|
In your opinion, what is value difference in smirked vs. non-smirked montauks
|
| laterongc |
Posted on 08/11/14 - 12:05 PM
|
Member
Posts: 23
Comments:
0
Joined: 10/02/12
|
There is a ton of info out there on differences between smirked and smirk-less. However, I haven't seen much with regardless to the perceived difference in value.
If you came across otherwise identical, mint condition boats:
A) 1975 smirkless montauk
B) 1976 smirked montauk
?Which would you consider more valuable and how much difference (in price/value) would you put between the two?
I realize this is subjective, but I'm looking for peoples opinions based on these two hypothetical, otherwise identical mint boats.
Appreciate any/all opinions
|
| |
|
|
| aeriksen |
Posted on 08/11/14 - 12:11 PM
|
Member
Posts: 242
Comments:
0
Joined: 07/24/12
|
I personally like the look of the smirked hull better than the non-smirked.
|
| |
|
|
| Marko888 |
Posted on 08/11/14 - 12:53 PM
|
Member
Project Albums
Posts: 413
Comments:
10
Joined: 05/26/08
|
The smirked boat rides drier and smoother, so I would expect to pay 10-20% more for the newer design hull, all else being equal.
|
| |
|
|
| gchuba |
Posted on 08/11/14 - 12:59 PM
|
Member
Posts: 1675
Comments:
0
Joined: 03/31/13
|
I would say smirked hull more valuable. Too close in years to consider "classic" vs. "modern".
Garris
|
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 08/11/14 - 1:11 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11430
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
Value = depends on who is buying and what they want.
Here are some comparisons.
1. Console is the same 1973-1976
http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...icle_id=58
2. Bow Locker is much larger for the Smirked version
http://www.whalercentral.com/forum/at...cation.jpg
3. The Smirk provides a dryer ride in some conditions.
Other then that, not much difference.
|
| |
|
|
| laterongc |
Posted on 08/11/14 - 1:20 PM
|
Member
Posts: 23
Comments:
0
Joined: 10/02/12
|
Joe Kriz wrote:
Value = depends on who is buying and what they want.
I understand/agree, that is why I was trying to ask for individual opinions on difference in value based on their preferences/opinions.
|
| |
|
|
| Blackduck |
Posted on 08/11/14 - 1:21 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 519
Comments:
0
Joined: 02/25/06
|
I think overall condition is the big factor, and I would be willing to pay more for a blue interior boat of the same condition as a tan, but I'm more of a collector, than a boater. I just bought a really good 1972 Squall, and I can't take my eyes of of it-
Walter Reynolds
1973 Boston Whaler 16 Nauset 90 HP Yamaha |
| |
|
|
| laterongc |
Posted on 08/11/14 - 1:28 PM
|
Member
Posts: 23
Comments:
0
Joined: 10/02/12
|
Blackduck wrote:
I think overall condition is the big factor, and I would be willing to pay more for a blue interior boat of the same condition as a tan, but I'm more of a collector, than a boater. I just bought a really good 1972 Squall, and I can't take my eyes of of it-
thanks for your reply. what is your opinion (on value difference) based on the hypothetical boats in question above?
|
| |
|
|
| Blackduck |
Posted on 08/11/14 - 2:01 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 519
Comments:
0
Joined: 02/25/06
|
I would think an un smirked boat, a mid sixties Eastport, or one of her sisters, in excellent original condition, should fetch nearly double, what a much more common 80's Montauk would bring, assuming both boats had similar engine upgrades.
Walter Reynolds
1973 Boston Whaler 16 Nauset 90 HP Yamaha |
| |
|
|
| Blackduck |
Posted on 08/11/14 - 2:06 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 519
Comments:
0
Joined: 02/25/06
|
However, I don't know if the market today reflects my ideas of value, it may or may not-
Walter Reynolds
1973 Boston Whaler 16 Nauset 90 HP Yamaha |
| |
|
|
| laterongc |
Posted on 08/11/14 - 2:12 PM
|
Member
Posts: 23
Comments:
0
Joined: 10/02/12
|
Blackduck wrote:
I would think an un smirked boat, a mid sixties Eastport, or one of her sisters, in excellent original condition, should fetch nearly double, what a much more common 80's Montauk would bring, assuming both boats had similar engine upgrades.
what about:
If you came across otherwise identical, mint condition boats:
A) 1975 smirkless montauk
B) 1976 smirked montauk
|
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 08/11/14 - 2:45 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11430
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
I can't put a price difference on these and I don't think others can either.
If both boats were identical in condition and the same price,
I would choose the Smirked Montauk.
Montauk did not have a blue interior so that comparison doesn't work in this case.
|
| |
|
|
| laterongc |
Posted on 08/11/14 - 3:29 PM
|
Member
Posts: 23
Comments:
0
Joined: 10/02/12
|
Most people have a preference for A or B. Unless they consider the other option worthless (which I think we can all agree would be ridiculous), there must be a perceived value difference.
I'm simply curious how much the price difference would need to be to sway you to buy the other option (A vs B).
I realize there is no "right" answer, just looking for people's opinions.
|
| |
|
|
| MG56 |
Posted on 08/11/14 - 4:06 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 355
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/11/13
|
Wow, what a great question. and one I am sorta qualified to answer. The boat I have now was advertised as a 1977 Montauk 17, Smirked hull, and I was disappointed to see it was a Smirkless 1975, if I have to be honest. I've never had a Smirked 17 and I wanted to try one.
