Association Forum - How Many Of Us Are There?

Assn Members Area · Join

Home.

Association Forum

Ships Store

Cruising

Racing

Technical Tips

Photo Gallery - New

Boat Search - Updated

Manuals & Brochures

Swap Meet

Links

Officer Flag Line & Staff

Bylaws & Constitution

Members Area

Join the Association

Notice:
The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.

Association Forum

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Catalina/Capri 25/250 Sailor's Forums

Catalina 25 Specific Forum

How Many Of Us Are There?

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

At Ease
Admiral

Member Avatar

672 Posts

Initially Posted - 03/14/2004 : 11:19:36

Does anybody know how many C25/250s have been built?

Edited by - on

StSimon
Captain

Members Avatar

USA
298 Posts

Response Posted - 03/14/2004 : 11:20:18

I have one.

Edited by - on

Frank Hopper
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

Pitcairn Island
6776 Posts

Response Posted - 03/14/2004 : 11:36:04

Edited by - on

lcharlot
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Antigua and Barbuda
1301 Posts

Response Posted - 03/14/2004 : 12:30:41

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by At Ease
 Does anybody know how many C25/250s have been built?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't know about the C-250, but the total number of C-25's built is believed to be 6031, broken down as follows with the primary identifying features of the 4 major design changes:
"Mark I", 1977 to 1980, total approx. 2250 hulls
(one hatch on port side cockpit bench, gas tank in lazarette)
"Mark II" 1981 to 1985, total approx. 3000 hulls
(two hatches, with gas tank locker isolated from lazarette)
"Msrk III" 1986 to 1987, total approx 553 hulls
(Flush mount Lexan cabin windows, factory Wing Keel option added)
"Mark IV" 1988 to 1991, total approx 228 hulls
(Swing keel option eliminated, lowered and flattened cabin sole)

Also, about 50 boats were built with a 2-cylinder Universal inboard diesel of 9~11 hp, most of these are Mk. IV's and a few Mk. III's

Edited by - lcharlot on 03/14/2004 12:36:12

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 03/14/2004 : 12:42:52

At Ease,

Don't get confused about the above mentioned MK numbers because they don't officially exist and are not recognized by Catalina Yachts(or me).

Edited by - dlucier on 03/14/2004 12:43:32

Buzz Maring
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1772 Posts

Response Posted - 03/14/2004 : 13:21:32

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dlucier
 At Ease,

Don't get confused about the above mentioned MK numbers because they don't officially exist and are not recognized by Catalina Yachts (or me).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

... or me ... or Frank Butler ...

Edited by - on

Gloss
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1916 Posts

Response Posted - 03/14/2004 : 14:49:36

I'm declaring Larry's "Mark" numbers as official.

So there. There's no turning back now.

Edited by - on

oldsalt
Admiral

Members Avatar

USA
578 Posts

Response Posted - 03/14/2004 : 15:18:54

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Buzz Maring
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dlucier
 At Ease,

Don't get confused about the above mentioned MK numbers because they don't officially exist and are not recognized by Catalina Yachts (or me).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

... or me ... or Frank Butler ...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Or more importantly.... by me.

Edited by - on

oldsalt
Admiral

Members Avatar

USA
578 Posts

Response Posted - 03/14/2004 : 15:21:18

By the way, according to Catalina Yachts' official history there are NONE of us.

Edited by - oldsalt on 03/15/2004 00:10:47

rford
1st Mate

Members Avatar

USA
73 Posts

Response Posted - 03/14/2004 : 20:42:37

While the Mark numbers may not be official they certainly seem to help to distinguish between apparent changes in design of the Catalina 25. Many of the changes don't coincide with model years like a car might, and while the existance of a Mark sequence can be argued, it is true that there are design differences as our wonderful boat evolved (i.e. the lowering and flattening of the cabin sole).

It's interesting to see how the boat evolved over time and the references to marks or style seeem to facilitate a discussion of those differences. Some may not like the references, but it certainly makes it easier to discuss boat styles and variations on a list like this forum when some language is put around the styles.

Although I love my Mark IV I do wish they were still making this boat. I'd love to see how it would have evolved over the past 14 years since they stopped making her.

Edited by - on

oldsalt
Admiral

Members Avatar

USA
578 Posts

Response Posted - 03/14/2004 : 23:28:58

My problem with assigning those unofficial "Mark" numbers, which are not in fact, recognized by the builder is that they are purely arbitrary and could have been assigned in numerous other ways by taking account differences that are arguably more important.

