I got lots of great advice and comments from my previous post on what makes Cherubini's special. Thanks for that. I've got another question that is likely to generate an equally vibrant discussion. I took a look at a 1978 27' last week. It seemed to have the normal amount of wear and tear that you'd expect from a 22 year-old boat. When I told the broker that I was interested in one of the Cherubini-designed Hunter from this period he discouraged me from considering a late 70's early 80's Hunter. His belief was that they were "built to a price" and the quality of workmanship from that period was not very good. He suggested considering a mid-80s or later Hunter, which he felt were better built. Now, I could be cynical and say that he was doing that because the price of a mid-80's anything is likely to be higher - thus more potential commission for him. But I thought I'd ask this "unbiased" group for your opinion of his opinion. By the way, I've read all of the owners reviews on this site for all the models from the mid-70's to mid-80's. I've noted there are some construction issues discussed, but nothing across the board. I plan to use whatever boat I get in the Tidewater of Virginia and the Chesapeake, sailing with my wife and 11-year old. Again, thanks for your wisdom, advice and counsel. Patrick
- Status
Look at the boat you want.
There is a lot of blather about the quality of various boats over various time frames. All Hunters are built to price; Hunter has never competed with Hinkely or Pacific Seacraft. I think you can find boats in any time frame with examples of problems, as you could for any make of boat for that matter. If you're looking at 15-20 year old boats, what is going to be important is how well the boat was maintained over its life. IMHO, some of the problems associated with Hunters is that because they are lower priced, they may be purchased by people with greater financial constraints and therefore may not be maintained as well as the guy who put $250k in is PS. Another factor may be that a lot of Hunters are bought by first time boat buyers who are not as experienced in maintenance. That being said, if you find an older Hunter that has been maintained well, you can get a good boat for less money. If you find a 20 year old Hunter that's still in great shape, that ought to tell you something about how that one was built and maintained! How badly built could it be if its been around for 20 years and still is in good shape? If you find a boat that has been well maintained, get it, whether its a '77 or '87. Opposite for a neglected boat. Or just figure out what kind of model you like and how much you can afford and look for a boat that's in good shape. When you find one make sure to have it surveyed. Recognize that just about any 20 year old boat in general are going to need more maintenance and repair than a 10 or 5 year old boat. That's part of the trade off for price.
There is a lot of blather about the quality of various boats over various time frames. All Hunters are built to price; Hunter has never competed with Hinkely or Pacific Seacraft. I think you can find boats in any time frame with examples of problems, as you could for any make of boat for that matter. If you're looking at 15-20 year old boats, what is going to be important is how well the boat was maintained over its life. IMHO, some of the problems associated with Hunters is that because they are lower priced, they may be purchased by people with greater financial constraints and therefore may not be maintained as well as the guy who put $250k in is PS. Another factor may be that a lot of Hunters are bought by first time boat buyers who are not as experienced in maintenance. That being said, if you find an older Hunter that has been maintained well, you can get a good boat for less money. If you find a 20 year old Hunter that's still in great shape, that ought to tell you something about how that one was built and maintained! How badly built could it be if its been around for 20 years and still is in good shape? If you find a boat that has been well maintained, get it, whether its a '77 or '87. Opposite for a neglected boat. Or just figure out what kind of model you like and how much you can afford and look for a boat that's in good shape. When you find one make sure to have it surveyed. Recognize that just about any 20 year old boat in general are going to need more maintenance and repair than a 10 or 5 year old boat. That's part of the trade off for price.
I own a 1981 H30
and have for 11 years. But I looked at a lot of Hunters when I was looking. Here's my $0.02: -From the start until the mid 70's there was some very sloppy workmanship, the boats were extremely plain, the sail plans were small, and the equipment choices were cheap. The hulls were fairly solid and the designs were robust (Cherubini.) These are good choices for starter boats or if the equipment has been upgraded. -From about 79-83 or so the equipment (e.g. winches, cleats, hatches,..) was upgraded significantly and there were some examples of bad details that were corrected (e.g. storm hoods.) Some of the equipment was still 2nd rate (the CDI furlers.) These were generally the same designs as the early boats and the same hulls, but some had improvements (my 81 has a 2' taller mast than the earlier boat.) I think these boats are excellent deals since the are priced very similiar to the early boats. -From 83-89 or so the equipment choices were upgraded and the designs modernized but the fundamentals of the boat were cheapened (some iron keels, very thin hull layups in some designs, examples of poor resin "wet through" in the fiberglassing on occasion.) These are not my favorite boats, but some are quite comfortable. -1989-1995 or so the boats improved in quality of construction and equipment as they were redesigned. Leftover designs were not generally improved. Fundamental construcion was generally better (lead keels again, through bolted hull to deck joint, ...) There were some decent performing boats in the mix (e.g. the 35.5) -1995-present the quality is quite a bit better and probably as good as anybody's production boat in both constuction and equipment but the designs are heavily engineered i.e. everything is exactly what the stress model called for and not one ounce more. Performance is significantly limited by the attempt to make the boats easy to sail (arches, B+R rig, small headsails,...) Of the course the prices are now at or above the competition (Catalina, Beneteau, Dufour) and I am completely puzzled by the style. Weird.
