Martha Jane on Ebay
For those who haven't noticed, Mike Stockstill is presently selling
his Martha Jane on eBay, basically for the cost of the trailer! If I
didn't already own ten boats, I am seriously tempted to bid.
his Martha Jane on eBay, basically for the cost of the trailer! If I
didn't already own ten boats, I am seriously tempted to bid.
Sorry Graeme,
Thought you were Graham Cheers, owner of Shirley Valentine. (doh!)
He wrote to Bolger and had approved his suggestion to build in extra
water ballast when this stability question came up - by all reports
it has been very successful. His boats up for sale at the moment on
the Duck Flat website - I have a lottery ticket in my wallet......
Col
Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
Thought you were Graham Cheers, owner of Shirley Valentine. (doh!)
He wrote to Bolger and had approved his suggestion to build in extra
water ballast when this stability question came up - by all reports
it has been very successful. His boats up for sale at the moment on
the Duck Flat website - I have a lottery ticket in my wallet......
Col
Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
>work,
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "martha2001au" <cmoone11@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Graeme,
> > Good to hear from you again! As you can tell I'm still pining
> after
> > a Martha Jane, got distracted though and built a Surf, then
> > family,bills, you know the drill. I still have all your letterselse,
> on
> > building and rigging advice on hand ready to go.
> >
>
> Hi Col,
>
> good to hear from you too. Those letters would be from someone
> surely, but if you start I'll be very interested in following yourto
> progress. It wouldn't take much at all to get me down there in big
> river country to help with turning the hull either. Good luck with
> that, and do give a shout if extra muscle is required at any stage.
>
>
> > From my reading of the upgrades, the 500lb shoe is in addition
> > the water ballast. I liked your idea of adding extra waterthe
> ballast -
> > do you know how much extra weight in water was added by your
> mods?
> > Also my original uprades don't mention and storage ability for
> > cockpit seats.Martha
>
> I'm not sure that was my idea, but now you mention it, why not add
> extra water ballast? Maybe the forward half of the cockpit seats
> could be flooding too, and the aft half watertight to float the
> motor?
>
> Looking at the BWAOM chapter on WhaleWatcher, designed after
> Jane, where PCB mentions an earlier incident involving one of hisIt
> water ballasted designs capsising and flooding, I note how much
> higher the watertight cockpit seat volumes are relative to the
> waterballast volumes. The seats are high it is said so that the
> helmsman may see over the cabin, but this also serves as extra
> insurance for the WW birdwatcher hull type in a knockdown event.
> may arise from a lesson learned again in Martha Jane - flotationmoment,If
> high, ballast low.
>
>
>
> >
> > I must admit I wasn't fond of the look of the sponsons at first,
> but
> > I am getting used to them. The way I'm thinking at the
> I
> > ever get to build I'd go with the aluminium mast, extra water
> > ballast, and sponsons. I think she's heavy enough to trailer
> > without an extra 500lb of dead weight.
> >
>
> I guess it will weigh-in somewhere near the Black Skimmer, but it
> does have a much more trailer friendly rig!
>
> > Interesting theory on having free flooding seats - as long as
> theres
> > enough reserve bouyancy in the sponsons.
>
> Yeah, it's just a theory though. I'm not sure about the entire
> volume being free flooding???
>
> Cheers
> Graeme
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "martha2001au" <cmoone11@...> wrote:
good to hear from you too. Those letters would be from someone else,
surely, but if you start I'll be very interested in following your
progress. It wouldn't take much at all to get me down there in big
river country to help with turning the hull either. Good luck with
that, and do give a shout if extra muscle is required at any stage.
extra water ballast? Maybe the forward half of the cockpit seats
could be flooding too, and the aft half watertight to float the
motor?
Looking at the BWAOM chapter on WhaleWatcher, designed after Martha
Jane, where PCB mentions an earlier incident involving one of his
water ballasted designs capsising and flooding, I note how much
higher the watertight cockpit seat volumes are relative to the
waterballast volumes. The seats are high it is said so that the
helmsman may see over the cabin, but this also serves as extra
insurance for the WW birdwatcher hull type in a knockdown event. It
may arise from a lesson learned again in Martha Jane - flotation
high, ballast low.
does have a much more trailer friendly rig!
volume being free flooding???
