Westerly Berwicks

Y

yachtorion

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 Oct 2009
Messages
1,025
Visit site
So... big Centaur. Blue water capable. Roomy.... what's the catch? why on earth do they only change hands for 9-15k?
 
Last edited:
Generally for the same reasons most other boats are now "worth" a lot less than they were before the crash. And many of them are now very shabby. 7 or 8 years ago you rarely saw a Centaur for sale for less than £10k. Now they're half that. I would guess 7 or 8 years ago Berwicks et al would be asking £20-£30k? It's a great time to be a buyer...
 
VicS said:
Done most of my sailing in a Berwick.

Getting old ( me as well!)

Original engine ( often MD11C) would be just about beyond hope for serious use.
Electrics would need upgrading
Gas system not anywhere near modern standards
Rigging... could even be original
Not everyone finds them good looking.
Not all that roomy compared with more recent beamier boats

In many ways just a bigger version of the Centaur when it could perhaps have been much improved and bigger.

But solid seaworthy and sails a helluva a lot better that it looks as though it might.

A really well cared for, maintained and updated one would be a nice boat to own and sail and I'd be hard pushed to find anything to seriously criticise.

If its what you fancy, look for a good one with a decent newish engine and go for it. I doubt that you will be disappointed.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with most of that, especially as I owned a Pentland for a few years and thoroughly enjoyed it. But I'd query your use of the word "solid". This keeps coming up on these forums, and I keep questioning the belief that older GRP boats were somehow more solidly built. If you take the Berwick as an example, it had a displacement of 4450kg with 2012kg ballast, so the actual hull weighed 2438kg. Then look at a Bavaria Easy 9.7, similar length, fairly basic boat, but the displacement is 5200kg with 1300kg ballast, so the actual hull weighs 3900kg - 60% more than the Berwick. I reckon modern boats are actually much more solid than many older ones.
 
Boats that have a single cabin are cheaper. People want to have a second cabin for privacy when they have guests or family aboard. In the Westerly era, I guess, people were more stoic and put up with the camping experience.

Otherwise I would have bought something like a Westerly longbow which is another fabulous spacious single cabin boat that you can pick up for peanuts.
It is a bit like the way that a tiny 4 bedroom flat will sell for more than a much larger 2 bedroom apartment. The irony is when people live with empty unused cabins and put up with the reduced saloon area.

You can get unbelievable value if your personal requirements mean that you don't care about certain features on a boat which are toxic for resale.
As well as mono-cabins, long keelers are difficult to shift because people are worried that they will be unmanoeuvrable in a harbour (and nobody wants to be the marina clown).

If you keep your boat on a mooring and are the sort of person who can't stand the company of others, you can pick up a real bargain.
 
VicS said:
Anyway you are not comparing actual hull weights. You are comparing weights of whole boat minus weights of ballast
Click to expand...

True, but the boats mostly have engines, cookers, toilets, masts, rigging, winches, etc, so it's a good comparison method.
 
When I fitted a flue pipe for a parafine heater on my second boat, a 1980 Westerly 21 (posh Warwick) the deck head was nearly 1/2" thick. I kept the fibreglass disc as a momento. I also fitted a boarding ladder to the stern and the GRP at the transom was over 1/2" thick. I seriously doubt that any modern boats have that sort of layup. With the possible exception of my CW28 maybe.
 
Sophie19 said:
When I fitted a flue pipe for a parafine heater on my second boat, a 1980 Westerly 21 (posh Warwick) the deck head was nearly 1/2" thick. I kept the fibreglass disc as a momento. I also fitted a boarding ladder to the stern and the GRP at the transom was over 1/2" thick. I seriously doubt that any modern boats have that sort of layup. With the possible exception of my CW28 maybe.
Click to expand...

Yes, and they're also incredibly well proven at sea, but I think it's also fair to say the layup was a lot less technically sophisticated then, and didn't benefit from computerised stress modelling etc. I guess we can assume both hulls are fit for purpose.

The boat just seems under valued in comparison with others of similar sizes and I'm wondering how come. Not in the market for one right now - only about 1/2 way through the Horizon project and oh wow am I learning a lot :-/

But I've already kinda decided I'll sell the Horizon when I've finished, someone will do very well out of it but even so if I'm REALLY careful I may make a modest profit if (my own) labour and storage costs are totally disregarded, and I'm very curious! Next boat must not be a project though. Or at least it must be a project I can sail while it progresses.
 
