Senior Member
I'm finally going to get a plow type anchor for Redwing this summer. Is there really much of a difference (besides price) in these three products?
Kingston Plough 27lbs (Hamilton Marine) $157.99
Sascot Plough 30lbs (West) $199.99
CQR Plough 25lbs (West) $495.99
Is the CQR name worth the extra cost?
[ 05-10-2004, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Stu Fyfe ]
Senior Member
I'm finally going to get a plow type anchor for Redwing this summer. Is there really much of a difference (besides price) in these three products?
Kingston Plough 27lbs (Hamilton Marine) $157.99
Sascot Plough 30lbs (West) $199.99
CQR Plough 25lbs (West) $495.99
Is the CQR name worth the extra cost?
[ 05-10-2004, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Stu Fyfe ]
Senior Member
I'm finally going to get a plow type anchor for Redwing this summer. Is there really much of a difference (besides price) in these three products?
Kingston Plough 27lbs (Hamilton Marine) $157.99
Sascot Plough 30lbs (West) $199.99
CQR Plough 25lbs (West) $495.99
Is the CQR name worth the extra cost?
[ 05-10-2004, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Stu Fyfe ]
Senior Member
It was about 15 or 20 years ago but I remember reading that tests on non-CQR plows showed very varying results (in terms of holding power) relative the genuine CQR. At the least I would take this to mean that you should look for some good independent testing of the brand you want to buy.
Senior Member
It was about 15 or 20 years ago but I remember reading that tests on non-CQR plows showed very varying results (in terms of holding power) relative the genuine CQR. At the least I would take this to mean that you should look for some good independent testing of the brand you want to buy.
Senior Member
It was about 15 or 20 years ago but I remember reading that tests on non-CQR plows showed very varying results (in terms of holding power) relative the genuine CQR. At the least I would take this to mean that you should look for some good independent testing of the brand you want to buy.
My wife and I lived on our 28' sloop for 6 years. For 2 years we used a 15lb CQR for 1 of our main anchors. During our third year we "upgraded" to a 25lb Danforth plow( not the Danforth with the wide flat flukes) but a plow made by Danforth. We never drug the 15lb CQR but we drug the 25lb Dan twice. We then went to an all chain rode and never drug again. I admit that 125' of chain is a lot of weight but a good nights sleep is worth a lot. My suggustion would be to buy which plow but buy enough chain for your normal anchoring depth. By the way, use 1/2 or 2/3 throttle in reverse twice to set the anchor. ALWAYS anchor with TWO anchors!!! No exception. Everytime we drug the second anchor held.
My wife and I lived on our 28' sloop for 6 years. For 2 years we used a 15lb CQR for 1 of our main anchors. During our third year we "upgraded" to a 25lb Danforth plow( not the Danforth with the wide flat flukes) but a plow made by Danforth. We never drug the 15lb CQR but we drug the 25lb Dan twice. We then went to an all chain rode and never drug again. I admit that 125' of chain is a lot of weight but a good nights sleep is worth a lot. My suggustion would be to buy which plow but buy enough chain for your normal anchoring depth. By the way, use 1/2 or 2/3 throttle in reverse twice to set the anchor. ALWAYS anchor with TWO anchors!!! No exception. Everytime we drug the second anchor held.
My wife and I lived on our 28' sloop for 6 years. For 2 years we used a 15lb CQR for 1 of our main anchors. During our third year we "upgraded" to a 25lb Danforth plow( not the Danforth with the wide flat flukes) but a plow made by Danforth. We never drug the 15lb CQR but we drug the 25lb Dan twice. We then went to an all chain rode and never drug again. I admit that 125' of chain is a lot of weight but a good nights sleep is worth a lot. My suggustion would be to buy which plow but buy enough chain for your normal anchoring depth. By the way, use 1/2 or 2/3 throttle in reverse twice to set the anchor. ALWAYS anchor with TWO anchors!!! No exception. Everytime we drug the second anchor held.