Cheers
Graeme
>after
> Hi Graeme,
> Good to hear from you again! As you can tell I'm still pining
> a Martha Jane, got distracted though and built a Surf, then work,on
> family,bills, you know the drill. I still have all your letters
> building and rigging advice on hand ready to go.Hi Col,
>
good to hear from you too. Those letters would be from someone else,
surely, but if you start I'll be very interested in following your
progress. It wouldn't take much at all to get me down there in big
river country to help with turning the hull either. Good luck with
that, and do give a shout if extra muscle is required at any stage.
> From my reading of the upgrades, the 500lb shoe is in addition toballast -
> the water ballast. I liked your idea of adding extra water
> do you know how much extra weight in water was added by yourmods?
> Also my original uprades don't mention and storage ability for theI'm not sure that was my idea, but now you mention it, why not add
> cockpit seats.
extra water ballast? Maybe the forward half of the cockpit seats
could be flooding too, and the aft half watertight to float the
motor?
Looking at the BWAOM chapter on WhaleWatcher, designed after Martha
Jane, where PCB mentions an earlier incident involving one of his
water ballasted designs capsising and flooding, I note how much
higher the watertight cockpit seat volumes are relative to the
waterballast volumes. The seats are high it is said so that the
helmsman may see over the cabin, but this also serves as extra
insurance for the WW birdwatcher hull type in a knockdown event. It
may arise from a lesson learned again in Martha Jane - flotation
high, ballast low.
>but
> I must admit I wasn't fond of the look of the sponsons at first,
> I am getting used to them. The way I'm thinking at the moment,IfI
> ever get to build I'd go with the aluminium mast, extra waterI guess it will weigh-in somewhere near the Black Skimmer, but it
> ballast, and sponsons. I think she's heavy enough to trailer
> without an extra 500lb of dead weight.
>
does have a much more trailer friendly rig!
> Interesting theory on having free flooding seats - as long astheres
> enough reserve bouyancy in the sponsons.Yeah, it's just a theory though. I'm not sure about the entire
volume being free flooding???
Cheers
Graeme
Hi Graeme,
Good to hear from you again! As you can tell I'm still pining after
a Martha Jane, got distracted though and built a Surf, then work,
family,bills, you know the drill. I still have all your letters on
building and rigging advice on hand ready to go.
From my reading of the upgrades, the 500lb shoe is in addition to
the water ballast. I liked your idea of adding extra water ballast -
do you know how much extra weight in water was added by your mods?
Also my original uprades don't mention and storage ability for the
cockpit seats.
I must admit I wasn't fond of the look of the sponsons at first, but
I am getting used to them. The way I'm thinking at the moment,If I
ever get to build I'd go with the aluminium mast, extra water
ballast, and sponsons. I think she's heavy enough to trailer
without an extra 500lb of dead weight.
Interesting theory on having free flooding seats - as long as theres
enough reserve bouyancy in the sponsons.
All the best,
Col
ups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...> wrote:
Good to hear from you again! As you can tell I'm still pining after
a Martha Jane, got distracted though and built a Surf, then work,
family,bills, you know the drill. I still have all your letters on
building and rigging advice on hand ready to go.
From my reading of the upgrades, the 500lb shoe is in addition to
the water ballast. I liked your idea of adding extra water ballast -
do you know how much extra weight in water was added by your mods?
Also my original uprades don't mention and storage ability for the
cockpit seats.
I must admit I wasn't fond of the look of the sponsons at first, but
I am getting used to them. The way I'm thinking at the moment,If I
ever get to build I'd go with the aluminium mast, extra water
ballast, and sponsons. I think she's heavy enough to trailer
without an extra 500lb of dead weight.
Interesting theory on having free flooding seats - as long as theres
enough reserve bouyancy in the sponsons.
All the best,
Col
ups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...> wrote:
>2000
> Searching around the net for any newer info on Martha Jane(s) I
> again came across the Jim Michalak Newsletter page November 1,
>http://members.fortunecity.com/duckworks/2000/1101/struck
>
> I don't lightly differ with an opinion of Mr Michalak, but it
> me that a particular warning he gives for boats generally may notfactor
> apply for the example he gives of Bob Archibald's then recently
> acquired Martha Jane.
