On 13 Dec 2008 12:25:01 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:07:19 +0100, "Steve Lusardi"
said:

My observations over many years are the basis of my opinion. For your
benefit, my definition of "Terminal" is beyond economical repair.

Ah, the old Humpty Dumpty game. "When I use a word it means just what I
choose it to mean..." A technique frequently encountered when the speaker
recognizes his error but is unwilling to acknowledge it.

Give it up Dave. Steve knows a heck of a lot more about boats than
you do.

On Dec 13, 6:58 pm, Dave wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:02:49 -0500, Wayne.B
said:

Ah, the old Humpty Dumpty game. "When I use a word it means just what I
choose it to mean..." A technique frequently encountered when the speaker
recognizes his error but is unwilling to acknowledge it.

Give it up Dave. Steve knows a heck of a lot more about boats than
you do.

Perhaps true. Perhaps not. The question here is whether he clearly
communicated such knowledge as he has. I know a heck of a lot more about
clear communication that Steve does, and based on that knowledge, as well as
the responses that followed his post, his choice of "terminal" did not
clearly communicate "unduly expensive to repair."

So, no evidence that gel coat blisters are EVER a structural or safety
issue and evidence that their presence is insignificant to anybody
except the most rabid racer and the stated opinions of surveyors that
blisters going deeper is extremely rare. On the same basis, I posit
that boats made in the month of June are bad and should be avoided.
Get real people, this is a well used 30' boat intended to be a cheap
cruiser.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 18:57:44 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

So, no evidence that gel coat blisters are EVER a structural or safety
issue and evidence that their presence is insignificant to anybody
except the most rabid racer and the stated opinions of surveyors that
blisters going deeper is extremely rare. On the same basis, I posit
that boats made in the month of June are bad and should be avoided.
Get real people, this is a well used 30' boat intended to be a cheap
cruiser.

That said, everything else being equal, I think most of us would agree
that a boat without blisters is worth more. Certainly blisters are a
perfectly valid negotiating point, as well as being a red flag for the
surveyor to do a more thorough hull analysis with soundings and a
moisture meter.

On Dec 14, 12:52*am,
Frogwatch wrote:
So, no evidence that gel coat blisters are EVER a structural or safety
issue ...

Interesting way to phrase it. Are we totally 100% sure that these are
"merely" gelcoat blisters? The presence of blisters warrants further
investigation; without thorough examination it can't be stated there
is no structural issue.


... and evidence that their presence is insignificant to anybody
except the most rabid racer and the stated opinions of surveyors that
blisters going deeper is extremely rare.

A surveyor who stated that would be incorrect. Gelcoat blisters can
turn into laminate blisters (or they might not, it's true) and
laminate blisters can very definitely be a structural problem. It's
not all that rare, I've seen a few cases without going out of my way
to look.


.... *On the same basis, I posit
that boats made in the month of June are bad and should be avoided.
Get real people, this is a well used 30' boat intended to be a cheap
cruiser.

Yeah but a cheap boat that "just needs some TLC" can end up being a
very expensive boat if you need to pay somebody else to fix it up.
Even if you have the skills to most of the work yourself, it can be
very costly to undertake a lot of kinds of work.

Wayne.B wrote:
That said, everything else being equal, I think most of us would agree
that a boat without blisters is worth more. *Certainly blisters are a
perfectly valid negotiating point, as well as being a red flag for the
surveyor to do a more thorough hull analysis with soundings and a
moisture meter.

Bingo. It all hanges on the exact condition of the boat and how much
comes off the price.