Senior Senior Member
A CQR is FORGED STEEL....copies are castings....except for lunch hooks the advice given is good...two anchors and 2-3 boatlengths of chain..and swivels.....
Senior Senior Member
A CQR is FORGED STEEL....copies are castings....except for lunch hooks the advice given is good...two anchors and 2-3 boatlengths of chain..and swivels.....
Senior Senior Member
A CQR is FORGED STEEL....copies are castings....except for lunch hooks the advice given is good...two anchors and 2-3 boatlengths of chain..and swivels.....
Senior Member
CQR.
Period.
As an aside, I'm not sold on swivels. They are usually the weak link and a boat is rarely at anchor long enough to revolve enough times that kinking the chain is an issue.
CQR means Completly Quiet Respite.
Senior Member
CQR.
Period.
As an aside, I'm not sold on swivels. They are usually the weak link and a boat is rarely at anchor long enough to revolve enough times that kinking the chain is an issue.
CQR means Completly Quiet Respite.
Senior Member
CQR.
Period.
As an aside, I'm not sold on swivels. They are usually the weak link and a boat is rarely at anchor long enough to revolve enough times that kinking the chain is an issue.
CQR means Completly Quiet Respite.
Senior Member
Here goes into a real can of worms.
I guess everyone has their own ideas of what works in their areas.
Yes definity look for some independent testing on the none CQR brands as some are not up to scratch.
We have a little 15lb one which worked great but had problems with larger ones. (see some of my previous anchor related posts).
Lots of chain is always good but nylon does give good spring action which reduces shock loads on anchors when the chain comes up striaght and tight. My Dad bent the high tensile anuminium shaft on an anchor a couple of months back when this happened on a lee shore.
Have you consided the "Spade" type.
www.spade-anchor.com/Site%20anglais/US/press.htm
They have copys of independent tests from a number of different countries. Not everything is purfect but overall very good.
In New Zealand the Mason (CQR type) and Delta also have a strong following (ed).
Happy boating, Zane
[ 05-11-2004, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Zane Lewis ]
Senior Member
Here goes into a real can of worms.
I guess everyone has their own ideas of what works in their areas.
Yes definity look for some independent testing on the none CQR brands as some are not up to scratch.
We have a little 15lb one which worked great but had problems with larger ones. (see some of my previous anchor related posts).
Lots of chain is always good but nylon does give good spring action which reduces shock loads on anchors when the chain comes up striaght and tight. My Dad bent the high tensile anuminium shaft on an anchor a couple of months back when this happened on a lee shore.
Have you consided the "Spade" type.
www.spade-anchor.com/Site%20anglais/US/press.htm
They have copys of independent tests from a number of different countries. Not everything is purfect but overall very good.
In New Zealand the Mason (CQR type) and Delta also have a strong following (ed).
Happy boating, Zane
[ 05-11-2004, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Zane Lewis ]
Senior Member
Here goes into a real can of worms.
I guess everyone has their own ideas of what works in their areas.
Yes definity look for some independent testing on the none CQR brands as some are not up to scratch.
We have a little 15lb one which worked great but had problems with larger ones. (see some of my previous anchor related posts).
Lots of chain is always good but nylon does give good spring action which reduces shock loads on anchors when the chain comes up striaght and tight. My Dad bent the high tensile anuminium shaft on an anchor a couple of months back when this happened on a lee shore.
Have you consided the "Spade" type.
www.spade-anchor.com/Site%20anglais/US/press.htm
They have copys of independent tests from a number of different countries. Not everything is purfect but overall very good.
In New Zealand the Mason (CQR type) and Delta also have a strong following (ed).
Happy boating, Zane
[ 05-11-2004, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Zane Lewis ]
Twelve years and counting
Mirelle has a 35lb and a 45lb genuine CQR and no other anchors, so you can see where I stand. I agree with Ian about swivels - dangerous waste of money.