>
> Take a look at the third sketch above the caption "KEEP SEATS
> WATERTIGHT!" Looking at JM's styleized sketch of Martha Jane it
> occurs to me that water tight cockpit seats just might be the
> that resulted in some early Martha Janes rolling over much furthertank
> than 90degrees after a knockdown. Consider that a waterballast
> has a volume of about 4 cubic feet and a cockpit seat encloses awaving
> volume of what, say, 5 to 6 cubic feet.
>
> Consider that once the Martha Jane was knocked to its beam ends
> there would be 250lbs of water ballast now up in the air and
> about, and that there would be a significant amount of the largebe
> cockpit seat watertight volume pushed below the waterline. In the
> beam ends attitude the cockpit seat volume would be offset to the
> wrong side of the beam ends centre of bouyancy which would mostly
> that of the cabin volume. This unwholsome coupling of weight up inaccess
> the air and more or less counteracting seat bouyancy linearly in
> line with it (if not actually directly below it) could easily tip
> the boat at least so far that water would gain entry via the hatch
> and lead to the early reported flooding incidents that greatly
> concerned many.
>
> If the cockpit seats were not water tight the Martha Jane perhaps
> would just sit on her beam ends when knocked down... but then of
> course the motor etc. would not be supported by their flotation
> volume... Does anyone know if in the upgrade for the aft sponsons
> the seats are able to have hinged lids for under seat storage
> because the flotation there is no longer necessary, and whether itThe
> may be advantageous if they actually flood?
>
> The added sponsons act against the boat tipping past beam ends.
> addition of a 500lb steel plate design upgrade below the bottoma
> would also serve to act in this way. The trouble there is that
> Martha Jane was designed to do away with fixed ballast to make for
> better trailer sailer than Black Skimmer - with the added 500lbs
> steel ballast is there any advantage?
>
> Does anyone know if the original water ballast tanks are done away
> with and their space is freed up for storage etc. when the steel
> plate ballast option is installed?
>
> Graeme
>
Searching around the net for any newer info on Martha Jane(s) I
again came across the Jim Michalak Newsletter page November 1, 2000
http://members.fortunecity.com/duckworks/2000/1101/
I don't lightly differ with an opinion of Mr Michalak, but it struck
me that a particular warning he gives for boats generally may not
apply for the example he gives of Bob Archibald's then recently
acquired Martha Jane.
Take a look at the third sketch above the caption "KEEP SEATS
WATERTIGHT!" Looking at JM's styleized sketch of Martha Jane it
occurs to me that water tight cockpit seats just might be the factor
that resulted in some early Martha Janes rolling over much further
than 90degrees after a knockdown. Consider that a waterballast tank
has a volume of about 4 cubic feet and a cockpit seat encloses a
volume of what, say, 5 to 6 cubic feet.
Consider that once the Martha Jane was knocked to its beam ends
there would be 250lbs of water ballast now up in the air and waving
about, and that there would be a significant amount of the large
cockpit seat watertight volume pushed below the waterline. In the
beam ends attitude the cockpit seat volume would be offset to the
wrong side of the beam ends centre of bouyancy which would mostly be
that of the cabin volume. This unwholsome coupling of weight up in
the air and more or less counteracting seat bouyancy linearly in
line with it (if not actually directly below it) could easily tip
the boat at least so far that water would gain entry via the hatch
and lead to the early reported flooding incidents that greatly
concerned many.
If the cockpit seats were not water tight the Martha Jane perhaps
would just sit on her beam ends when knocked down... but then of
course the motor etc. would not be supported by their flotation
volume... Does anyone know if in the upgrade for the aft sponsons
the seats are able to have hinged lids for under seat storage access
because the flotation there is no longer necessary, and whether it
may be advantageous if they actually flood?
The added sponsons act against the boat tipping past beam ends. The
addition of a 500lb steel plate design upgrade below the bottom
would also serve to act in this way. The trouble there is that
Martha Jane was designed to do away with fixed ballast to make for a
better trailer sailer than Black Skimmer - with the added 500lbs
steel ballast is there any advantage?