and have for 11 years. But I looked at a lot of Hunters when I was looking. Here's my $0.02: -From the start until the mid 70's there was some very sloppy workmanship, the boats were extremely plain, the sail plans were small, and the equipment choices were cheap. The hulls were fairly solid and the designs were robust (Cherubini.) These are good choices for starter boats or if the equipment has been upgraded. -From about 79-83 or so the equipment (e.g. winches, cleats, hatches,..) was upgraded significantly and there were some examples of bad details that were corrected (e.g. storm hoods.) Some of the equipment was still 2nd rate (the CDI furlers.) These were generally the same designs as the early boats and the same hulls, but some had improvements (my 81 has a 2' taller mast than the earlier boat.) I think these boats are excellent deals since the are priced very similiar to the early boats. -From 83-89 or so the equipment choices were upgraded and the designs modernized but the fundamentals of the boat were cheapened (some iron keels, very thin hull layups in some designs, examples of poor resin "wet through" in the fiberglassing on occasion.) These are not my favorite boats, but some are quite comfortable. -1989-1995 or so the boats improved in quality of construction and equipment as they were redesigned. Leftover designs were not generally improved. Fundamental construcion was generally better (lead keels again, through bolted hull to deck joint, ...) There were some decent performing boats in the mix (e.g. the 35.5) -1995-present the quality is quite a bit better and probably as good as anybody's production boat in both constuction and equipment but the designs are heavily engineered i.e. everything is exactly what the stress model called for and not one ounce more. Performance is significantly limited by the attempt to make the boats easy to sail (arches, B+R rig, small headsails,...) Of the course the prices are now at or above the competition (Catalina, Beneteau, Dufour) and I am completely puzzled by the style. Weird.
70' s era
hunters of the 70's were not the best built boats of that era, (cheap building materials) however with a 27 ft boat if you get it for a good price it shouldnt cost to much to bring it up to nice shape, remember you have to live with the boat, as long as you like it thats all that matters.
hunters of the 70's were not the best built boats of that era, (cheap building materials) however with a 27 ft boat if you get it for a good price it shouldnt cost to much to bring it up to nice shape, remember you have to live with the boat, as long as you like it thats all that matters.
1979 H37C is extremely solid.
This does not speak directly to the H27 but we can assume the hulls were similar. Two H37C owners who are generally very busy but have more experience should really provide answers here. One had occasion to have thru-hulls drilled recently. His marina was amazed at the thickness, two inches near the keel, one inch elsewhere. When I was doing the research my main criteria were two: 1) a solid base to build on, and 2) it had to look like a sailboat. The only structural change I am making involves strengthing the rudder bearing supports. But the boat is twenty-one years old and has no keel separation and no rudder play, and no leaks. This same marina was also impressed with how beefy the Kenyon spars are. With the mast being keel stepped the wires are actually over-sized. Do not believe that following generations were this solid.
This does not speak directly to the H27 but we can assume the hulls were similar. Two H37C owners who are generally very busy but have more experience should really provide answers here. One had occasion to have thru-hulls drilled recently. His marina was amazed at the thickness, two inches near the keel, one inch elsewhere. When I was doing the research my main criteria were two: 1) a solid base to build on, and 2) it had to look like a sailboat. The only structural change I am making involves strengthing the rudder bearing supports. But the boat is twenty-one years old and has no keel separation and no rudder play, and no leaks. This same marina was also impressed with how beefy the Kenyon spars are. With the mast being keel stepped the wires are actually over-sized. Do not believe that following generations were this solid.