BUT US$ 495 for a 25lb one is too expensive and there is an humungous markup going on somewhere, because they cost a lot less than that, over here. I bought the 45lb one new, three years ago, and it cost about 260 pounds, delivered.
Twelve years and counting
Mirelle has a 35lb and a 45lb genuine CQR and no other anchors, so you can see where I stand. I agree with Ian about swivels - dangerous waste of money.
BUT US$ 495 for a 25lb one is too expensive and there is an humungous markup going on somewhere, because they cost a lot less than that, over here. I bought the 45lb one new, three years ago, and it cost about 260 pounds, delivered.
Twelve years and counting
Mirelle has a 35lb and a 45lb genuine CQR and no other anchors, so you can see where I stand. I agree with Ian about swivels - dangerous waste of money.
BUT US$ 495 for a 25lb one is too expensive and there is an humungous markup going on somewhere, because they cost a lot less than that, over here. I bought the 45lb one new, three years ago, and it cost about 260 pounds, delivered.
Twelve years and counting
PS, mind you, I am always looking out for a right sized Thomas and Nicholson fisherman pattern. Indeed, I know exactly where there is one, ashore in a shed, but it belongs to "Nancy Blackett" and they won't sell it to me in case they go to Scotland and need it!
Twelve years and counting
PS, mind you, I am always looking out for a right sized Thomas and Nicholson fisherman pattern. Indeed, I know exactly where there is one, ashore in a shed, but it belongs to "Nancy Blackett" and they won't sell it to me in case they go to Scotland and need it!
Twelve years and counting
PS, mind you, I am always looking out for a right sized Thomas and Nicholson fisherman pattern. Indeed, I know exactly where there is one, ashore in a shed, but it belongs to "Nancy Blackett" and they won't sell it to me in case they go to Scotland and need it!
Senior Senior Member
The swivels that I use are rated at three X the chain....sometimes I set two anchors a good distance apart (where there's room to swing. Both anchors will have at least two boat lengths of chain and usuall three...then the appropriate scope of nylon line and then both lines are connected to a swivel in the middle and then a few boat lengths of line to a bridle at the bow. I wuz done teached that way 40 yearts ago by an OLD timer and I have not lost anything yet...maybe overkill.......
Senior Senior Member
The swivels that I use are rated at three X the chain....sometimes I set two anchors a good distance apart (where there's room to swing. Both anchors will have at least two boat lengths of chain and usuall three...then the appropriate scope of nylon line and then both lines are connected to a swivel in the middle and then a few boat lengths of line to a bridle at the bow. I wuz done teached that way 40 yearts ago by an OLD timer and I have not lost anything yet...maybe overkill.......
Senior Senior Member
The swivels that I use are rated at three X the chain....sometimes I set two anchors a good distance apart (where there's room to swing. Both anchors will have at least two boat lengths of chain and usuall three...then the appropriate scope of nylon line and then both lines are connected to a swivel in the middle and then a few boat lengths of line to a bridle at the bow. I wuz done teached that way 40 yearts ago by an OLD timer and I have not lost anything yet...maybe overkill.......
Re-boated
....and just as you make the rode fast to the bitt, you look up and see that the storm has passed and the sun is rising....
Re-boated
....and just as you make the rode fast to the bitt, you look up and see that the storm has passed and the sun is rising....
Re-boated
....and just as you make the rode fast to the bitt, you look up and see that the storm has passed and the sun is rising....
Senior Member
You bet. I've used a CQR 25 and a CQR 45 for 11 years and have never dragged, even in storm conditions when other boats were dragging. The CQR likes a lot of scope. It's also heavy for the holding power.Originally posted by Stu Fyfe:
Is the CQR name worth the extra cost?
I also have a Fortress, which I really like, and which I am using more often.
Check out this study.
http://www.ussailing.org/safety/Anchor/anchor_study.htm
Senior Member
You bet. I've used a CQR 25 and a CQR 45 for 11 years and have never dragged, even in storm conditions when other boats were dragging. The CQR likes a lot of scope. It's also heavy for the holding power.Originally posted by Stu Fyfe:
Is the CQR name worth the extra cost?