Does anyone know if the original water ballast tanks are done away
with and their space is freed up for storage etc. when the steel
plate ballast option is installed?
Graeme
again came across the Jim Michalak Newsletter page November 1, 2000
http://members.fortunecity.com/duckworks/2000/1101/
I don't lightly differ with an opinion of Mr Michalak, but it struck
me that a particular warning he gives for boats generally may not
apply for the example he gives of Bob Archibald's then recently
acquired Martha Jane.
Take a look at the third sketch above the caption "KEEP SEATS
WATERTIGHT!" Looking at JM's styleized sketch of Martha Jane it
occurs to me that water tight cockpit seats just might be the factor
that resulted in some early Martha Janes rolling over much further
than 90degrees after a knockdown. Consider that a waterballast tank
has a volume of about 4 cubic feet and a cockpit seat encloses a
volume of what, say, 5 to 6 cubic feet.
Consider that once the Martha Jane was knocked to its beam ends
there would be 250lbs of water ballast now up in the air and waving
about, and that there would be a significant amount of the large
cockpit seat watertight volume pushed below the waterline. In the
beam ends attitude the cockpit seat volume would be offset to the
wrong side of the beam ends centre of bouyancy which would mostly be
that of the cabin volume. This unwholsome coupling of weight up in
the air and more or less counteracting seat bouyancy linearly in
line with it (if not actually directly below it) could easily tip
the boat at least so far that water would gain entry via the hatch
and lead to the early reported flooding incidents that greatly
concerned many.
If the cockpit seats were not water tight the Martha Jane perhaps
would just sit on her beam ends when knocked down... but then of
course the motor etc. would not be supported by their flotation
volume... Does anyone know if in the upgrade for the aft sponsons
the seats are able to have hinged lids for under seat storage access
because the flotation there is no longer necessary, and whether it
may be advantageous if they actually flood?
The added sponsons act against the boat tipping past beam ends. The
addition of a 500lb steel plate design upgrade below the bottom
would also serve to act in this way. The trouble there is that
Martha Jane was designed to do away with fixed ballast to make for a
better trailer sailer than Black Skimmer - with the added 500lbs
steel ballast is there any advantage?
Does anyone know if the original water ballast tanks are done away
with and their space is freed up for storage etc. when the steel
plate ballast option is installed?
Graeme
Yes Graeme, interesting about the mods, however, he also mentioned
that he changed the masts to aluminium tube which must have a
significant impact on the balance
Greg F
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
that he changed the masts to aluminium tube which must have a
significant impact on the balance
Greg F
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
>
> US$4051.00 & just 12 hours to go.
>
> I think I much prefer the looks of the original, as shown here, to
> the upgraded versions. The all white paint scheme suits too - like
> the one in Alaska.
>
> It's very,very interesting to read the seller's comments that it
> doesn't need those Bolger reserve bouyancy mods at all. I wonder if
> he tested?
>
> Looks a good boat.
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proto957" <helio6@> wrote:
> >
> > I've been watching it, too: Ebay Item number: 250180856975
> >http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
> ViewItem&ih=015&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%
> 3AIT&viewitem=&item=250180856975&rd=1
> >
> > It started at $3,500, and has no bids as of today,> --- In
>bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It looks like the Martha Jane built by William D Jochems
>
Hey Col,
How did you find those aft sponson upgrades looked in the actual built
boat?
In the pics of boats such as "Shirley Valentine" they seem to me not to
detract from the looks when in profile view (can hardly be seen), but
can seem ungainly in other views. I was wondering if that may be just
an artifact of the photography...
Graeme
How did you find those aft sponson upgrades looked in the actual built
boat?
In the pics of boats such as "Shirley Valentine" they seem to me not to
detract from the looks when in profile view (can hardly be seen), but
can seem ungainly in other views. I was wondering if that may be just
an artifact of the photography...
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "martha2001au" <cmoone11@...> wrote:
>
>
> If she'd been for sale in Australia at that price I would have
snapped
> it up in second! I sailed once on Graham Cheers MJ Shirley Valentine
> and my lasting impression was its power and speed, not to mention the
> great cockit configuration, trailerability, etc etc...
