Cane Rods

[steve2]

Cane fishing rods, I have some and I know others on here also have some.
I know there is a website that as hundred of members who own and use them but I never see anyone apart from Chris Yates on YouTube using them.
Do people buy them just for show and just to be different or are they as they try to make out better than modern materials or is it just nostalgia that makes them better.
Last time I used one of mine for lure fish ( Allcocks Light caster) it was just too soft and bendy when playing a fish and made me realise why I use carbon.
My Peter Stone ledgerstrike I found wasn’t a patch on modern ledger rods.
Some of us grew up using cane but would any of us go back I very much doubt it.

 

[David Rogers 3]

I use my carbon, glass and cane rods just as the fancy takes me. My Allcocks Lucky Strike, being very soft (floppy would be a better description) loses me far fewer roach on my local canal than any other rod I own. I wouldn't use it for any other sort of fishing I do, though.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I have a fair few cane rods and try to give them all an airing whenever I can.

My Barder Merlin sees the river a few times a year as do the MKIV's and the Wallis Wizard.

I have a very nice Linsley Carp Perfection cane rod that has only been used a few times and have thought of selling it but am loath to lose it.

To my mind cane rods have a "soul" that is missing in so many modern rods and are a joy to use. I'm not saying that I use them all the time as those from the carboniferous period also have their uses . . . . but I just don't see the point of buying cane rods and mounting them on a wall . . . .

 

[no-one in particular]

I had no interest in cane rods until I started seeing them on the internet and realized people did still use them and there was an interest. Then I started noticing them in second hand junk shops, boot fairs etc now and then. And they were good prices. So, I started buying them and selling them, not many, just a few. As I did this I realized how much I liked them myself, appreciating their look, workmanship, softer action which I do like and general feel. Of course the better made ones have more appeal so, I like to fish with them now and then. So I have made a bit of money, got to try rods that i think are better in some ways than modern ones, a tiny bit of nostalgia, provoked an interest in other antique angling like books etc and had a bit of fun hunting these things out. Not to be different though, not bothered about that just a nice hobby.

 

[john step]

I only have one. Its the first proper rod I ever had. It is an 11 foot Edgar Sealey Octofloat. No mention when I bought it of test curves etc. It was a rod for everything as we did in those days. About 1961 I think.
It gets an airing every couple of years for nostalgia and then I go home and nurse a sore wrist due to its weight.

 

[barbelboi]

I was brought up in the cane rod time as during the 50's and early 60's James Bruce's shop (B James & Son) was our local t/s and my father was good friends with Jimmy. Therefore I used most of the the top rods produced there (pre and post Walker) and, although I thought they were a dream to use at the time there is no way now I would use them now in preference to a decent modern rod. Lets face it, if Walker thought cane was so good he wouldn't have been so keen to develop carbon rods (with the help of Hardys) in the early 70's...

 

[seth49]

I have a few one I do use is an Edgar Sealey Rover, use it float fishing fairly close in for Roach and skimmers with a pin, I do seem to hook and land more with this rod, I’ve even had carp to about six pounds with it, it handled them ok as well.

One I’m going to try is one I picked up last year, not sure of the make it’s similar to a Chapmans 500 with the short butt piece, it has a threaded tip ring so I’m thinking of trying it with a swing tip for F1s etc.

Don’t use them a lot but it makes a change, and I enjoy using them occasionally.

 

[steve2]

Wonder if those that were using Greenheart rods at the time when cane rods came in thought cane rods were not has good has Greenheart and would never replace them.
One thing I always fancied was a Spanish reed match rod with splitcane tip, I ended up with a metal taperflash.

 

[no-one in particular]

I think the thing was to make lightness the goal, hence greenhart, split cane, solid fibre, hollow fibre, carbon. I expect the next thing will be graphite rods. To me personally, lightness is not my main desirability, I do not hold rods much, my rivers are slow and not suited to trotting all day and I don't think a good split cane is a heavy thing in itself.
I appreciate carbon rods, I have some but like in the river or lake thread and I had to choose, I would go for a good split cane. So much more for your money than carbon.

 

[S-Kippy]

I have a few,including a Wizard that I painstakingly stripped down and refurbished. They look fantastic and always drew admiring comments when I took them out...which I did a few times a year....but which I haven't for some years now.

In my experience they are fantastic with a fish on....nothing bends quite like cane but they are brutes to use being so heavy by comparison to carbon.I just dont have the wrists for them.

 

[108831]

Alan Tyler uses nothing else,or should I say not that I've seen.

 

[sam vimes]

I expect the next thing will be graphite rods.