A change of window design deserves a Mark number but the change from cast iron keels to lead doesn't?

Heavier chainplates and rigging, stainless spreader brackets in lieu of aluminum, position and type of of motor mount, the various iterations of lazzarette lockers, winged keels, differences in interiors which apparantly don't follow in hull sequence, beefed up stemhead fittings, mast tabernacles, genoa tracks, diesel engines, thickness of cabin sides, the change from mild steel keel bolts and fittings to stainless, swing to wing and the like could arguably have been more important criteria for assigning different Mark numbers.

And what about those boats whose owners upgraded many of these items, or a "Mark" number for hull #1, Confetti, which certainly has significant differences from all others.?

Edited by - on

Frank Hopper
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

Pitcairn Island
6776 Posts

Response Posted - 03/14/2004 : 23:43:07

I like Larry's system. It is visual, a casual glance at a boat identifies it as one of the four series that Larry has come up with. It is rare that a sailboat is produced in the numbers that ours was, this ad hoc system provides a simple delineation that helps us discuss our boats. I would like it even better if I had a mark IV. And I don't give a rats whether Catalina knows or approves. Maybe I should start using it in the Mainsheet Tech Section.

Edited by - on

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 03/14/2004 : 23:56:17

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rford
 ...Some may not like the references, but it certainly makes it easier to discuss boat styles and variations on a list like this forum when some language is put around the styles. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Rod,

Along with these so-called MK numbers not originating from the design desk of Frank Butler, the other reason I'm against them is because of something you alluded to when you said, "Some may not like the references,..."

Yes, you are absolutely right...I am one who doesn't like the references and by you saying that, "Some may not like the references," tells me that you have picked up on why I feel this way.

If anyone has spent any time here at the forum, you would know that certain "MK" numbers have taken on a negative connotation and, being the owner of one of these numbers, I'm not too crazy when I see them used. Now if I owned a higher number, like yours, my opinion might be different, but I doubt it.

I have expressed my views on this subject on more than one occasion, as have others, and I believe that if these MK numbers are making members of this association uncomfortable, then out of respect for them, these numbers should not be used. Personally, I would not continue doing something if I knew it would cause others grief...It just ain't right.

Edited by - on

oldsalt
Admiral

Members Avatar

USA
578 Posts

Response Posted - 03/14/2004 : 23:57:40

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by fhopper@mac.com
 I like Larry's system. It is visual, a casual glance at a boat identifies it as one of the four series that Larry has come up with. It is rare that a sailboat is produced in the numbers that ours was, this ad hoc system provides a simple delineation that helps us discuss our boats. I would like it even better if I had a mark IV. And I don't give a rats whether Catalina knows or approves. Maybe I should start using it in the Mainsheet Tech Section.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You're 100% on the money, it is "casual", and "ad hoc" as well as devisive and that I believe, is a serious problem.

Edited by - oldsalt on 03/15/2004 00:13:34

rford
1st Mate

Members Avatar

USA
73 Posts

Response Posted - 03/15/2004 : 00:44:26

It's only devisive if we let it be devisive. It's just a way of describing features that distinguish a boat design ... nothing personal ... no malice intended ... no reason for it to be devisive.

The world claims there is so much to be divided about these days and while some of it is important, most of it has to do with little more than nomenclature. While I have strong convictions about some things, I believe divisions over nomenclature are quite useless ... there are far more important things in this world (the recent bombing in Spain, terrorism and the like for example). Personally, I choose to own a boat to provide myself with a distraction or an escape from these more important issues. While there is nothing so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats, there is also nothing so the least worth doing as becoming divided over the language used to describe those boats.

No language is perfect, we just do the best we can with what we have. I can't adequately describe the beauty and enjoyment I experience while sailing at sunset. I may also not be able to adequately describe (for everyone) the variations in a 1990 model of C25 when compared to a 1989 model. But I'd rather be sailing at sunset than worrying about it, because after docking my boat I've got a lot more important things that really are "serious problems" to worry about.

Edited by - rford on 03/15/2004 00:51:38

Gary B.
Admiral

Members Avatar

USA
969 Posts

Response Posted - 03/15/2004 : 00:53:31

"Personally, I would not continue doing something if I knew it would cause others grief...It just ain't right."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don Lucier

So if I object to your use of "ain't".......;-)

Silver Girl.....sail on.....BTW, just which "Mark" are YOU? ;-o

I personally do not use the Mark designation, either, but I own a '78! If they help people, I won't object. Seems to me that Larry usually puts them in parentheses as a way to suggest that these aren't "Official" anyway. Perhaps, if we keep reminding folks that these are "unofficial" designations, it's not so bad.

