Anchor chain corroding after 2 years

dLj · May 27, 2026

Terry Cox said:
Even when wet, our chain has a dull, flat appearance. Not suggesting Defender did a substitution, just my observation and experience. If it were me, I might have an industrial chain expert weigh in. And I've never experienced quality produced hot dipped galvanize material actually chipping off. I suppose, too, that the production process itself can result in different quality grades.

I agree with you. But to clarify, the outer Eta layer does not chip off, but it is quite soft and can wear off pretty quickly under the right conditions. For example, if anchored in a seabed with sand or with sand particles in the seabed, and you get a pretty rocky sea state that is making the chain work a fair bit, the combination of the contact stress and the abrasive seabed could cause the Eta layer to abrade away in a few hours. The reason hot dipped galvanized is used in anchor chains is because of the lower levels that are quite hard and abrasion resistant. No other galvanizing process produces this metallurgical structure. Well, there is a new process being done by an Israeli company that claims it does, I've only examined it superficially so can't really say if it truly is an adequate substitute.

There are some differences in production processes - particularly in how the chain gets treated after the hot-dipped bath. There are coatings that can be used that help stabilize the Eta layer. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if these kinds of steps get changed through the wonderful "value engineering" departments that float through manufacturing processes... These treatments tend to be highly proprietary in nature with almost no publicly accessible information nor documentation to know if they were used or not by a particular manufacturer.

Anyway, this is a sailing forum and not a metallurgy forum. I've probably already taken up way too much bandwidth on this...

dj

dLj · May 27, 2026

colemj said:
One buys a new chain and starts anchoring in a normal manner. In less than a year, it is rusted to the point of being stuck together and needed a hammer to break apart. This happens twice over 10yrs, while witnessing the same from many others.

No higher standard is necessary to say this chain failed in its intended use. Particularly as a consumer.

Imagine buying a new blender and the third time you use it, the blades shatter and the motor burns out. Are you really going to take that to an "expert" to determine if it failed in its intended use? Or avoid the term "failure" to describe it?

Now you write a product review, where you describe your experience as the above. Is this not "useful" information for a prospective purchaser? If 50% of the reviews describe experiences like yours, are you going to say none of that is "useful" unless an expert examines it and describes in technical details the underlying cause?

Mark

I'm not really sure if you are interested in an intelligent, technical discussion or would rather just argue with me. But it sure feels more argumentative than a desire to have a technical discussion.

But to address your chain example - it would be extremely unlikely that either of the chains you mention were actually hot dipped galvanized chain. I happen to be aware of both examples you are talking about as they were presented over on cruisers and sailors forum, or I guess you may have some other examples that fit that same description - I don't really know. There are so many things wrong with those examples it's really not worth my time to even begin talking about them.

dj

colemj · May 28, 2026

dLj said:
But to address your chain example - it would be extremely unlikely that either of the chains you mention were actually hot dipped galvanized chain.

If that is the case, then they were intentionally misrepresented as US produced hot dipped galvanized by ACCO, Defender, and Budget Marine. While I may not have a metallurgical background, I have been around a lot of hot dipped galvanized and electrodeposited galvanized chain, and the differences are noticeable.

Besides, ACCO doesn't even manufacture an electrodeposited galvanized anchor chain. All of their anchor chains are hot dipped galvanized. They do produce an industrial chain with an electrodeposited finish, but it wouldn't fit the windlass if that is what I was sold.

Occam's razor would suggest it is extremely unlikely that it wasn't actually hot dipped galvanized chain.

Mark

thinwater · May 28, 2026

I wonder if there are some odd cases of stray current and hyper-saline wet/dry chain at play, which can cause the galvanizing to fail early.

There was a guy at my last marina who destroyed two chains in just a few years, and the cause was traced to a small current leak from the windlass. Food for thought. I'd take a meter and do some checking. Or perhaps your chain is serving as a sacrificial anode for the boat. I don't think this is rare. If the windlass end is grounded and the drainage water (or deployed chain) has a path to water, then the chain becomes sacrificial. That would eat the zinc off in a few years.

