On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:04:03 -0400, DSK wrote:

What's wrong with the J-32, the J-35C, the J-37, or (since you're
talking about spending the money) the J-42? To my eye, they're not
"beautiful" but they are certainly good looking and good sailing boats;
plenty habitable enough (and also seaworthy by all accounts) to be a
"proper cruiser."

Yes, yes, and yes...but I am enough of a belt and suspenders
traditionalist to wish there was some sort of steel cutter- ketch with
a skeg rudder that had some of the other attributes--like fine
build--I see in the J-boats.

I attend the boat shows, and I am very attracted to J-Boats because
they hit most of my personal quality benchmarks regarding systems
layout, handholds, backing plates, access to wiring and engine and so
on. But they can't carry a lot of tankage and they are skewed a little
too slightly to the "performance" side of cruiser.

Which makes them great to sail...I've been on J-24s and J-29s in big
air, and it's a hell of a sleigh ride, but I think I would have to
look at (in a "money is no object" world) the J-160 to get into a
comfort zone for world cruising that I could find in a smaller,
heavier and no doubt pokier...but more appropriate for liveaboards
with a kid...cruiser.

They are very nice boats. So are Swans and Morrises, but those are too
deluxe for my taste. I actually LIKE the idea of the racing J-boats,
where you can power wash the all-plastic interior and then pump it out
and run a heat fan to dry it out. Ah, simplicity! Most cruisers look
like '70s rec rooms below...wood is lovely but is heavy and more work.

R.