On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:54:58 -0500, " JimH" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JohnH wrote:
On 31 Dec 2005 08:10:32 -0800, "

wrote:

We all occasionally wish for a larger boat but would we really buy one
if we were able? I have decided "No", my 28' S2 is ideal for me. A
larger boat would have more to go wrong and require more expense. My
28 is ideal for me as she is large enough to do a lot of things but
small enough for me to easily single-hand which I do a lot. The older
I get, the happier I am to not have a larger boat. This past 6 months
is the first time I have ever had her in a marina ( I kept her at pvt
docks for years) and I have noticed what I have heard about for years,
"A boats use is inversely proportional to her length". Do others here
have a simialr experience of realizing they do not want a bigger boat?
I go through the 'bigger boat' desires every year. After a while I
convince myself
that the 21'er I've got does what I want to do just fine.

But, if Harry were to make me a super deal on that Parker, I'd give it
serious
thought.


There's a boat similar to mine on Boat Trader for $69,000. It has a
lesser engine, a lesser trailer, but has radar. Might be an
"equivalent." Assume for the moment it is. What's your best offer?



How can anyone make an offer on a boat that they have not recently
inspected and given a detailed list on the hours, maintenance,
accessories and options?

One listing in Boat Trader does not set a price baseline.

The hours and maintenance of Yo Ho are available. The boat is in
near-perfect condition, as any inspector you would care to hire would
verify. As I said, assuming the boat is as I described, and is similar to
the one on Boat Trader, with minor exceptions, what kind of offer would
you be prepared to make? Are you in the $60,000 to $70,000 range? Because
that's the price boats similar to Yo Ho in similar condition are fetching.

The "extras" on Yo Ho include the galley refrig, sink and stove, whatever
else was available from Parker at the time, the chartplotter, furono
fishdiner, ICOM radio, bow pulpit, anchor and line, dock lines, fenders
(bumpers), extra rod holder, et cetera. If you were a serious buyer, I
could prepare a list.

The boat is available for inspection if you want to pay to have it
unwrapped and recommissioned, and then decommissioned and rewrapped if
your surveyor indicates some serious problem that would kill a sale. But
there isn't any such problem.

The engine is still under warranty, as is the hull.

It does need a wiper blade on the starboard side.




Sounds like a nice boat Harry.


It *is* a nice boat! BTW did you get the recipe?

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:54:58 -0500, " JimH" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JohnH wrote:
On 31 Dec 2005 08:10:32 -0800, "

wrote:

We all occasionally wish for a larger boat but would we really buy
one
if we were able? I have decided "No", my 28' S2 is ideal for me. A
larger boat would have more to go wrong and require more expense.
My
28 is ideal for me as she is large enough to do a lot of things but
small enough for me to easily single-hand which I do a lot. The
older
I get, the happier I am to not have a larger boat. This past 6
months
is the first time I have ever had her in a marina ( I kept her at
pvt
docks for years) and I have noticed what I have heard about for
years,
"A boats use is inversely proportional to her length". Do others
here
have a simialr experience of realizing they do not want a bigger
boat?
I go through the 'bigger boat' desires every year. After a while I
convince myself
that the 21'er I've got does what I want to do just fine.

But, if Harry were to make me a super deal on that Parker, I'd give
it
serious
thought.


There's a boat similar to mine on Boat Trader for $69,000. It has a
lesser engine, a lesser trailer, but has radar. Might be an
"equivalent." Assume for the moment it is. What's your best offer?



How can anyone make an offer on a boat that they have not recently
inspected and given a detailed list on the hours, maintenance,
accessories and options?

One listing in Boat Trader does not set a price baseline.

The hours and maintenance of Yo Ho are available. The boat is in
near-perfect condition, as any inspector you would care to hire would
verify. As I said, assuming the boat is as I described, and is similar
to
the one on Boat Trader, with minor exceptions, what kind of offer would
you be prepared to make? Are you in the $60,000 to $70,000 range?
Because
that's the price boats similar to Yo Ho in similar condition are
fetching.

The "extras" on Yo Ho include the galley refrig, sink and stove,
whatever
else was available from Parker at the time, the chartplotter, furono
fishdiner, ICOM radio, bow pulpit, anchor and line, dock lines, fenders
(bumpers), extra rod holder, et cetera. If you were a serious buyer, I
could prepare a list.