H27's
Iam sure iam not nearly as knowlegeble as some of the other posters, but here is my two cents worth since i recently purchased an 83' H27(our 2nd boat)I looked at ALOT of boats before i did.. I completely agree with the "how well is it mantained theory" BUBBLES is immaculate and hardly an H27 anymore ours is an "Oscar Bergman" cherubini.(iam a snob and refuse to be associated with those spaceship Hunters.
The late former owners dream was to sail her down the the Islands and she has been "beefed" up in alot of areas-that said the ONLY problem ive found with mine is spider cracking in the cockpit which i understand is typical of that year.Check out July CRUISING WORLD's "under 15k club"-"due to the company's aproach to efficient manufacturing,options were not an option,so owners looking for more than the standard fit out relied on dealer packages or do it yourself." an H27 has more sail area and more ballast/disp. than a Bristol 27(67-80) Its a whole lot "roomier" than my niehbors C27,looks as nice(hell i like it better) than the Pearson30 down the dock add wheel steering,tons of opening ports, teak/holly sole a deisel engine(mine has only 200hrs)although a little underpowered, its tough to beat- It looks like a boat not a spaceship(cherubini) modifacations were made so i have a "storm house" of sorts with dodger, Bimini,sides and back but MOST immportantly it was in REALLY good shape. I found Tartans,Contessas, CapeDory's all would have required work that is beyond me.So does it sound like i like my H27 YES!!! I can sail her by myself and shes forgiving of my faults as a sailor,though iam not ready to take off around the globe in her i think a good skipper could get her to the Bahamas safely no problem!Good Luck
Iam sure iam not nearly as knowlegeble as some of the other posters, but here is my two cents worth since i recently purchased an 83' H27(our 2nd boat)I looked at ALOT of boats before i did.. I completely agree with the "how well is it mantained theory" BUBBLES is immaculate and hardly an H27 anymore ours is an "Oscar Bergman" cherubini.(iam a snob and refuse to be associated with those spaceship Hunters.
The late former owners dream was to sail her down the the Islands and she has been "beefed" up in alot of areas-that said the ONLY problem ive found with mine is spider cracking in the cockpit which i understand is typical of that year.Check out July CRUISING WORLD's "under 15k club"-"due to the company's aproach to efficient manufacturing,options were not an option,so owners looking for more than the standard fit out relied on dealer packages or do it yourself." an H27 has more sail area and more ballast/disp. than a Bristol 27(67-80) Its a whole lot "roomier" than my niehbors C27,looks as nice(hell i like it better) than the Pearson30 down the dock add wheel steering,tons of opening ports, teak/holly sole a deisel engine(mine has only 200hrs)although a little underpowered, its tough to beat- It looks like a boat not a spaceship(cherubini) modifacations were made so i have a "storm house" of sorts with dodger, Bimini,sides and back but MOST immportantly it was in REALLY good shape. I found Tartans,Contessas, CapeDory's all would have required work that is beyond me.So does it sound like i like my H27 YES!!! I can sail her by myself and shes forgiving of my faults as a sailor,though iam not ready to take off around the globe in her i think a good skipper could get her to the Bahamas safely no problem!Good LuckFind one that looks good, then survey
Our Cherubini h27 has some compression of the mast step, and some stress points around the deck/hull seam - easily corrected by tightening the bolts. We saw wrecks and really good boats while searching in the $10,000 to $20,000 range on Lake Erie. Use a good surveyor to tell you if your target boat is OK. In general, if a surveyor gives you a good report on a boat that was worked over 20 years, I would expect it will do the job for you. No surprises on our boat yet!
Our Cherubini h27 has some compression of the mast step, and some stress points around the deck/hull seam - easily corrected by tightening the bolts. We saw wrecks and really good boats while searching in the $10,000 to $20,000 range on Lake Erie. Use a good surveyor to tell you if your target boat is OK. In general, if a surveyor gives you a good report on a boat that was worked over 20 years, I would expect it will do the job for you. No surprises on our boat yet!
Dealer full of it.
I have an 81 H27. All the proof is in the pudding. Just walk around the hull and tap it with your fingers. Some hulls are much thicker than others. It makes the boat a little slower/sluggish. But on an older boat, what are you really paying for? You can always spend the money you did not give the dealer on some high tech goodies that im sure would make your H27 almost as pretty as mine.
