November 2004 - montgomery_boats - mailman.xmission.com

Re: Coba' Hull number
by Gordon Allgrove 15 Nov '04

15 Nov '04

Bill, I'm not an expert on deciphering the Monty VIN numbers, there isn't any number on the sail (like my other toys). I 'seem' to remember the paperwork stating Coba' was 1st sold in 1982. I also know the sails were like 'never used' (still folded and crisp in the sail kit bag). So anyway on the transom molded in, it says: MMP71648D 787 I think I'm confused here- I know how to extract the hull number from the MFR # on the Snipe - it's in the middle of the Mfr #. Is 787 the hull number for Coba'? or isn't that supposed to be the month & year made? Gordon M8 Coba' ----- Original Message ----- From: BILLAMICASR(a)aol.com To: gordonallgrove(a)mindspring.com Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 4:09 PM Subject: Coba Hi Gordon, I had some time today to work on the site and got your picture posted on page two of the MSOG boats and Owners section. I need the following for the site: What is the hull number? What state are you in? Take a look... www.MSOG.funtigo.com Bill

2 2

PS Orion
by bownez＠juno.com 15 Nov '04

15 Nov '04

Hi Bob and Listers, Concerning the PS Orion model, I also agree she is a wonderful looking craft. Years ago I was visiting a PS dealer here in Minnesota, Alibi, gathering information on the Flicka. I had never seen one and the salesman (a former Flicka owner), was telling me all about her attributes. He also had in house a used Dana which he allowed me to climb aboard and inspect. Beautiful boat but at $60K, used, just a dream for me. He mentioned that the Orion was not a model to consider. He never gave any details. I always wondered why..... I eventually got to the financial point to look for a Flicka, and after looking at two, and being aboard, decided it was too small for me. Although I have not sailed one, I bided my time and waited. My M23 is the fit I was looking for. Pleased in Minnesota. Bones ________________________________________________________________ Juno Platinum $9.95. Juno SpeedBand $14.95. Sign up for Juno Today at http://www.juno.com! Look for special offers at Best Buy stores.

1 0

Phoenix for Thanksgiving
by Doug Kelch 15 Nov '04

15 Nov '04

To any friendly M boaters in Phoenix. I will be visiting my daughter in Phoenix 11/24 through 11/27 (actually leaving on the 28th). I would like to get out to lake Pleasant on Saturday. Can anyone give me directions as to where I might find the most Montgomery boats? Thanks Doug Kelch "Seas the Day" __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: M_Boats: History Question #1
by BILLAMICASR＠aol.com 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

Hi Bones, Can't remember what I said that would offend... However, like I always say, you can't believe everything you read anyway. I like the looks of the early cabin top lots better than the new one. It's just me sailing most of the time, so I believe I'd like the galley model. I also like Tipperary quite a bit... Just cant have it all. Bill

1 0

Re: M_Boats: History Question #1
by bownez＠juno.com 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

Bill, Careful there buddy! Us older M17 owners are a mighty proud group! (smile). Another small fact I can offer to the history of the M17 is that very early models came with 2 gudgeon/pintles rudder mounting, then they were equipped with 3. My hull #92 circa 1976 has 3. On another note, since owning my M17 (1996) I have never had any swing keel sticking issues. (knock on fiberglass). Nice to hear your input Rachel, I do talk with Randy Palmer from time to time, last I heard, he had his Cape Dory 31 up for sale to buy a larger CD. I never did see his M23, but I understand it was sold to a person in Colorado. Later, Bones ________________________________________________________________ Juno Platinum $9.95. Juno SpeedBand $14.95. Sign up for Juno Today at http://www.juno.com! Look for special offers at Best Buy stores.