Last edited:
pvb said:
I'd agree with most of that, especially as I owned a Pentland for a few years and thoroughly enjoyed it. But I'd query your use of the word "solid". This keeps coming up on these forums, and I keep questioning the belief that older GRP boats were somehow more solidly built. If you take the Berwick as an example, it had a displacement of 4450kg with 2012kg ballast, so the actual hull weighed 2438kg. Then look at a Bavaria Easy 9.7, similar length, fairly basic boat, but the displacement is 5200kg with 1300kg ballast, so the actual hull weighs 3900kg - 60% more than the Berwick. I reckon modern boats are actually much more solid than many older ones.
Click to expand...

pvb said:
True, but the boats mostly have engines, cookers, toilets, masts, rigging, winches, etc, so it's a good comparison method.
Click to expand...

I with draw my opinions
 
Sophie19 said:
When I fitted a flue pipe for a parafine heater on my second boat, a 1980 Westerly 21 (posh Warwick) the deck head was nearly 1/2" thick. I kept the fibreglass disc as a momento. I also fitted a boarding ladder to the stern and the GRP at the transom was over 1/2" thick. I seriously doubt that any modern boats have that sort of layup. With the possible exception of my CW28 maybe.
Click to expand...
They moved on from that.My 1980 Fulmars transom is on the thin side and the topsides at gunwale height are also rather thin.It's down in the keel area that the layup is really thick.
 
yachtailsa said:
Yes, and they're also incredibly well proven at sea, but I think it's also fair to say the layup was a lot less technically sophisticated then, and didn't benefit from computerised stress modelling etc. I guess we can assume both hulls are fit for purpose.

The boat just seems under valued in comparison with others of similar sizes and I'm wondering how come. Not in the market for one right now - only about 1/2 way through the Horizon project and oh wow am I learning a lot :-/

But I've already kinda decided I'll sell the Horizon when I've finished, someone will do very well out of it but even so if I'm REALLY careful I may make a modest profit if (my own) labour and storage costs are totally disregarded, and I'm very curious! Next boat must not be a project though. Or at least it must be a project I can sail while it progresses.
Click to expand...

Good point about 'technical' design, hadn't thought of that.
 
Sophie19 said:
Good point about 'technical' design, hadn't thought of that.
Click to expand...

Nothing inherently good about thickness or weight of layup - particularly on a coachroof. Just a reflection of a time when little was known about the properties of the materials and they were cheap. So, if in doubt just add more!
 
Ravi said:
You can get unbelievable value if your personal requirements mean that you don't care about certain features on a boat which are toxic for resale.
As well as mono-cabins, long keelers are difficult to shift because people are worried that they will be unmanoeuvrable in a harbour (and nobody wants to be the marina clown).

If you keep your boat on a mooring and are the sort of person who can't stand the company of others, you can pick up a real bargain.
Click to expand...

Oh dear. I've been found out! ;)
 
V1701 said:
Generally for the same reasons most other boats are now "worth" a lot less than they were before the crash. And many of them are now very shabby. 7 or 8 years ago you rarely saw a Centaur for sale for less than £10k. Now they're half that. I would guess 7 or 8 years ago Berwicks et al would be asking £20-£30k? It's a great time to be a buyer...
Click to expand...

First post sums it up, not much more to say.
 
pvb said:
True, but the boats mostly have engines, cookers, toilets, masts, rigging, winches, etc, so it's a good comparison method.
Click to expand...

Technically, the displacement weight is not the hull weight but the weight of the amount of water displaced when a boat (with full tanks) is placed in the water.

I do not know if the weight of the tumble dryer, yoghurt maker, microwave, bread maker, flat screen TV, jacuzzi, etc. on a new Bavaria would be included in that measurement. (heh, heh.)
 
Ravi said:
Technically, the displacement weight is not the hull weight but the weight of the amount of water displaced when a boat (with full tanks) is placed in the water.
Click to expand...

pvb said:
The displacement is the weight of the boat.
Click to expand...

The displacement is (numerically) equal to the weight of the boat.

Remember though that the units of weight are newtons.
It is incorrect to express weight in kilograms ( or tonnes) as these are units of mass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

P
Suggest a Yacht please
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
2K
Greenheart
Greenheart
D
No Raw Water Strainer - Trapper 500 Nanni 2.14
Replies
3
Views
208
Dulaman66
D

Share this page

Top