Assess Condition of c.1960 Hull

[EricR77]

I am considering buying a c.1960 Boston Whaler boat. The hull is the 16ft Eastport model (HIN says 1967, title says 1971) with most of the original wood interior. This particular c.1960 hull has cracking and crazing.

Fig. 1. Chip in the bow area above the water line. It looks the gel coat could be ripped off the hull.

IMG_6925_.jpg (11.27 KiB) Viewed 4864 times

Fig. 2. Damage along the hull bottom.

IMG_6916_.jpg (19.55 KiB) Viewed 4862 times

Fig. 3. General crazing of the deck on the non-skid.

IMG_6942.jpg (17.97 KiB) Viewed 4861 times

Q1: Are any of these cracks and chips [seen In Figures 1, 2, and 3 a structural problem]?

Q2: Could the cracks in Figure 2 be a way for water to get into the foam?

Q3: Will the cracks in Figure 3 need to be repaired before the hull can be used?

[EricR77]

Fig. 4. General crazing of the hull bellow the water line.

IMG_6918_.jpg (19.58 KiB) Viewed 4859 times

Fig. 5. Crack in the corner at the transom.

IMG_6934_.jpg (25.74 KiB) Viewed 4856 times

Fig. 6. Close-up view of crazing on hull side above water line.

IMG_6944_.jpg (11.91 KiB) Viewed 4854 times

Q4: Could water enter by the cracks in FIgure 4?
Q5: Could water enter by the cracks in Figure 5?
Q6: Is any of this crazing serious enough that I should consider not buying the boat?
Q7: Is this degree of crazing what I should expect to see on most unrestored classic Boston Whaler boats?

[jimh]

I will try to answer your several questions in several separate replies.

Q7: Is this degree of crazing what I should expect to see on most unrestored classic Boston Whaler boats?

A Boston Whaler boat made in c.1960 to 1970 will be 50 to 60-years-old. The condition of the hull in general and the gel coat layer in particular can vary significantly from one 60-year-old boat to another, depending on the care used in maintaining the boat.

Q2: Could the crack in Figure 2 be a way for water to get into the foam?

The damage shown in Figure 1 appears to be a puncture of the gel coat layer. The surrounding radial cracks indicate some strong impact probably caused the damage.

The damage shown in Figure 2 is known as keel rash. Abrasion of the keel has caused chips of gel coat to fall away. The underlying laminate is exposed. Damage to the keel is very commonly seen. It may have occurred due to the loading of the boat onto a trailer with keel rollers. We see a keel roller in Figure 4. If all keel rollers are narrow width keel rollers like the one shown in Figure 4, misloading of the boat could have caused the damage by letting the hull strike the steel support brackets.

Any damage to the gel coat layer on a hull surface near or below the water line that exposes the underlying laminate should be repaired as soon as possible to prevent water from saturating the laminate. Water pressure on running surfaces can also tend to pry away and debond the gel coat from the laminate. And even more serious, any damage to the laminate that exposes the foam MUST be repair immediately.

[jimh]

Q3: Will the cracks in Figure 3 need to be repaired before the hull can be used?

The general crazing seen in Figures 3 and 6 are likely just cosmetic defects. But the extent of the crazing may be too great for individual repair of each crack. The best approach will be to completely sand, fair, and repaint the hull

Figure 5 appears to show damage at the stern quarter, probably caused by an impact that broke away the rub rail an part of the hull laminate. Some parts of the rub rail are missing.

[jimh]

The age of the boat is revealed in Figure 5: the boat uses the newer rub rail design. That style rub rail began to be used in the 1970's.

Figure 5 also reveals a blue interior. That dates the boat to prior to 1973.

A clear and unambiguous determination of the age of the boat can be made if the STENCIL NUMBER applied in a contrasting gel coat color is still intact. If the boat is from c.1972 or later, it should also have a federal hull identification number (or HIN) in the form of a embossed metal tag, however those metal tags often became detached and lost.

[jimh]

Q1: Are any of these cracks and chips [seen In Figures 1, 2, and 3 a structural problem]?

The structural integrity of the hull cannot be determined from the several images provided. For advice on testing the hull see

Buying Classic Boston Whaler Boats
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/buying.html

[jimh]

Q6: Is any of this crazing serious enough that I should consider not buying the boat?

Only you can make that decision.

If you are willing to undertake extensive renovation of the hull, and the asking price is very (very) low, the boat may be a good buy.

If you want a boat you can begin to use immediately without repairs, and you are not concerned about its appearance, the boat may NOT be a good buy. You will have to repair several areas before using the boat to avoid causing further damage.

Of course, a purchase decision will be strongly influenced by the length, model, and price. Without knowledge of those three parameters, readers cannot offer much advice.

[biggiefl]

Like Jim said, need better pictures and more information. If truly a 1960, it would have to be a 13-foot hull as 16-footers were not made until 1961.

