Potter vs Tracker boats
 

Please pardon all the recent questions - I am trying to learn about the 23 Seacrafts and to determine which is the best boat for me.

Not looking to cause a riot. Clearly the Potter built boats are coveted. Please explain what is so bad about the Tracker boats. Is it the fit and finish? Is it the quality of the components? Did they change the weight or dimensions of the hull?

I've seen a few '98 and 99 hulls that the owners claim to be built by Silver King and they claim them to be well built - best built SC 23's ever - any truth to this?

Thank you,
Scott

Without getting flogged by the faithful here...this is my take. There are difference's between Moesly,Potter, Tracker and who ever else made the boat. However any hull that is over 15 years and has been used the known issues most likely have been addressed. I myself would buy the best 23 Seacraft out there in my price range, regardless who made it.

Ditto

the most important part is what he said, any boat over 15 years old might have issues so ask questions like has the fuel tank and tank lines been replaced, is it the original transom, is the deck still solid or has it been replaced. But like other have said, assuming there are no issues or the issues have been restored/replaced a 1972, 1982 or 1992 Seacraft is still a great boat to have!

I've never heard of Sea King, so don't know anything about them. As Island Trader said, any boat that's fairly old can have issues related to wear and tear, abuse, and poor maintenance. On boats that are now 30-40 years old, how well the boat was cared for and how many owners it's had is probably more important than anything else! Some restored boats on here have sold for much less than the cost of the restoration, and are terrific bargains compared to what they're asking for equivalent new boats!

Just because a boat is old does not mean it's in bad shape however. My 1972 was only 3 years old when I bought it, and except for the bracket addition, the transom, decks and fuel tank are all original and still in great shape. When Don Herman filled in the transom cutout to install the bracket in 2006 he said that was the driest transom he had seen in a boat that old. The dealer I bought it from (Brown & Hauptner Marine) said the "Potter putty" between the cap and top of transom was brittle and tended to crack, so on new outboard models, they removed the aluminum trim from around the transom cutout, routed out the joint and resealed it with a flexible caulk like Life Caulk, before installing the motor. (I suspect most dealers did NOT do this!) Since I bought the boat with no motor I did the same thing, and I also removed the leaking water inlet/outlet opening in the live well under the stbd seat and resealed it with epoxy, as this was also an obvious transom killer.

Fuel tank corrosion can be an issue, especially if the tank was foamed in. (Moesly never foamed in the tanks and neither did Potter, at least on the early models, although I have seen them foamed in on later Potter models, although I'm not sure if that was original tank.) Don't know if SeaCraft Industries, Tracker and other later builders foamed in the tanks, but I suspect they did.

As to which were the "best years" for a SeaCraft, I would say that any of the Moesly-built boats (the 21, 19, 20, 27 models, plus the 25-30' race boats, built in 1969 and earlier.) probably had the best glass quality. Moesly was racing the boats and demanded top quality, had well trained and paid workers, plus he routinely drilled out plugs from hulls to check glass/resin ratios to insure maximum strength! Potter learned everything he knew about boat building from Moesly, and appears to have built good boats. Although I have seen 2 examples of fiberglass stringers coming loose (one 23 and one 25' Seafari), these are very rare incidents that may have been due to rotted bulkheads causing loss of lateral support to the stringers. As you can see in the many major restorations documented on the site, the basic hull and stringer construction all of these boats is extremely robust, requiring no work at all, except to possibly remove some wet foam.

The Moesly and Potter boats used balsa core in the decks except in areas where seating and hardware is mounted. I believe SeaCraft Industries, Tracker and later builders may have changed to plywood, which is cheaper, heavier, and much less resistant to water intrusion and rot. Some of the later Sceptre's seem to be a bit bow heavy due to the plywood under the cabin bunks and pig iron ballast has been found under the decks in the back of some of these boats. There was also one defective mold for the 23 which Potter had supposedly warned SeaCraft Industries about when they bought out his bankrupt company in 1980, but it was apparently used anyway, as I have personally seen one 1980's vintage 23 Sceptre with a slight hook in a couple of the panels back near the transom. You can search my posts for some pictures I posted of it a few years ago. The owner was unaware of it and it apparently had no adverse effect on the handling or performance of the boat, but that's something I would check for if I was looking at a 23.