1 0

masthead rig for the 15
by Richard Cottrell 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

Steve: If you often experience light winds you might consider a gennaker. I fly mine from either the spinnaker halyard (6" above the top of the forestay) or from the masthead (I use my topping lift to substitute for the gennaker halyard which is on a swival block to the port side at the top of the mast). It works great. If the wind picks up, it's easy for one person to douse from the cockpit and then raise the jib, while singlehanded. My Gennaker has 144 sq. ft. of sail area. It's colorful and easy to deal with and lots of fun!! I like to use it in light winds on early morning sails after picking up anchor when reaching for periods of 1/2 hour or more. Downwind, I pop the spinnaker, in similar situations. Jerry also mentioned in the article you refer to that the 15 might be better with more ballast. A masthead rig without more ballast may not work so well. How many 15' sailboats have a masthead rig? Rich Cottrell M15

3 3

Re: M_Boats: History Question #1
by BILLAMICASR＠aol.com 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

Sorry MSOG.org... No offense with the word "Real". I really should have said. I'm considering doing a "History" section and I'd like to add a picture of the change to go along with the words. Bill

1 0

Re: M_Boats: History Question #1
by BILLAMICASR＠aol.com 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

Hi Rachal, I'm goint to do a "real" history section in the MSOG photo site. Now I need a picture of the first of the new mold boat. I'll Email you. Bill www.MSOG.funtigo.com