I have an 81 H27. All the proof is in the pudding. Just walk around the hull and tap it with your fingers. Some hulls are much thicker than others. It makes the boat a little slower/sluggish. But on an older boat, what are you really paying for? You can always spend the money you did not give the dealer on some high tech goodies that im sure would make your H27 almost as pretty as mine.
27 Info
My real first purchase was a Hunter 27, 1978. The boat was kept in great shape and no real signs of trouble. I kept the boat about two years and the only thing I added was a wheel and a new sail. I actually saw the boat last week and the deck and everything still looks great. The boat is perfect for day trips and is very forgiving and easy to sail. Since you are in the neighborhood, email me at mpcsail@aol.com for additional questions or info. Mike
My real first purchase was a Hunter 27, 1978. The boat was kept in great shape and no real signs of trouble. I kept the boat about two years and the only thing I added was a wheel and a new sail. I actually saw the boat last week and the deck and everything still looks great. The boat is perfect for day trips and is very forgiving and easy to sail. Since you are in the neighborhood, email me at mpcsail@aol.com for additional questions or info. Mike
Common Sense will tell the story....
Gentlemen, In response to Ed's post about a couple of busy 37C owners, I guess I resemble that remark. I have been preparing my "81" 37C for bluewater work for about a year now. I have gone into great details about the construction of at least the 37C but I presume all the Cherubini's are typical. I have talked to Hunter design and technical engineers and have derived that the 37C will meet class "A" open ocean CE requirements with certain modifications to hardware that was installed on the boats. This includes portlights and other economy fittings originally installed by the factory. The new Hunters also meet this same requirement and are just as good structually, this holds true for the Passage series I am sure of but probably is true of all the larger models over 37'. OK, want to feel good about a Cherubini? Look at the displacement of some of the older models Vs. the equivalent of a newer model. Although weight isn't a guarantee of structual strengh, Hunter has had a good reputation for F/G layup throughout the years so that extra weight is definately indicative of a strong boat during that era. New technologies and materials have become lighter over time but I like having a couple of extra pounds in F/G below the waterline. As Ed stated, There was no place in my hull, including the scupper drains under the cockpit above or below the waterline that were less than 1" thick! average from waterline to keelson was 1 1/2" to 2" thick! As a previous owner of a Pacific Seacraft, an excellent boat, I believe I am compromising nothing other that asthetics when my refit is complete. And for a whole lot less money in the boat, I expect to retire early and enjoy the cruising life for a while! By the way, as a structual engineer by trade, I have made my comparisons as scientific as I possibly could without obtaining Hunter's structual load tables or destructing my boat to ascertain it's structual integrity. I feel quite secure however that all of the Hunter's designed for bluewater are all capable cruisers and are as well built as most of the better production boats out there. Tom
Gentlemen, In response to Ed's post about a couple of busy 37C owners, I guess I resemble that remark. I have been preparing my "81" 37C for bluewater work for about a year now. I have gone into great details about the construction of at least the 37C but I presume all the Cherubini's are typical. I have talked to Hunter design and technical engineers and have derived that the 37C will meet class "A" open ocean CE requirements with certain modifications to hardware that was installed on the boats. This includes portlights and other economy fittings originally installed by the factory. The new Hunters also meet this same requirement and are just as good structually, this holds true for the Passage series I am sure of but probably is true of all the larger models over 37'. OK, want to feel good about a Cherubini? Look at the displacement of some of the older models Vs. the equivalent of a newer model. Although weight isn't a guarantee of structual strengh, Hunter has had a good reputation for F/G layup throughout the years so that extra weight is definately indicative of a strong boat during that era. New technologies and materials have become lighter over time but I like having a couple of extra pounds in F/G below the waterline. As Ed stated, There was no place in my hull, including the scupper drains under the cockpit above or below the waterline that were less than 1" thick! average from waterline to keelson was 1 1/2" to 2" thick! As a previous owner of a Pacific Seacraft, an excellent boat, I believe I am compromising nothing other that asthetics when my refit is complete. And for a whole lot less money in the boat, I expect to retire early and enjoy the cruising life for a while! By the way, as a structual engineer by trade, I have made my comparisons as scientific as I possibly could without obtaining Hunter's structual load tables or destructing my boat to ascertain it's structual integrity. I feel quite secure however that all of the Hunter's designed for bluewater are all capable cruisers and are as well built as most of the better production boats out there. Tom
- Status