C & V SURVEY
Condition & Valuation
| Client: Removed for privacy | Date of report: August 19, 2022 |
| Current owner: Removed for privacy | Our file #: 22 – 20448web |
| Location: San Diego Guest Dock, | Date of inspection: May 13, 2022 |
| San Diego, CA |
Scope of Services
The vessel was examined by the surveyor and/or surveyor’s agents from all accessible areas of the interior without removal of secured panels, destructive testing or disassembly. The hull bottom laminate, plating and/or planking was examined by percussion sounding and visual inspection only. No moisture content readings were taken, and no destructive testing was performed. The surveyor may have used a moisture meter if/when they deemed it useful or if specifically requested by client. Exterior hardware was visually examined for damage and drive components were tested by sight only. The inspection of engines, generators, machinery and related mechanical systems is not within the scope of this survey. Only a brief cursory inspection of the machinery was conducted, and no opinion of their overall condition was formed. Client shall retain the services of a qualified mechanic, engine surveyor or other expert to inspect such engine, generators, machinery and related mechanical systems. Tankage was inspected from visible surfaces only and no opinion was rendered as to their overall condition. On sailing vessels, the rig was not inspected aloft, nor were sails inspected unless they were visible during a sea trial. Client shall retain the services of a qualified rig surveyor or other expert to inspect sails, rigging and equipment. The electrical system was visually inspected where accessible, and electronic and electrical components powered only with permission of or in the presence of the vessel’s owner or agent. No in-depth testing or examination of the electrical system or electric schematic was conducted. Specifications were taken from published sources, measurements if made, should be considered approximate. The recommendations are based on federal and state regulations, industry standards, and/or surveyor‘s own personal experience. The market value is based on research of available new/used comparable vessels, with consideration of geographic area where the vessel is located and reported sale prices where available. The surveyor will refer to and may reference CFRs, NFPA and ABYC recommendations (and/or other services) as the surveyor deems reasonable but not all regulations and recommendations will be applied nor should this report be relied upon as full compliance with the aforementioned entities. Every vessel inspection is different, and limitations may alter the scope of this survey, some limitations will be implied in the text of the report and some will be explicitly detailed. A Marine Survey Agreement which is reviewed and signed by the client details the terms governing this marine survey.
VESSEL DESCRIPTION
| Builder: S2 Yachts | Reg. #: Removed for privacy |
| Model/type: 9.2 / sloop | Engine/MFG: One Mercury |
| Year: 1978 | H.P. per: 5 |
| Length: 30’ (32 w/ outboard) | Serial number: Not seen |
| Draft: 4.92’ * | |
| Beam: 10’ | Type of instal. : Gasoline, four stroke, |
| Name: Removed for privacy | outboard |
| HIN: Removed for privacy
* sailboatdata.com |
Generator: None
Hailing port: San Diego |
|
HULL & STRUCTURE |
| The vessel was inspected while afloat. Hull construction material is molded fiberglass. Deck is constructed of fiberglass and above deck structures are constructed of fiberglass. Coring is unknown. Bulkheads are constructed of plywood. Overall condition of the hull structure appears satisfactory. The vessel’s weight is unknown. Exterior rails and hardware appear satisfactory. Mast, mast step, standing rigging and chain plates, where visible, appear satisfactory. Cosmetic condition of vessel appears satisfactory externally and satisfactory – marginal internally. Vessel’s external colors are white with a black accent and boot stripe. Below waterline through hull fittings appear marginal. The vessel is equipped with one manual bilge pump that appears satisfactory and the bilge is holding minimal water. The ventilation system consists of natural ventilation and appears excellent. General housekeeping appears marginal. |
| Summary: Satisfactory |
| MACHINE SYSTEMS |
| Engine’s external surfaces appear satisfactory and exhibit no rust, oil or coolant leaks. Engine hour meter was not seen. Motor mounts appear satisfactory. Cooling system appears satisfactory. Fuel system and components appear satisfactory. Exhaust system and components appear satisfactory. Electrical system and components appear satisfactory. Engine control system appears satisfactory. Steering control system appears satisfactory and rudder port appears satisfactory. Outboard components appear satisfactory. Waste system and components appear satisfactory. |