There are some advantages to the 20' Tracker models, such as the 25" transom, plus they are a bit longer. (19'8" for the Moesly/Potter models vs something over 20' for the Tracker models.) The Sceptres built by SeaCraft Industries in the 80's also have different inner liner with some nice extended boxes under the seats for storage. I believe Tracker only built CC models. Other than some changes in core materials mentioned above, all of the post-Potter era boats seem to be fairly solid, so if I found one in good shape, the fact that it was not a Potter hull would not deter me from a purchase. If you're really concerned about spending big $ for a turn key late model, spending a few hundred $ for a good survey would probably be a wise investment!

Generally, the above comments are right on. Trackers, you need to look at with a more careful eye. There seems to have been a whole lot of variation in build quality. Most seem to be fine, but I've seen one(a twenty) that was so cheaply built that even a minimal visual inspection would scare you.

I'm one of the two guys with broken stringers, a design flaw in a Potter era build, too wide spacing between bulkheads in the 25. It still took 40 years, plus rotten bulkheads, plus some rough seas, before the design flaw showed up. Its a strong boat, no matter who built it.

Slacker here.

Each patient is different. I know someone or a great rigger has my thanks.
Almost everything except the transom cap was sealed. Seal this critical point of ingress.
It`s the sun and fresh water that kills them.

I`ve heard there were some adjustment periods when Tracker moved SC and Mako
to Carolina. Also heard there was a corporate leak while they were still in Sarasota and some workers were upset. Also heard some of that floated north.

True? Who can say. One patient at a time.
Happy with my lay up.
`89 20.sf

Foamed in Fuel Tank
 

Per Bushwacker- Fuel tank corrosion can be an issue, especially if the tank was foamed in. (Moesly never foamed in the tanks and neither did Potter, at least on the early models, although I have seen them foamed in on later Potter models, although I'm not sure if that was original tank.) Don't know if SeaCraft Industries, Tracker and other later builders foamed in the tanks, but I suspect they did.

Hey Denny- My '76 20' Seafari fuel tank had screws to the stringers, but was also foamed between the tank and the stringers. The tank corroded along the sides where the foam held salt water and probably cleaning bleach as well. Partly my own fault because the caulking around the cover was such a pain to remove, I never replaced it. I like GFS's idea to put some cord or heavy monofilament around the cover gap and caulk over that, so once you pry up some caulking simply pull the monofilament. My tank lasted almost 30 years, probably replaced it about 2004.

. . . plus some rough seas . . . Connor is a master of understatement! Check out this post about one of his typical Bahamas trips!

Despite the bulkhead issues, if I was looking for the best riding SeaCraft and wanted something more versatile than one of the race boats, I'd pick the 25 Seafari! With 25 degrees at the transom, it's an even deeper V than the race boats, but has an 8' beam instead of the 6' beam of the race boats The ride of the Moesly 21 is similar to the 25 and more stable at rest with about 20 degrees of deadrise at the transom, but they're even more scarce than the 25! Went for a ride in Connors boat where he got it airborne in some 6' swells at about 20 kts and the ride was unbelievably soft! Check out post #214 in this thread!

Thanks Scott.
Capt. Chuck just about got everybody settled down from the last 2-S vs. 4-S brouhaha and you come along stirring up the camp fire!
Did George Soros send you a check to do this?
Gee willikers, in the first place everybody knows Moesly's are better than Potters and Potters are better than Trackers.
Secondly, Sea Kings were OUTBOARD Motors sold by Montgomery Wards made by Elgin, Martin, Scott Atwater or OMC. (yes 2-S)
Quit causing trouble!

@ Terry - sorry, really not trying to stir the pot.