As someone trying to run a National Regatta, I find it less than wonderful that all these changes HAVE been made!....it would certainly be more like a National Championship Regatta if these were truly "One Design" like J-24s, Snipes, etc., etc., with everyone on the same footing....all these rigs, keels, etc! Aargh!

But, hey, let's all lighten up a bit over this "Mark" thing, howbout?

Gary B.
Vice Commodore
s/v Encore! #685 SK/SR......."Mark....Twain?"

Edited by - on

Frank Hopper
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

Pitcairn Island
6776 Posts

Response Posted - 03/15/2004 : 08:01:42

For anyone who has not been on the forum long; the "Mark Series" designation generates the same responses from the same people nearly every time it comes up. I found it very useful when first learning about my boat. As with cars, you don't know what options the boat has until you get inside, so any detailed discussion about boat specifics causes the Mark designation to break down. I found it reassuring to learn that people with their OBs on port weren't from Australia, (Mark I), and that people whose genoa tracks were in the wrong place were comforted by a flat sole, (Mark IV). Besides, Larry works hard to make the system helpful and not hurtful.
So you new people, if you find it helpful too then tell Larry, (he usually gets beat up on this). And as for the rest of us; all I want is a National Burgee, I own a Catalina 25 and am proud of it.

Edited by - on

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 03/15/2004 : 09:10:50

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rford
 It's only devisive if we let it be devisive. It's just a way of describing features that distinguish a boat design ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That's fine if your MK designation means "wing keel with a nice cabin sole", but it's a whole different story if it means "lightly built, ticking timebomb"!

Edited by - dlucier on 03/15/2004 09:15:21

oldsalt
Admiral

Members Avatar

USA
578 Posts

Response Posted - 03/15/2004 : 15:08:34

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dlucier
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rford
 It's only devisive if we let it be devisive. It's just a way of describing features that distinguish a boat design ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That's fine if your MK designation means "wing keel with a nice cabin sole", but it's a whole different story if it means "lightly built, ticking timebomb"!

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

As an engineer, that's the problem I have, since those "Mark" numbers are arbitrary and do not really describe features that necessarily "distinguish" a boat design.

I have absolutely no qualms against listing features (of varying importance) introduced in sequence with succeeding hull numbers but creating those "Mark" numbers aren't the way to do it.

And they do tend to upset those who feel their vessels are being somehow demeaned. They bother me for purely technical reasons.

What's the time penalty for lexan deadlights versus aluminum framed glass deadlights these days?

Edited by - on

Raskal
Navigator

Members Avatar

USA
162 Posts

Response Posted - 03/16/2004 : 12:40:17

Folks, I work as a cataloger in a library and I can tell you that categorizing and describing the features of a collection of shared objects, such as books or our boats, is a fundamental of human nature. What's more, the members of this group are in fact now the keepers of the torch when it comes to knowledge about these boats: Catalina orphaned them a long time ago and won't be looking back, because what they do with boats (build and sell) and what we do with boats (preserve and maintain) are different sides of the coin.

In this era of the computer what is needed is for a scribe versant in the collected lore of this discussion to make an Excel spreadsheet showing all the known changes to the fleet. Since the C25 fleet is now a finite collection, over time it will be possible to construct a very accurate picture of what features were significant changes and whether the "mark" categories are "on the mark". We would not be serving our own purposes to discourage this venture, since having a large body of knowledgeable owners will make it possible to construct a database (and a folklore!) that will be serving the coming generations. (What, didn't it occur to you that THOUSANDS of your descendants will be sailing your boats 2 centuries from now?).

My intuititive feeling is that the "mark" designations are a good shorthand but perhaps not so useful if they are not put up as a chart in the tech section for all to see when the threads disappear. And I think the C250 is quite a different boat that needs to be considered in its own light, though it's a good thing to have both groups of owners sharing an association and a forum. The generosity and shared spirit that prevails here can overcome any prejudice against "old" boats which may come through in discussions. Owners of the older boats should start bragging about having a low hull number--maybe you can turn envy into prestige!

I just bought my move-up boat, a 1987 Cal 28. Coming from the well-chronicled world of the Catalina 25 it was a disappointment to find out that there is no functional umbrella organization for these fine boats and that information about them is sparse to nonexistant. Those owners have had to add "unofficial" mark numbers in order to know whether they are even talking about the same boat, because the 1970's Cals were completely differnt designs from different designers and manufacturers. There is something to be said for having lots of information available when you want it...

Rich Kokoska

Edited by - on

rford
1st Mate

Members Avatar

USA
73 Posts

Response Posted - 03/16/2004 : 15:36:50

I don't believe the original poster of the Mark #s ever intended to demean any one. I certainly don't mean to demean any one when I use them. But the information contained in them was valuable when I was in the market for my C25.

Edited by - on

Champipple
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
6855 Posts

Response Posted - 03/18/2004 : 14:16:30

Not recognized by me either....

Catalina used MK numbers on other boats...not on ours. There are two many details that were options one year that were standard the next trying to classify them all, including any other mods in my opinion would not be accurate. Catalina made 6 models of the c-25. Tall and standard rigs with fin, swing and wing keels.

To be honest, the work that was put into this is valuable, I just don't think we should go about it in this manner. How about a nice timeline showing the history of the 25 with all options, styles, etc by year...including mods.

Could you imagine how this quote would be if they put "Mark numbers" on cars

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It's got a cop motor: a 440 cubic inch plant. It's got cop tires, cop suspensions, cop shocks. It's a model made before catalytic converters so it'll run good on regular gas<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Its a Mark III cop car, is it the new Blues mobile or what?

Edited by - on

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5909 Posts

Response Posted - 03/18/2004 : 19:28:05

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How about a nice timeline showing the history of the 25 with all options, styles, etc. by year...including mods.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I think Duane is right on target. If we have a timeline that lists the variations between C25s built in each year, that gives us useful, factual information. Assigning "Mark" designations to boats built between certain years is, at best, unnecessary, and at worst, annoying, arbitrary, pretentious and problematical. For those of you who claim to have been helped by the designation, I think you'll have to agree that it was the body of data that you found useful, not the term "Mark." The term itself didn't provide any information at all.

Edited by - on

cshaw
Captain

Members Avatar

USA
460 Posts

Response Posted - 03/18/2004 : 21:11:43

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by lcharlot

"Mark I", 1977 to 1980, total approx. 2250 hulls
(one hatch on port side cockpit bench, gas tank in lazarette)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Larry,

Perhaps you might want to modify the criteria for the "Mark I" category from 1977 to 1976???

I bought Confetti in October, 1976....

For what its worth I like your catagories!! <grin>

Chuck

Edited by - on

Buzz Maring
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1772 Posts

Response Posted - 03/19/2004 : 09:23:19

To be honest, the work that was put into this is valuable, I just don't think we should go about it in this manner. How about a nice timeline showing the history of the 25 with all options, styles, etc by year...including mods. - Duane

Excellent idea Duane!

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Steve Milby
I think Duane is right on target. If we have a timeline that lists the variations between C25s built in each year, that gives us useful, factual information. Assigning "Mark" designations to boats built between certain years is, at best, unnecessary, and at worst, annoying, arbitrary, pretentious and problematical. For those of you who claim to have been helped by the designation, I think you'll have to agree that it was the body of data that you found useful, not the term "Mark." The term itself didn't provide any information at all.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well said Steve ... I completely agree ...

Edited by - on

oldsalt
Admiral

Members Avatar

USA
578 Posts

Response Posted - 03/20/2004 : 14:36:08

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Steve Milby
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How about a nice timeline showing the history of the 25 with all options, styles, etc. by year...including mods.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I think Duane is right on target. If we have a timeline that lists the variations between C25s built in each year, that gives us useful, factual information. Assigning "Mark" designations to boats built between certain years is, at best, unnecessary, and at worst, annoying, arbitrary, pretentious and problematical. For those of you who claim to have been helped by the designation, I think you'll have to agree that it was the body of data that you found useful, not the term "Mark." The term itself didn't provide any information at all.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I agree that this would be a much more useful, accurate and less arbitrary manner to present a body of data regarding the evolutionary, rather than revolutionary changes (of varying importance) that over time, were introduced into the product line.

I agree as well that the ad hoc cutting up of the members boats into unscientific catagories is problematic, unnecessary, annoying, pretentious and arbitrary.

Edited by - on

Topic

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Jump To:

Association Forum

Notice: The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.