Save-A-Boat - The Forum for Plastic Classic Rebuilds!

Here's a Yachtworld Listing for a 1963 LeComte North East 38. This one is a Mk I, which is the way that Bill Tripp designed it. She needs a lot but looks worse than I'd bet she really is (that peeling paint...).

http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1963/Le ... ted-States

Additionally, there is another NE 38 of similar vintage, Hiatus, pictures of which can be seen on the LeComte Owners Site. A fari amount has been achieved in her rstoration but she was recently blessed with a newly-purchased sister in far better condition.

Both boats would require a great deal of effort but would reward the effort nicely. (You could restore a Ford Siesta or an XKE, same sort of effort but after finishing the Ford, you'd have a Ford...)

Wow, there's a worthy project! (for someone) $5000 asking price.



Lookie, the fireplace is still there.



Along with the "trademarked" 1960s-Dutch-boat-builder-peeling-paint. What did they use that makes them all peel like that?

The fact it has the potential of a good and young engine makes it a a possible win project boat.

I wonder how bad it really is, up close, from the neglect of sitting out there uncovered?

Who's going?

It almost sounded like they just tore off the shrink-wrap recently (?) I agree that this one looks really neat. If it were 32' - or I were 3 people - I'd be on the road :D

My guess, also, re: the shrink wrap. But, how long does that stuff last? Certainly not the 20 years the boat's been laid up.

The peeling paint here is, I believe, an after-the-Dutch-builders' effort, probably an ordinary latex. My overhead is painted, embossed hardboard. It sags and stains with excess water, but it does not rot or peel (the plywood it's screwed to does rot).

The varnish on the woodwork does not look bad where you can see it; there are no adequate pics of the bottoms of those panels, or the sole. If this boat has the same grade of Makore plywood interior that Q has, it does delaminate but the Makore veneer resists rot while the luan or whatever similar backup veneer wood does eventually rot.

I've repaired some of Q's panels by gently cutting and scraping away the backup from the face Makore veneer and laying up new veneers from behind. The result is not perfect but pretty darned good (I did not manage to clamp a small area of delamination adequately, and there remains some water-stains).

<<Both boats would require a great deal of effort but would reward the effort nicely. (You could restore a Ford Siesta or an XKE, same sort of effort but after finishing the Ford, you'd have a Ford...)>>

The effort and money are never the same with cars. You could buy the Ford new for what the inboard rear disk brakes cost on the Jag!

Quetzalsailor wrote:The peeling paint here is, I believe, an after-the-Dutch-builders' effort, probably an ordinary latex. My overhead is painted, embossed hardboard. It sags and stains with excess water, but it does not rot or peel (the plywood it's screwed to does rot).

Oops, guess what I said doesn't apply to the LeComte boats then. Just about every boat I know of that was built at G. DeVries Lentsch, Jr./Amsterdam Shipyard has a sort of "plaster" finish on the inside that is covered with radically peeling paint (unless it's been redone). The fairing "plaster" seems to hold up just fine, and is done smoothly, but the paint peels off.

R.

Dollars-to-donuts that old Yanmar won't fire up. I know for an expensive fact that older Yanmars of that generation had injector pumps that rusted/froze due to the quality of materials used. My mechanic said he ran across the problem all the time on Yanmars that hadn't been run for several years.

This, to me, is a "do it 'cause you love the work and the boat" project but not a great deal from a financial standpoint. Twelve years ago I started in on a similar style and age 37' boat that 'only' cost me $3,000. Took me two years of not sailing, spending all my free time and money and not making much progress. I was looking at $55,000 into a boat that would sell for $18,000 in good shape, tops.

So I cut my loses and ran. Of course one would think that I would have learned a valuable lesson from this experience.

Nah. Went right out and bought another 'cheap' boat that came with dead sails, dead cushions, dead electronics, dead batteries, rotted cabin sole and old engine (see above...) a mast that need to be completely rebuilt.

I like rebuilding them.

Cheers

<<<<Both boats would require a great deal of effort but would reward the effort nicely. (You could restore a Ford Siesta or an XKE, same sort of effort but after finishing the Ford, you'd have a Ford...)>>>>

<<The effort and money are never the same with cars. You could buy the Ford new for what the inboard rear disk brakes cost on the Jag!>>

Same 'sort of effort'; I remain head-in-sand about the common sense aspects of parts costs and availability. A cohort and I, while marooned in a distant Army post, each rebuilt a car, I, a '53 Studebaker and he a '59 MG A. Parts costs for these middle class cars were not the issue that rust was. We both spent a lot of time with torch in hands welding bits back on!

One should keep in mind when bottom fishing for a boat that the elaborateness of the cosmetics and interiors will strongly affect the effort required. A Tripp Seafarer 38 would be quite a bit less work to bring back than the very similar looking Tripp North East 38. All the technical goodies (engine, rig, etc.) would be the same problem but the NE 38 is far more elaborate.

Restoration is not necessarily the aim of the effort. One recent article featured Cal 40s, which are still desirable boats after 40 years. Some are maintained as they were, some upgraded. One was upgraded with modern standards of cosmetics and race-worthiness; its rotted toerails and teak trim were replaced in aluminum and plastics.

Fatty Goodlander has a good article in the current Cruising World, more or less on this subject.