I also have a Fortress, which I really like, and which I am using more often.
Check out this study.
http://www.ussailing.org/safety/Anchor/anchor_study.htm
Senior Member
You bet. I've used a CQR 25 and a CQR 45 for 11 years and have never dragged, even in storm conditions when other boats were dragging. The CQR likes a lot of scope. It's also heavy for the holding power.Originally posted by Stu Fyfe:
Is the CQR name worth the extra cost?
I also have a Fortress, which I really like, and which I am using more often.
Check out this study.
http://www.ussailing.org/safety/Anchor/anchor_study.htm
Senior Member
Scott,
That's a nice study of different types of anchors. What I'm looking for is, how do the spinoffs of the CQR anchor hold up. They look so much alike. I know the CQR is drop forged and probably very well made. How about the others?
Senior Member
Scott,
That's a nice study of different types of anchors. What I'm looking for is, how do the spinoffs of the CQR anchor hold up. They look so much alike. I know the CQR is drop forged and probably very well made. How about the others?
Senior Member
Scott,
That's a nice study of different types of anchors. What I'm looking for is, how do the spinoffs of the CQR anchor hold up. They look so much alike. I know the CQR is drop forged and probably very well made. How about the others?
Senior Member
I don't have experience with every spin-off and this may be a bit anecdotal but:
After whassisname? - Ogg? - invented his danforth for seaplanes and the CQR inventor made his thing also for seaplanes there were plenty of immitators.
In the case of the danforths, it turns out that the angle that the flukes could go to and the angle and size of those plates on either side of the crown were incredibly subtle and important.
Same appears true of the CQR. I have one imitation that looks about the same. You can put it and the CQR together on deck and discern only slight differences of plough angle, shaft angle etc. There are in this case marked differences in quality with the CQR being obviously better made but quality does not enter this test. The non-0CQR has a harder time getting a grip, less holding power in the tested stand, and almost no ability to reset after a swing.
There may be new brands that actually behave as well as the CQR and are as well made but it's hard to know. The CQR has so many many decades of proven reliability.
Within the rhelm of good anchors - to my mind that's the proven fisherman types such as Luke, the Danforth, CQR, & Bruce but there are some new anchors out there that may be good and there are some french anchors reputed to be good that I do not know - there's a lot to knowing the anchor.
I've seen people blow the set of a danforth in gooy mud - the danforth specialty - because they did not give the anchor a good tug to ensure the set. The next morning, after the boat dragged through the Cove to shore, we helped pull up the guy's hook and a large Quohog was fouled between the shaft and the fluke, preventing the thing from being able to angle down into the mud.
The second best anchor handled with experience is better than the best anchor just tossed over the side.
Senior Member
I don't have experience with every spin-off and this may be a bit anecdotal but:
After whassisname? - Ogg? - invented his danforth for seaplanes and the CQR inventor made his thing also for seaplanes there were plenty of immitators.
In the case of the danforths, it turns out that the angle that the flukes could go to and the angle and size of those plates on either side of the crown were incredibly subtle and important.
Same appears true of the CQR. I have one imitation that looks about the same. You can put it and the CQR together on deck and discern only slight differences of plough angle, shaft angle etc. There are in this case marked differences in quality with the CQR being obviously better made but quality does not enter this test. The non-0CQR has a harder time getting a grip, less holding power in the tested stand, and almost no ability to reset after a swing.
There may be new brands that actually behave as well as the CQR and are as well made but it's hard to know. The CQR has so many many decades of proven reliability.
Within the rhelm of good anchors - to my mind that's the proven fisherman types such as Luke, the Danforth, CQR, & Bruce but there are some new anchors out there that may be good and there are some french anchors reputed to be good that I do not know - there's a lot to knowing the anchor.
