Jim
The original paperwork on Liberty says nothing about it being a MKII
so I figure it to is a MKI. The hull # is 99 so I think the break off point is
changing from double digits to triple digits. That's my story and I'm sticking
to it !! :-))
...................Gary Kolc
---- Rick Brass via CnC-List <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sorry for the late post, but I've just gotten back from the C&C owners
> gathering in Bermuda.
>
> As James has said, the exact break is a mystery as deep as the whereabouts of
> Hoffa's body or Jimmy Buffets shaker of salt. The preponderance of opinion
> seems to be that the change from mk1 to mk2 happened with hulls beginning in
> September, 1976, and occurred somewhere around hull number 90.
>
> I have been aboard 5 different 38s over the years, and they all look the same
> to me. I was once told by a local surveyor who used to work at the Rhode
> Island plant that the differences were changes made in the shape below the
> waterline to improve the IOR rating. I've heard the same from other sources,
> but none definitive. PHRF makes no distinction between the models.
>
> My boat is hull 47, and was laid down in January '76 and shipped to the buyer
> in late April that year. Nothing in my paperwork or the build file refers to
> the boat as a Mk1, which is logical since it was built before the commonly
> accepted start of the mk2. The first reference to it as a mk1 was in some
> paperwork from the PO who bought the boat in the 80s.
>
> The beam is over 12 feet (I've measured) at the toe rails. The commonly
> listed beam for the mk2 is something like 12'3", and since the hull has a
> pronounced tumblehome that is believable. I have an old IOR measurement
> certificate for my boat dated in 1978 which lists the beam as "12.6" but who
> knows how accurate that number is or exactly how it should be interpreted.
>
> As James said, the precursor for the 38 was a one-tonner. I've been told that
> only a few - maybe 3 or 4 - were built. The paperwork I got with my boat
> includes a copy of an article published in a Canadian sailing magazine in
> November 1974 that discusses some changes made to improve the IOR rating and
> performance of a successful C&C 38 foot racing boat. The article lists the
> beam as 11'5". My theory is that the original race boats were 11'5" and the
> production hulls were all over 12', and that the specs for the race boats are
> the source for spec sheets that show the narrower dimension for the Mk1.
>
> Steve, you are right that it is a lot of boat for the money, and one of the
> prettiest girls in the harbor.
>
> Rick Brass
> Imzadi
> C&C 38 mk1
> Washington, NC
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Jun 17, 2014, at 20:06, jtsails via CnC-List <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Steve, the break between the Mk1 and Mk2 is a total mystery to me. I own
> > Hull #100 which was built in 1976 while Rick Brass has hull #47 built
> > sometime in 1975? All evidence indicates that my boat is a Mk2 while Rick's
> > is a Mk1. I have been on both boats and I'll be darned if I can find any
> > difference and in my opinion there is no difference. My guess is that C&C
> > didn't like the measurement certificate for the early boats and decided to
> > call the next years boat a Mk2 to get the boat remeasured (just a stab in
> > the dark guess though). Keep in mind that the 38 was designed as a large 1
> > tonner and the Mk1 was rated slightly above the cut off. I have also
> > noticed that the brochures on the the website do not make any distinction
> > in the different years. Various sources list different dimensions for the
> > beam measurement, and again I can't spot it between the two boats. I
> > suspect that is due to measuring the beam on deck (narrower) versus the
> > overall beam (wider). Some of the sources list
the Mk1 as being 6" narrower but that is about the amount of tumblehome in
the sides. PHRF also rates them the same.
> > James
> > S/V Delaney
> > 1976 C&C 38
> > Oriental, NC
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Stevan Plavsa via CnC-List
> > To: [email protected]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:46 AM
> > Subject: Stus-List C&C 38 mk1 vs mk2
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I can't seem to find what the cut-off date was for the 38 between the mk1
> > and the mk2. Any ideas? I'm not buying a new boat anytime soon but you
> > know, window shopping and maintaining a short list. Sailboatdata lists the
> > MK2 as having IOR specific changes over the MK1, not sure what that means
> > though? The MK3 is a totally different boat. The 38 has really grown on me
> > and I think it's a really pretty boat. I've read that at least one or two
> > have circumnavigated and they are a lot of boat for the money. Just looking
> > for more info.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Steve
> > Suhana, C&C 32
> > Toronto
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > This List is provided by the C&C Photo Album
> >
> > Email address:
> > [email protected]
> > To change your list preferences, including unsubscribing -- go bottom of
> > page at:
> > http://cnc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/cnc-list_cnc-list.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > This List is provided by the C&C Photo Album
> >
> > Email address:
> > [email protected]
> > To change your list preferences, including unsubscribing -- go bottom of
> > page at:
> > http://cnc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/cnc-list_cnc-list.com
> >
_______________________________________________
This List is provided by the C&C Photo Album
Email address:
[email protected]
To change your list preferences, including unsubscribing -- go bottom of page
at:
http://cnc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/cnc-list_cnc-list.com
