Jax wrote:

dougies, don't be foolish. *you* are advocating taking a Nimrod offshore
with
your statement. yacht brokers, most of them, won't list a Nimrod they know
has
been taken offshore, for the boat doesn't usually pass survey upon sale.

Wo ho! :-)

Thanks for that one. It's spring time in the NW, and my gardening wife has been
nagging me to bring home several bags of steer manure. A statement that most
yacht brokers won't even list such and such a boat saves me the trouble. I
printed off about 50 copies of your post, ran them through the shredder, and
now have a miraculously fertile mulch that should produce fully ripened
tomatoes by mid-April.

As an ex yacht broker, (and still working on a daily basis with brokers,
surveyors, etc) I must absolutely disagree. No yacht broker who intends to
survive in the business will make a sight-unseen evaluation of a potential
listing, based solely upon whether the boat has been used under condition A or
condition B.

If a boat has been offshore and remains undamaged, the offshore experience is
unimportant. If the most prestigious trademark on the planet has a fractured
hull to deck joint, cracked bulkheads, etc etc etc as a result of offshore
abuse, the brand name won't save it.

Used boats must be evaluated on an individual basis. Relying too heavily on
stereotype and the dockside rumor mill sometimes results in a prospect's
failure to consider a well found boat that would be ideal for his or her
purposes. More often, it
causes a prospective buyer to gloss over survey exceptions and other warnings,
as, (after all), what could possibly be incurably wrong with a Brand X?

goud, you talk to yourself. get out and about and talk with brokers for real,
by actually sitting down at their desks and discuss boats.

*you* want to list a Nimrod that has been taken offshore (understand the kind
of person who would even think of taking a Nimrod offshore is a loose canon to
start with) go ahead. Nobody is stopping you.

*you* try to sell some abused boats as "just right" to some potential buyers
and your rep as a broker is done.

have fun, but don't give up your day job.

Jax wrote:

dougies, don't be foolish. *you* are advocating taking a Nimrod offshore
with
your statement. yacht brokers, most of them, won't list a Nimrod they know
has
been taken offshore, for the boat doesn't usually pass survey upon sale.

Wo ho! :-)

Thanks for that one. It's spring time in the NW, and my gardening wife has
been
nagging me to bring home several bags of steer manure. A statement that most
yacht brokers won't even list such and such a boat saves me the trouble. I
printed off about 50 copies of your post, ran them through the shredder, and
now have a miraculously fertile mulch that should produce fully ripened
tomatoes by mid-April.

As an ex yacht broker, (and still working on a daily basis with brokers,
surveyors, etc) I must absolutely disagree. No yacht broker who intends to
survive in the business will make a sight-unseen evaluation of a potential
listing, based solely upon whether the boat has been used under condition A
or
condition B.

If a boat has been offshore and remains undamaged, the offshore experience is
unimportant. If the most prestigious trademark on the planet has a fractured
hull to deck joint, cracked bulkheads, etc etc etc as a result of offshore
abuse, the brand name won't save it.

Used boats must be evaluated on an individual basis. Relying too heavily on
stereotype and the dockside rumor mill sometimes results in a prospect's
failure to consider a well found boat that would be ideal for his or her
purposes. More often, it
causes a prospective buyer to gloss over survey exceptions and other
warnings,
as, (after all), what could possibly be incurably wrong with a Brand X?

On 23 Mar 2004 12:18:58 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

goud, you talk to yourself. get out and about and talk with brokers for real,
by actually sitting down at their desks and discuss boats.

*you* want to list a Nimrod that has been taken offshore (understand the kind
of person who would even think of taking a Nimrod offshore is a loose canon to
start with) go ahead. Nobody is stopping you.

*you* try to sell some abused boats as "just right" to some potential buyers
and your rep as a broker is done.

have fun, but don't give up your day job.

Jax wrote:

dougies, don't be foolish. *you* are advocating taking a Nimrod offshore
with
your statement. yacht brokers, most of them, won't list a Nimrod they know
has
been taken offshore, for the boat doesn't usually pass survey upon sale.

Wo ho! :-)

Thanks for that one. It's spring time in the NW, and my gardening wife has
been
nagging me to bring home several bags of steer manure. A statement that most
yacht brokers won't even list such and such a boat saves me the trouble. I
printed off about 50 copies of your post, ran them through the shredder, and
now have a miraculously fertile mulch that should produce fully ripened
tomatoes by mid-April.

As an ex yacht broker, (and still working on a daily basis with brokers,
surveyors, etc) I must absolutely disagree. No yacht broker who intends to
survive in the business will make a sight-unseen evaluation of a potential
listing, based solely upon whether the boat has been used under condition A
or
condition B.

If a boat has been offshore and remains undamaged, the offshore experience is
unimportant. If the most prestigious trademark on the planet has a fractured
hull to deck joint, cracked bulkheads, etc etc etc as a result of offshore
abuse, the brand name won't save it.

Used boats must be evaluated on an individual basis. Relying too heavily on
stereotype and the dockside rumor mill sometimes results in a prospect's
failure to consider a well found boat that would be ideal for his or her
purposes. More often, it
causes a prospective buyer to gloss over survey exceptions and other
warnings,
as, (after all), what could possibly be incurably wrong with a Brand X?

*You* need to go back and read Chuck's post for content.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

*You* need to go back and read Chuck's post for content.

I did, again. Chuck is saying it is okay to take a litewait Nimrod offshore,
and Chuck is saying that brokers do not care what prior use a boat has had,
they will sell it anyway.

I was saying that my personal conversations with many brokers wherein our
association was anywhere from neglegible to to me and he trying to get to a
deal, I found a number of brokers who stated flatly they would NOT list a
Nimrad that had been taken offshore. Period. I was startled by the vehamence
with which these brokers expressed their distaste for such boats.
Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar beyond the ordinary. Those guys had been burned in the
pocket book, and burned badly. Making a bad deal turn right is a costly one
for a broker who depends on good will to build and keep a customer base. Those
brokers flatly, bluntly stated they would never list such a boat again.

Nimrods are okay for coastal work. Abuse them offshore and they have more
problems than a run over dog. At least according to the first hand reports I
got from brokers.

I paid particular attention to that, for brokers stand to make a commission by
selling a boat. If they don't want to sell a particular boat I hafta ask
myself if they know something I don't.

The original discusssion was the viability of a Bristol 27 vs a PricePoint 36
for offshore passages.