I've seen people blow the set of a danforth in gooy mud - the danforth specialty - because they did not give the anchor a good tug to ensure the set. The next morning, after the boat dragged through the Cove to shore, we helped pull up the guy's hook and a large Quohog was fouled between the shaft and the fluke, preventing the thing from being able to angle down into the mud.
The second best anchor handled with experience is better than the best anchor just tossed over the side.
Senior Member
I don't have experience with every spin-off and this may be a bit anecdotal but:
After whassisname? - Ogg? - invented his danforth for seaplanes and the CQR inventor made his thing also for seaplanes there were plenty of immitators.
In the case of the danforths, it turns out that the angle that the flukes could go to and the angle and size of those plates on either side of the crown were incredibly subtle and important.
Same appears true of the CQR. I have one imitation that looks about the same. You can put it and the CQR together on deck and discern only slight differences of plough angle, shaft angle etc. There are in this case marked differences in quality with the CQR being obviously better made but quality does not enter this test. The non-0CQR has a harder time getting a grip, less holding power in the tested stand, and almost no ability to reset after a swing.
There may be new brands that actually behave as well as the CQR and are as well made but it's hard to know. The CQR has so many many decades of proven reliability.
Within the rhelm of good anchors - to my mind that's the proven fisherman types such as Luke, the Danforth, CQR, & Bruce but there are some new anchors out there that may be good and there are some french anchors reputed to be good that I do not know - there's a lot to knowing the anchor.
I've seen people blow the set of a danforth in gooy mud - the danforth specialty - because they did not give the anchor a good tug to ensure the set. The next morning, after the boat dragged through the Cove to shore, we helped pull up the guy's hook and a large Quohog was fouled between the shaft and the fluke, preventing the thing from being able to angle down into the mud.
The second best anchor handled with experience is better than the best anchor just tossed over the side.
Senior Member
If you're going to get a Kingston, frankly I'd have more faith in this:
They are just about the only NA company I know of still making these anchors.
http://www.sailnet.com/store/item.cfm?pid=21648
Senior Member
If you're going to get a Kingston, frankly I'd have more faith in this:
They are just about the only NA company I know of still making these anchors.
http://www.sailnet.com/store/item.cfm?pid=21648
Senior Member
If you're going to get a Kingston, frankly I'd have more faith in this:
They are just about the only NA company I know of still making these anchors.
http://www.sailnet.com/store/item.cfm?pid=21648
Senior Member
Well, I didn't read Ian's post. Apparently there are others still being made.
I use a related type -- an antique called a Northill as my primary anchor. It differs in that the stock is down across the flukes, but it's still basically a fisherman. On board Drake I carry 4: a CQR, a Danforth, a Bruce, and the Northill.
The latter is the only one that for me hasn't dragged at some point or other.
Senior Member
Well, I didn't read Ian's post. Apparently there are others still being made.
I use a related type -- an antique called a Northill as my primary anchor. It differs in that the stock is down across the flukes, but it's still basically a fisherman. On board Drake I carry 4: a CQR, a Danforth, a Bruce, and the Northill.
The latter is the only one that for me hasn't dragged at some point or other.
Senior Member
Well, I didn't read Ian's post. Apparently there are others still being made.
I use a related type -- an antique called a Northill as my primary anchor. It differs in that the stock is down across the flukes, but it's still basically a fisherman. On board Drake I carry 4: a CQR, a Danforth, a Bruce, and the Northill.
The latter is the only one that for me hasn't dragged at some point or other.
"...and it cost about 260 pounds, delivered."
Ah, for the good old days when a dollar was worth about six pounds. Churchill and Roosevelt may have been in office then. 260 pounds would be about 500 dollars now wouldn't it?
"...and it cost about 260 pounds, delivered."
Ah, for the good old days when a dollar was worth about six pounds. Churchill and Roosevelt may have been in office then. 260 pounds would be about 500 dollars now wouldn't it?
"...and it cost about 260 pounds, delivered."