>
> Col
>
I joined this group hoping to learn more about the cruiser and other of bolger's longer sailing craft.. there are so many different and irregular aspects to the design like the Cat rig and leeboards. the Bolger page is mostly plans not much detains about how the boats look or the designs and other pros and cons.. everyone just says "buy the book" LOL
Andrew
martha2001au <cmoone11@...> wrote:
If she'd been for sale in Australia at that price I would have snapped
it up in second! I sailed once on Graham Cheers MJ Shirley Valentine
and my lasting impression was its power and speed, not to mention the
great cockit configuration, trailerability, etc etc...
Col
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Andrew
martha2001au <cmoone11@...> wrote:
If she'd been for sale in Australia at that price I would have snapped
it up in second! I sailed once on Graham Cheers MJ Shirley Valentine
and my lasting impression was its power and speed, not to mention the
great cockit configuration, trailerability, etc etc...
Col
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I buy and sell a lot on ebay (not boats) and it is against sBay rules to bid on your own auctions. They will boot you out if they catch you. Many people do it by having a wife or family member bid for them tho.. It happens a lot.
Andrew
Mark Balogh <mark@...> wrote:
When I checked on the auction at the time it was over $4000 it appeared
to me that the seller was actually bidding on his own auction to drive
up the price. When I went to check the sellers statistics against the
bidder who appeared to be the seller I got a message from ebay that
they had suspended the auction. When I went back all the bids by the
bidder that appeared to be the seller had been removed and the price
was reduced to reflect the bids not including the ones who appeared to
be the seller. Apparently ebay does not view it as ethical that the
seller bid up his own auction.
Mark
Andrew
Mark Balogh <mark@...> wrote:
When I checked on the auction at the time it was over $4000 it appeared
to me that the seller was actually bidding on his own auction to drive
up the price. When I went to check the sellers statistics against the
bidder who appeared to be the seller I got a message from ebay that
they had suspended the auction. When I went back all the bids by the
bidder that appeared to be the seller had been removed and the price
was reduced to reflect the bids not including the ones who appeared to
be the seller. Apparently ebay does not view it as ethical that the
seller bid up his own auction.
Mark
On Nov 3, 2007, at 11:51 AM, proto957 wrote:
> I agree it looks like a good one. I really like these... I think they
> are beautiful.
>
> The bidding was higher at one point... over $4,500. But the high bid
> was retracted because the seller "changed the description". I believe
> the reasoning was the change in the headroom measurement... from 4
> 1/2' to 3 1/2'. But 3 1/2' seems low to me, looking at the pics, and
> comparing them to the guy standing by the boat. Do the water ballast
> tanks take up sole height? I had assumed the tanks would be on the
> sides, and the sole would be the boat bottom. I looked through many
> Martha Jane sites on the web, but could not find an answer to this.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I wondered if the dif in headroom was that from the seat to the cabin roof, or sole to the cabin roof. In the specs for my sharpie they are measured from seat to roof :) I found it a bit confusing...
Andrew
proto957 <helio6@...> wrote:
I agree it looks like a good one. I really like these... I think they
are beautiful.
The bidding was higher at one point... over $4,500. But the high bid
was retracted because the seller "changed the description". I believe
the reasoning was the change in the headroom measurement... from 4
1/2' to 3 1/2'. But 3 1/2' seems low to me, looking at the pics, and
comparing them to the guy standing by the boat. Do the water ballast
tanks take up sole height? I had assumed the tanks would be on the
sides, and the sole would be the boat bottom. I looked through many
Martha Jane sites on the web, but could not find an answer to this.
I wish I had built this boat, or a Long Micro, instead of my Elver in
'92. Rich.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Andrew
proto957 <helio6@...> wrote:
I agree it looks like a good one. I really like these... I think they
are beautiful.
The bidding was higher at one point... over $4,500. But the high bid
was retracted because the seller "changed the description". I believe
the reasoning was the change in the headroom measurement... from 4
1/2' to 3 1/2'. But 3 1/2' seems low to me, looking at the pics, and
comparing them to the guy standing by the boat. Do the water ballast
tanks take up sole height? I had assumed the tanks would be on the
sides, and the sole would be the boat bottom. I looked through many
Martha Jane sites on the web, but could not find an answer to this.
