Absolute Growth

[vas]

That’s because there’s a miss match in the WM ,s capacity and your av cruising time ( be it D or P ) .
Vas can replenish 250 L to 1/2 top up his in the time 3 hrs at D to move about each day or so .

You need a WM that can make 500 L , 1/2 your capacity in the time it takes to get from PV to the Lerins or Villefranch
A bloody big one .

but does Mike need so much water for each day? I'd say a couple of hours every other day and he only needs to add a membrane and upgrade his from 100 to 200lph.
Always use mine under way as I don't want to hear the gen in an anchorage.
BTW, I do use mine in the port as well, and waters are relatively filthy. Even got a sample to the uni lab and was cleaner than the tap water we get in Volos

V.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

You need a WM that can make 500 L , 1/2 your capacity in the time it takes to get from PV to the Lerins or Villefranch
A bloody big one .

At a bloody big price!

 

[petem]

Porto, I don't believe the Pershing 43 has split cabins. The engines do look quite well forward though (no Z whotsits).

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Porto, I don't believe the Pershing 43 has split cabins. The engines do look quite well forward though (no Z whotsits).

IMHO its the Pershing 46 which has split cabins. Nice boat that is

 

[vas]

IMHO its the Pershing 46 which has split cabins. Nice boat that is

I may be thick, but how do you get to the aft cabin??? it's not at all obvious!

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I may be thick, but how do you get to the aft cabin??? it's not at all obvious!

Back of the cockpit. Scroll through these photos https://www.yachtworld.co.uk/boats/2007/pershing-46-3516646/?refSource=browse%20listing

Layout here

 

[vas]

thanks Mike,
had seen the layout but of the 3-4 s/h ones I checked none had this pic of the steps with the handle at the bottom. So you lift the three steps that bring you in the cockpit to go down another set of steps. Definitely not the master bedroom cabin back there though.

V.

 

[Portofino]

Yeh it’s the 46 ( was a while back soz ) that has the rear cabin .
@vas you lift the steps and if irrc there a some steep steps down .
Hatch is on gas rams .
Anyhow the sq opening is tight , that’s what I was saying by selecting guests carefully ...... can they fit through?
Anyhow both nice boats 43 or 46 , the 46 being the nearest competitor to what we have .
As I said imho at this size the split layout works better than all together in the front part of the boat ..... You can’t hear each other .
It’s kinda died recently with builders because of the fascination with owners mid cabins .Not blaming just saying .
IPS boats have killed it off like the S/Skr San Remo 48 , Porto 48 .
I guess VP IPS pods are cheaper to install from builders as well compared with a pair of MAN s on shafts and rudders ?
So it’s dropped out of favour .

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

Pershing 46 is the 43 extended to about 50 LoA (from 45) and a private third aft cabin with en-suite.

The 43 has U-drives but still a nice balance. The 46 is direct shafts and bigger Man R6 800hp. Most are with line shafts but about three have been made with surface drives.
I heard some news that the 46 is a bit of wet ride (you do not feel it cause it has a hard top), while the 43 I can say is very hard to get you wet.
Heavy boat for its size the 43 17 tons. I have never seen a grey P43 but I guess it can be painted if you want.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

thanks Mike,
had seen the layout but of the 3-4 s/h ones I checked none had this pic of the steps with the handle at the bottom. So you lift the three steps that bring you in the cockpit to go down another set of steps. Definitely not the master bedroom cabin back there though.
.

No but if youve got another couple on board, you can give yourself and them a lot more privacy by giving them the aft cabin. If I was in the market for a used sports cruiser around this size I would definitely be looking at the Pershing 46. Great looking boat too

 

[Bouba]

But Pete is right, what’s the point of a Pershing if it’s not silver?

 

[petem]

But Pete is right, what’s the point of a Pershing if it’s not silver?

Indeed, but that's a first world problem.

Anyhow, I think a Pershing 43 would be idea for us. Just need to find €170k and €20k p.a. to run the thing .

