First Donzi ever built?

[mattyboy]

looking at the pics again it looks like hull 4 has a smaller hatch than my 67 as well can't tell if it is an optical illusion with out the clamshell vents there that the deck side look wider or not . this may have just been a change they made trying to make it easier to get to stuff in the bilge

[woobs]

looking at the pics again it looks like hull 4 has a smaller hatch than my 67 as well can't tell if it is an optical illusion with out the clamshell vents there that the deck side look wider or not . this may have just been a change they made trying to make it easier to get to stuff in the bilge

I think that is just an optical illusion or just a different look due to perspective. The hatch opening looks the same to me. Although, the older I get the smaller everything looks

The Shepherd moulds are the first "original" moulds produced by Donzi. Unless there was a change in 1964/65 I'm pretty sure they are the same.

66SS1.JPGDonzibyShepherd1.JPG
Blue 16 - USA / White 16 - Canada

[mattyboy]

i guess it is the lack of clamshell vents that gives it the illusion of the deck sides being wider making the hatch looking smaller

judging by the snaps which look to be uniform on all of them they are the same on all of them including my old 16

[woobs]

Matty, do we know when clamshell vents first appeared on the 16?

[mattyboy]

66 ish but by then they had over 300 hulls built

[woobs]

Oh.

I suppose undertaking the creation of a searchable database from the hull cards would be a bit of a project then, huh.

[mattyboy]

Oh.

I suppose undertaking the creation of a searchable database from the hull cards would be a bit of a project then, huh.

no no real project when it comes to my hobby but then the database crosses into my professional side , that I am not so casual with a database, it is as only good as the data in it and well the good ol days tracking data was not a priority. there are a LOT of Holes in the data from the early days. I have filled in some of it with data provided by owners that is missing from the records. the data also changes we know more today then we did yesterday as some of these early boats get discovered.

[Greg Guimond]

Maybe you do a database for the first 50 boats only, or any boat built by 1/1/65? The big caveat as you mentioned Matty is that there will always be holes in the data BUT if your work effort is only the first 50 it would be a far more reasonable undertaking. I also bet the word would get out on the "First 50" list and the holes would be filled.

[mattyboy]

Maybe you do a database for the first 50 boats only, or any boat built by 1/1/65? The big caveat as you mentioned Matty is that there will always be holes in the data BUT if your work effort is only the first 50 it would be a far more reasonable undertaking. I also bet the word would get out on the "First 50" list and the holes would be filled.

where would you get that info??? the real records don't start until Teleflex/Chisholm influence think about that for a minute. the first 50 boats you are talking about maybe the first 2 months of production.

some benchmarks

first production boat showed by Brownie at the JAX boat show fall of 64 wonder white blue stripes

Hull 135 sold fall of 65

Michael A. says at the peak they were making roughly 80 boats a month

Hulls 400 to 420 completed and sold by Spring of 67

the very early hulls had the bottoms fall out when repowered a few years down the road i bet their are not to many survivors and the ones that do are WELL cared for and ORIGINAL like hull 4 pictured above.

lead time on a 16 start to water was 4 weeks from the factory the Hornet was 12 weeks , order May 1 boating in your new 16 by June 1

[woobs]

Really, it is a monumental task. I'm not sure that adding or filling in holes is within the scope of a historical presentation. I mean, it's nice to have ALL that info but, as they say "it is what it is".

Just like a restoration you have to work with what is there. If information was not collected it should be left blank in terms of an accurate representation of the factory records. In terms of a definitive hull registry... well, that's a different ballgame.

Information is only as good as it's source. There's a lot of misinformation out there too. So, the enthusiastic newbie should not just "fill in" the blanks about a particular boat. They may not know what they are looking at or just plainly have ulterior motives. Unless missing facts can be proven and verified the definitive registry is really just a best guess scenario.

