Jump to content

Hancock and Lane


Featured Posts

Hello All,

 

I am considering buying a 40ft, Hancock and Lane, steel Norseman and have seen a hull survey report that was done on the boat in 2009, however the survey lists the date of completion as unknown, is there anyway of finding out when the boat was built?

 

The vendors are of the opinion that it was built in 1988 as this is a date they have taken from the Lister engine, however my understanding from this forum is that H&L stopped building boats in the early 80's.

 

I am very new to this so any info/advice you might have would be greatly appreciated.

 

Many thanks

 

Simone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a site that lists boats that are registered. If you search for Jim Shead.

 

I have done a search on the site and Dragonfly built by Hancock and lane does not appear.

 

Seems odd. Are you sure it is a H&L boat?

Martyn

 

To add. I have searched for Dragonfly 40'. It has a number of boats by various builders and I think one without a builders name. The number is going to help. Can you contact the seller?

Edited by Nightwatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a site that lists boats that are registered. If you search for Jim Shead.

 

I have done a search on the site and Dragonfly built by Hancock and lane does not appear.

 

Seems odd. Are you sure it is a H&L boat?

Martyn

 

To add. I have searched for Dragonfly 40'. It has a number of boats by various builders and I think one without a builders name. The number is going to help. Can you contact the seller?

Hi Martyn,

 

I looked at this site and did find a Dragonfly listed here http://www.jim-shead.com/waterways/boat-reg.php?bn=46822%C2'>

I've pasted the listing in below which states that it was built by H&L in 1988, but i assume this is misinformation...

 

DRAGONFLY Built by Hancock & Lane in 1988 - Length 12 metres (39 feet 4 inches ) a Diesel Inboard engine with a power of 20HP. Registered with EA Southern Region number M21849 as a Powered Annual Over 11m. Last registration recorded on 28-May-2011.

 

The search facility on the site doesn't appear to work very well so i trawled through all the dragonflys manually.

 

The survey report states that the boat is H&L so I am assuming that the surveyor verified this in someway?

 

I know the sellers personally and they have given me all the info they have, they genuinely believe the boat to have been built in 1988, but I can't see how this can be the case, its a mystery!

 

Simone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi again. Well done, I must have missed that. Sorry to question your info.

 

Like you, I believe H&L gave up prior to 1988.

 

Hope you get this sorted.

 

Martyn

 

Edit to add. I searched for a 40 footer so maybe that's why it didn't appear for my search.

Edited by Nightwatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot say as I do not know, but if there is no conclusive evidence that the boat was built in 1988, there may be a possibility that memory has inadvertently thought '88 when it may have been '78.

 

There may be many craft called Dragonfly, and I know Nick Hardey the signwriter lived aboard one such at Harefield in 2000something, and seem to recall him mentioning Hancock & Lane. Memory has no more details - not even the length, though I'm sure it was more than 40'.

 

What on Earth is that in your avatar - it looks like red hot porridge from a wooden tub??? Curious!

Edited by Derek R.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi again. Well done, I must have missed that. Sorry to question your info.

 

Like you, I believe H&L gave up prior to 1988.

 

Hope you get this sorted.

 

Martyn

 

Edit to add. I searched for a 40 footer so maybe that's why it didn't appear for my search.

 

Hi Martyn,

 

Please do question my info, I am a complete novice and need questioning!

 

My question re the surveyor was a genuine one, do they independently verify the maker?

 

Hopefully I will get to the bottom of this, as it would be useful to know, but thanks for your help, I am now one step further along.

 

Simone

 

p.s. When i put dragonfly and Hancock & Lane in the search facility it said no results, so I think its the search facility thats not working too well!

I cannot say as I do not know, but if there is no conclusive evidence that the boat was built in 1988, there may be a possibility that memory has inadvertently thought '88 when it may have been '78.

 

There may be many craft called Dragonfly, and I know Nick Hardey the signwriter lived aboard one such at Harefield in 2000something, and seem to recall him mentioning Hancock & Lane. Memory has no more details - not even the length, though I'm sure it was more than 40'.

 

What on Earth is that in your avatar - it looks like red hot porridge from a wooden tub??? Curious!

 

Hi Derek,

 

Yes it also occurred to me that this could be the result of a simple typo that has now become "fact" ie 88 instead of 78.

 

The signwriter link could be useful - is he on here?

 

The red hot porridge is molten iron, I am a sculptor and occasionally work in iron so this is a photo from a pour, we pour manually in a very pre-industrial manner!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a shell built for me by Hancock and Lane in about 1984, and I'm reasonably certain it was the last shell they ever constructed. They told me they were knocking boat building on the head to concentrate on bigger steelwork projects as soon as my shell was out of the factory anyway!

 

Mine was for sale at Whilton recently. A boat called CLARENCE. Seemed to have stood the test of time well.

