Re: Stus-List CC 38 mk1 vs mk2
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 cnc-list@cnc-list.com wrote: Sorry for the late post, but I've just gotten back from the CC 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 CC 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 CC 38 mk1 Washington, NC Sent from my iPad On Jun 17, 2014, at 20:06, jtsails via CnC-List cnc-list@cnc-list.com 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 CC 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 CC 38 Oriental, NC - Original Message - From: Stevan Plavsa via CnC-List To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:46 AM Subject: Stus-List CC 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, CC 32 Toronto ___ This List is provided by the CC Photo Album Email address: CnC-List@cnc-list.com To change your list preferences, including unsubscribing -- go bottom of page at: http
Re: Stus-List CC 38 mk1 vs mk2
When I was buying my 38 Mk 2 (hull #132) recently, the prior owner told me the difference between the mk1 and mk2 was a deeper rudder and more keel ballast on the mk2. He said those adjustments were made to try to provide better downwind control in broachable conditions. Sailboatdata.com seems to at least partially back him up though their numbers are confusing. They have the mk2 with 6800 lbs of ballast compared to the mk1 with 4400. Yet they both are listed with displacements of 14,700. The other difference they show is a slightly beamier mk1. I agree that if the designs were even mildly different, the PHRFs would likely reflect that and don't. So I probably just complicated this search for Hoffa's remains but the subject has puzzled me as well, so thought I'd throw in what I'd heard. I wish there was a wise old CC designer on this list to resolve such mysteries. Jim Lynch Alcyone 1977 38-2 Olympia, Wa --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ This List is provided by the CC Photo Album Email address: CnC-List@cnc-list.com To change your list preferences, including unsubscribing -- go bottom of page at: http://cnc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/cnc-list_cnc-list.com
Re: Stus-List CC 38 mk1 vs mk2
Sorry for the late post, but I've just gotten back from the CC 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 CC 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 CC 38 mk1 Washington, NC Sent from my iPad On Jun 17, 2014, at 20:06, jtsails via CnC-List cnc-list@cnc-list.com 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 CC 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 CC 38 Oriental, NC - Original Message - From: Stevan Plavsa via CnC-List To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:46 AM Subject: Stus-List CC 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, CC 32 Toronto ___ This List is provided by the CC Photo Album Email address: CnC-List@cnc-list.com 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 CC Photo Album Email address: CnC-List@cnc-list.com 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 CC Photo Album Email address: CnC
Re: Stus-List CC 38 mk1 vs mk2
HI Steve: Just to add to the listing..my 1977 38 is Hull #125; the original build paperwork shows that it was built in the “Bruckman Shop” and has the designation of MKIIC. Someone mentioned the PHRF ratings of the two……….New England PHRF rates the MKI at 111 and the MKII at 114. Go figure. My experience is that a rating around 114 would be tough to sail to in our fleets up here. Adding the cruising allowance for a working roller furling adds 6 seconds to the racing rating.=120. That makes my “Cruising” rating 132 for a masthead rig. Since I use an ASYM instead of a Symmetrical Spinnaker. I can declare “no pole” and that adds 9 Seconds to the 120………so today, I’m sailing with a racing rating of 129 and the cruising rating of 132………..and the boat will definitely sail to those ratings. This boat looks and runs like new……….even better with the Yanmar Saildrive…recommended by Rob Ball. Best, Ron C. Impromptu MKIIC…..’77 From: CnC-List [mailto:cnc-list-boun...@cnc-list.com] On Behalf Of Stevan Plavsa via CnC-List Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:01 PM To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com Subject: Re: Stus-List CC 38 mk1 vs mk2 Thanks for the replies guys. I guess I'm not crazy then! If the owners themselves don't know the difference I don't feel so bad. Also, it means the older boats are worth considering. I'm also reading mixed reports of cored vs non-cored hulls. Anyone care to comment on that one?? Mostly I read that they are cored all the way down. Thanks, Steve Suhana, CC 32 Toronto On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:57 AM, ahycrace--- via CnC-List cnc-list@cnc-list.com mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com wrote: Jim and Steve My 1976 hull# 99 has old perf papers that call it a mk I. I have been trying to find out the difference for years. At the Mystic rendezvous I asked Rob Ball and he didn't know said it might have been a marketing thing. .Gary Kolc..Liberty jtsails via CnC-List cnc-list@cnc-list.com mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com 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 CC 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 CC 38 Oriental, NC - Original Message - From: Stevan Plavsa via CnC-List To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:46 AM Subject: Stus-List CC 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, CC 32 Toronto -- ___ This List is provided by the CC Photo Album Email address: CnC-List@cnc-list.com mailto:CnC-List@cnc-list.com 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 CC Photo Album Email address: CnC-List@cnc-list.com mailto:CnC-List@cnc-list.com 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 CC Photo Album Email address: CnC-List@cnc-list.com To change your list preferences, including unsubscribing -- go
Re: Stus-List CC 38 mk1 vs mk2