That was then. I've since learned to appreciate this transition period, and how few Smirkless Montauks were made.
You asked for these 2 specific year Montauks and there were a lot of moving parts during this transition. The next biggest one after the hull is the winged console. If you go to the trouble of getting a first year Smirk you have to get the winged console, which makes that the rarest Smirk.
The rarest Smirk wins over the rare Smirkless. They are more rare, and you can then add for the perceived extra value of a Smirked hull.
Once you pass that first year Smirk the values get cloudy, because the rare Smirkless holds it's value against all that came later.
Ok, so you asked for the price difference between the two for mint condition examples. I can't help you with that because I can't remember the last time I saw a mint original condition Montauk of that era for sale.
One is priceless and the other is a little bit less.
|
| |
|
|
| todd12 |
Posted on 08/11/14 - 6:02 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 220
Comments:
0
Joined: 07/27/06
|
I would take the smirked hull. It has performance and mechanical improvements over the smirkless hull . I also grew up on the smirked hulls and I am partial to them. I would expect to pay around 20% more.
Edited by todd12 on 08/11/14 - 6:05 PM
Todd |
| |
|
|
| Weatherly |
Posted on 08/12/14 - 4:17 AM
|
Member
Posts: 754
Comments:
4
Joined: 12/31/06
|
According to a Henry Smith, a Boston Whaler Employee at Rockland, MA., 1958-1982, The 1975 production year at Boston Whaler was fraught with hull defects that was caused by a foreign purchased resin. For this reason, there were fewer hulls manufactured during the 1975 year. The 1976 production year saw an improved quality in the hulls, and all new design for the BW17 hull. The BW17 smirked hull produced in 1976 would be of a better quality than the 1975 16 hull.
Me personally, I would never buy a 1975 BW hull. The resin was sourced to France; the lack of domestic resin source(s) was during the energy crisis. Hull quality was an oxymoron during that year of production. I call the 1975 hull a "citaeon" (lemon).
|
| |
|
|
| MG56 |
Posted on 08/12/14 - 4:27 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 355
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/11/13
|
Weatherly wrote:
According to a Henry Smith, a Boston Whaler Employee at Rockland, MA., 1958-1982, The 1975 production year at Boston Whaler was fraught with hull defects that was caused by a foreign purchased resin. For this reason, there were fewer hulls manufactured during the 1975 year. The 1976 production year saw an improved quality in the hulls, and all new design for the BW17 hull. The BW17 smirked hull produced in 1976 would be of a better quality than the 1975 16 hull.
Me personally, I would never buy a 1975 BW hull. The resin was sourced to France; the lack of domestic resin source(s) was during the energy crisis. Hull quality was an oxymoron during that year of production. I call the 1975 hull a "citaeon" (lemon).
My 1975 hull is just fine, but is there a record of how many hulls BW sold by year, sorted by models even better?
|
| |
|
|
| laterongc |
Posted on 08/12/14 - 7:44 PM
|
Member
Posts: 23
Comments:
0
Joined: 10/02/12
|
MG56 wrote:
My 1975 hull is just fine, but is there a record of how many hulls BW sold by year, sorted by models even better?
Sounds like a good idea for a new thread.
Care to respond to the question/topic of this thread?
|
| |
|
|
| MG56 |
Posted on 08/13/14 - 3:55 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 355
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/11/13
|
laterongc wrote:
MG56 wrote:
My 1975 hull is just fine, but is there a record of how many hulls BW sold by year, sorted by models even better?
Sounds like a good idea for a new thread.
Care to respond to the question/topic of this thread?
I did respond earlier, post #14, but I think you need to know how many Montauks were sold by year to determine exactly how rare these boats are. Unfortunately I think Boston Whaler kept a record of boats sold by hull size, not by model.
I think 1973-75 were recession years and the number of boats sold may have been down. If Weatherly's hull defect info is correct there could be even less Smirkless Montauks made, but then again some 1976 boats were made in 1975 so who knows.
Judging just by the list here>>> http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...icle_id=17 the number of Montauks by year breaks down like this:
1973 6
1974 7
1975 10
1976 13
But...of those 13 1976 models 6 were Smirkless, so let's throw those back with the earlier years resulting in 29 Smirkless Montauks vs 7 first year Smirked Montauks. Roughly a ratio of 4:1.
That makes the 1976 Smirkless Montauk a very rare boat. What do you think the price should be for a mint original, $30k? At auction that number could go anywhere. Now how much less would an equal quality Smirkless be if they were side by side? I think it would have to be close to 20%, but a Smirkless Montauk is still worth more than Montauks later than 1976, in collector value.
|
| |
|
|
| gchuba |
Posted on 08/13/14 - 7:33 AM
|
Member
Posts: 1675
Comments:
0
Joined: 03/31/13
|
So I guess the question for value comes down to who is buying the boat. Are you buying the boat in 100% condition to use and no longer have it in that condition or, are you buying to leave in the garage and show folks your 100% condition boat. I would say both are priceless to a true collector. To an end user, the more comfortable ride.
Garris
|
| |
|