It's in the details. My chain wells (last 2 boats) do not ground to the main bilge, and I have never had a chain last less than 10 years. I don't think that is luck.

dLj · May 28, 2026

colemj said:
If that is the case, then they were intentionally misrepresented as US produced hot dipped galvanized by ACCO, Defender, and Budget Marine. While I may not have a metallurgical background, I have been around a lot of hot dipped galvanized and electrodeposited galvanized chain, and the differences are noticeable.

Besides, ACCO doesn't even manufacture an electrodeposited galvanized anchor chain. All of their anchor chains are hot dipped galvanized. They do produce an industrial chain with an electrodeposited finish, but it wouldn't fit the windlass if that is what I was sold.

Occam's razor would suggest it is extremely unlikely that it wasn't actually hot dipped galvanized chain.

Mark

Just for conversation sake: Occam's Razor (also spelled Ockham's Razor) is a philosophical and scientific problem-solving principle which states that when presented with competing explanations for a phenomenon, you should select the one that makes the fewest assumptions and introduces the fewest unseen entities. It is commonly summarized as "the simplest explanation is usually the best"

There is a another process called mechanical galvanizing which is often stated to be "equivalent to hot dipped galvanizing". It's not. And you will not be able to visually distinguish between hot dipped and mechanically galvanized.

In any failure analysis determination of what the base material of what has failed is step one. You don't have that other than an opinion. Now, you may have good reason for that opinion, but in fact it remains an opinion. You further go on to insinuate misrepresentation.

There are only two possibilities:

1) if you in fact started with hot dipped galvanized chain, then something happened to destroy that galvanizing that is above and beyond "normal" chain use. As thinwater suggested you may have had some kind of electrical problem. There are other less likely possibilities.

2) The other possibility is you did not have hot dipped galvanized chain.

The truth is, if you really want to know what happened, you cannot make ANY assumptions. You cannot assume the material you have is what you thought.

I was involved in a case where 316 stainless steel was supposedly used in an outdoor application. It was a good use case for 316. All the documentation said the material was 316, the parts were even labeled 316SS. But I analyzed them and in fact they were not 316. This was not one or two parts - it was thousands of parts. And this is only one case out of many where there was an unexpected failure and when analyzed, the material that was supposed to be used - was not used. Most often from mistakes made that were not intentional. Now the 316 case - that was - and the original manufacturer had to deal with the consequences....

There's another saying: "Never ASSUME, for when you do it makes an ASS of U and ME.

dj

colemj · May 28, 2026

thinwater said:
I wonder if there are some odd cases of stray current and hyper-saline wet/dry chain at play, which can cause the galvanizing to fail early.

dLj said:
Just for conversation sake: Occam's Razor (also spelled Ockham's Razor) is a philosophical and scientific problem-solving principle which states that when presented with competing explanations for a phenomenon, you should select the one that makes the fewest assumptions and introduces the fewest unseen entities. It is commonly summarized as "the simplest explanation is usually the best"

There is a another process called mechanical galvanizing which is often stated to be "equivalent to hot dipped galvanizing". It's not. And you will not be able to visually distinguish between hot dipped and mechanically galvanized.

In any failure analysis determination of what the base material of what has failed is step one. You don't have that other than an opinion. Now, you may have good reason for that opinion, but in fact it remains an opinion. You further go on to insinuate misrepresentation.

There are only two possibilities:

1) if you in fact started with hot dipped galvanized chain, then something happened to destroy that galvanizing that is above and beyond "normal" chain use. As thinwater suggested you may have had some kind of electrical problem. There are other less likely possibilities.

2) The other possibility is you did not have hot dipped galvanized chain.

The truth is, if you really want to know what happened, you cannot make ANY assumptions. You cannot assume the material you have is what you thought.