1 0

Re: montgomery_boats Digest, Vol 21, Issue 22
by Chef Theo Petron 13 Nov '04

13 Nov '04

Rachel...It's called the M23! Find one and go now!! Theo M23 "Sails Increase" On Nov 13, 2004, at 9:42 AM, montgomery_boats-request(a)mailman.xmission.com wrote: > Send montgomery_boats mailing list submissions to > montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > montgomery_boats-request(a)mailman.xmission.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > montgomery_boats-owner(a)mailman.xmission.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of montgomery_boats digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. RE: track lube (William B. Riker) > 2. RE: track lube (Steve R.) > 3. Re: Web Pictures (BILLAMICASR(a)aol.com) > 4. i don't understand what's . . . (Craig F. Honshell) > 5. History Question #1 (BILLAMICASR(a)aol.com) > 6. Re: Web Pictures (Bob) > 7. Rail bolts (Rotortom2(a)aol.com) > 8. Re: Rail bolts (Sandyal55(a)aol.com) > 9. Re: Rail bolts (Larry E Yake) > 10. Re: History Question #1 (Rachel) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:13:43 -0500 > From: "William B. Riker" <wriker(a)mindspring.com> > Subject: RE: M_Boats: track lube > To: "'For and about Montgomery Sailboats'" > <montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Message-ID: <E1CSkbu-0007MM-00(a)barry.mail.mindspring.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Right, the sail falls on the deck. Then you roll, fold and/or flake > it into > a tidy package, and tie it to the boom. It took me a while to perfect > the > technique, but I never could get the main to flake nicely when it had > slugs, > so this works for me. > > Bill Riker > M15 #184 > Storm Petrel > > > -----Original Message----- > From: > montgomery_boats-bounces+wriker=mindspring.com(a)mailman.xmission.com > [mailto:montgomery_boats- > bounces+wriker=mindspring.com(a)mailman.xmission.com] > On Behalf Of Sandyal55(a)aol.com > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 9:05 PM > To: montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com > Subject: Re: M_Boats: track lube > > > In a message dated 11/11/2004 7:02:01 PM US Mountain Standard Time, > shawn(a)ori.org writes: > > . Simple is best. > > > > When you anchor for the night and don't want to put the main away, > slugs > are > the only way to go. Otherwise the main falls all over the deck. Try > using a > > bolt rope on a 23 or a boat larger. The thought is ludicrous. The > bolt rope > > is fine for a small sail on a little boat, but is a burden when the > main is > > much bigger. > _______________________________________________ > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:46:13 -0800 (PST) > From: Steve R. <stever(a)mail.saabnet.com> > Subject: RE: M_Boats: track lube > To: montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com > Message-ID: <20041113024613.894447269(a)sitemail.everyone.net> > Content-Type: text/plain > > Bolt rope good. > > Lazy jacks make bolt rope better. > > No sail on deck. > > No learning curve. > > The helm has unobstructed vision. (When mama is happy...) There is > only so much room in the cockpit for two people and their > accoutrements. Why drop the main there? > > The best part is, I give power boaters the impression I know what I am > doing. > > $20 in parts. Two minutes to set-up or take down. > > (Posted wirelessly from Hagerstown, MD. Almost close enough to the > Chesapeak to smell the marine air. While I am not on a boat I am wet > enough to have been turtled today.) > > steve > > Steve R. > M-15 #119 > Lexington, KY > > > "William B. Riker" <wriker(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > > Subject: RE: M_Boats: track lube > > Right, the sail falls on the deck. Then you roll, fold and/or flake > it into > a tidy package, and tie it to the boom. It took me a while to perfect > the > technique, but I never could get the main to flake nicely when it had > slugs, > so this works for me. > > Bill Riker > M15 #184 > Storm Petrel > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:13:08 EST > From: BILLAMICASR(a)aol.com > Subject: Re: M_Boats: Web Pictures > To: montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com > Message-ID: <d8.191201ec.2ec6e3d4(a)aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Thanks Don for the Compliments. > Regarding the Orion. > They are a favorite of mine also. Amazing how much they've kept the > resale > value. A nice one twenty years old being usually over 30 or 40K. Here > in SF, > There are several of the early Orions with the port lights like the > Dana, you > know just two on each side. I think they went to three in 81 or 82. > Ilike the > early ones the best. Anyway, you're right, there's lots of them on SF > Bay. > Thanks again, > Bill > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:19:29 -0500 > From: "Craig F. Honshell" <chonshell(a)ia4u.net> > Subject: M_Boats: i don't understand what's . . . > To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats" > <montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Message-ID: <004e01c4c937$f85faae0$2263b3cf@D89X0M51> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > . . . complicated about slugs . . . They're quicker to feed, slide > more easily, and > as Wayne points out, allow you to drop the sail without removing it . > . . My halyards > are external . . . The only extra hardware on the mast itself is a > quick-release > stop-pin across the groove . . . The mast-mod was only necessary > because the throat > to the boltrope groove was an absurd umpteen-zillion feet above the > deck: Closing > the old throat, re-bending the new, would've been a useful mod even if > I hadn't > switched to slugs . . . I've stored my boat on her trailer, mast-up > near a launch > ramp, the last two seasons and the ability to drop the sail without > removing it from > the groove has been an exceptional convenience . . . Ready to sail: > Undo the > sail-ties and pull the halyard, the sail sliding so easily it can be > raised > one-handed . . . Ready to store: Release the halyard, flake the sail > and lash it to > the boom . . . Nothing complicated, no extra moving parts. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Wayne Yeargain > To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 10:42 AM > Subject: track lube > > Granted the boltrope is all you say it is, plus more aerodynamic, the > advantage in sail slugs > is that you can drop the sail without removing it. > > Wayne > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William B. Riker" <wriker(a)mindspring.com> > To: "'Craig F. Honshell'" <chonshell(a)ia4u.net>; "'For and about > Montgomery > Sailboats'" <montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 7:18 PM > Subject: track lube > > Just for a contrasting opinion, I think you're all nuts! For me, the > boltrope is easier to deal with than slugs. The original sail that > came > with Storm Petrel had slugs, but I ordered my new main (5 years old > now) > without them and haven't looked back. > > In the spring, a shot of silicone spray in the mast groove keeps the > boltrope sliding freely all season, and I don't need a mechanism to > keep > the > sail from dropping out of the slot. I can let go of the halyard to > tend > to > something else and the sail stays put. Of course, it's also more > aerodynamic. > > The boltrope is a strong, simple and secure system. > > Bill Riker > M15 #184 > Storm Petrel > > -----Original Message----- > From: > montgomery_boats-bounces+wriker=mindspring.com(a)mailman.xmission.com > > [mailto:montgomery_boats- > bounces+wriker=mindspring.com(a)mailman.xmission.com] > On Behalf Of Craig F. Honshell > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:26 PM > To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats > Subject: track lube > > I had such a mod made this past spring (close the old throat, open a > new, > lower > throat) . . . However, I had my groove opened right above where the > boom > rests when > the downhaul is cinched . . . I have a 1/4" quick-release stop-pin > that > runs > across > the groove once the slugs are fed into place . . . I can flake the > sail > without > allowing the slugs to drop out of the groove . . . This also works > pretty > well . . . > Perhaps not as tidy as Busca's mod . . . > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: htmills(a)bright.net > To: 'For and about Montgomery Sailboats' > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:18 PM > Subject: track lube > > Bill, > > Rod, the previous owner, had the following solution: > > He closed up the original spread section of the groove and opened up > a new > one BELOW the normal operating position of the boom. > > When setting up, I feed the slugs all in and then the gooseneck slide > and > raise it up towards its normal operating position. A stop (slug w/ > thumbscrew) below the gooseneck keeps it from falling down. A line > to the > mast foot holds the boom from raising when the sail is hoisted. > Sounds > complicated but it works pretty well. > > I'll get the measurements for you hopefully by the weekend. > > Tod > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:23:43 EST > From: BILLAMICASR(a)aol.com > Subject: M_Boats: History Question #1 > To: montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com > Message-ID: <13f.63e06d0.2ec6e64f(a)aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Looks to me like there have been some changes made to the 17 over the > years... > Does anybody know when the motor cut out went away? > When was the forward hatch changed from a smooth hatch to a raised > hatch? > What other major cosmetic changes have there been? > Inquiring minds want to know > Bill > www.msog.funtigo.com > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 20:49:44 -0800 > From: Bob <Bobeeg(a)earthlink.net> > Subject: Re: M_Boats: Web Pictures > To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats > <montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Message-ID: <41959268.20309(a)earthlink.