy 32 -- my father-in-law owns one and they are pretty nice sailing boats. Don't be scared off by it's age. I think this one in Door County has been on the market for a while, though. At first glance, the C&C 30 looks interesting, as does the Sabre 28. There may be others, too.

Some have suggested increasing your budget to get a better pool of candidates. The other things you can do are to increase the geographic range of where you are looking (e.g. I live in NH and bought a boat in MD), and extend the timeframe for you purchase (e.g. wait for the right boat to come along at the right price).

Regards,

[Jeff H]

I am always skeptical of anecdotal evidence suggesting this boat or that is suitable for offshore use simply because someone managed to sail one across some ocean. All that you need to to do is read Alain Gerbault's 'Fight of the Firecrest' to understand just how possible it is to cross the Atlantic with a totally unsuitable boat. With a bit of luck and a bunch of work, a very tallented sailor can sail almost any boat across the ocean.

Beyond Gerbault, The example that I often give is of an aquantance that I knew back in the 1970's who sailed a wreck of a plywood boat with a cast concrete keel all the way from Austrailia to South Florida. The boat had large patches of plywood, made from pieces of the interior that were nailed somewhat helter skelter to the topsides.

Anyway, I had given you a good starter list of possible options in response to your earlier thread on Small Boats: http://www.cruisersforum.com/showthr...&threadid=2916

Here are a couple that did not make the list;

Bristol 30: The early 1970's era Halsey Herreschoff design.

Hunter 30 (1979-1981) We have had two of these in my family. Compared to the Columbia in question these are much better sailing and better constructed boats for the dollar.

Pearson Vanguard: I have a real love-hate relationship with these boats. My family owned one when I was a kid. These boats are a lot of boat for the dollar and yet they are a very dated design with a lot of short-comings.

Pearson Coasters and Wanderers: These were keel and keel/centerboard versions of the same boat. They are another pair of boats that I have a love-hate relationship with. Still and all either would be an improvement over the Columbia 8.7.

Pearson Renegade: Interesting little boats that have done a lot more than I would ever have guessed when I first encounterd them as new boats.

Sabre 28: These are good all around boats that can often be found in very good condition for not a whole lot of money.

Tartan 30: These are a real favorite of mine as well in this size and price range.

Winga 28: These are a little known Swedish boat but there are a couple for sail in your price range.

BTW if you really want a great deal on a blue water boat I suggest that you take a look at this one.... http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi..._id=37866&url=

Respectfully,
Jeff

[Tigerlily]

oops, i didn't mean for this to be a new thread. As you can see I am still new to this forum. All the commentary is very useful, thanks everyone.

[Tigerlily]

I have been following the market for a few months now and have a pretty good idea of what is available in my area (great lakes area). I actually went and looked at a vanguard in michigan and decided that though the type of hull is good for cruising and it has a decent reputation, the boat was too old and in need of too much outfitting for our trip. It also had an inboard gas engine and a porta potty. Perhaps if I could take the price down significantly from 13,900 to be able to afford these upgrades it would be worthwhile, but I feel like a newer boat will probably come with fewer faults. I also saw the galaxy in door county and considered taking a look since it says it is perfect for a cruising couple. The allied looks really nice. I have heard well of them, and this one looks to be in good shape. thanks for the link. maybe i should spend a little more time looking.

[hammerfelt]

This is actually quite interesting, and your point Jeff is well taken. Now.... I do have plenty respect for your views -- it seems you have a good experience in handling a wide range of yachts. I also like you boat, would love to see it some day. Seems like a sound boat, and I also respect Bruce, whom I actually met a few years back. Having said that, I am curious on your take on this point you are making. It reminds me of financial companies disclosures, "previous performance does not guarantee future results" etc etc. However we do usually go by experience -- this is what we try to learn from others who have more experience than us. Hence if several boats of one make have done big passages, it follows that it should count for something, reducing the change that simply luck is the factor, and maybe there could also be something good about the design, even in unlikely cases such as the 8.7. In fact, this was my fascination with the Columbia because what you are describing as its shortcomings (design) are apparent by looking at it, and yet several have obviously survived some harsh weather. So, I am actually a bit confused because I also agree that the opposite could be true, and that a bad boat may have had several examples of people doing passages and even circumnavigations, and that obviously it does not make the boat a seaworthy boat. This whole thing is making me doubt reality in the case of many boats I have grown to really like -- I am thinking Contessa 26, Marieholm (IF), Vega, Potter 19, and many other small ones, not to mention larger boats, all of which have reputations hinging largely on famous crossings or circumnavigations. When I compared on sail calculator the figures for Contessa 32 (the so called benchmark thanks to Fastnet) with the 8.7 I didn't see night and day differences, although you can tell by looking at these boats they are eons appart. Since so much has been done trying to figure seaworthyness by studying the Contessa 32, all because one major event, I am now starting to doubt those assumptions as well. What if those poor bastards were lucky and were spared by some fluke positioning outside the biggest gusts etc? They could have been rolled and the waves been steep enough to roll them back by sheer chance... It is weird that positive assumptions about that design type are based on one event. Taking your argument further, even if several fastnets would have proven more Contessa 32's, we would still not attach any importance to those events, as they could just as easily be discounted as lucky. Where should the line be drawn? Would a mix of previous proven performance AND sailing characteristics/build/design solve that problem?

[jimini]

Maybe your tachs are off???

jimini

[sneuman]

I think there's a converse to Jeff's axiom about talented, lucky sailors making passages in unsuitable boat, and that is:

In a suitable boat even relatively unlucky, untalented sailors can successfully cross an ocean.

I won't overrate my skills and I try not to count on being lucky ...

As much as I strive to be skillful, I would prefer to be lucky to skillful any day.

[Sonofason]

John Vigor has a theory about that - he calls it his "Black Box" theory (see '420 rules of thumb about boating'). There's an imaginary black box aboard every boat. Every time a sailor gets up in the middle of the night to check the anchor rode, reefs when the clouds begin to look ominous, etc., a chit (point, whatever) is deposited in the box. When he does something unseamanlike - ties a bad knot, runs aground because of not watching charts, etc, a chit is deducted. Unlucky sailors are those who have simply run out of chits (or points, if you prefer). Sounds simple, but I have to believe something like this is at work...

[daven]

Jeff, any thoughts on the Robert Perry designed Islander 28?
Dave

[Benny]

Tigerlilly - there are some good boats around the 25 to 28 ft mark out there for under $10,000 but you will have additional costs to repair or upgrade to ocean going levels.

The question is do you buy a boat already outfitted or spend as much on a fixer upper. You will have a better result IMHO if you start with a boat that has a proven ocean design and appropriate equipment that is in good shape. There are quite a few lists of appropriately designed vessels throughout these forums - just do a search on 'ocean going' or 'bluewater'