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?