The boat is available for inspection if you want to pay to have it
unwrapped and recommissioned, and then decommissioned and rewrapped if
your surveyor indicates some serious problem that would kill a sale. But
there isn't any such problem.

The engine is still under warranty, as is the hull.

It does need a wiper blade on the starboard side.




Sounds like a nice boat Harry.


It *is* a nice boat! BTW did you get the recipe?

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

Yep. Thanks. I am thinking of making both a sour cream base and whipping
cream base horseradish sauce.

I'd have to visit and talk to the folks at TriState. I wouldn't want to
give a number
without having made the decision to go for another boat, which would be a
big
decision for me (not like trading up from a D70 to a D200).



I've decided to stay with my D70 body for now, although the D200 would be a
very nice upgrade. However, it's all I can do to not run out and get my
hands on this new lens that was released the same time as the D200. It
would appear to be the perfect default lens for a Nikon DSLR, and I actually
think I would get more benefit from spending $750 on this lens than on
upgrading the body itself. A great range of focal length and I'm a huge
believer in image stabilization technology. Fortunately, they are very hard
to come by right now, which is keeping me from joining the hunt.

http://tinyurl.com/dsevd

wrote:
We all occasionally wish for a larger boat but would we really buy one
if we were able? I have decided "No", my 28' S2 is ideal for me. A
larger boat would have more to go wrong and require more expense. My
28 is ideal for me as she is large enough to do a lot of things but
small enough for me to easily single-hand which I do a lot. The older
I get, the happier I am to not have a larger boat. This past 6 months
is the first time I have ever had her in a marina ( I kept her at pvt
docks for years) and I have noticed what I have heard about for years,
"A boats use is inversely proportional to her length". Do others here
have a simialr experience of realizing they do not want a bigger boat?


Sort of going through that at the moment.

We love our boat, but there are a few "isms" we'd change if we could
and we think that a 40-footer would be just a bit bigger than our 36
while still retaining a manageable size.
Our boating budget is adequate, but not extravagant. It was our good
luck to realize a professional windfall recently, and we have
considered using a portion to upgrade the boat. We thought that adding
$100k to what our current boat should bring would keep our total
investment down to a reasonable total, so a new 40-footer ($350k and
up) is definitely out of consideration.

Our next problem is that our boat is reasonably unique, and we wouldn't
find the same characteristics in most available boats.

Looks like we'll spend a good chunk to repaint and refurbish
"Indulgence" and keep her at least a while longer. I've got one bid for
stripping the bottom, repainting the hull and the house, taking all the
teak down to bare wood and refinishing with a first "soak" coat, and
replacing some water-stained interior veneer that seems pretty
reasonable in the mid-30's.
With the 2-year old engine and a face lift, we'd be able to be as proud
as if we found a near bristol used boat- and just the sales commission
to sell "Indulgence" and tax on the difference for a $100k upgrade
would run about half of our cost to make the boat we like so well look
fairly new again.

I crawl through at least one larger boat, 55-70 feet, every month. Nice
to dream about, but
I think that the smallest boat one can safely enjoy in local conditions
is at least as good a choice as the largest boat one can (supposedly)
afford. :-)

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 11:02:44 -0700, "RG" wrote:


I'd have to visit and talk to the folks at TriState. I wouldn't want to
give a number
without having made the decision to go for another boat, which would be a
big
decision for me (not like trading up from a D70 to a D200).



I've decided to stay with my D70 body for now, although the D200 would be a
very nice upgrade. However, it's all I can do to not run out and get my
hands on this new lens that was released the same time as the D200. It
would appear to be the perfect default lens for a Nikon DSLR, and I actually
think I would get more benefit from spending $750 on this lens than on
upgrading the body itself. A great range of focal length and I'm a huge
believer in image stabilization technology. Fortunately, they are very hard
to come by right now, which is keeping me from joining the hunt.

http://tinyurl.com/dsevd



That *is* a nice looking lens. Have you seen any reviews on it? I bought this one:
http://tinyurl.com/aruez and then decided it was too big to carry on the trip we
made. Now I'm considering selling it. I ended up with the 70-300mm lens,
http://tinyurl.com/cn9r5, with which I've been pretty happy.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:27:09 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

RG wrote:
I'd have to visit and talk to the folks at TriState. I wouldn't want to
give a number
without having made the decision to go for another boat, which would be a
big
decision for me (not like trading up from a D70 to a D200).