Since ACCO only produces hot dipped galvanized anchor chain, and the one industrial non-hot dipped galvanized chain they produce has dimensions that would not fit my gypsy, then to stay with your assertion would need one to believe I was not sold ACCO chain. That would be a huge risk for Defender and Budget Marine, where it was purchased. Not to mention, this would have had to happen twice with an 8yr span between purchases.

Occam's razor works here.

As a consumer, it is entirely defendable to make the assumption one is being sold exactly what one is told they are buying. Particularly in a case like this, where any shenanigans would expose companies to extreme legal risk. As an example, if you bought a bottom paint advertised as containing 60% cuprous oxide, do you not think it is a reasonable assumption that it contains this, and not 5%? Or do you assume you are an ass by doing so, and have every gallon of it professionally tested?

The blame the victim thing is funny. Sure, one's boat could be causing the problem, but you are overlooking the facts I included that the Maggi chain replacing ACCO on the first boat lasted 8yrs of full-time use. This was replaced with Maggi again and had 3yrs of use (looking like new) before the boat was sold. The Laclede chain replacing ACCO on the second boat is 6yrs old and has no rust beyond light surface on it.

Occam's razor. You seem to know the definition, but not how to apply it. Or you have to ignore it and make up some situation where the boat was changed in such a way between the ACCO and replacement chain, that all its damaging aspects stopped. And then make up the same situation for a second boat.

But to address this, I can point out that we have pretty much unlimited fresh water, and the chain gets throughly rinsed every time it is brought in. The chain locker sits in the bridgedeck above the water, has excellent and immediate drainage, and the floor is lined with a hard plastic grate to keep the chain from laying flat on it, and allow water to run off underneath it. There is nothing electrical in this locker, other than the windlass. I have electrically tested the windlass/chain with both a multimeter and a Ag/AgCl probe and there is no electrical or anodic current running between them, nor any continuity. The windlass motor is electrically isolated from the windlass, as it uses isolated pos and neg terminals.

Mark

colemj · May 28, 2026

thinwater said:
I have never had a chain last less than 10 years. I don't think that is luck.

I don't think it is luck either, as any good chain should do that. Of the five chain replacements we have done over the past 17yrs, three of them had long lives. You didn't mention chain brand, but the only two that failed in a short time for us was ACCO.

In the hot tropic water with aggressively abrasive bottoms and the anchor deployed much of each year, we expect 5yrs out of chain, and consider it a bonus if we get more.

Mark

colemj · May 28, 2026

dLj said:
In any failure analysis determination of what the base material of what has failed is step one. You don't have that other than an opinion. Now, you may have good reason for that opinion, but in fact it remains an opinion. You further go on to insinuate misrepresentation.

This needs to be addressed separately. ACCO, Defender, and Budget Marine all stated this was hot dipped galvanized chain. It is not my "opinion", unless you want to define believing what the manufacturer and distributors say as "opinion". I had lot numbers in both cases, and they track to hot dipped galvanized product ordered by the vendors, per the vendors, and ACCO agreed this was correct (and you can continue to ignore the fact that ACCO doesn't even manufacture a non-hot dipped galvanized anchor chain).

I never insinuated misrepresentation. I said your opinion would require insinuating misrepresentation to be true. I put that out as Occam's razor.

At least you have come around to agreeing with me that a chain that rusts solid in a year can be considered a failure. Now you seem to be stuck on the failure analysis itself. For a consumer buying a reputable product from reputable vendors, this just does not matter.

Mark

dLj · May 28, 2026

colemj said:
This needs to be addressed separately. ACCO, Defender, and Budget Marine all stated this was hot dipped galvanized chain.

The fundamental problem you refuse to acknowledge is that no matter who says what - in order to know - you actually have to check.

I gave you an example of supposed 316 being used that was not 316 although all parties associated with that product, and the documentation stated it was 316.