 

Not sure that helps you at all though.... ;)

 

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,

 

Well it further confirms my belief that the boat cannot have been built in 1988 as the general consensus is that H&L had stopped building by then, its also nice to hear that it stood the test of time, adding to the general opinion that H&L built quality boats, so maybe its age will turn out to be less important.

 

So actually it all helps.

 

Simone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look for mine and other older replies higher up the thread.

 

No way were H&L still producing shells by 1988, and I suspect Mike the Boilerman's date of none built after about 1984 is pretty near correct.

 

The "Norseman" name was in very standard use in their advertising around the late 1970s, and 40 foot long boats feature heavily in their advertising from then.

 

About 1978 build? - highly likely - but if genuinely 1988 , then it's not an H&L.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look for mine and other older replies higher up the thread.

 

No way were H&L still producing shells by 1988, and I suspect Mike the Boilerman's date of none built after about 1984 is pretty near correct.

 

The "Norseman" name was in very standard use in their advertising around the late 1970s, and 40 foot long boats feature heavily in their advertising from then.

 

About 1978 build? - highly likely - but if genuinely 1988 , then it's not an H&L.......

 

Hi Alan,

 

I am coming to the conclusion that it is likely the boat was built in 1978, the survey report lists the boat as an H&L and the completion date as unknown so I am assuming the surveyor found something on the boat to verify that it was an H&L, in your experience is this likely to be the case, I am assuming that the surveyor was convinced of the builders otherwise he would not have recorded it on the report ?

 

Part of the reason for wanting to know the date is to find out how much the hull has deteriorated, we have a hull survey from 2009, listing the various thicknesses but presumably it is useful to know the staring point ?

 

All of this is leading us up to making a decision as to weather to buy the boat and what we should expect to pay for it, but as I said earlier all of this is new to us so feel free to point out the obvious, cos it may not be obvious to us !

 

Simone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "Norseman" is a fairly recognisable beast, I would say. A picture would probably mean a lot of people on here would say "yep, that is what I'd expect an H&L Norseman to look like".

 

In my opinion though, once a boat is well over 30 years old, which I think this one will be, knowing whether that was a "good builder" or a "less good builder" in the first place becomes fairly irrelevant. Far more is down to how well looked after it has been in those 30 years, as I have seen some excellent 30 yera old Springers, but also some 30 year old boats from "premier" builders of the era that are now completely shot, and which I would not touch with the proverbial barge pole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Alan,

 

Good shout, I have a couple of photos taken a couple of years ago that I will post up when I have worked out how to do it !!!! and hopefully it will prove to be quite conclusive!

 

As we have a survey from 2009 do we need to get it surveyed again?

 

The survey was done ultra sonically and doesn't mention any significant pitting, the hull thickness varied from 7.9mm and the least thickness was found to be 5.1mm, would this indicate a well cared for boat or a non starter?

 

Simone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh and an additional question!!!

 

The boat is now moored in a tidal river, it has had its anodes changed to reflect the salinity of the water, but will this speed up the corrosion of the hull compared to if it was in fresh water?

 

Apologies for the barrage of questions but as I said we are complete novices boat.gif

Waving not drowning

 

Simone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Here's a couple of images.

 

Does this look like a Norseman by Hancock & Lane?

 

 

I would say "yes it does".

 

What surprises me a bit, though is that the 2009 survey found steel in it at 7.9mm, (which implies nominally 8mm or 5/16" originally, I guess).

 

Any 8mm steel, if present, is only likely to be in the baseplate, and it is highly unlikely the hull-sides were ever more than 6mm, (or 1/4").

 

However, if I'm honest, and it is an H&L boat that pre-dates (say) 1980, I'm rather surprised if even the bottom was ever as thick as 8mm or 5/16". I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but rather doubt "middle of the road" boats like this often had more than 6mm bottoms at that time.

 

To make any sense of the survey, you need to understand what it is saying about each bit of the hull - bottom, as well as sides, in terms of what it claims the steel was in 1970-something, and how much it claims it has thinned to anywhere by 2009.

 

EDIT:

 

One further thought.....

 

Even if you are prepared to go on the basis of someone else's 4 yera old survey, it is possible you may not find it easy to comprehensively insure the boat, unless you commission your own new one. Can't say for certain, because insurers all differ, but if the boat is up to 35 years old, many will only insure on the basis of a recent report on condition I think. You should check this point out by ringing around a few, if you decide to go that route.

Edited by alan_fincher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I would say "yes it does".

 

What surprises me a bit, though is that the 2009 survey found steel in it at 7.9mm, (which implies nominally 8mm or 5/16" originally, I guess).

 

Any 8mm steel, if present, is only likely to be in the baseplate, and it is highly unlikely the hull-sides were ever more than 6mm, (or 1/4").

 

However, if I'm honest, and it is an H&L boat that pre-dates (say) 1980, I'm rather surprised if even the bottom was ever as thick as 8mm or 5/16". I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but rather doubt "middle of the road" boats like this often had more than 6mm bottoms at that time.