 

[MapisM]

Again I take issue with that. Firstly I've seen quite a few Nordhavns in the Med, particularly in Croatia. I think if you want a cruising boat for the Med but with a high degree of self sufficiency (ie the ability to spend many weeks on the hook) and you dont mind displacement speeds, then why wouldnt you look at the Nordhavn? You seem to be condemning them because of their high used prices compared to planing boats. Firstly thats good for owners because they're looking at less depreciation than a similar price planing boat and secondly it shows there is a demand for secondhand Nordhavns which is reassuring. As for sunbathing areas most Nordhavns have large boat deck areas which would take as many sunloungers as you want

Well, I wouldn't say that I'm condemning N'havns because their used price is higher than P boats.
I'd rather say that the VFM of used P boats is (or has been in the last years, at least) much higher.
But you might argue that this is semantic, I guess.

I also see why you would consider depreciation rather than absolute value, but that's an each to their own matter.
Me, I never bought a boat assuming to keep her for a short time (though in a couple of cases I did just that, eventually), and perspective resale value has always been very low among my priorities.
Essentially, when shopping for boats, I just give myself a budget based on what I can afford to consider a "disposable" amount, period.
It's hard enough to evaluate the best ways to properly invest our hard earned savings, without bothering to consider also boats as one of the ways to invest them. After all, we would laugh at our wives if they would tell us that they are going to invest in jewels, wouldn't we...?

Regardless, the reasons why I said that N'havns are poor Med boats are much more technical than economic.
Within the Med, I can't imagine anything that I could do with my previous boat (which is fair to call a poor man N'havn) and that I can't do with the DP.
The only (minor) exception I can think of is that many years ago we spent 2 whole weeks at anchor in HR - our longest time on the hook ever.
And the only reason why we couldn't stay longer was that we ran out of fresh water.
So, since the old lady had a 1500L tank vs. 1000 of the DP, we could now spend only 10 days out there rather than 15, AOTBE.
But in this sense, the difference is neither here nor there - a watermaker would solve this regardless of the boat type.

Besides, several features which make good sense for a passagemaker are useless if not annoying, in the Med.
Let's stick to the above N 57 (which I consider possibly the best N'havn ever, in that size bracket) and a similar size P boat (like mine, or the Prin 57, Sq 58, Fer 57, to name but a few).
First of all, AFAIK very few N 57 were built with walkarounds on both side.
Most of them were built with what they call asymmetrical layout, which obviously allows for a larger saloon, but I don't need to explain you how silly that is in the Med, where you must run the lines from astern to the bow when docking.
Besides, the swim platform is a practical joke, even if left empty - not to mention if you install a passerelle, which is a must in the Med.
The cockpit is also very small for a 57 footer, with just a very tiny part of it covered by the f/b overhang.
I could go on with several other layout choices, also internally, which while understandable for long term liveaboard, are a nonsense for the typical Med usage.

Mind, all that said, the cruising experience with a full D vessel still is something else, compared to any P boat (even if used at D speed).
And that alone is the reason why I previously said that I would rather have a N57 than a P boat, if only the VFM of the first were within reason.
But you must really be addicted to D boats, to think along these lines.
I don't think I would in fact, if it weren't that old habit die hard...

 

[MapisM]

If I was in the market for a used sports cruiser around this size I would definitely be looking at the Pershing 46.

Positively +1.

 

[Portofino]

Since Pete has fessed up to possible next prospect. My turn and fitting for the discussion......a San Lorenzo 57 . More extended stays wider cruise etc .
Prefer it to the N 57 et al .

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Since Pete has fessed up to possible next prospect. My turn and fitting for the discussion......a San Lorenzo 57 . More extended stays wider cruise etc .
Prefer it to the N 57 et al .

I'm a big fan of San Lorenzo. Actually I bought my Ferretti 630 from San Lorenzo who had taken it in part exchange against a new SL72 and I visited the factory in Ameglia several times during the process. I had a choice of the F630 or a SL62 and had the SL62 been a bit cheaper I would have gone for that instead. No regrets though with the F630 which has been an excellent boat. I was shown around the factory at Ameglia and I was impressed with the commitment to quality and they were very good people to deal with as well. My overall impression was that San Lorenzo come from the 'brick shithouse' school of manufacturing because everything on their boats appeared to be over specified, at least compared to some other manufacturers. If and when I change my F630, a used SL72 will certainly be on the shortlist

Question which is probably aimed at Mapism mainly. What is the reputation of SL in Italy for seaworthiness of their hulls? My impression whenever I've seen SLs at sea is that they seem well capable of bashing through lumpy seas. When I checked out the hulls of SLs in the Ameglia yard they seem to carry a deeper V further aft, certainly compared to Ferrettis

 

[MapisM]

What is the reputation of SL in Italy for seaworthiness of their hulls?

