my little mystery: the Jolly Roger

[slampoud]

In June 2004 I became the proud owner of a 1968 Windward Yachts Jolly Roger, a 24 foot sloop with a full keel and very classic lines. I'd always wanted a Triton, but it was too much boat for a frequently single-handed, inexperienced girl, so I settled on a smaller, equally overbuilt, and in my opinion just as pretty sloop :-)

Ever since, I've been trying to gather information about the Jolly Roger model, and it's been near impossible to find any! Of the people who claim to have known a JR at some point, most remember the very long cockpit as the most characteristic feature.

I was wondering whether anyone in this knowledgeable bunch might have any information or stories to share about this model. What I've been able to gather so far is collected in this page. A question I haven't been able to resolve yet, that may make this mystery particularly appealing to this crowd, is whether or not this is an Alberg design.

These are the photos of my boat from when it was on sale, in case the looks ring a bell for someone:





Thanks for any help with this and for being the greatest virtual companions on every maintenance task!

Teri

[Tim]

There sure are a lot of Alberg-esque features in that design. The bow sections, in particular, look to be virtually a scaled-down version of the Triton bows. (It's been said, only partially in jest, that Carl Alberg only drew one set of lines in his life, and then merely scaled them up or down as needed!)

The stern and transom seem more abrupt than you see in most other Alberg designs, but certainly the quarter view is very reminiscent of boats like the Pearson Commander and Alberg 22. I agree with your website comments that Minuet in Sea, listed as a supposed Alberg 24, looks to be the same boat as your Jolly Roger.

Do you have any pictures of your boat (or another Jolly Roger) out of the water?

I'm afraid I don't have any information to point specifically to an Alberg confirmation, but my eye says that it is certainly not beyond the realm.

[Jason K]

Teri,

Congratulations on the new boat and welcome to the forum. I do not think it is a Carl Alberg design, though it certainly has many of the same influences. It actually looks to me more like a Meridian, which was designed by Philip Rhodes - though the cabin top is very different and it looks as though it has less of a sheer. Of course, I'm just guessing here. Any more photos?

I'm not familiar with the Jolly Roger or Windward Yachts. A brief google search shows up that Windward Yachts was a short lived company out of Florida. Do you know anything else about Windward? What about some of their other boats? Perhaps there is a continuity of design that would provide some clues.

[CharlieJ]

not a Meridian, unless it's a way later model. The original Meridian was stopped in 64 or 65, when the molds came over to the US from Holland. They then stretched it to 26 feet. Very different boat.

The tiller location is definitely NOT Meridian. The tililer on ours comes up through the cockpit floor, not through an after deck like that. PLus the deck/hull joint is all wrong. The Meridian has an upturned flange to which is bolted a toe rail.

Looks VERY "Alberg-ish" to me.

[catamount]

The Alberg-esque detail that caught my eye was the way the cockpit coamings are completed at the trunk cabin -- very similar to the way it was done on my Dad's Cape Dory 36:


Warship 711 -- Where Are You?

Regards,

[Jason K]

It actually looks to me more like a Meridian

I should probably clarify that - I know it isn't a Meridian. Rather, it reminds me more of the Meridian than it does a Triton or other Alberg boat.

[slampoud]

Do you have any pictures of your boat (or another Jolly Roger) out of the water?

No, I'm sorry, I don't. This will be remedied next week when I haul her, though, and I promise to snap lots of pictures and post them then.

The Alberg-esque detail that caught my eye was the way the cockpit coamings are completed at the trunk cabin -- very similar to the way it was done on my Dad's Cape Dory 36:

In fact the boat looks disturbingly similar to the Cape Dory 22, the cockpit coamings being one reason, the sheerline, lazarette lockers and shape of the deck and cabin being others...

Any more photos?

There are a couple more photos from last year below (I've since improved the motor mount, got a new motor -- that Johnson was a monster-- and generally made the boat look better). Note the beard she grows every summer when she's sitting on the hook.

http://www.geeknix.com/boat/gallery/pic ... C00138.JPG
http://www.geeknix.com/boat/gallery/pic ... C00144.JPG

Teri

[slampoud]

Do you have any pictures of your boat (or another Jolly Roger) out of the water?