I've decided to stay with my D70 body for now, although the D200 would be a
very nice upgrade. However, it's all I can do to not run out and get my
hands on this new lens that was released the same time as the D200. It
would appear to be the perfect default lens for a Nikon DSLR, and I actually
think I would get more benefit from spending $750 on this lens than on
upgrading the body itself. A great range of focal length and I'm a huge
believer in image stabilization technology. Fortunately, they are very hard
to come by right now, which is keeping me from joining the hunt.

http://tinyurl.com/dsevd



These days, I don't make enlargements bigger than 8x10, and by composing
properly, any cropping I do is on the very edges of the frame, so I see
no particular advantage with the D200, although I am sure it is a hell
of a camera.

I think I'm going to wait for the Nikon digital SLR that doesn't add an
"x" factor to the focal length of lenses. If I want to use a fixed focal
length 105 2.5, then 105 is what I want, NOT 150 mm.

My D70 has performed very well for me.

If 105 is what you want, just back off the lens a bit.

The D200 has a few other mods that make it nice besides the higher resolution. One
thing I like is that the flash never pops up automatically. If you want the flash,
there's a button to push and up it pops. Otherwise, the camera sets itself for a
flashless picture. The big monitor is a joy, especially when zooming in to check
focus on a picture. Having the autofocus control on a switch instead of in the menu's
is also nice.

I was very pleased with the D70, but I have to admit I like the D200 better.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

That *is* a nice looking lens. Have you seen any reviews on it? I bought
this one:
http://tinyurl.com/aruez and then decided it was too big to carry on the
trip we
made. Now I'm considering selling it. I ended up with the 70-300mm lens,
http://tinyurl.com/cn9r5, with which I've been pretty happy.


I've read only one review, and it was very positive. It sure ought to be
for the money. In addition to the 18-70 kit lens, I also have the 70-300
zoom, the ED version. At the time, it seemed like the most logical
compliment to the 18-70 kit lens, and it was very affordable. However, in
practice, I find it is often too long, and I find myself switching back and
forth between the 18-70 and the 70-300 way too often. Either that or I will
often revert to my point and shoot when I have the 70-300 on the D70 and
need a shorter lens to get a shot off quickly. It's clumsy, and I don't
like it.

There are several inherent advantages this 18-200 lens offers over the
18-70/70-300 combo we now use. First and foremost is to have the majority
of the focal range of the combo in a single lens. You give up nothing on
the short end, and still have 350mm on the long end in 35mm equivalence.
11.1x range is not bad. I'd be more than willing to give up the very long
end to have the 18-200 range in a single lens. Much more convenient. From
what I can tell, it is fairly compact in size. Somewhere between the 18-70
and 70-300 in size, which I would find acceptable for a default walk-around
lens. Second, this lens is far superior to the 70-300 zoom. Much faster
focusing with the silent wave motor, just like the 18-70. And third, even
though this lens isn't really any faster nominally than the 18-70 and only
slightly faster than the 70-300, in practicality it is much faster due to
the VR technology. In most situations, image stabilization will give you
2-3 stops more speed than without. Huge feature, especially if you shoot
mostly hand-held, as I do. I have a very nice pair of Canon image
stabilized binocs, and what the image stabilization does for them has to be
experienced to be believed. My next lens purchase will absolutely have
image stabilization technology incorporated into it.

I'm just waiting for supply to catch up with demand, and maybe the price
will soften a bit. But I wouldn't expect that to happen in the next six
months.

wrote in message
oups.com...
We all occasionally wish for a larger boat but would we really buy one
if we were able? I have decided "No", my 28' S2 is ideal for me. A
larger boat would have more to go wrong and require more expense. My
28 is ideal for me as she is large enough to do a lot of things but
small enough for me to easily single-hand which I do a lot. The older
I get, the happier I am to not have a larger boat. This past 6 months
is the first time I have ever had her in a marina ( I kept her at pvt
docks for years) and I have noticed what I have heard about for years,
"A boats use is inversely proportional to her length". Do others here
have a simialr experience of realizing they do not want a bigger boat?


