I collected old boards for a few years. Fifty or so in possession at all times. Attended Seymour, Brawner and Rarrick auctions etc. No expert by any means. But the two or three really big collectors I know would not value a board like that unless the board had a back story(ie “provenance”). And such a story would have to come from someone who knew some actual details on the boards history. Apart from that, there are no other identifiable marks. Signatures, dates,numbers. Might be a Hobie fxk up. Might not. Pretty suspect and you would be hard pressed to get big $$ for it from a collector. But you might pull $1000 out of it from someone who thinks it’s something it’s probably not. Since it’s already been expressed in this thread that it might have been one of Munoz’s boards; advertise it as a “could have been”. The same way that Rick Griffin was advertised on EBay. Woulda shoulda coulda?
This board was probably later than 65. Probably 67 or 68. I’m sure that after being scolded by Phil Edwards that Patterson didn’t screw up to many more lams. I’m also sure that by then Hobies factory was making very few mistakes. Lots of pics and adds around to verify the high quality glass work coming out of Hobie. Sammy’s picture of the CC Mini being one. Perfect lam.
Some people have trouble keeping track of the simplest things. I never posted any pics in this thread.
Early onset, perhaps?
Fish posted the pic. You’re so good at posting pics from your magazine collection. I mistakingly thought it was you. I don’t spend any time keeping track of Sammy.