In Figure 3. we see the boat has a wooden side console and no front thwart seat.

In Figure 5 we see a molded corner which would only be on a 1972 or late 1971 13-foot hull. The position of the stern rail leads me to believe it is a 16-foot hull along with the curve in the transom and possibly dead rise of the keel. A wooden side console 16 would be a COHASSET, or it is a c.1972 13-footer. I am going with the COHASSET.

This is like Whaler detective work.

[EricR77]

I should have included more information. Based on the identification number on the transom, this is a 1967 16-foot hull. The funny thing is the title says it's a 1971 EASTPORT. The interior matches the EASTPORT description and is all original wood. I took a lot of pictures of the defects and none of the boat as a whole. The engine is a 2000 Yamaha two-stroke with low hours. And a decent trailer included.

I worry I am getting in over my head. I wouldn't mind a project that takes 100-hours of labor, I'm pretty handy and have done a lot of automotive body work (metal shaping, welding, and LOTS of bondo). I figure the fiberglass work would be similar to bondo. However, I'm not sure how to fix all the crazing on this boat. Pretty much the whole boat is covered in crazing, The outside of the hull, the interior, the transom. I'm picturing I would need to strip the boat and refinish everything.

Q8 - Can the general crazing on the hull and interior be fixed by sanding down the surface then re applying gel-coat? Will I essentially need to sand off all the old gelcoat?

Q9- Is crazing bellow the water line of the hull a concern?

Q10-There is excessive crazing on the non-skid of the interior. The crazing in Figure 3 is representative of the whole inside deck. Is this a pain to fix?

Fig. 7. Deck crazing

IMG_6943.jpg (76.64 KiB) Viewed 4766 times

Q11- Based on my description, what is the value of this boat?

[jimh]

Based on the identification number on the transom, this is a 1967 16-foot hull. The funny thing is the title says it's a 1971 EASTPORT.

You have apparently interpreted the number to deduce a model year, but I am skeptical of your deduction.


What is the number you have found on the transom?

[EricR77]

What is the number you have found on the transom?

I found the stencil number 36524 and referenced the year from the reference section:

1967...........35801 thru 37600

[jimh]

The STENCIL NUMBER is a clear indicator of the production epoch of the hull. Generally any conflict between stencil number and registration information is usually resolved in favor of the stencil number.

If you actually buy the boat that is the topic of this discussion and want to get more information about its production epoch, you could inquire with Boston Whaler about that specific stencil number. At the moment, Boston Whaler customer support personnel are working from their homes, and they cannot access their old record books at the offices. Boston Whaler plans to resume working from their offices after approximately May 4, 2020.

[EricR77]

Thanks jimh. I still have a question on the condition of the boat.

Q22: Is this the condition that most un-restored late 60's whalers will be in?
Q23: Or am I better off waiting to find a boat with less crazing?

Any input on the work required to restore this would be greatly appreciated.

[biggiefl]

If you are good with bondo then this should not bee too far of a reach for you.

I would agree that it is a 1967.

Depends on the deal. There are many very nice 1967 specimens and there are far worse than this.

The nice thing about this hull is it is all original. You can only be original once and nothing is hidden that you know of so that makes it easier to tackle or assess.

The missing gel coat is easily patched to use for the summer. At that point you can get a feel for it and see if it is a boat you want to invest that kind of time in. You might take it out and hate it. Good thing is you don't have to do everything at once.

I had a 1968 Eastport custom with crazing worse than that, but I bought it for $800 with a newer 60-HP Mercury. I made a few improvements, repaired the PTnT, and later sold it to someone who wanted to restore because it was a good dry hull with no damage.

There is a thread that is pretty recent (about a 13' that a member is doing the same thing) that might answer many of your questions.

http://www.continuouswave.com/forum/vie ... f=6&t=4629

[jimh]

The nice thing about this hull is it is all original. You can only be original once and nothing is hidden that you know of so that makes it easier to tackle or assess.

NICK--that is a very good observation. It's better to see the flaws than to have them hidden from view by a sloppy cover-up repair.

[jimh]

The decision to take on a big restoration project is very much according to the individual.

I own a boat in order to get on the water, visit interesting places, and enjoy boating. I don't buy boats because I want to spend 250-hours bringing them back to usable condition. You need to figure out which sort of buyer you are.

I hope the 23 questions you have raised in this thread have been answered. Only one questions remains, for you:

Q24: Did you buy the boat?

[EricR77]

As always, the forum provided great answers to my questions.

Q24: Did you buy the boat?

A24: No, I did not buy the boat.

I chickened out. I didn't want to get into a summer-long project where I was working on the boat more than I was enjoying the nice weather. I'm looking into having a boatyard do part of the work and leaving me with a more manageable project. The seller is showing the boat to other people.