I wish I had built this boat, or a Long Micro, instead of my Elver in
'92. Rich.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
>__________________________________________________
> US$4051.00 & just 12 hours to go.
>
> I think I much prefer the looks of the original, as shown here, to
> the upgraded versions. The all white paint scheme suits too - like
> the one in Alaska.
>
> It's very,very interesting to read the seller's comments that it
> doesn't need those Bolger reserve bouyancy mods at all. I wonder if
> he tested?
>
> Looks a good boat.
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proto957" <helio6@> wrote:
> >
> > I've been watching it, too: Ebay Item number: 250180856975
> >http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
> ViewItem&ih=015&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%
> 3AIT&viewitem=&item=250180856975&rd=1
> >
> > It started at $3,500, and has no bids as of today,> --- In
>bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It looks like the Martha Jane built by William D Jochems
>
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
If she'd been for sale in Australia at that price I would have snapped
it up in second! I sailed once on Graham Cheers MJ Shirley Valentine
and my lasting impression was its power and speed, not to mention the
great cockit configuration, trailerability, etc etc...
Col
it up in second! I sailed once on Graham Cheers MJ Shirley Valentine
and my lasting impression was its power and speed, not to mention the
great cockit configuration, trailerability, etc etc...
Col
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proto957" <helio6@...> wrote:
there is a tank under each side bunk for part of the length of about
4 cubic feet volume each.
One Bolger design mod calls for an additional 500lbs of steel
ballast, but I understand this is a plate attached outside, under
the bottom.
In some much earlier postings here some builders said they put bags
of sand etc in the tanks instead of water, so this boat isn't the
only one to have removable tops fitted to the water ballast tanks.
Graeme
> Do the water ballastThe tanks don't take up sole height. As I understand the layout
> tanks take up sole height? I had assumed the tanks would be on the
> sides, and the sole would be the boat bottom. I looked through many
> Martha Jane sites on the web, but could not find an answer to this.
there is a tank under each side bunk for part of the length of about
4 cubic feet volume each.
One Bolger design mod calls for an additional 500lbs of steel
ballast, but I understand this is a plate attached outside, under
the bottom.
In some much earlier postings here some builders said they put bags
of sand etc in the tanks instead of water, so this boat isn't the
only one to have removable tops fitted to the water ballast tanks.
Graeme
I was one of the bidders. Seller indicated that switching from wood to
alum-tube mainmast greatly reduced weight aloft and made stability mods
unecessary. He's had the boat for 8 years, so I'm assuming that he's
put it to the test.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
alum-tube mainmast greatly reduced weight aloft and made stability mods
unecessary. He's had the boat for 8 years, so I'm assuming that he's
put it to the test.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
>
> US$4051.00 & just 12 hours to go.
>
> I think I much prefer the looks of the original, as shown here, to
> the upgraded versions. The all white paint scheme suits too - like
> the one in Alaska.
>
> It's very,very interesting to read the seller's comments that it
> doesn't need those Bolger reserve bouyancy mods at all. I wonder if
> he tested?
>
> Looks a good boat.
>
> Graeme
When I checked on the auction at the time it was over $4000 it appeared
to me that the seller was actually bidding on his own auction to drive
up the price. When I went to check the sellers statistics against the
bidder who appeared to be the seller I got a message from ebay that
they had suspended the auction. When I went back all the bids by the
bidder that appeared to be the seller had been removed and the price
was reduced to reflect the bids not including the ones who appeared to
be the seller. Apparently ebay does not view it as ethical that the
seller bid up his own auction.
Mark
to me that the seller was actually bidding on his own auction to drive
up the price. When I went to check the sellers statistics against the
bidder who appeared to be the seller I got a message from ebay that
they had suspended the auction. When I went back all the bids by the
bidder that appeared to be the seller had been removed and the price
was reduced to reflect the bids not including the ones who appeared to
be the seller. Apparently ebay does not view it as ethical that the
seller bid up his own auction.
Mark
On Nov 3, 2007, at 11:51 AM, proto957 wrote:
> I agree it looks like a good one. I really like these... I think they
> are beautiful.
