1984 23cc
 

Is 1984 a good or bad year? Have my eyes on one. My 1977 was a tank. Someone refresh my memory. Thanks

Remember the 1978 PintoStang.... well, not that bad. :D I believe it is an SCI hull. There is talk of some select hulls coming out of the mold with a hook but I am not that knowledgeable as some of the vets here who should be piping in shortly to give you all the details.

Thanks. Keep em coming

There was one 23 mold that SeaCraft Industries inherited when they bought Potter's bankrupt company that had with a slight hook in it on the center panel on port side just forward of transom. Potter warned them not to use it but they apparently did on at least one 23 Sceptre I looked at. (See pic below.) It's probably less than 1/8" deep and could be easily fixed, but it's something I'd check for on any SCI hull.

Thanks so much. Very cool.

I have a 1987 and it's a fantastic boat. If you can get past the stigma that it's not a Potter you will enjoy it. People tend to over analyze this stuff - I know I did when I was shopping around. I prefer the layout of the post-potter hulls anyway. The transom is much cleaner and you have a bigger cockpit because of it. These later boats also have bigger gas tanks and better scupper layout.

Would that minor amount of dimensional difference really make a noticeable performance difference? What is the net result in the ride?

Yes it will but the fix is so easy it's not worth considering as a disqualifier.

I agree, I would have no issue going with an SCI hull. some say Potters are built like tanks but is there any real evidence of that? Maybe, but that isn't always a good thing if more glass was used beyond what was structurally needed. I can also tell you Potter hulls aren't perfect. When you dig as deep as I have into then you will certainly find shortcomings in certain areas of construction.

I totally agree with Kmoose and the above statement. On my 78 Potter 18 I had to replace the bow eye last year. When I finally got an access hole cut in the liner I found out that the glass was over 1/2" thick in the bow. In general our 18 is a very heavy boat. That being said though I will definitely take one that's too heavy over one that's too light any day of the week.
Rod

Lots of the old boats (like my 1965 Bertram 20) used very heavy layups for a couple of reasons; they really did not know how strong the layups were and, in those days, they used a lot of mat and woven roving - both of which need a whole lot of resin. Now we have stitched fabrics like biaxial, triaxial, etc which are substantially stronger than woven roving or cloth because the fibers lay straight and do not have kinks in them plus these newer fabrics take a lot less resin for a good layup. The net result is that it probably takes 1/3 to 1/2 of the 'old style' layup thickness and weight to get the same or greater strength with the new materials. That said, it is easy to have a strong but much thinner layup with the new stuff that still gets damaged by the idiot slinging an anchor on a thin part of the deck (strong but no impact tolerant layer).