Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jul. 01, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	CONTINGENCIES Derrick McNeil v. West Marine, Inc., et. al. ("McNeil"); George Patterson v. Randolph K. Repass, Matthew L. Hyde, Barbara L. Rambo, Dennis F. Madsen, Robert D. Olsen, James F. Nordstrom, Jr., Alice M. Richter, and Christiana Shi ("Patterson"); and Daniel Greenberg v. West Marine, Inc., et. al. ("Greenberg"). On July 27, 2017, McNeil and Patterson each filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Cruz (Patterson), and on July 31, 2017, Greenberg filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. All three lawsuits are putative securities class action complaints that name the Company and/or its directors as defendants and relate to Monomoy’s proposed acquisition of the Company. The McNeil and Greenberg lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Company and its directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by omitting certain information from the preliminary proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the merger of Sub with and into the Company, with the Company surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger"). The Patterson lawsuit alleges that the Company’s directors were conflicted and breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders by, among other things, seeking to sell the Company through an allegedly unfair process, for an unfair price and on unfair terms, and because the preliminary proxy statement omits certain information. Based on these allegations, the complaints seek, among other things, equitable relief, including additional disclosure in the proxy statement, an injunction of the Merger and costs and expenses of the litigation, including attorneys’ fees. Based on the facts known to date, the Company considers the claims asserted to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. The Company also is involved in various other legal and administrative proceedings, claims and litigation, and regulatory compliance audits arising in the ordinary course of business. Accordingly, material adverse developments, settlements or resolutions may occur and negatively impact the Company's results in the quarter and/or fiscal year in which such developments, settlements or resolutions are reached. Based on the facts currently available, the Company does not believe that the disposition of the class action lawsuits discussed above or any other claims, regulatory compliance audits, legal or administrative proceedings that are pending or asserted, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position. However, an adverse judgment by a court, administrative or regulatory agency, arbitrator or a settlement could adversely impact the Company's results of operations in any given period. For any other claims, regulatory compliance audits, legal or administrative proceedings where the Company has determined that a loss is probable, there is no material difference between the amount accrued and the reasonably possible amount of loss. For any such matters where a loss is reasonably possible, the range of estimated loss is not material individually or in aggregate.

CONTINGENCIES

Derrick McNeil v. West Marine, Inc., et. al. ("McNeil"); George Patterson v. Randolph K. Repass, Matthew L. Hyde, Barbara L. Rambo, Dennis F. Madsen, Robert D. Olsen, James F. Nordstrom, Jr., Alice M. Richter, and Christiana Shi ("Patterson"); and Daniel Greenberg v. West Marine, Inc., et. al. ("Greenberg"). On July 27, 2017, McNeil and Patterson each filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Cruz (Patterson), and on July 31, 2017, Greenberg filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. All three lawsuits are putative securities class action complaints that name the Company and/or its directors as defendants and relate to Monomoy’s proposed acquisition of the Company. The McNeil and Greenberg lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Company and its directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by omitting certain information from the preliminary proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the merger of Sub with and into the Company, with the Company surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger"). The Patterson lawsuit alleges that the Company’s directors were conflicted and breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders by, among other things, seeking to sell the Company through an allegedly unfair process, for an unfair price and on unfair terms, and because the preliminary proxy statement omits certain information. Based on these allegations, the complaints seek, among other things, equitable relief, including additional disclosure in the proxy statement, an injunction of the Merger and costs and expenses of the litigation, including attorneys’ fees. Based on the facts known to date, the Company considers the claims asserted to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

The Company also is involved in various other legal and administrative proceedings, claims and litigation, and regulatory compliance audits arising in the ordinary course of business. Accordingly, material adverse developments, settlements or resolutions may occur and negatively impact the Company's results in the quarter and/or fiscal year in which such developments, settlements or resolutions are reached.

Based on the facts currently available, the Company does not believe that the disposition of the class action lawsuits discussed above or any other claims, regulatory compliance audits, legal or administrative proceedings that are pending or asserted, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position. However, an adverse judgment by a court, administrative or regulatory agency, arbitrator or a settlement could adversely impact the Company's results of operations in any given period.

For any other claims, regulatory compliance audits, legal or administrative proceedings where the Company has determined that a loss is probable, there is no material difference between the amount accrued and the reasonably possible amount of loss. For any such matters where a loss is reasonably possible, the range of estimated loss is not material individually or in aggregate.