60 or 65 foot Hatt wanted

[saltshaker]

They do look a lot bigger out of the water, but anybody who's ever had a boat should know that.

Personally I find the view from the helm more unnerving. Because I know if it hits something I'm responsible, and liable.

The 60/65 doesn't feel that big from the helm but when you see them out of the water, they're massive. I agree with Ross, anyone looking at a 60EB should understand how big they are. I always liked the 65EB but felt it was too big. When I started looking at them I still felt that way. Took a while to determine if that's what we wanted but that decision was made before we started making offers.

[Mroffshore]

65 is big but iam use to 80 to 150 FT I don't like to be cramped (lol) that's why I whant 58 to 65

[Tinknocker]

I have a 60 EB that I am just letting go of after 11 great years of fishing, travelling & diving.
It was upgraded to MTU's and they are bullet proof. This is a great choice and a real sea worthy ship. You are on the right track.
It is not listed yet and on our website:
http://tinknocker.net

[capttonyf]

Is it me or do the Older Hatteras 60C's from the late 1970's and early 1980's along with their 65 and 70 Conv. seem larger than the current 60 to 70 ft Conv. by Hatteras, Viking. Even the Old Bertram 58 Conv. was huge for a 58 ft boat. Now I understand the Hatt 68C and 77C are Big wide boats but they have no aft decks like they 70C and the GT series seem much smaller and lower profile. The older 54C and 55C are much larger than a 54GT. The Hatt 82, 86 and 90 Conv. Seem much larger than an 82 Viking Conv. Taller, Huge Cockpit, Crew Quarters, Large Aft Deck, Huge Bridge Overhang, Full walk Around Decks and an Engine Room that rivals 100ft Motor Yachts. Maybe it's just an illusion, I don't know but a Hatt 65 Conv just has a Big, Tall, Muscular, load me up with extra fuel, deck boxes and anything else you need because we're going to sea and won't be back for awhile look to her. Just seems that you get more boat in an older 60 to 65 Conv. than you do in a new 60 to 65 Conv..

[saltshaker]

It's not an illusion. Many of the older boats were bigger. The 60C and 58C Hatts in particular are huge for their LOA. They're a bit beamier but more importantly, they carry their beam pretty far aft. The hulls are also a bit taller making for a roomier interior and ER. Look at a 60C I next to a 60C II and you can really see the difference. Compare the weight and you'll notice the old Hatts were heavier. That's not just from changes in construction techniques, it's also from the actual size of the boats. As for the Viking comparison, That has a lot to do with the design and shape of the boat. Viking hulls typically have more flare than a Hatt and much less freeboard. The result is a boat that is much smaller and lower profile than a similar sized Hatt. Interesting that you pointed out the Viking 82C. Have you been on one or seen one inperson? I found the opposite with this particular boat. She is very well proportioned and a massive boat. Much different than any other Viking I've seen before. Fist Viking without the droopy nose and with a flat forward deck. Not sure what this one is but she's anything but small. Very sleek and low profile.

[capttonyf]

It's not an illusion. Many of the older boats were bigger. The 60C and 58C Hatts in particular are huge for their LOA. They're a bit beamier but more importantly, they carry their beam pretty far aft. The hulls are also a bit taller making for a roomier interior and ER. Look at a 60C I next to a 60C II and you can really see the difference. Compare the weight and you'll notice the old Hatts were heavier. That's not just from changes in construction techniques, it's also from the actual size of the boats. As for the Viking comparison, That has a lot to do with the design and shape of the boat. Viking hulls typically have more flare than a Hatt and much less freeboard. The result is a boat that is much smaller and lower profile than a similar sized Hatt. Interesting that you pointed out the Viking 82C. Have you been on one or seen one inperson? I found the opposite with this particular boat. She is very well proportioned and a massive boat. Much different than any other Viking I've seen before. Fist Viking without the droopy nose and with a flat forward deck. Not sure what this one is but she's anything but small. Very sleek and low profile.

Your right the 82 Viking is a Huge boat and I've been on a few of them but i guess what I mean is a boat that size I feel should have a better cockpit arrangement including both a tackle center and an aft deck or mezza, along with easier/safer access to the bow similar to an 82,86,or 90 Hatt Conv. If you have seen the drawings of the new Viking 92 Conv. you will see exactly what I mean, they have the space to do this on their 82 but dont for some reason. Thats one of the things I really like about a 70 Striker is great side decks and bow access. I believe any boat in this size range should utilize their volume to provide these things and not always push to have Huge a Salon Sq Ft number. Smaller boats have to give up alot more on side decks etc. but big boats should always have safe access. Hatteras has been one of the best at always providing good bow access even on smaller boats and I value the importance of it.

[capttonyf]

Your right the 82 Viking is a Huge boat and I've been on a few of them but i guess what I mean is a boat that size I feel should have a better cockpit arrangement including both a tackle center and an aft deck or mezza, along with easier/safer access to the bow similar to an 82,86,or 90 Hatt Conv. If you have seen the drawings of the new Viking 92 Conv. you will see exactly what I mean, they have the space to do this on their 82 but dont for some reason. Thats one of the things I really like about a 70 Striker is great side decks and bow access. I believe any boat in this size range should utilize their volume to provide these things and not always push to have Huge a Salon Sq Ft number. Smaller boats have to give up alot more on side decks etc. but big boats should always have safe access. Hatteras has been one of the best at always providing good bow access even on smaller boats and I value the importance of it.

I believe the large sportfish you listed above is a Jim Smith but my screen is a little elongated/distorted so its had to tell.

[saltshaker]

I was thinking a Jim Smith too but not sure. It's a good bet given the size.

[luckydave215]

There's currently a 60C series II docked a few slips away from our 60C series I, and she looks tiny in comparison. The newer boat is a lot faster and sleeker though, (unless you want to actually go anywhere more than a few miles away - which means anywhere - on the west coast.) Then they run at the same displacement speeds, but the older, bigger boat is much more comfortable)

[saltshaker]

There's currently a 60C series II docked a few slips away from our 60C series I, and she looks tiny in comparison. The newer boat is a lot faster and sleeker though, (unless you want to actually go anywhere more than a few miles away - which means anywhere - on the west coast.) Then they run at the same displacement speeds, but the older, bigger boat is much more comfortable)

I was talking to a fellow boater this weekend and mentioned that If I downsized I would be looking for a 54C I, 55C II or 60C II. He commented on how 5 feet is hardly downsizing. My response was it is considerable when comparing my 65C to a 60C II. I will say that all 3 boats I listed ride on the same hull. That hull is one of Hatts better hulls and has a great reputation for heavy weather performance. There was a 55C II next to me in Moorehead City. Captain took care of it and several other customs in the 60ft range. He said the Hatt was by far the best sea boat. The others were very good, but the Hatt did a much better job in big seas.