My mistake, "Built by Silver King in 1999" not Sea King.

Hey Terry, I remember Sea King "kickers"!! Would run like crazy on a bench in a barrel of water, but would not run to save it's ass on the back of a jon boat!! I found they made a really nice starter for artificial reefs. :)

SK made a knock off of the 23. Not a SC.

My 89 20 has a foamed tank.

Just a few of the Pros and cons:

Tracker Pros: The 25" transom, longer 20.4 vs 19.8 length, The higher decks, drains out the back.
Cons: The ply wood decks vs balsa, some had less or poor glass lay up, foamed in gas tanks, Not being able to call your boat a "potter built"

Older Potter/Moesly Pros: Better thicker layups, balsa core, more quality controlled era, no foam on the tanks, no foam in the quad stringer hulls to dig out if wet, having a classic "potter hull" resale on restored hulls seem to bring more $ if sold.
Cons: Low decks on the pre 74 hulls, Lower 20" transoms, outboard weight seems to effect the older hulls more. Scuppers out the bottom of the hull,

Me I wouldn't be afraid of either, The newer hull may be in better shape due to less age, the ply wood may be rotten where the older balsa is still fine 40 years latter. Comes down to what you are wanting. If you are going to do a full restore I would be more apt to find an older hull. If I wanted to find a stock unrestored hull to ride with minimum effort I would look for a late 80's hull and find one that was tooken care of. I have seen pre 70's that looked like crap due to a hard life from blisters and lack of care and I have seen post 80's hull look like crap. There are also some fine examples of both being nice, Some of these full restored older ones and some barn finds that are good as the day they left the factory. My slacker friend seem to have a nice example of a late model hull that was well built and serves the purpose well. Like said before.... The magic is in the bottom

FTR, Tracker DID build a few cuddy cabin boats, the 23' Walk-around.

In '87, some of the first Tracker SeaCrafts were built with fiberglass encapsulated plywood stringers, and really poor transom construction. At Lake Worth Boating Center in Hypoluxo, we sent four 23' WA hulls back to the factory, all of which had severe transom failure within 20 hours of use. All were single-engine OB transom cut-outs. Two of them only had transom cores that extended to about 6' past the cut-outs from the center, giving them only about 48" of plywood in the transom. The transom from there out to the hull side was just 1/4" to 3/8" of fiber glass. Obviously, there was a LOT of transom flex, leading to the failures.

By contrast, the only twin-engine 23'WA I saw had a transom that was a full 2 1/4" thick across the entire beam at the transom. Which is a good thing, because we rigged that boat with twin 225's.

I understand some of the 23's from the late 90's also had some transom issues, but that will have long since shown up, and is a simple fix. Not easy or cheap, but simple.

I have to admit, I think the late 60's Moesly hulls were the best, but don't forget, they're now 45-50 years old.

Silver King
 

Hull id number starts with SXCP..????
HOW A BOUT A 1998 20 MA
is the transom wood or composit....

any other info on Silver King of 1998 20ft....

There is one down my way right now up for grabs, I haven't looked at it in person but I almost thought about it for what the owner wants. The tracker construction didn't shy me away, just the fact that I have 13-15 boats in my yard now did....

Attachment 11370

If I remember correctly 1998 is the year they changed to composite so It may be composite if made latter that year and not an 97 that was titled in 98.

SXC HIN Decoder

Our HULL ID Decoder breaks down the Hull identification number into the following information:

Thanks for that...flying...the one boat I am looking at # is SXCPA...1798 I left out 3 numbers for privacy ... I am looking at newer or restored 21 ft cc or MA... I have a 20 1970 Potter now that I have had for 35 years of its 45 years... and may do a transom and repower if I cant find a new or restored 21 ,, I don't want to do the work on mine myself. mine is in GOOD condition , but want to move up to a 21 with newer power

Joe R.
20ft Classic SeaCraft
Susie II

Capt. Lloyd has one. I want to festoon it with wood grained contact paper and lime green spray bombs.