Finished the haul, here's a picture out of the water. Somehow there seemed to be no place in the boatyard where I could get real good profile shot.



Another minor mystery popped up: the travelift weighed the boat at 2,200 lbs. The only other information on displacement was from a BUC quote supplied by the former owner, which said 3,350 lbs. Weird! Now I really want to get my hands on some original literature!

More pics from the haulout are here

Teri

[Tim]

Seeing the haulout photos, I can't get over how much the hull resembles an Ensign/Electra, though with a modified transom.

The reverse sheer, the bow sections, and the keel shape are 100% Alberg, and are nearly identical to the shape of an Ensign/Electra. The transom shape and stern sections are unlike any other Alberg boats, but other than this anamoly, I see way too much Alberg here to doubt the rumors of the boat's Alberg roots.



This photo (top, below) shows the Ensign roots quite clearly. Compare with the Ensign photos beneath to see what I mean.







I miss my Ensign. I believe I'll have to get another someday.

The only other information on displacement was from a BUC quote...

Well, BUC information is not known to be highly accurate much of the time, so don't let that worry you.

[Case]

The first time I saw the photographs of the Jolly Roger out of the water, I immediately recongized it as an Ensign (or Electra) but the transom and cabin threw me off. Made me doubt my knowledge of boats for a while there.

Now I remember a debacle with the Alberg 35 - Pearson stopped building it but didn't destroy the molds. They just dropped it at the dump or something. Well somebody (who exactly, not sure) found it and reused it. The Result: The Ericson 35. It was the first Ericson I think... could be wrong. It was an Alberg 35 modified by Bruce King. The hull looked just the same, maybe a little more forefeet cut out. Totally different cabin. Pearson and Alberg was in the least... not happy. At all. As a result of that, Pearson employees said they always took the chainsaw to the molds after the model run ended. Moral of story: (other than always to trash the models after using it..) People has been known to use other hulls for their own use.

Since this Jolly Roger was built in 1968 and the Ensign was built up until 1986 or so... Perhaps Windward Yachts basically took an Ensign and extended its transom or lengthened it somehow and used it as a mold. Just a guess. There are too many similaries in the JR to the Ensign. As far I know, the list of all of Alberg Designs I have seen in several places online, do not have the Jolly Roger 24 on it.

It is possible that Alberg DID design this boat but it simply was not as successful so consquently, knowledge on this boat is lost, including the fact that Alberg designed it. Alberg tended to basically size up his smaller models for his larger models then tweak it a bit. Maybe this is a "Lost Alberg Design." Who knows? More knowledge is lost than we can ever imagine - I have a BA in History so I know this fact firsthand.

[kabauze]

This photo (top, below) shows the Ensign roots quite clearly. Compare with the Ensign photos beneath to see what I mean.

Roots? Heh heh, those must be the Ensign roots dangling there from the front of the keel. ;^)

Teri is gonna kill be for snide remarks about her boat...except that I just helped her strip and paint that boat, so maybe she'll go easy on me...

[Summersdawn]

A reverse transom is created by putting a "dam" at the back of a mold. Once the hull is molded, the dam is removed, allowing the hull to pop out of the mold. I would suspect that someone got a hold of an ensign/electra mold, created a new "dam" for the transom, and started popping out hulls.

[Case]

Hmm... Dam. Never thought of that. Could be the case. Often, in the case of sucessful designs which the Ensign certainly was, molds get used up and new molds are made. Perhaps the Jolly Roger 24 was molded from the orginal Ensign Molds that was discarded? Anyone know the facts? This is getting interesting, at least for me.

[windrose]

Me too. BTW, sweet boat Teri. She cleaned up nicely. :-) Keep us up to date on your progress.

I am curious as to what product you used to bring the shine on her hull back up like that, looks great.

[slampoud]

I am curious as to what product you used to bring the shine on her hull back up like that, looks great.