Graphite and Carbon are synonyms. My very first carbon rod, sometime in the early eighties, was labelled up as being carbon (the incomparably bad Omni Carbon Match) but the gumph also mentioned graphite. Are you sure you don't mean Graphene? However, rods with at least some graphene content are already here. Century Stealth – Century Carp Fishing

 

[no-one in particular]

Graphite and Carbon are synonyms. My very first carbon rod, sometime in the early eighties, was labelled up as being carbon (the incomparably bad Omni Carbon Match) but the gumph also mentioned graphite. Are you sure you don't mean Graphene? However, rods with at least some graphene content are already here. Century Stealth – Century Carp Fishing

Your right, I did mean Graphene, sorry about that, whether it will take over in the same way fibre glass did from cane or carbon from fibre glass, I wouldn't be sure but, everyone or most seem to put a lot store in lightness so it probably will. However, I am no expert on these things, you will know more than me but I do wonder how light do we need to go!

 

[S-Kippy]

Personally I think rods are just about as light as they need to be now. I cannot imagine that to make them any lighter would be worth the cost...to either the manufacturer or angler.

Honestly....would you really notice if your favourite float rod was an ounce or so lighter ? Assuming the rod/reel are properly balanced. I doubt I would and it certainly wouldnt be a deal breaker.

 

[sam vimes]

how light do we need to go!

I suspect that, in theory, it will be much like the "perfect" theoretical amplifier, which would be a simple wire with gain. The perfect rod would be weightless, but weightless will never be possible. The tipping point with current materials, even including graphene, is when the material is reduced too much to the point that the rod becomes too delicate for real world use. Boron is arguably worth looking at for an example of a "new" material that seemed like a great prospect but didn't really take off. I never had, or even held, a boron rod, but I did have boron (and ceramic) badminton rackets. In theory, boron had advantages over plain carbon. However, it ended up being overly expensive and often added an extra degree of fragility to the products it was used in.

If and when graphene reduces in price, and manufacturing techniques for it are perfected, I suspect that we'll see more of it in rod construction. Much depends on where the limitations of the material lie and just how inexpensive it ends up being. If it remains expensive, or adds unforeseen negatives when used in rod building, it may go the way of boron. Alternatively, it may just turn out to be the next leap forward. Time will tell.

 

[sam vimes]

Honestly....would you really notice if your favourite float rod was an ounce or so lighter ? Assuming the rod/reel are properly balanced. I doubt I would and it certainly wouldnt be a deal breaker.

Up to around 13', an ounce or so is largely immaterial, though you should still be able to tell the difference. If the action is right for the application, it doesn't matter that much. However, in longer rods, or poles, as light as possible becomes even more desireable. The trick is in making a rod as light as possible whilst retaining the desired action, balance and enough strength to stand up to real world angling. It's pointless having the lightest rod in the world if it's too fragile to use.

 

[S-Kippy]

Up to around 13', an ounce or so is largely immaterial, though you should still be able to tell the difference. If the action is right for the application, it doesn't matter that much. However, in longer rods, or poles, as light as possible becomes even more desireable. The trick is in making a rod as light as possible whilst retaining the desired action, balance and enough strength to stand up to real world angling. It's pointless having the lightest rod in the world if it's too fragile to use.

You know I dont like anything over 13 ft so they'll not sell me one! And this issue around weight v strength has been raised before in repect of Acolytes. I'd be very wary of anything marketed as super light until it had been proven fit for purpose. My Acolyte hasnt broken yet but I'm still not 100% confident in it.

Mind you....the early carbon rods were a bit iffy too as I recall.

 

[nottskev]

I'm inclined to think that lightness is worth pursuing up to a point. And most rods these days are, broadly speaking, light. But as has just been pointed out, reducing the heft of a rod can lead to fragility, and rods don't spend their lives wrapped in cotton wool. I also think, but I can't back it up in any quantifiable way, that ultralight rods (small u) can have brittle, steely playing actions, and a bit of meat (just a bit) in a rod seems to be conducive to that lovely elastic flexibility that people call a "sweet" action. I'm not remotely interested in swapping my 5, 6 or 7oz 13' float rods for creations where the only gain is shaving off fractions of ounces. If 6oz is too heavy, just take a break between casts.

 

[no-one in particular]

I think a rod could lose the plot if it's too light, its not the fragility so much as I need some weight, I can compute it into what I am doing and how the thing works especially with a fish on. Too light and it stops being a fishing rod at some point, at least I think it would to some degree for me. It may just be a matter of perspective, but like driving a tin car, it works and saves on petrol etc but, is it really good deep down.

 

[sam vimes]

There's absolutely no point in striving for lighter rods if it just results in a rod being too fragile to use. However, if all else is equal (strength, balance and action) a lower weight simply has to be desirable, at least within sensible cost constraints. I can't really believe that anyone would seriously suggest otherwise. Whether that weight reduction is achieved through improved carbon, manufacturing techniques, or some new material, I don't care. To me, lightness, with no accompanying penalty, is absolutely worth striving for.