I can go through numerous other examples where through various mechanisms the material that was thought to be used was not the material used. Typically through some form of error, not on purpose.

If you don't definitively know what the material is - then everything after that is only supposition. I'm not "stuck" on this. It is the first principal of any root cause analysis.

What I find interesting is that you take the time and energy to go through all the other kinds of testing, but you never checked to know what you actually had for chain. Now on the first chain, i can see how you wouldn't think that may have been necessary, but the second chain? That makes no sense.

I find it sad in fact, because if done correctly, meaning the actual chain was checked, then that would be very powerful and essential knowledge. Without it? This is actually a meaningless exercise in rhetoric.

As I said to you previously, you and I have two different standards.

dj

Terry Cox · May 28, 2026

dLj said:
2) The other possibility is you did not have hot dipped galvanized chain.

No metallurgist here and no expertise in these manufacturing standards, but I suppose that even when made in the USA the maker could use different specs resulting in an inferior product. Hard to imagine that what Mark has experienced is so different than what I've experienced with the same brand. All I know is what my experience has been with the ACCO brand. Great discussion, by the way.

colemj · May 28, 2026

dLj said:
The fundamental problem you refuse to acknowledge is that no matter who says what - in order to know - you actually have to check.

I gave you an example of supposed 316 being used that was not 316 although all parties associated with that product, and the documentation stated it was 316.

I can go through numerous other examples where through various mechanisms the material that was thought to be used was not the material used. Typically through some form of error, not on purpose.

If you don't definitively know what the material is - then everything after that is only supposition. I'm not "stuck" on this. It is the first principal of any root cause analysis.

What I find interesting is that you take the time and energy to go through all the other kinds of testing, but you never checked to know what you actually had for chain. Now on the first chain, i can see how you wouldn't think that may have been necessary, but the second chain? That makes no sense.

I find it sad in fact, because if done correctly, meaning the actual chain was checked, then that would be very powerful and essential knowledge. Without it? This is actually a meaningless exercise in rhetoric.

As I said to you previously, you and I have two different standards.

dj

Pedantic runs deep through this one...

It would be meaningless knowledge with no power behind it unless I wanted to undertake an expensive and time consuming legal campaign. What would I do with the knowledge? It might shut you down, but that is of no interest to me, and was reversed timing anyway. Let alone, how would I obtain this knowledge in the areas where we are cruising and replacing chain?

The testing I did was to rule out that I or my boat wasn't causing the issue. That is reasonable. Hiring a metallurgist in a different country, then shipping samples to them is not reasonable testing for a consumer.

I know what I had for chain in the sense that the vendor told me what they sold me, and the manufacturer confirmed that was the product.

These are the practical fundamental issues you refuse to acknowledge so you can remain pedantic.

You and I have two different boating lifestyles and geographical areas. If I was living in a house, in a first world country with a lot of easily accessible technical support, with my boat on a dock close by, with relatively short-period usage of it, then maybe I would have the motivation to look further into this during a cold winter.

But that is literally impossible for me. Literally in the dictionary sense of that word.

Mark

dLj · May 28, 2026

Terry Cox said:
No metallurgist here and no expertise in these manufacturing standards, but I suppose that even when made in the USA the maker could use different specs resulting in an inferior product. Hard to imagine that what Mark has experienced is so different than what I've experienced with the same brand. All I know is what my experience has been with the ACCO brand. Great discussion, by the way.

Yes, there are different grades of hot dipped galvanizing. But even on the low end side, the description of his chain problems don't fit the product line. His entire description raises serious red flags that he actually ended up with hot dipped galvanized chain - no matter who the manufacturer was. It just doesn't make sense. At least as far as the description that's been presented.

dj

dLj · May 28, 2026

colemj said:
Pedantic runs deep through this one...

This is rich...

colemj said:
It would be meaningless knowledge with no power behind it unless I wanted to undertake an expensive and time consuming legal campaign. What would I do with the knowledge? It might shut you down, but that is of no interest to me, and was reversed timing anyway. Let alone, how would I obtain this knowledge in the areas where we are cruising and replacing chain?