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > The Orion. Good looking boat but the reason they stopped building them > was because on some days you had to start the inboard to tack. > > Upwind they just don't do well. A sailor I know tried to get one back > from Hawaii > and after several days just couldn't get out of site of the Islands. > They turned back > and shipped the boat on a freighter to Los Angeles. > > But, like I said, its a good looking boat. > > Bob > > BILLAMICASR(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Thanks Don for the Compliments. >> Regarding the Orion. >> They are a favorite of mine also. Amazing how much they've kept the >> resale >> value. A nice one twenty years old being usually over 30 or 40K. Here >> in SF, >> There are several of the early Orions with the port lights like the >> Dana, you >> know just two on each side. I think they went to three in 81 or 82. >> Ilike the >> early ones the best. Anyway, you're right, there's lots of them on SF >> Bay. >> Thanks again, >> Bill >> _______________________________________________ >> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats >> >> >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:35:23 EST > From: Rotortom2(a)aol.com > Subject: M_Boats: Rail bolts > To: montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com > Message-ID: <df.65ef066.2ec6f71b(a)aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > I have a couple of questions for the group. I have the aluminum toe > rail (I > hope that is the correct terminology) on my M-17, and I was polishing > the boat > today in preparation for a trip to either San Carlos Mexico or Loreto > Mexico. > I was trying to clean up the anodized toe rail and did not have much > luck with > the regular polish I was using for the hull. What product should be > used to > shine it up? > Second question: I noticed that the spacing between the SS bolts at > the stern > and the bow along the Hull to deck joint was about 3 inches, whereas > toward > the middle the spacing was reduced to about 2 to 2 1/2 inches. What is > the > reason for the change in spacing? > > Tom Woodworth > M-17 #330 "Wild Hare" > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:45:52 EST > From: Sandyal55(a)aol.com > Subject: Re: M_Boats: Rail bolts > To: montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com > Message-ID: <1ea.2f678301.2ec6f990(a)aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > The toe rail amidships is where jib sheet blocks are usually attached. > There's more stress on them in this area. That's why the bolt spacing > is closer > together. Most aluminum rails are anodized. I would suggest a good > cleaning but > don't try to polish too vigorously. If you go thru the anodizing, > corrosion > could set in. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 22:37:48 -0800 > From: Larry E Yake <leyake(a)juno.com> > Subject: Re: M_Boats: Rail bolts > To: montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com > Message-ID: <20041112.223748.1092.4.leyake(a)juno.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >>> I was trying to clean up the anodized toe rail and did not have much > luck with > the regular polish I was using for the hull. What product should be > used > to > shine it up? > > Mine shined up nice using Penatrol. > > Larry > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:42:34 -0600 > From: Rachel <penokee(a)cheqnet.net> > Subject: Re: M_Boats: History Question #1 > To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats > <montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Message-ID: <A38F87E3-358A-11D9-AAC5-0003938281E0(a)cheqnet.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > Hi Bill and other M-ers, > > Okay, I'll take a stab at this one - although I think some of it might > already be mentioned in Jerry Montgomery's "History of the M-17," which > is ... I can't remember where to find it - must be on MSOG somewhere. > > I think most of the major changes took place in 1981, when they made a > new mold because the old one was getting a bit worn from use. My old > hull #331 was apparently the first "new" boat. I say this because I > found an older-style M-17 which was also a 1981 and also had hull #331. > At any rate, it was 1981 sometime. > > I'll list what I remember as the changes: > > 1) Improved hull-to-deck joint. Not sure exactly how the old one > worked, but the new one protrudes more on the outside and takes both > the hull and deck and folds them into an upside-down U-shape together. > I believe that all of the old boats had the perforated aluminum > toe-rail, whereas most of the new ones had the teak toe-rail, but a few > had the perforated aluminum (which was apparently more expensive and > harder to install, and probably more functional; but apparently "the > public" preferred