Selling my boat

[jlubinsky]

Sorry "sailingharry" but you seem to have had a bad experience and so your comments are completely wrong.

[SailingHarmonie]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

I had Markel at one point. They don't cover consequential, clearly stated in the policy text. BoatUS has (or had?) a strong marketing campaign that they DO cover consequential. In their marketing (and perhaps in real life?), the following is true:
* A shroud fails, the rig goes over. BoatUS denies the shroud, replaces the mast.
* A through hull fails, boat sinks. BoatUS denies the through hull, pays for total loss.
Other vendors (Markel) don't. I asked Markel to describe ANY dismasting or vessel sinking that wasn't consequential damage to something that failed. They said "we cover dismastings all the time." Not sure how. Perhaps running into a bridge?
I insure through BoatUS. In part because anecdotally, they actually pay claims, in part because a dismasting and a sinking are the two things that worry me the most. And now in the LFP era, they appear to have no restrictions on LFP.
The last time I spoke with Markel, they appeared to have softened some, but now require a professional rigging inspection every other year (!!!). That's at least a quarter the cost of my policy! (A friend just paid nearly $1K to get his done for insurance for a trip he is making). And I somehow doubt a rigging inspection on a 2 year old rig will state "good to go, no issues."

You know not of which you speak...

I shopped long and hard, and the Markel policy was the best I could find. Perfect? No, but damn good. and they are honest and straightforward.

From my Markel policy:

..."we" will cover consequential physical damage resulting from any fire, sinking, submersion, rigging failure, collision, or stranding; provided the condition leading to the loss is not the result of neglect.

What more do you want, exactly???

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by SailingHarmonie

From my Markel policy:

What more do you want, exactly???

Substantial change from the wording in my policy ca. 2008. That completely changes the view. The wording then was, to the best of my recollection, completely reversed and the specific reason I dropped them.

[wmcunninghamii]

I own a Freedom 30 and this is one expense I can dodge..thank goodness.

However. She does have a wire forestay.

I have owned her for 25 years now and have had the forestay fail at sea once (because I was an idiot) and last go round, failed my inspection at the dock ( fraying wire). Consequently I have replaced the stay twice so far.

For what it's worth, The timing of these replacements was just about the ten year mark for the first and 20 for the second. Never really thought about it timing wise until I read this thread.

[merrydolphin]

Originally Posted by wmcunninghamii

I own a Freedom 30 and this is one expense I can dodge..thank goodness.

However. She does have a wire forestay.

I have owned her for 25 years now and have had the forestay fail at sea once (because I was an idiot) and last go round, failed my inspection at the dock ( fraying wire). Consequently I have replaced the stay twice so far.

For what it's worth, The timing of these replacements was just about the ten year mark for the first and 20 for the second. Never really thought about it timing wise until I read this thread.

I like your boat. The free standing rig a good way to go. I love the airplane wing analogy. Hard to disagree with that.
As a basically unstayed rig, I would think that the dynamics of that for stay of would be quite different from a stayed rig. Am I correct in assuming that the mast in not dependent on that forestry? And the free standing rig does move a good bit more that a stayed rig. It has a good bit of bend and give with conditions. I have also looked closely at the Nunsuch boats. Cheers!

[GopherBaroque]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

Survey results always result in bargaining by purchasers. He's paid for the survey, so obviously wants the boat.

Although the first survey I bought was a light once-over to have a third party talk me out of buying a boat that was going to be the endless time/money pit. He pointed out not-in-your-face deck problems. Good value to avoid disappointment.


I use a survey to solidify what my potential total cost to get that boat and into proper condition. One aspect is to back up what the seller disclosed and things not disclosed, getting back to the OP. From a selling perspective, did the survey reveal anything significant not disclosed in the supplied description of the boat?
a) No, and the boat is what it is. I would continue with negotiating price per my original selling plan.
b) Yes, and would update negotiating price (and/or possibly work order) to account for the new information.
c) Wildcard is whether age of rigging is included in original description.