>
> The bidding was higher at one point... over $4,500. But the high bid
> was retracted because the seller "changed the description". I believe
> the reasoning was the change in the headroom measurement... from 4
> 1/2' to 3 1/2'. But 3 1/2' seems low to me, looking at the pics, and
> comparing them to the guy standing by the boat. Do the water ballast
> tanks take up sole height? I had assumed the tanks would be on the
> sides, and the sole would be the boat bottom. I looked through many
> Martha Jane sites on the web, but could not find an answer to this.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I agree it looks like a good one. I really like these... I think they
are beautiful.
The bidding was higher at one point... over $4,500. But the high bid
was retracted because the seller "changed the description". I believe
the reasoning was the change in the headroom measurement... from 4
1/2' to 3 1/2'. But 3 1/2' seems low to me, looking at the pics, and
comparing them to the guy standing by the boat. Do the water ballast
tanks take up sole height? I had assumed the tanks would be on the
sides, and the sole would be the boat bottom. I looked through many
Martha Jane sites on the web, but could not find an answer to this.
I wish I had built this boat, or a Long Micro, instead of my Elver in
'92. Rich.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
are beautiful.
The bidding was higher at one point... over $4,500. But the high bid
was retracted because the seller "changed the description". I believe
the reasoning was the change in the headroom measurement... from 4
1/2' to 3 1/2'. But 3 1/2' seems low to me, looking at the pics, and
comparing them to the guy standing by the boat. Do the water ballast
tanks take up sole height? I had assumed the tanks would be on the
sides, and the sole would be the boat bottom. I looked through many
Martha Jane sites on the web, but could not find an answer to this.
I wish I had built this boat, or a Long Micro, instead of my Elver in
'92. Rich.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
>
> US$4051.00 & just 12 hours to go.
>
> I think I much prefer the looks of the original, as shown here, to
> the upgraded versions. The all white paint scheme suits too - like
> the one in Alaska.
>
> It's very,very interesting to read the seller's comments that it
> doesn't need those Bolger reserve bouyancy mods at all. I wonder if
> he tested?
>
> Looks a good boat.
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proto957" <helio6@> wrote:
> >
> > I've been watching it, too: Ebay Item number: 250180856975
> >http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
> ViewItem&ih=015&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%
> 3AIT&viewitem=&item=250180856975&rd=1
> >
> > It started at $3,500, and has no bids as of today,> --- In
>bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It looks like the Martha Jane built by William D Jochems
>
US$4051.00 & just 12 hours to go.
I think I much prefer the looks of the original, as shown here, to
the upgraded versions. The all white paint scheme suits too - like
the one in Alaska.
It's very,very interesting to read the seller's comments that it
doesn't need those Bolger reserve bouyancy mods at all. I wonder if
he tested?
Looks a good boat.
Graeme
I think I much prefer the looks of the original, as shown here, to
the upgraded versions. The all white paint scheme suits too - like
the one in Alaska.
It's very,very interesting to read the seller's comments that it
doesn't need those Bolger reserve bouyancy mods at all. I wonder if
he tested?
Looks a good boat.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proto957" <helio6@...> wrote:
>
> I've been watching it, too: Ebay Item number: 250180856975
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
ViewItem&ih=015&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%
3AIT&viewitem=&item=250180856975&rd=1
>
> It started at $3,500, and has no bids as of today,> --- In
bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@> wrote:
> >
> > It looks like the Martha Jane built by William D Jochems
I've been watching it, too: Ebay Item number: 250180856975 You can
just paste the number in the eBay search box, and the ad will come up.
Here is the URL, in case that works in this forum:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=015&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=250180856975&rd=1
It started at $3,500, and has no bids as of today, the 31st of
October. The ad is up until November 3rd. The boat looks very nice,
and looks all ready to go, on the trailer. Rich.
just paste the number in the eBay search box, and the ad will come up.
Here is the URL, in case that works in this forum:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=015&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=250180856975&rd=1
It started at $3,500, and has no bids as of today, the 31st of
October. The ad is up until November 3rd. The boat looks very nice,
and looks all ready to go, on the trailer. Rich.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
>
> It looks like the Martha Jane built by William D Jochems is up for
> sale now on Ebay.
>
It looks like the Martha Jane built by William D Jochems is up for
sale now on Ebay.
sale now on Ebay.