| Author |
Message Text |
|
NEIowapaddler
|
Too high in my opinion. Especially the Grumman. No way I'd pay 600 for a 50+ year old aluminum canoe. I'd say 300 would be a fair price for either one. Maybe as much as 400 but definitely no higher.
|
|
alpinebrule
|
No expert but I believe both makers made a "lightweight" version that were in the 60ish lbs range rather than the 75 lbs range (assuming 17 ft models). Would affect how I valued the boats based on intended use. Suspect the Alumacraft has a wet keel from memory.
Price is definitely on the high end based on age but they're metal and not going to fatigue. Design is basically unchanged. Someone else might have an opinion if any flotation in the ends has likely deteriorated due to age.
Everything is negotiable.
|
|
Naught
|
About two years ago we paid $400 for an alumacraft quetico 17CL, it weighs 64lbs. From my understanding the 17ft alumacrafts with 5 ribs(CL and W iirc) will weigh less than the ones with 3 ribs, also, not all models have yokes. It certainly isnt a joy to portage but its extremely stable, and we feel totally comfortable loaning it out to new paddlers. It came with a couple beat up paddles and two of the coleman seat backs which are surprisingly nice. Could have probably paid a little less had we waited but it was listed originally at 500 and is in great shape.
|
|
Kendis
|
NEIowapaddler: "Too high in my opinion. Especially the Grumman. No way I'd pay 600 for a 50+ year old aluminum canoe. I'd say 300 would be a fair price for either one. Maybe as much as 400 but definitely no higher. "
+1
|
|
Mocha
|
A local man is selling two canoes and I'm wondering if his asking price price is fair or high.
1970 Grumman $600.
1983 alumacraft $500
River and lake use, no welds or holes,some scratches.
|