| Summary: Satisfactory |
| FUEL SYSTEM |
| There is 5 gallon capacity in one portable type plastic tank located in the cockpit bilge. Fuel tank surfaces, where visible, appear satisfactory, and the securing mechanism appears satisfactory. The fuel feed lines and components appear satisfactory. |
| Summary: Satisfactory |
| ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS |
| The AC shore cord, inlet and connections appear satisfactory. The AC wiring and outlets appear satisfactory. The AC main feed is protected with a circuit breaker. Battery arrangement appears satisfactory. Batteries are equipped with a disconnect switch. DC wiring appears satisfactory. Circuit protection for the AC and DC branch system appears satisfactory. Wire terminations and connections appear satisfactory. Wire organization and arrangement appears satisfactory. |
| Summary: Satisfactory |
| SAFETY AND LIFE SAVING |
| Vessel’s portable fire extinguishers include three type B:C size I located by the aft berth (1978), by the companionway (2001) and in a box to starboard in salon (2018, partially discharged). Vessel has no fixed fire suppression system. The vessel includes no CO alarms. The safety components include: two adult type II PFDs and no throwable PFDs; distress flares with expired certification; no life rafts; no first aid kit; two Danforth type anchors with chain and line rode that appears satisfactory. Navigational and anchor lights appear marginal. |
| Summary: Marginal |
| DOCKING |
| The vessel was inspected at its temporary location. Lines condition and arrangement appears satisfactory. Boarding hazards appear insignificant. All entry points were found kept locked. |
| Summary: Good |
|
ACCESSORIES |
| Winches include two Lewmar 40 and two Lewmar 8, galley includes icebox, sink, and Blackstone LP stove aft cabin includes berth, head includes sink, Porta-Potti head with self-contained tank and bathtub, dinette, Noco Genius Gen 2 battery charger, V-berth, electrical distribution panel includes main AC circuit breaker, branch AC and DC circuit breaker and DC voltmeter |
|
SUMMARY |
| The vessel is a production fiberglass sloop-rigged sailboat equipped with a single gasoline outboard engine. The vessel was designed by Arthur Edmunds and built in Holland, Michigan. The client reported that she purchased the vessel one week prior to the survey in San Diego, CA. The age of the engine is unknown and the standing rigging is unknown, however, it is believed to be less than 10 years old. The vessel was inspected while afloat. The engine was not test operated and no sea trial was performed. The vessel is basically structurally sound and upon completion of the recommendations should be suitable for its intended purpose as a near coastal cruising vessel. |
| Overall Summary: Satisfactory |
Standard form key: We use subsection and overall ratings to summarize conditions found, based upon their appearance. Ratings include: Not examined, Not applicable, Faulty, Marginal, Satisfactory, Good, Excellent.
VALUES
| ACTUAL CASH VALUE | NEW REPLACEMENT VALUE | INVESTMENT |
| Removed | Removed |
Removed |
The actual cash value is the value that our research approximates the selling price of this vessel should be, at the time and place of our inspection. Consideration is given to vessel’s condition, geographic location, published listings and guides, comparable sales and listings, and market conditions. The new replacement value is the cost of this or a similar, new vessel, comparably equipped. The investment is the reported investment including purchase price and significant upgrades. No values include maintenance costs, storage or tax. The most relevant data found while researching the value is included below. We primarily use market value analysis methodology for determination of value.
Explanation of value opinion: The value is based on the Soldboats.com reported sales data, Yachtworld.com, BoatTrader.com, boats.waa2.com and Sailboatlistings.com. The surveyed vessel’s original engine and fuel tank have been removed and it is currently equipped with an outboard engine. The vessels in the Soldboats.com data are all equipped with inboard engines. Diesel inboard engines typically hold more value than similar rated gasoline engines. We were unable to find any S2 9.2 sloops that sold in California so our research was expanded to include other states. There is no information about the S2 26 that sold in San Diego for $7,500 in July. 2020. The market continues to have an upward value movement due to the extended Covid-19 induced spike.
