Oh, maybe that’s it, that it pre-dates their use of hull ID numbers. I wonder how such things were standardized though, if at all, as I have a Mirro Craft jon boat that dates back to about 1965, and I always thought it had an ID number, but perhaps it doesn’t.
I know for certain that at some point in the early to mid 70s, Grumman canoes had modest blue-painted graphics on the hull, and I think for a while before that, just a simple logo on the bow. Graphics of that kind have only gotten more gawdy and obtrusive since those times. This boat clearly pre-dates the use of any such graphics, so my bet is that it’s from the 1960s or earlier.
Oh, while we’re at it, that name plate is definitely quite old, a style I haven’t seen even on the older Grummans I know. Now I’m definitely thinking 1960s or earlier, so I’d say 50 years old is the absolute minimum age of this boat. It could be 60 or 70. Pretty cool.
As to this boat “not looking as rugged” as some other version, I can’t imagine a way to tell the difference between a hull thickness of 0.040" and 0.050" just by looking at a photo! Pbenter (earlier post) indicates that the lighter versions had more ribs, but a recent Grumman brochure I looked at online says both versions of the standard model have three ribs (the shoe-keeled model had 7 ribs because it was “designed” for whitewater). So based on the number of ribs, it’s definitely a “standard” model, and for a very long time, the standard model was available in the two afore-mentioned hull thicknesses. However, today I believe the only option is 0.050", but even if the 0.040" option is still available, nothing about the older boats was more heavy-duty than the ones made today. Weighing the boat will tell you which hull thickness you have, as the heavier version weighs 75 pounds and the lighter version is 66 pounds.
I haven’t seen plaidpaddler on here since the board switched to the new format, but he’s our resident expert on such things. Maybe he’ll drop by.