Of course the factory records may not be entirely accurate either as they were a busy bunch and making boats was probably more of a priority that recording history at the time. Also, it's been said that some of the production numbers may have been inflated. Along with this it's possible that documents may have been provided to help support the production claims. I don't know.... and I don't know if there's anyone left that does know. This does not change the fact that the records "are what they are". A historical set of documents and the best that we have to work with.

Yes, it's a monumental task to transfer these hull cards to a database. But, as a historical record of factory documents it can be completed. As an accurate registry of what was truly produced it can never be finished.

[mattyboy]

We have the database, working to integrate it with the LGDCC website as a membership perk but the site is giving me some problems and I have no time to work on it now the next month is brutal for me.

the plan will be to have our membership enter a secure culdesack on our site with their own credentials and be able to search for certifed classics as well as uncertified classics by color, power, number, and dealer they will have access to our registry, clubstore, tech info and history on their boat.

it is far from monumental when the databases I work with on a daily basis at work can generate 60,000 call records a month the hard part is making it user friendly and able to adapt and compile info( I would really like it to talk make it sound like HAL9000). The SkiSporter would require less than 800 records

and it goes sorta like this:

Jay Lurie logs on with his credentials he is given the option to add/delete/edit classics that he owns to his profile with a check to make sure
the boat is not already assigned and also to make sure it is a valid boat. Jay can now fill in the known history, modifications and service log of this boat. When Jay sells the boat the admin rights to that file are transferred to the new member who can now compile his part of the story of the boat.

Jay can also search for other items and facts thru the registry, model list ,or any other part of our site. He would be able to search for special editions with in a sub group or within the entire database.

winter fun and judging by the leaves turning on my morning commute it will be here soon

[woobs]

Somehow I managed a double post... oops.

[woobs]

the first 50 boats you are talking about maybe the first 2 months of production.

- Hull 135 sold fall of 65
- Michael A. says at the peak they were making roughly 80 boats a month
- Hulls 400 to 420 completed and sold by Spring of 67

Just to look at this a bit closer...

50 boats made in fall 64 to early 65 (January? February?).
Hull 135 completed in the fall of 65 (October ? November?)
That's only 85 boats produced for the majority of 1965.

Oct - Nov '65, to Apr 67 is 18 months with around 300 boats produced in that time (hull 409) . That's just 17 per month over this time and just 10 boats per month for the first 50 produced ( 5 months; fall '64 -Oct? to Feb '65?). I'm sure we can assume some production realities. Production must ramp up as you cant start at a peak. Production demands fluctuate and some months would produce very little, other quite a few. Production may be slowed by any number of issues (supplies, labour etc).

Roy Farmer said that if there are no clam shells it's probably within the first 100 boats.
1966 clam shells are introduced at some point. If Roy farmer is correct that would be earlier rather than later. Based on production averages (boats per month), 1965 could have ended anywhere from around hull 155 - 185. Probably lower rather than higher.

1966 is the big year with well over 200 boats produced. Production peak could have been 80 boats but, I'm sure that was not sustained. Also this was the sale year and production numbers may not be all that accurate.

One more spanner from the monkey... I wonder if some figures may be based on Model year (MY) and not production date. So it's possible that a 1966 MY boat (sold in '66) was spec'd as a 1965 (no clamshells) as it was built in '65 ? Maybe?

[Greg Guimond]

It sounds like the better first approach is a "First 50" list of 16s. Put that into database form and it does not become an epic personal undertaking if you are good with that kinda stuff which I am not. Then you crowd source the First 50 list and plug holes over time so that other people do the digging of data.

Matty's First 50 List ............. has a nice ring to it

[woobs]

I would think the optimal approach is to publish the database as is from the factory records. Searchable but not changeable. Matty says 800 is not that many.... (I dunno, data entry... yuck!)

This can then be used by owners for research purposes. Updates added can go to the LGDC current registry as submitted by Jay Lurie.

Boom! best of all worlds.