It's actually pretty easy to obtain that knowledge.

Having that knowledge could be very surprising in how it facilitates not having to go through a legal process.

But even if you were then faced with a legal campaign as you say, and you couldn't afford either the time or money, then at least if would actually give you credibility in your complaint instead of sounding like a total red herring.

colemj said:
The testing I did was to rule out that I or my boat wasn't causing the issue. That is reasonable. Hiring a metallurgist in a different country, then shipping samples to them is not reasonable testing for a consumer.

I completely agree testing your boat was reasonable. So you feel having the needed testing done is not reasonable, but it is reasonable to levy undocumented allegations against a company in public forums... I have a hard time with that logic.

colemj said:
I know what I had for chain in the sense that the vendor told me what they sold me, and the manufacturer confirmed that was the product.

So you did on your side what you should have done as far as specifying and buying chain.

colemj said:
These are the practical fundamental issues you refuse to acknowledge so you can remain pedantic.

Ah the term pedantic again... So for clarity:

Pedantic is an adjective used to describe someone who is overly concerned with minute details, minor rules, or formalisms, often to the point of being annoying. It also refers to a pompous or ostentatious display of scholarly knowledge, where someone acts like a "know-it-all".

For sure I imagine I'm annoying to your because you can't get me to just say that you are just so right and everyone else is wrong.... Although you may be using other portions of this definition - your choice.

But from my perspective, I'd prefer the term professionalism.

Professionalism is a standard of conduct, behavior, and attitude expected in a social environment. It goes beyond just following rules; it encompasses how you communicate, your reliability, your adherence to ethical standards, and your commitment to continuous growth and excellence in your field.

If it requires being pedantic to maintain professionalism, then I accept.

colemj said:
You and I have two different boating lifestyles and geographical areas. If I was living in a house, in a first world country with a lot of easily accessible technical support, with my boat on a dock close by, with relatively short-period usage of it, then maybe I would have the motivation to look further into this during a cold winter.

But that is literally impossible for me. Literally in the dictionary sense of that word.

Mark

We also apparently have two different levels of professionality. But we knew that....

dj

colemj · May 29, 2026

Sigh. Blame the victim.

As I mentioned earlier, in the first case, ACCO admitted it was their chain, admitted it had failed, and agreed to replace it. They then went silent as arrangements were being made to ship new chain, and never replaced it. So it was ACCO hot dipped galvanized chain according to ACCO themselves.

I didn't pursue anything with ACCO in the second case, but you still seem to think it wasn't ACCO chain. Perhaps. But each and every link of that chain was embossed with "G43", and I believe ACCO is the only company that does this. Others emboss every X number of links, and some don't emboss at all. This embossment, along with lot number from the original sale, highly suggests it was ACCO chain. You are suggesting I had a different chain produced to match ACCO's embossment and lot number.

Yes, Occam's razor. You refuse to apply this.

I had ACCO chain, both times, that failed when it should not have. I don't think anyone would consider a chain that rusted to the point of being unusable in less than a year as anything except a failure. There is simply no argument that can be made using Occam's razor or without making extraordinary claims that I did not have the ACCO chain I say I had.

Now tell me how having a metallurgist analyze a rusted ball of iron can tell me it was ACCO chain for sure? Tell me what I would do with this information in any practical sense? If a metallurgist cannot tell me if ACCO produced it, then you would be on me for talking about it in public. In the first case, I told ACCO I would describe my experience publicly when they went silent and refuse to honor their agreement to ship new chain. So using that as a "threat" is of no consequence to them, yet here you are on me for talking about it in public.