Thanks! It's just two coats of pre-kote and one of brightsides plain white (I would have liked to do two, but no time!) There's only less than a millimeter of gelcoat, and it's very dull, so I think she definitely needed paint. The pre-kote went on with a medium nap roller and ended up very orange-peely. In retrospect I wish I'd roll-and-tipped it, because I ended up having to keep much of the primer texture. I only had about 18 hours to let it dry, so in daytime 60 F and nighttime 40 F weather it wasn't completely dry by sanding time. Sanding it with the 14K rpm palm sander was making it look bad, so I hand sanded most of it, and of course I couldn't take all the orange-peel off by hand. Had I roll-and-tipped the primer, the underlying texture would have been easier to hand-sand out, I think. Still, I'll take orange-peel over brush marks, but that's a personal preference. The Brightsides went on with a fine foam roller and I tipped it out. It was 50 F, so there are a couple runs where it just wouldn't dry fast enough. Overall, this being my first time, and having done all coats myself in 3 days, I'm happy with the result :-)

A reverse transom is created by putting a "dam" at the back of a mold.

If the JR was made from an Electra mold using the dam method, wouldn't the resulting length of the JR be slightly *shorter* than the Electra? To get a longer LOA but reverse transom, you'd have to extend the mold at the hullsides near the transom, no? The BUC (whose accuracy is now in question) gives the JR as 23'4" (I'm assuming LOA) and I'm finding the Electra specs say LOA 22'5".

Two more (so far useless) pieces to the puzzle: a) my title states the year of manufacture as 1965, whereas BUC claims the boat was only made in '68. Since I've seen how mangled information gets every time the boat changes ownership and gets re-registered, I wouldn't believe the registration date. b) How did at least 4 JRs get from Jacksonville, FL (where they were allegedly manufactured by Windward) to California? If this boat was made only one year, and my hull is number 27 (as the title claims), then I would expect this model to have gone the way of the dodo, simply due to how rare it is. Yet, somehow, there are at least 4 in North and Central California alone!

Well, BUC information is not known to be highly accurate much of the time, so don't let that worry you.

I would have felt a lot more comfortable had you said, "well, travelifts are not known to be highly accurate..." :-)

This is getting interesting, at least for me.

I'm glad to see someone else finds this fascinating :-)

If anyone can think of measurements that I could perform to resolve the Electra mold issue, let me know soon, or hold your peace until January when I'll next have physical access to the boat. In the meantime, I'll try to leave a note on the "Spam", the other JR in Santa Barbara, this weekend. Perhaps the owners have some information to contribute.

[Tim]

It looks to me as if the stern was extended along the top edge only--assuming, in the absence of opposing information, that the boat was built using an Ensign/Electra mold.

To my eye, it appears that the lower corner of your "traditional" transom is in the same location as the lower corner of the Ensign's reverse transom. So to achieve a slightly longer overall length, and also the different transom shape, it looks as if the mold was extended at the top edge (gunwale). This would account for the extra foot or so of length.



This is all conjecture. Given the large numbers of Ensigns built, it's more than possible that Pearson needed to replace the mold during the run. An old cast-off mold either sold to, or illegitimately acquired by, a different boatbuilding company could account for the production of your boat.

Extending a transom in this manner does not always work aesthetically. Even if the extension is a natural drawing-out of the original lines, sometimes things just don't work in three dimensions. To my eye, this extension is a bit ungainly when viewed from certain angles.

Two more (so far useless) pieces to the puzzle: a) my title states the year of manufacture as 1965, whereas BUC claims the boat was only made in '68.

I've seen plenty of titles, registrations and so forth that list the incorrect build year. Also, I have also found BUC to be wrong in the years of manufacture listed on the site as well. Unfortunately, until we can begin time travelling, it will be challenging to determine exactly when some of our old boats were actually built, as the true sources of information are often now long gone.

[kendall]

Don't know if the original molds were one part or three, but if it were one part, where the hull was laid up then lifted out, the inward curve would make it impossible to do when coupled with the shape of the rest of the hull, the mold would have to extend back, the dam installed for layup, then removed for lifting the hull out, for a three part mold it would still make sense.