Ah, for the good old days when a dollar was worth about six pounds. Churchill and Roosevelt may have been in office then. 260 pounds would be about 500 dollars now wouldn't it?
Twelve years and counting
Touche, Norman. I still think that something that costs "x" pounds in Britain "ought" to cost "x" dollars in the United States!
Now, allow me to display my anorakish tendency:
The Northill anchor was, I believe, developed for seaplanes, in the USA, and is by all accounts an excellent yacht anchor, but it is no longer made, simply because Danforth bought out the patent.
The CQR on the other hand was not made for seaplanes; it was developed as a yacht anchor, by Professor Sir Geoffrey Taylor, FRS, whose biography, here:
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~histo ry/Mathematicians/Taylor_Geoffrey.html
is worth reading. It completely fails to mention his invention of the CQR, or his membership of the Royal Cruising Club, athough his obituary in the Times (link from the main webpage) does mention his invention of a "ploughshare - like" anchor and correctly says that this was used to moor the Mulberry Harbour caissons in Normandy in 1944.
The widespread belief that the CQR was used as a seaplane anchor arises, I think, from confusion with the Northill, and also in part because another celebrated item of British yachting
equipment, the Baby Blake WC, was indeed fitted to Sunderland flying boats in WW2 (they made special aluminium version!)
Anyway, to get back to the point, Professor Taylor invented the CQR because he was fed up with handling the Fisherman on his 19 ton cutter, and I have a copy of the original article that he wrote about it in the Yachting Monthly.
Given the phenomenal mathematical distinction of its inventor, one of the great applied mathematicians of thepast century, it seems to me that the CQR is precisely the right shape, and that a copy might not be.
But I just enjoy thinking about Professor Taylor, sent to the Royal Aircraft Establishment to improve the manufacture of aircraft propeller shafts in WW1, and finding it necessary to learn to fly, and to parachute, in order to do so, whenever I pick up a CQR!
There can surely be no other item of yacht equipment with so distinguished a progenitor!
[ 05-12-2004, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Andrew Craig-Bennett ]
Twelve years and counting
Touche, Norman. I still think that something that costs "x" pounds in Britain "ought" to cost "x" dollars in the United States!
Now, allow me to display my anorakish tendency:
The Northill anchor was, I believe, developed for seaplanes, in the USA, and is by all accounts an excellent yacht anchor, but it is no longer made, simply because Danforth bought out the patent.
The CQR on the other hand was not made for seaplanes; it was developed as a yacht anchor, by Professor Sir Geoffrey Taylor, FRS, whose biography, here:
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~histo ry/Mathematicians/Taylor_Geoffrey.html
is worth reading. It completely fails to mention his invention of the CQR, or his membership of the Royal Cruising Club, athough his obituary in the Times (link from the main webpage) does mention his invention of a "ploughshare - like" anchor and correctly says that this was used to moor the Mulberry Harbour caissons in Normandy in 1944.
The widespread belief that the CQR was used as a seaplane anchor arises, I think, from confusion with the Northill, and also in part because another celebrated item of British yachting
equipment, the Baby Blake WC, was indeed fitted to Sunderland flying boats in WW2 (they made special aluminium version!)
Anyway, to get back to the point, Professor Taylor invented the CQR because he was fed up with handling the Fisherman on his 19 ton cutter, and I have a copy of the original article that he wrote about it in the Yachting Monthly.
Given the phenomenal mathematical distinction of its inventor, one of the great applied mathematicians of thepast century, it seems to me that the CQR is precisely the right shape, and that a copy might not be.
But I just enjoy thinking about Professor Taylor, sent to the Royal Aircraft Establishment to improve the manufacture of aircraft propeller shafts in WW1, and finding it necessary to learn to fly, and to parachute, in order to do so, whenever I pick up a CQR!
There can surely be no other item of yacht equipment with so distinguished a progenitor!
[ 05-12-2004, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Andrew Craig-Bennett ]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote