Could some one graciously (objectively) explain why a CD25D is 2 1/2 times as much money as a Bayfield 25? Alberg - Gozzard. Both very talented. Both boats very beautiful, functional and stable. I have a SouthCoast 23 by Carl Alberg that I am restoring. Georgeous. Looking for my next (larger) adventure and will appreciate your input.
johnnyd@sydcom.net
CD25D vs. Bayfield 25
Moderator: Jim Walsh
-
Mike
Re: CD25D vs. Bayfield 25
Yes. It is for much the same reason a Cape Dory is much money more than a Pearson Triton, both designed by Carl Alberg. We own a Triton (28.5') and previously owned a CD 30. I am fully convinced the Triton is better made. Sails better. But the CD was more finely finished. Wooded interior. Better amenities. Diesel rather than A4 (although our Triton now has a diesel). Style not substance is what makes the difference.Could some one graciously (objectively) explain why a CD25D is 2 1/2 times as much money as a Bayfield 25? Alberg - Gozzard. Both very talented. Both boats very beautiful, functional and stable. I have a SouthCoast 23 by Carl Alberg that I am restoring. Georgeous. Looking for my next (larger) adventure and will appreciate your input.
We also owned a Bayfield 23/25. And liked it. I'm not sure it's as strong a boat as the CD but it certainly isn't as strong as the Triton. And the 23/25 Bayfield is really smaller than a CD25 since the Bayfield has at least 2 feet of deck which really is a built in/glassed up bowsprit.
Mike
michaelconniesmith@home.com
-
Dana
Re: CD25D vs. Bayfield 25
Objectively....Try to compare the Flicka (18')against the CD25D for the same equipment......you have the reverse and the CD25D looks inexpensive.
But honestly...as it is already pointed out, much of it has to do with the hardware....bronze opening ports, solid teak weather boards, etc., etc., etc. It is not necessarily the size or even the boat designer. The manufacturer is given a lot of freedom as to the equipment parts which are added on to the boat...chocks, bronze seacocks, etc. It is the sum of those parts and boat design which (for me and my kind and expectations of sailing/maintenance) that I wanted to have. I had looked at the new Bayfield 25 as well in 85. But at that time I was looking for a "keeper" which would hold its value fairly well. I chose the CD26 as a more affordable version of the CD25D. That was definitely a question of difference between costs and what I wanted. But there is nothing wrong in choosing the Bayfield 25. I would only look at your needs from sailing, the type of sailing you will be engaged in and the amount of money you want to put against that need. There is really nothing more to the issue.
darenius@aol.com
But honestly...as it is already pointed out, much of it has to do with the hardware....bronze opening ports, solid teak weather boards, etc., etc., etc. It is not necessarily the size or even the boat designer. The manufacturer is given a lot of freedom as to the equipment parts which are added on to the boat...chocks, bronze seacocks, etc. It is the sum of those parts and boat design which (for me and my kind and expectations of sailing/maintenance) that I wanted to have. I had looked at the new Bayfield 25 as well in 85. But at that time I was looking for a "keeper" which would hold its value fairly well. I chose the CD26 as a more affordable version of the CD25D. That was definitely a question of difference between costs and what I wanted. But there is nothing wrong in choosing the Bayfield 25. I would only look at your needs from sailing, the type of sailing you will be engaged in and the amount of money you want to put against that need. There is really nothing more to the issue.
darenius@aol.com
-
john vigor
Re: CD25D vs. Bayfield 25
John, the simple answer is that the CD25D displaces much more than the Bayfield. The Bayfield is really a 23-footer, hence the name, Bayfield 23/25. It has a clipper bow extending another two feet forward, which makes it 25 feet overall.
I, too, wondered why the price difference, but when I was doing research for a book about 20 small yachts that could take you anywhere, I discovered that while the CD25D's nominal displacement is 5,120 pounds, the Bayfield's is just 3,500. Displacement (the total weight of the boat and gear) is, of course, directly related to price.
Another indicator of the differences between them is sail area: 240 square feet for the Bayfield, 304 for the 25D. This may be part of the reason for the CD25D's better performance: her PHRF handicap is 252, the Bayfield's is 270.
This is in no way meant to disparage the Bayfield. The two boats were designed for different purposes. The 25D is an all-out long-distance cruiser for two, very conservatively designed, very seaworthy, strongly and heavily built with no regard for speed--but which also happens to be quite fast and weatherly. She is also finished to very high standards. The cabinet work down below is testament to that. The Bayfield was obviously designed as a reasonably priced, salty-looking coastal cruiser with a lot of room for a young family. But all designs are compromises, and when you cram a lot of accommodation into a 23-footer, either speed or seaworthiness must suffer to some extent.
When it comes to ultimate seaworthiness (the ability of a yacht to self-right after a 180-degree capsize) there is no doubt in my mind that 2,050 pounds of ballast keel 3 feet 6 inches deep in the water, is going to pull the 25D upright much faster than the Bayfield's 1,300 pounds on a shallower keel that provides a righting lever (draft) of only 2 feet 11 inches. You'll notice other differences between the boats that indicate their design intentions, too. The Bayfield, for example, lacks the strong bridgedeck of the 25D, so a wave flooding the cockpit would flow straight into the cabin if the hatch boards weren't in place.
But, as I said, the Bayfield makes no pretense of being an ocean voyager, so there's no need for her to be as heavy, strong, seaworthy, or expensive as a 25D. In any case, the number of people wanting a 25-footer for serious ocean work is very small--which may explain why fewer than 200 25Ds were built.
Finally, you can be assured that if the going price of a 25D is twice that of a Bayfield, there's always a good reason. The sailing community is intelligent and well informed, which makes them pretty canny shoppers.
jvig@whidbey.net
I, too, wondered why the price difference, but when I was doing research for a book about 20 small yachts that could take you anywhere, I discovered that while the CD25D's nominal displacement is 5,120 pounds, the Bayfield's is just 3,500. Displacement (the total weight of the boat and gear) is, of course, directly related to price.
Another indicator of the differences between them is sail area: 240 square feet for the Bayfield, 304 for the 25D. This may be part of the reason for the CD25D's better performance: her PHRF handicap is 252, the Bayfield's is 270.
This is in no way meant to disparage the Bayfield. The two boats were designed for different purposes. The 25D is an all-out long-distance cruiser for two, very conservatively designed, very seaworthy, strongly and heavily built with no regard for speed--but which also happens to be quite fast and weatherly. She is also finished to very high standards. The cabinet work down below is testament to that. The Bayfield was obviously designed as a reasonably priced, salty-looking coastal cruiser with a lot of room for a young family. But all designs are compromises, and when you cram a lot of accommodation into a 23-footer, either speed or seaworthiness must suffer to some extent.
When it comes to ultimate seaworthiness (the ability of a yacht to self-right after a 180-degree capsize) there is no doubt in my mind that 2,050 pounds of ballast keel 3 feet 6 inches deep in the water, is going to pull the 25D upright much faster than the Bayfield's 1,300 pounds on a shallower keel that provides a righting lever (draft) of only 2 feet 11 inches. You'll notice other differences between the boats that indicate their design intentions, too. The Bayfield, for example, lacks the strong bridgedeck of the 25D, so a wave flooding the cockpit would flow straight into the cabin if the hatch boards weren't in place.
But, as I said, the Bayfield makes no pretense of being an ocean voyager, so there's no need for her to be as heavy, strong, seaworthy, or expensive as a 25D. In any case, the number of people wanting a 25-footer for serious ocean work is very small--which may explain why fewer than 200 25Ds were built.
Finally, you can be assured that if the going price of a 25D is twice that of a Bayfield, there's always a good reason. The sailing community is intelligent and well informed, which makes them pretty canny shoppers.
jvig@whidbey.net