It's a pretty nice looking boat, and if I saw it on the water somewhere I'd swear it was an albergh design.

Ken.

[slampoud]

I am curious as to what product you used to bring the shine on her hull back up like that, looks great.

Thanks! It's just two coats of pre-kote and one of brightsides plain white (I would have liked to do two, but no time!)

I just wanted to post a quick update on how this paintjob is faring, especially since it's a bit of a cautionary tale.
While the pre-kote/brightsides paintjob started out looking fine, it has held up very very badly! The boat is in an anchorage, where there's a fair bit of swell. Consequently it rolls quite a bit and the paint above what would normally be considered the waterline sees quite a bit of water. So, those lower parts of the white paintjob have started forming tiny bubbles, which then sort of chip off. The result is an uneven finish, which when alternately exposed to air and water creates a perfect foothold for algae :-(
I find it pathetic that this one-part LP system hasn't even lasted one season for me!
Teri

[Tim]

So it's doing this again? (One of your "before" photos)



I have a couple comments on this algae problem.

1. In this view, the boat is quite static with calm waters. The antifouling line sits too low to prevent fouling along the edge without frequent cleaning. The antifouling paint should extend at least a couple inches above the static waterline to allow for a more effective splash zone. It looks like you repainted to the same line. Brightsides--or any topsides paint--will not hold up well under this sort of near-constant submersion.

I know you can't paint high enough to cover the whole affected area, and that's not what I'm suggesting. But even a couple inches extra antifouling paint above where it is now would help more than you think because it would prevent fouling close to the water, which would reduce or even eliminate the upward growth of the algae beyond. Algae and dirt beget more algae and dirt, so the cleaner it is, the cleaner it stays.

2. Since the boat had had this problem previously, it calls into question the condition of the existing paint or other substrate that you painted over. It's quite possible that the new paint didn't get an opportunity to bond correctly, as even if you removed the old growth and sanded thoroughly, it still may not have eliminated all traces of contamination or moisture from the area. This could accelerate failure of the new paint.

3. I don't love Brightsides, but in general it does what it's supposed to and performs pretty well. I think the problem may be more of a combination of the above two factors rather than an utter failure of the paint itself.

Even Awlgrip in this situation would begin to bubble over time. When I had my initial waterline, which was too low, my Awlgrip boottop began to form small bubbles after a summers' immersion in the water when we were loaded for cruising. I never had an actual paint failure, and the water-filled bubbles mostly evaporated over time after I hauled the boat, but I raised the waterline that fall and haven't had a repeat of the problem.

[slampoud]

An interesting little piece of serendipity has recently led to a family reunion for my Jolly Roger. It seems that the daughter of Ken Broyles, the man who built my boat, saw a listing of mine in craigslist, and replied with some information about Windward Yachts and the Jolly Roger's history. In her words:

My family owned Windward Yachts in Costa Mesa, CA from the late 1950's through 1967 and manufactured the hand-laid fiberglass boats including a 24 foot model which he named the Jolly Roger. The closest competitive boat at the time was 'The Venture'. The emblem on the original sails was a skull and crossbone. [...]
My dad built the molds for these boats in our family garage in Westminster CA back in the early 1960's. He had a shop in Costa Mesa until late 1967. At that time we moved to Jacksonville FL for one school year and continued to build boats. (which would explain the guy with the boat from Jacksonville) After that the business moved to Miami, Florida where in 1976 my dad and mom divorced and my dad sold what was left of the business. [...]
We did business under the name of Ken Broyles Inc as well as Windward Yachts.

This explains why the BUC claimed the boats were made in Florida, yet all the ones I'd ever heard of are in California. I've updated the model webpage to reflect this information and to include a picture from the '60s.

Of course we still don't know whether Ken Broyles designed the hull/mold or not, or how many boats were built. If I get this information, I'll keep this posting up-to-date, for archival purposes.

Cheers,
Teri

[sal's dad]

Corinthian - as found