Well, let's see. I have a brand new Sea Ray 185. I think it's perfect for
my driveway, for towing, and for running around my local lakes. I will,
when I win the lottery, get a bigger boat that is better suited for visiting
the channel islands from ventura/oxnard and Catalina island from Marina Del
REy for a few days to a week at a time; still it will need to be
trailerable.

I've sailed many boats from 14 feet to 40 feet and have enjoyed each for
it's purpose, but I've settled on 30 to 32 feet as my preference for bay and
coastal sailing; that seems to be the size that is most comfortable for me
to handle short-handed. On the other hand for sailing offshore I would
probably buy a 40 footer with my lottery winnings.

Now that you've made me think about it a little bit, if I win the lottery,
I'll probably keep my little Sea Ray 185 to keep in my driveway, and buy a
Catalina 320 to keep in a southern california marina.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:54:58 -0500, " JimH" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JohnH wrote:
On 31 Dec 2005 08:10:32 -0800, "

wrote:

We all occasionally wish for a larger boat but would we really buy
one
if we were able? I have decided "No", my 28' S2 is ideal for me. A
larger boat would have more to go wrong and require more expense.
My
28 is ideal for me as she is large enough to do a lot of things but
small enough for me to easily single-hand which I do a lot. The
older
I get, the happier I am to not have a larger boat. This past 6
months
is the first time I have ever had her in a marina ( I kept her at
pvt
docks for years) and I have noticed what I have heard about for
years,
"A boats use is inversely proportional to her length". Do others
here
have a simialr experience of realizing they do not want a bigger
boat?
I go through the 'bigger boat' desires every year. After a while I
convince myself
that the 21'er I've got does what I want to do just fine.

But, if Harry were to make me a super deal on that Parker, I'd give
it
serious
thought.


There's a boat similar to mine on Boat Trader for $69,000. It has a
lesser engine, a lesser trailer, but has radar. Might be an
"equivalent." Assume for the moment it is. What's your best offer?



How can anyone make an offer on a boat that they have not recently
inspected and given a detailed list on the hours, maintenance,
accessories and options?

One listing in Boat Trader does not set a price baseline.

The hours and maintenance of Yo Ho are available. The boat is in
near-perfect condition, as any inspector you would care to hire would
verify. As I said, assuming the boat is as I described, and is similar
to
the one on Boat Trader, with minor exceptions, what kind of offer would
you be prepared to make? Are you in the $60,000 to $70,000 range?
Because
that's the price boats similar to Yo Ho in similar condition are
fetching.

The "extras" on Yo Ho include the galley refrig, sink and stove,
whatever
else was available from Parker at the time, the chartplotter, furono
fishdiner, ICOM radio, bow pulpit, anchor and line, dock lines, fenders
(bumpers), extra rod holder, et cetera. If you were a serious buyer, I
could prepare a list.

The boat is available for inspection if you want to pay to have it
unwrapped and recommissioned, and then decommissioned and rewrapped if
your surveyor indicates some serious problem that would kill a sale. But
there isn't any such problem.

The engine is still under warranty, as is the hull.

It does need a wiper blade on the starboard side.




Sounds like a nice boat Harry.


It *is* a nice boat! BTW did you get the recipe?

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

And he is picking the highest price on Boat Trader. It was not the most
expensive 25' boat around when he got it. I guess he wants to sell it for
what it cost him.

I'm astonished anyone good photographer would even consider a "super wide
to super tele" lens. The optical challenges alone lead to some serious
compromises.

Your mindset regarding the optical challenges of high-end modern zooms
versus primes is dated. Current technology has closed any such gaps
considerably. Not to say there aren't some crappy cheap zooms out there,
but there some astonishingly good ones as well. But be prepared to pay for
the privilege of using one. These high-end zooms are designed for the pro
market, and Canon and Nikon couldn't get the money for them that they do if
they didn't deliver the results the pros demand. It certainly is reasonable
to say that you can by a tack sharp prime for considerably less money than a
zoom with comparable optical qualities, but it not reasonable to say that it
can't be done. Not today. The only compromise is to your bank account.

The convenience of composition with a zoom results in a more perfect crop
before post processing, causing less waste in resolution to the final crop.
And when you add this to the absolute magic of image stabilization and its
effective increase in speed, any slight optical advantage of the
old-fashioned prime is more than compensated for in the final result.