All I mean is you can't compare the restoration of cars with that of boats. Two entirely different animals (unless you have sheet metal presses, CNC machining lathes, and a foundry handy). Car restoration involves parts and a search for them, boat restorations require fabrication. Trying to find a working differential for an XKE with the rear disks and all the perpherial hardware would be incredibly expensive and limited to a few specialists. It is not the sort of thing you can fabricate, nor force a different differential to fit. If you have a spcialized part for a boat, you typically buy a replacement from the manufacturer or in the case of old Tritons or Bristols and lots of others, you buy something similar and make it fit. There are no matching serial numbers, no need to authenticate the idiocencricies of the brand, no need to be concerned with original colors from original paint suppliers and all the minutia of a particular automobile marque.

Comparing restoration and costs of cars and boats can be interesting.

A plastic NE38 from the mid-‘60s cost about $40k new. The survey for #82 indicated a current value of about $20k and replacement cost of about $400k. A new Alerion Express 38 lists for $320k++, so the replacement cost doesn’t seem unreasonable. So, a useable if unpretty NE38 sells for about half its original price, and a new version would cost about ten times the original price.

A plastic Corvette (car) from the mid-‘60s cost $4-5k new. A nicely restored one might sell for 15 times that (at least before the ongoing financial meltdown…). A re-engined “driver” with little attention to paint codes, etc, might be worth three times its original price. And a new version of the car sells for about ten times its mid-‘60s price.

At least in this comparison, the cost of the new item increased about 6 percent annually over the period. It’s unlikely one could buy any useable car from the mid-‘60s for half its original selling price, and certainly not a “collectible” one. But usable boats from the period are available for “half-price” and no amount of “all original” restoration likely would yield a mid-‘60s boat worth twice its original price.

I’m sorry. I thought there was a point here somewhere, but I seem to have misplaced it…

Oh, yes--one can buy a superior current version of a collectible car for less than the restored original; it’s not the same for boats.

Don't forget to factor in inflation :-)

I did a proper calculation for a $10k boat in 1960 a while back. $10k in 1960 is the same as $66k in 2007.

On top of that, my 1966 Luders was about $30K when new. Guess what I paid for it 5 years ago. From what I am seeing, it is happening fairly often. If it holds true and the economy comes back, I will be selling it in 10 years for exactly what I paid.

Dennis

It seems like trying to logically justify the financial aspect of any boat is a silly thing to do. But this is hardly new information.

Recreational boats are luxury items. As such, the costs involved represent discretionary spending that, presumably, provides pleasant diversion, entertainment, and enjoyment for the spender. This is why the money spent is worthwhile.

Boats cost as much or as little as the individual wants them to. One spends more when one wants the boat to be something special, or less if all one cares about is floating. There is almost never a financial justification for this spending, nor is there frequently a positive return on the investment. Who cares: it's fun.

Enjoy the process, and enjoy your boat. Bringing an old one back to life is either a fun thing or it's not; obviously one shouldn't get involved if it's not fun. Cost is relative; as long as the expenditure provides a return in terms of enjoyment, then it's a small price to pay.

As to comparing boats to cars: the comparison continues to fail. It's like comparing wine to cheese. Both can be fun, both can be as basic or as extravagant as you want, but they are not made the same way, have vastly different ingredients, have different lifespans, and tend to be valued quite differently from each other.

What Tim said makes absolute sense. I have spent almost eight years and god knows how much on yard fees, berth fees, paid ridiculous price for parts, electronics, lumber, etc, etc... I am sure everyone else reading this forum has similar experiences. I never expect that my "investments" will see a reasonable return. The way I justify the cost to myself and my wife is that the money I spend on the boat would have been spent on golf courses, expensive wine, cars, and vacations. I justify the hours I spend on the projects as my time alone for contemplation and introspection (I actually do).

As a financial investment professional I can tell you if you want a reasonable return on investments put you money in municipal bonds, treasury bills, and other safe investments. Boats and cars are expense items and not investments.

100% agreed on that one.

Could never realy get a grip on people who consider the time spent on a project as 'billable' I've run into many peple who say a project is too expensive because they'd have so many hours into it, then sit back and watch TV or surf the web instead. Who pays to do that? and where do you sign up I REALY want to know! I'd sign my whole family up, my 95 year old Gramma watches a LOT of tv, she could be rich.

For me it's enjoyment pure and simple. I enjoy doing woodwork, machining, mechanical work, fiberglass work, and just building things in general, with boats it's all there in one single package.

Ken.

Yep, yep. I agree with the previous posts.

It's why I inwardly laugh/cry when I'm boat shopping and a boat I'm interested in comes up with a ridiculously high price. Then, to "explain" it, the seller brings out all his receipts for time, labor, slip fees, and fuel over a period of years, which exactly add up to the selling price.

Not that I'm comparing cars to boats, but if the above were true I'd be selling my 1980s Volvo wagon for tens of thousands :D

kendall: I love the comparison to watching TV, and how you don't get paid for that. It's a great point because most of us work on our boats during "leisure" time, so it's not as if we're losing out on wages to do it - it's more matter of whether it was "good" leisure time (as others have pointed out).

Rachel

The real point, however small, of my original Ford/Jag comment centers around the effort restoring a less-well-thought-of something versus a highly-thought-of something. Clearly, the comment does not apply at all usefully when the apples are so different from the oranges. Just as clearly, though, the effort spent fixing up an ordinary clorox bottle would be better spent on fixing up a once-really-nice clorox bottle.

It all comes down to lust. Which would you rather see as you row away at the end of the weekend? (That comment was stolen from a friend who has a '68 S&S designed Swan 43.)

I thought I should mention that I have seen the boat (in the yachtworld link). The cover was still in good shape when they moved the boat and pulled it off. I've only looked at the hull. The paint all bubbled off from the cover, but generally speaking the hull looks like it's in pretty good shape.