teak). The improved hull-to-deck joint also ran all > the way across the transom (thus the motor cut-out was eliminated), > giving it much more strength (I have seen a number of the older boats > that had small cracks running vertically at the place where the transom > turns into the topsides.) > > 2) In the cockpit, the cooler was eliminated from the "benches," and > the benches were made completely flat (I believe, but am not sure, that > the older model had some diagonal grooves at the forward corner of the > benches for drainage? That's what I was trying to say when I said the > new ones were flatter.) > > 3) In addition to the motor cut-out being eliminated, a "wet locker" > was created across the back of the cockpit. Essentially a continuation > of the cockpit "benches" across the stern, but isolated from all other > lockers and inside spaces. It had a lifting lid, just like the other > bench lockers. > > 4) Cockpit drainage: IIRC, the older boats had copper tubing glassed > into the hull for cockpit drains (or just one drain?). My > early-new-style 1981 had what I believe were fiberglass tubes glassed > into the bilge for cockpit drainage, but the tubes were below the > waterline. I think that newer-new-style boats went to > above-the-waterline transom drainage, but I don't know exactly when. I > think the newest boats utilize a one-way valve to allow water to go out > but not come in ... ? > > 5) Forehatch: The pre-1981 boats had a forehatch that was flush with > the deck, whereas the 1981-and-later boats have a hatch that sits "on > top" of the deck. > > 6) Ports: The pre-1981 boats had ports with aluminum trim rings around > them, whereas on the new mold there were recesses molded into the > coach-roof sides, and the ports just bolted right into the recesses, > with no trim rings. > > > 7) Backstay attachment: I don't remember how the backstay was attached > on the older boats (perhaps stainless tangs bolted to the transom?), > but on the newer boats - with the rolled hull-to-deck joint - (hazy > memory alert!) there is a short piece of what looks like re-bar (but > which must be stainless of some kind) tucked into the groove created > under the hull-to-deck joint's lip, and the backstay fittings are > anchored in that way. > > > > 8) Below-decks layout: I'm fairly sure that all of the pre-1981 boats > had the one settee (quarter berth) + galley layout, whereas starting in > 1981, you had a choice between that and two settees (which both doubled > as quarter berths). Now I'm really straining my memory, but I think > with the two settee layout, the cockpit lockers were small, ie: you > lost the great cockpit-locker stowage you had with the galley model > (unless you cut them out later on) (more on this below in "later > mods"). > > 9) Things I'm not so sure about: ... > > At some point, the centerboard-raising winch might have been moved > outside? Or maybe it was eliminated with the fiberglass board? (See > below). I also think that the main-sheet traveler might have been > moved around a bit in the cockpit. Were earlier ones closer to the > companionway? I believe mine on hull #331 was about 9" to 12" abaft > the companionway. > > I always wondered if the "turn" from the coachroof to the > coachroof-sides might have been a squarer profile on the pre-1981 boats > -- or perhaps it was something I just *thought* I noticed when looking > at a shot of the bulkhead at the rear of the cabin (as in a photo > looking from the tiller towards the bow). > > 10) Later mods: Starting around 1986, you could get a "short settee > berth" instead of either the galley or the second full quarter berth. > Then you had the advantage of two people being able to sit facing each > other below AND the huge cockpit locker of the galley model. Also in > 1987 (IIRC), the centerboard went from iron to fiberglass with lead > (early on maybe steel?) ballast encapsulated in it. The new board is > wider than the old iron one, so the keel stub was modified at the same > time to accommodate the new board. Also, whereas the old, iron board > had a "stop tang" to keep in from dropping too far, the new fiberglass > board utilizes a knot in the rope, like the M-15 does. > > That's all I can think of right now. There's probably more - and I've > certainly erred in some of my "facts," so feel free to correct me! > > --- Rachel > Boat shopping for something a little bigger than the M-17 (to live > aboard), but darn! you have to go SOOO big to get much more than the > M-17 offers - it's especially hard to beat that fine cockpit layout. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > montgomery_boats mailing list > montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats > > > End of montgomery_boats Digest, Vol 21, Issue 22 > ************************************************ > > Chef Theo Petron DinnerWhere-A Personal Chef Service "Eat Well or Don't Eat at All!" kitchen line: 651-696-0032 on-the-go: 612-730-6109