 

To make any sense of the survey, you need to understand what it is saying about each bit of the hull - bottom, as well as sides, in terms of what it claims the steel was in 1970-something, and how much it claims it has thinned to anywhere by 2009.

 

EDIT:

 

One further thought.....

 

Even if you are prepared to go on the basis of someone else's 4 yera old survey, it is possible you may not find it easy to comprehensively insure the boat, unless you commission your own new one. Can't say for certain, because insurers all differ, but if the boat is up to 35 years old, many will only insure on the basis of a recent report on condition I think. You should check this point out by ringing around a few, if you decide to go that route.

Hi Alan,

 

Is this a fail proof system or is it possible that the survey is wrong?

 

The map of the thickness readings shows thicknesses of up to 7.9 on the sides as well, suggesting an original thickness of 8mm all over.

 

Is it relevant that it states that readings "were taken over coatings"?

 

If we assume that it was originally 8mm how significant is a reduction to 5.1mm - to add to the confusion the lowest reading shown on the map is 5.8?

 

Sorry, enough questions, and thanks for the tip about insurance, however just to add to the confusion the plot thickens...

I found this advert placed by Orchard Marina in a 2006 edition of 'Towpath' whilst trawling the net

http://www.mortonsmedia.net/webdata/pdfs/tpt/tpt-14sept06.pdf%C2'>

 

Any ideas?

 

Simone

 

 

VIOLET

Build Hancock & Lane circa 1990. 40ft Cruiser Stern. Recently surveyed and on the market at an asking price of £30,000 negotiable. Permanent mooring available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well obviously I'm not seeing all of what the survey says, but I'd be very surprised if it means that the boat was originally 8mm, and at the worst is now down to 5.1mm.

I could be wrong, but doubt many (if any) Norsemen were built with 8mm hull throughout.

 

Even today more than 6mm for hull sides is fairly unusual.

I do not believe there is such a thing as a genuine 1990s Hancok & Lane boat, although one built in an H&L style by people who maybe once builf for them is I guess not impossible.

 

I believe it has been documented on the forum before how staff from H&L may have moved on to other places, so worth doing some searches on that maybe?

If you use

 

+Hancock +Lane

 

as your search string, it should find all past threads where both names appear....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Alan,

 

I thought you might be interested in the wording of the survey so here is an extract.

 

Thickness readings were taken over most of the hull surface and the least thicknesses were found to be 5.1mm. The bottom plate is somewhat variable in thickness but it is reasonable to assume that the plate was originally approximately 8.0mm thick. Therefore some loss of plate mass was noted.

 

If this is correct (and I think we both agree the jury is out) would a reduction to 5.1mm be cause for alarm?

 

It was interesting to find another boat listed as built by H&L when they clearly weren't building anymore, I will do more searching, as you suggest as you maybe right about people moving on from H&L and using the name in some way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thickness readings were taken over most of the hull surface and the least thicknesses were found to be 5.1mm. The bottom plate is somewhat variable in thickness but it is reasonable to assume that the plate was originally approximately 8.0mm thick. Therefore some loss of plate mass was noted.

Is there also a table that notes what thicknesses were noted at various points on the baseplate?

 

I also meant to comment on the "all readings were taken over the coatings" bit.

 

We need one of the professional surveyors on here to comment, but it used to be the case that they generally ground off surface mess and blacking to measure thickness accurately. I seem to recall some of the newer more sophisticated testers no longer require this, but could be wrong. Of course if they are using one that needs the surface cleaned to ne accurate, and they didn't actually do this.....

 

Does anyone know if Norsemen could have had 8mm bottoms (ever)? - sounds wrong to me, if it is an original bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of pictures of Jake ('76 H&L Norseman) in dock a few years back. These are in my gallery.

 

tn_gallery_4185_809_167860.jpg

 

tn_gallery_4185_809_42331.jpg

 

Note the trad back-end.

In our case the makers plate is on the outside of the front bulkhead, at eye height, just visible in pic 2 (right of door edge, just under edge of tarp).

 

I'm afraid I don't know the steel thickness specs, but I know the sides were replated 5 years ago, and the bottom last winter - both as a result of hull surveys for the insurance company.

Edited by jake_crew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At risk of raising surveyors hackles the following is quite non-descript:

 

Thickness readings were taken over most of the hull surface and the least thicknesses were found to be 5.1mm. The bottom plate is somewhat variable in thickness but it is reasonable to assume that the plate was originally approximately 8.0mm thick. Therefore some loss of plate mass was noted.

 

"Most of the hull surface"

Well, one would hardly expect 'all' of the surface to have been tested, though the most suspect in terms of thickness should and possibly would have been targeted. The lastmiddle sentence gives no indication at all other than an assumption.

 

5mm thickness is nothing to worry about, less than 3 is. And it is in the pits that the thinnest will be found.

 

The sign-writer Nick Hardey was on the Waterways Craft list, but currently I cannot find a contact. Try Jim Shead's page of boat painters and sign-writers here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.