| Length ft | Boat | Year | Sold Date | Sold Price | Listed Price | Boat Location |
| 30 | S2 9.2A | 1981 | 7-Mar-22 | 12,500 | 16,500 | Muskegon, MI, USA |
| 30 | S2 9.2 A | 1980 | 2-Mar-22 | 20,000 | 23,500 | Denison, TX, USA |
| 30 | S2 9.2A | 1981 | 26-Aug-21 | 7,000 | 9,000 | Bayfield, WI, USA |
| 30 | S2 9.2A | 1981 | 17-Aug-21 | 7,750 | 9,500 | Southwest Harbor, ME, USA |
| 30 | S2 9.2C | 1977 | 27-Jul-21 | 8,000 | 11,500 | Superior, WI, USA |
| 30 | S2 9.2 | 1981 | 22-Jul-21 | 20,000 | 21,900 | La Salle, MI, USA |
| 30 | S2 9.2 | 1981 | 14-Jul-21 | 13,000 | 18,900 | Kemah, TX, USA |
| 30 | S2 9.A | 1980 | 20-Apr-21 | 13,500 | 14,900 | Waukegan, IL, USA |
| 30 | S2 9.2A | 1980 | 28-Aug-20 | 7,500 | 9,500 | Winterport, ME, USA |
| 30 | S2 9.2C | 1978 | 24-Jul-20 | 10,000 | 14,500 | Coconut Grove, FL, USA |
| 30 | S2 9.2A | 1981 | 22-Jul-20 | 16,000 | 16,990 | Buford, GA, USA |
| 26 | S2 26 | 1979 | 21-Jul-20 | 7,500 | 9,950 | San Diego, CA, USA |
| 30 | S2 9.2 C | 1979 | 5-Jun-20 | 10,000 | 12,500 | Moore Haven, FL, USA |
| 30 | S2 9.2 A | 1979 | 30-May-20 | 7,500 | 8,000 | Superior, WI, USA |
S2 9.2 A
- Save1980 S2 Sloop
1980 S2 Sloop
$3,000
SARASOTA, FL 34236
Private Seller
2. 1982 S2 9.2 C Sailboat For Sale In California $15,000
3. This s2 9.2 is a 30 masthead sloop she has a large aft cabin for sleeping as well as a nice double v berth. the center…
- California
- $ 15.000
- Detailed View
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This survey is for the express purpose of entering a marina. It is not meant as a buyer’s survey.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS |
| These recommendations are the surveyor’s ideas and suggestions for addressing deficiencies with damaged or suspect components or systems found during survey or general improvements. The primary recommendations address safety items, structural issues, operational issues or deficiencies which the surveyor determines are of greater importance or more expense than secondary deficiencies. For instance, items that pose a risk to passenger safety or immediate property damage are listed under primary deficiencies and cosmetic concerns are addressed under secondary deficiencies. Most of the recommendations have been addressed in the comments and usually they are discussed at the time of the inspection. |
|
PRIMARY |
|
|
SECONDARY |
|
This survey sets forth the condition of the vessel and components, as specifically stated only, at the time of inspection and represents the surveyor’s honest and unbiased opinion. No part of the vessel was disassembled or removed and no assumptions should be made as to the condition of concealed components. Specifics were obtained from sources available at the time of inspection and are believed correct, but are not guaranteed to be accurate.
I/we certify that, to the best of my/our knowledge and belief:
The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my/our personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. I/we have no present or prospective interest in the vessel that is the subject of this report, and I/we have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. My/our compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. I/we have made a personal inspection of the vessel that is the subject of this report. This report should be considered as an entire document. No single section is meant to be used except as part of the whole. This report is submitted without prejudice and for the benefit of whom it may concern. This report does not constitute a warranty, either expressed, or implied, nor does it warrant the future condition of the vessel. It is a statement of the condition of the vessel at the time of survey only. The submitting of this report creates no liability on the part of Christian & Company or the individual surveyor. This survey report is not intended for use as a “buyer’s survey”.
Christian & Company, Marine Surveyors, Inc.
August 19, 2022
__________________________________ __________________
By: Mr. Kells Manthei, SAMS SA Date