Ron I'm looking at an old PHRF-NE (1996) out of Marion Ma. and the rating is 117 with a 140% so I think that would be about 111 with a 150. Gary KolcLiberty Hull # 99 Ron Casciato via CnC-List cnc-list@cnc-list.com wrote: HI Steve: Just to add to the listing..my 1977 38 is Hull #125; the original build paperwork shows that it was built in the “Bruckman Shop” and has the designation of MKIIC. Someone mentioned the PHRF ratings of the two……….New England PHRF rates the MKI at 111 and the MKII at 114. Go figure. My experience is that a rating around 114 would be tough to sail to in our fleets up here. Adding the cruising allowance for a working roller furling adds 6 seconds to the racing rating.=120. That makes my “Cruising” rating 132 for a masthead rig. Since I use an ASYM instead of a Symmetrical Spinnaker. I can declare “no pole” and that adds 9 Seconds to the 120………so today, I’m sailing with a racing rating of 129 and the cruising rating of 132………..and the boat will definitely sail to those ratings. This boat looks and runs like new……….even better with the Yanmar Saildrive…recommended by Rob Ball. Best, Ron C. Impromptu MKIIC…..’77 From: CnC-List [mailto:cnc-list-boun...@cnc-list.com] On Behalf Of Stevan Plavsa via CnC-List Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:01 PM To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com Subject: Re: Stus-List CC 38 mk1 vs mk2 Thanks for the replies guys. I guess I'm not crazy then! If the owners themselves don't know the difference I don't feel so bad. Also, it means the older boats are worth considering. I'm also reading mixed reports of cored vs non-cored hulls. Anyone care to comment on that one?? Mostly I read that they are cored all the way down. Thanks, Steve Suhana, CC 32 Toronto On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:57 AM, ahycrace--- via CnC-List cnc-list@cnc-list.com mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com wrote: Jim and Steve My 1976 hull# 99 has old perf papers that call it a mk I. I have been trying to find out the difference for years. At the Mystic rendezvous I asked Rob Ball and he didn't know said it might have been a marketing thing. .Gary Kolc..Liberty jtsails via CnC-List cnc-list@cnc-list.com mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com 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 CC 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 CC 38 Oriental, NC - Original Message - From: Stevan Plavsa via CnC-List To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:46 AM Subject: Stus-List CC 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, CC 32 Toronto -- ___ This List is provided by the CC Photo Album Email address: CnC-List@cnc-list.com mailto:CnC-List@cnc-list.com 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 CC
Re: Stus-List CC 38 mk1 vs mk2
Jim and Steve My 1976 hull# 99 has old perf papers that call it a mk I. I have been trying to find out the difference for years. At the Mystic rendezvous I asked Rob Ball and he didn't know said it might have been a marketing thing. .Gary Kolc..Liberty jtsails via CnC-List cnc-list@cnc-list.com 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 CC 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 t he 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 CC 38 Oriental, NC - Original Message - From: Stevan Plavsa via CnC-List To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:46 AM Subject: Stus-List CC 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, CC 32 Toronto -- ___ This List is provided by the CC Photo Album Email address: CnC-List@cnc-list.com 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 CC Photo Album Email address: CnC-List@cnc-list.com To change your list preferences, including unsubscribing -- go bottom of page at: http://cnc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/cnc-list_cnc-list.com
Re: Stus-List CC 38 mk1 vs mk2
Thanks for the replies guys. I guess I'm not crazy then! If the owners themselves don't know the difference I don't feel so bad. Also, it means the older boats are worth considering. I'm also reading mixed reports of cored vs non-cored hulls. Anyone care to comment on that one?? Mostly I read that they are cored all the way down. Thanks, Steve Suhana, CC 32 Toronto On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:57 AM, ahycrace--- via CnC-List cnc-list@cnc-list.com wrote: Jim and Steve My 1976 hull# 99 has old perf papers that call it a mk I. I have been trying to find out the difference for years. At the Mystic rendezvous I asked Rob Ball and he didn't know said it might have been a marketing thing. .Gary Kolc..Liberty jtsails via CnC-List cnc-list@cnc-list.com 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 CC 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 CC 38 Oriental, NC - Original Message - From: Stevan Plavsa via CnC-List To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:46 AM Subject: Stus-List CC 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, CC 32 Toronto -- ___ This List is provided by the CC Photo Album Email address: CnC-List@cnc-list.com 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 CC Photo Album Email address: CnC-List@cnc-list.com 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 CC Photo Album Email address: CnC-List@cnc-list.com To change your list preferences, including unsubscribing -- go bottom of page at: http://cnc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/cnc-list_cnc-list.com
Stus-List CC 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, CC 32 Toronto ___ This List is provided by the CC Photo Album Email address: CnC-List@cnc-list.com To change your list preferences, including unsubscribing -- go bottom of page at: http://cnc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/cnc-list_cnc-list.com
Re: Stus-List CC 38 mk1 vs mk2
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 CC 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 CC 38 Oriental, NC - Original Message - From: Stevan Plavsa via CnC-List To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:46 AM Subject: Stus-List CC 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, CC 32 Toronto -- ___ This List is provided by the CC Photo Album Email address: CnC-List@cnc-list.com 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 CC Photo Album Email address: CnC-List@cnc-list.com To change your list preferences, including unsubscribing -- go bottom of page at: http://cnc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/cnc-list_cnc-list.com