I agree with others' that said the implications of old rigging is on the buyer. Perhaps they realize that, too, and negotiating for new rigging is simply their first put at dealing with it. I encourage the OP to tell us how it resolves!

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by GopherBaroque

c) Wildcard is whether age of rigging is included in original description.

I mentioned this upthread, but feel it needs to be mentioned again. It's not a wild card. It's virtually irrelevant. I'd suggest that WAY less than 1% of boat listings mention rig age (and usually only because it is new!). Further, I'd wager that a large majority of boats over 10 years old have original rigging (that may change someplace around 20 years, but certainly not at 10-12). I'll also wager that very few non-original owners have any idea how old their rig is, because it's almost impossible to know.


"Failure to disclose" is not an argument against the seller, unless he has some specific knowledge of a significant problem. A cracked swage, etc. The buyer should assume, going in, that the rig on any boat under 20 years old is original -- and if it has been replaced, you can be sure it will be proudly stated. Same with other equipment that has real or imaginary life spans -- PYI shaft tubes, exhaust hoses, under water hoses, fire extinguishers, life lines, engine exhaust elbow, etc, etc, etc.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

"Failure to disclose" is not an argument against the seller, unless he has some specific knowledge of a significant problem. A cracked swage, etc. The buyer should assume, going in, that the rig on any boat under 20 years old is original -- and if it has been replaced, you can be sure it will be proudly stated. Same with other equipment that has real or imaginary life spans -- PYI shaft tubes, exhaust hoses, under water hoses, fire extinguishers, life lines, engine exhaust elbow, etc, etc, etc.

The "failure" is if the rig state is misrepresented by the seller. It could be that the owner doesn't know the age, or is unaware of the state. The disclosure, in this case, is "I don't know." That is the information the buyer uses when making their offer. And that's fine. I agree, a lot of people may not know the age of their rigging (I don't). But I can tell you something about its state.

The issue would be if the seller makes a false disclosure, saying the rigging was in "great shape," or claiming it was a certain age, when it is not. Here's where a survey finding could legitimately be used to renegotiate a lower price.

[Nav4425]

I would worry about the age of the boat. Insurance companies don't like 20 year old boats anymore!

[wmcunninghamii]

Originally Posted by merrydolphin

I like your boat. The free standing rig a good way to go. I love the airplane wing analogy. Hard to disagree with that.
As a basically unstayed rig, I would think that the dynamics of that for stay of would be quite different from a stayed rig. Am I correct in assuming that the mast in not dependent on that forestry? And the free standing rig does move a good bit more that a stayed rig. It has a good bit of bend and give with conditions. I have also looked closely at the Nunsuch boats. Cheers!

Correct, the forestay carries the self tacking blade jib. It does not provide mast support. As a matter of fact the stay is rigged a bit loose. The camberspar tensions the stay under sail.


Yes, the mast is similar to a windsurfer mast in the sense it will bend and spill wind when loaded up. Fun to climb too, like climbing up a palm tree. But it has been solid as a rock. Have done the singlehanded Transpac in her twice (16 and 18) and, as far as I can tell. I am still alive.

[Nav4425]

I tend to tell boatowners to stay away from Markel...things have changed with all in the last to years.

[Mickeyrouse]

Rigging does fail- ask me how I know. But in ten years? Hardly.

[Mickeyrouse]

Rigging does fail- ask me how I know. But at ten years? Hardly. I’ve re-rigged at the dock one piece at a time, removing a piece, rigging a temporary replacement, and having a rigger swage a new piece to match. Took some time, but it worked.
BTW, our boat is 51 years old and never a problem on insurance- even after a constructive total loss courtesy of Hurricane Rita in ‘05. Had her surveyed post-refit, and they’ve been happy to accept my premiums ever since.

[Island Time O25]

Frankly, I would not want to own a boat that has to have its rigging replaced after only 10 years. Why not the hull as well while you're at it?

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Frankly, I would not want to own a boat that has to have its rigging replaced after only 10 years. Why not the hull as well while you're at it?

Don't forget, diesel engines are all but done after 4,000 hours.