4 3

RE: M_Boats: History Question #1
by RandyG 13 Nov '04

13 Nov '04

Rachel, Great summary! I am going to save it as a reference. The only other changes I have noticed in studying the M-17's history are; I believe all the pre-81's have a patterned type non-skid deck surface; it is circular honey comb type pattern. Where as the new deck mold has a "spackly-type" non-skid surface. I'm pretty sure you are right in the pre 81's cabin being flatter. On the pre 81's I have seen, the sliding hatch is flat, notched, and removable. On the newer boats I believe it is more curved and possibly non-removable. Some where in the mid 80's, (maybe 84?) the hull stripe was added. I am not sure about the water line stripe. I have seen 17's of both vintages with and without the water line strip. I asked Jerry Montgomery about the cockpit locker on the 4 berth model. I have seen 17's with them both open to the interior and enclosed. He said that both the port and starboard lockers where enclosed from the factory on the 4 berth model, with the starboard locker being shallower than the port. I have yet to see a used 4 berth model that doesn't have one locker or the other cut out. Another small point I have noticed is that the older 17's have what looks like a section of Mast as the compression post. On the newer 17's (not sure about when the change occured) the compression post looks to be chrome bar. Also, sometime around 1978 the rudder was modified to be raisable. Those are the only things I can think of to add to your excellent summary of the history of the 17. Randy Graves M-15 # 407 ________________________________ From: montgomery_boats-bounces+randyg=cite.nic.edu(a)mailman.xmission.com on behalf of Rachel Sent: Sat 11/13/2004 7:42 AM To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats Subject: Re: M_Boats: History Question #1 Hi Bill and other M-ers, Okay, I'll take a stab at this one - although I think some of it might already be mentioned in Jerry Montgomery's "History of the M-17," which is ... I can't remember where to find it - must be on MSOG somewhere. I think most of the major changes took place in 1981, when they made a new mold because the old one was getting a bit worn from use. My old hull #331 was apparently the first "new" boat. I say this because I found an older-style M-17 which was also a 1981 and also had hull #331. At any rate, it was 1981 sometime. I'll list what I remember as the changes: 1) Improved hull-to-deck joint. Not sure exactly how the old one worked, but the new one protrudes more on the outside and takes both the hull and deck and folds them into an upside-down U-shape together. I believe that all of the old boats had the perforated aluminum toe-rail, whereas most of the new ones had the teak toe-rail, but a few had the perforated aluminum (which was apparently more expensive and harder to install, and probably more functional; but apparently "the public" preferred teak). The improved hull-to-deck joint also ran all the way across the transom (thus the motor cut-out was eliminated), giving it much more strength (I have seen a number of the older boats that had small cracks running vertically at the place where the transom turns into the topsides.) 2) In the cockpit, the cooler was eliminated from the "benches," and the benches were made completely flat (I believe, but am not sure, that the older model had some diagonal grooves at the forward corner of the benches for drainage? That's what I was trying to say when I said the new ones were flatter.) 3) In addition to the motor cut-out being eliminated, a "wet locker" was created across the back of the cockpit. Essentially a continuation of the cockpit "benches" across the stern, but isolated from all other lockers and inside spaces. It had a lifting lid, just like the other bench lockers. 4) Cockpit drainage: IIRC, the older boats had copper tubing glassed into the hull for cockpit drains (or just one drain?). My early-new-style 1981 had what I believe were fiberglass tubes glassed into the bilge for cockpit drainage, but the tubes were below the waterline. I think that newer-new-style boats went to above-the-waterline transom drainage, but I don't know exactly when. I think the newest boats utilize a one-way valve to allow water to go out but not come in ... ? 5) Forehatch: The pre-1981 boats had a forehatch that was flush with the deck, whereas the 1981-and-later boats have a hatch that sits "on top" of the deck. 6) Ports: The pre-1981 boats had ports with aluminum trim rings around them, whereas on the new mold there were recesses molded into the coach-roof sides, and the ports just bolted right into the recesses, with no trim rings. 7) Backstay attachment: I don't remember how the backstay was attached on the older boats (perhaps stainless tangs bolted to the transom?), but on the newer boats - with the rolled hull-to-deck joint - (hazy memory alert!) there is a short piece of what looks like re-bar (but which must be stainless of some kind) tucked into the groove created under the hull-to-deck joint's lip, and the backstay fittings are anchored in that way. 8) Below-decks layout: I'm fairly sure that all of the pre-1981 boats had the one settee (quarter berth) + galley layout, whereas starting in 1981, you had a choice between that and two settees (which both doubled as quarter berths). Now I'm really straining my memory, but I think with the two settee layout, the cockpit lockers were small, ie: you lost the great cockpit-locker stowage you had with the galley model (unless you cut them out later on) (more on this below in "later mods"). 9) Things I'm not so sure about: ... At some point, the centerboard-raising winch might have been moved outside? Or maybe it was eliminated with the fiberglass board? (See below). I also think that the main-sheet traveler might have been moved around a bit in the cockpit. Were earlier ones closer to the companionway? I believe mine on hull #331 was about 9" to 12" abaft the companionway. I always wondered if the "turn" from the coachroof to the coachroof-sides might have been a squarer profile on the pre-1981 boats -- or perhaps it was something I just *thought* I noticed when looking at a shot of the bulkhead at the rear of the cabin (as in a photo looking from the tiller towards the bow). 10) Later mods: Starting around 1986, you could get a "short settee berth" instead of either the galley or the second full quarter berth. Then you had the advantage of two people being able to sit facing each other below AND the huge cockpit locker of the galley model. Also in 1987 (IIRC), the centerboard went from iron to fiberglass with lead (early on maybe steel?) ballast encapsulated in it. The new board is wider than the old iron one, so the keel stub was modified at the same time to accommodate the new board. Also, whereas the old, iron board had a "stop tang" to keep in from dropping too far, the new fiberglass board utilizes a knot in the rope, like the M-15 does. That's all I can think of right now. There's probably more - and I've certainly erred in some of my "facts," so feel free to correct me! --- Rachel Boat shopping for something a little bigger than the M-17 (to live aboard), but darn! you have to go SOOO big to get much more than the M-17 offers - it's especially hard to beat that fine cockpit layout. _______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats

3 2