I'm afraid that seaworthiness of different P hulls is one of those questions which is bound to trigger an anchor-like debate among IT boaters, M.
'Fiuaskme, once you decide that you don't need a battleship for your type of boating (which is true for cruising anywhere in the Med, imho - assuming that you don't fancy riding storms for the sake of it, which wouldn't be a pleasure also in a Nordhavn anyhow), I struggle to think of any planing 70+ footer which is NOT good enough for the job.
I mean, on a seaworthiness scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is the worst P boat and 10 the best D boat, the best P hulls can maybe aim for a 3 or 4, if that.
With full D boats ranging anywhere from 7 to 10, and SD boats somewhere in between.
In other words, if seaworthiness really is paramount (but you must ask yourself why!), I'd rather forget P boats altogether.

That said, in recent years I had a chance to hear plenty of dock talks about the qualities and performances of P hulls, mostly in the 55-60' size bracket I was more interested in, but also up to 80' or so.
And if I should try to make a sort of summary, the SL72 is considered above average, but a notch below the best.
Btw, most folks agree that she's a tad better than the larger SL82, so she's obviously bound to be a pretty good boat, I reckon.

Otoh, if you ask me which hulls have the better reputation, it's harder to summarize and condensate the many different views.
Weird as it might seem, most expert boaters agree that no modern boat can hold a candle to the best wooden hulls from Diano, Tigullio, Alalunga, CdP, Canados. But I don't think you're interested to spend most of your boating time with boat maintenance.
Among GRP modern(ish) boats, there is some consensus that some of the most seaworthy 70/75 feet hulls were built by Uniesse, Cayman, Maiora.
Oh, and also DP coming to think of it, but they only built a couple of big flybridges, so they are rarer than hens' teeth.
Many folks agree that these boats (either with the emphasis on one or the other) are a tad better than SL, strictly from seaworthiness viewpoint.
Funnily enough, I can't remember to have ever heard any IT boater praising the most well known brands like Azimut or Ferretti (and also none of the Brits, for that matter) for seaworthiness alone.
But again, 'fiuaskme, having said that I very much like for instance the Uniesse 72, on balance I'd rather have an SL 72 instead.

Pretty much a first world problem, anyhow.
I maintain that it's almost impossible to be unhappy of any 70+ P flybridge for seaworthiness reasons alone.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

In other words, if seaworthiness really is paramount (but you must ask yourself why!), I'd rather forget P boats altogether.

Well as you yourself pointed out, used P boats are cheaper than used SD or D boats and sometimes I want to go at P speeds so it would be a case of striking a balance between seaworthiness, accommodation, speed and price which is where a used SL72 fits in

And if I should try to make a sort of summary, the SL72 is considered above average, but a notch below the best.

Thats what I was hoping to hear!

But I don't think you're interested to spend most of your boating time with boat maintenance.

Youre not wrong about that!

Among GRP modern(ish) boats, there is some consensus that some of the most seaworthy 70/75 feet hulls were built by Uniesse, Cayman, Maiora.

Again thats useful thanks. Which particular Maiora models?

I maintain that it's almost impossible to be unhappy of any 70+ P flybridge for seaworthiness reasons alone.

Yes but as I said if youre going to buy a 70 footer P boat which, lets face it, are all pretty similar in terms of accommodation, you might as well buy the one that you think is going to be most comfortable in a seaway even if the difference is marginal

 

[vas]

Yes but as I said if youre going to buy a 70 footer P boat which, lets face it, are all pretty similar in terms of accommodation, you might as well buy the one that you think is going to be most comfortable in a seaway even if the difference is marginal

nah,

you buy the one with the better stabilisation, bigger diesel tanks and larger watermaker

 

[MapisM]

Which particular Maiora models?

The hull of both the 20 and the 24 are commonly regarded as pretty good.
Mind, they are larger than their names suggest, so also the 20 is actually a bit bigger than your F630.
Though maybe not enough to be worth the hassle, that's up to you to evaluate, obviously.
The 24 is actually a 26m beast, IIRC.