Every time I present evidence, you refuse to address it, and instead move sideways to something else to keep your argument alive. I address that, you move sideways again instead of directly addressing it. Your entire argument is I didn't have ACCO chain because I didn't have a professional metallurgist in the deep Caribbean islands analyze it. That argument seems to be supported solely on your personal belief that ACCO chain could never fail in that way, so you must come up with extraordinary reasons and details why I didn't have ACCO chain.

Yes, you are being pedantic, not professional.

Mark

colemj · May 29, 2026

I'm not the only one. I'll just leave these links here for others (they popped up quickly on a search, and there are not the only examples). Note that all of the people who experience early failure of their ACCO chain, are happily using other manufacturer chain that isn't failing like their ACCO.

It is difficult to believe that all of these people got duped with fake ACCO chain.

https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f124/acco-chain-are-other-cruisers-experiencing-problems-108186.html

https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f124/titan-chain-222361.html

Mark

dLj · Jun 1, 2026

skunther said:
I gather that my chain use is average, that while the rust showing on my chain isn’t necessarily abnormal and likely hasn’t compromised integrity, others have had chain not show any corrosion for 2 or 3 (or 5 as @Terry Cox said earlier) times as long under similar use ( what Terry has?), and still others have ended up with a lump of fused rust after less than a year of use. Hmmm…

I have what I have and I’d like to get the longest life out of it. Would it be wise to put a plastic dry-deck panel underneath the chain? I have heard others mention spraying it down with salt-away after use, which seems wouldn’t hurt. Any recommendations on extending the life of my seemingly average chain?

I haven’t checked my windlass for errant current. How do I do so?

Where is your anchor locker drain located? On my boat it is at the lowest point of the locker so all water drains out and my chain never sits in any water. I do have a plastic panel it sits on that allows a small airspace and way for water to drain easily under the chain.

Rinsing with Salt Away is not a bad idea it you can also rise it well afterwards. Too much work for me on my boat but you may have a method that is less labor intensive. A fresh water rinse is also not a bad idea. I don't do either. But my chain stays pretty dry in my anchor locker.

Checking for errant current you need to check two aspects - your wiring: connections and insulation; and your motor: windings and internal connections although these are done in one step really.

dj

thinwater · Jun 2, 2026

I would think the most common source of current that could dissolve the zinc from the chain would be cathodic protection of the underwater metals on the boat. If the bow roller, for example, is in contact with the forestay, the chain is grounded and the zinc coating becomes a sacrificial anode (certainly the mast is grounded). Is the chain in contact with bolts that secure anything that is itself grounded?

What is so weird about this is the sporadic nature. I've bought chains many times and never had such an experience (always Acco G4). Just weird. For such bad luck to strike the same boat twice is ... hard to rationalize with other experiences. Yes, multiple sailors have reported this, but not a significant percentage, I think.

colemj · Jun 2, 2026

Neither boats have rollers in contact with the forestay. The previous boat had a roller mounted on a fiberglass beam, so nothing there. The current boat has a roller connected to an aluminum beam, and is attached with plastic isolation between them. The chain itself rides on three rollers and never sees contact with any metal after the chain gypsy. The windlass has an isolated ground motor. This was case with the previous boat's windlass also.

This happened to the same person twice, not the same boat. It occurred on two separate boats with 17yrs between them. It stopped occurring in each case when the chain was changed to different manufacturers, so there was never another experiment with ACCO.

That also suggests that there was no boat issue either time, or one would expect the issue to continue with the replacement chains.

Mark

thinwater · Jun 3, 2026

colemj said:
I don't think it is luck either, as any good chain should do that. Of the five chain replacements we have done over the past 17yrs, three of them had long lives. You didn't mention chain brand, but the only two that failed in a short time for us was ACCO.

In the hot tropic water with aggressively abrasive bottoms and the anchor deployed much of each year, we expect 5yrs out of chain, and consider it a bonus if we get more.

Mark

ACCO.

Before that I had one from Peerless. It was fine.

I've had other chains of unknown origin. The only parts that corroded quickly were rope-to-chain splices, just 1 link.