Kevin Perkins
Well-known member
He did indeed.....
Maxcatch centrepin reel
- Thread starter kingf000
- Start date
@Clive
Well-known member
I had a Ferralite Mk.6 bought with my paper round and Saturday job earnings. It never occurred to me to weight it. I just fished with it. It had a beautiful action and gave me a lot of pleasure. Still got the 506 reel that was used with it.
Kevin Perkins
Well-known member
Actually if I remember correctly Andy Nellist didn't weigh his hooks, he used something along the lines of a chemical balance to compare hooks against each other to get the lightest.
Going back to the OP, I have only last month had dealings with Trading Standards (very nice people) and although my issue was with regards to volumes.
Their principal applies to both weights and measures in that as arbiters in a dispute, the item(s) in question will be subject to measurement on their tested and calibrated equipment.
Either the rod weight needs to be verified by them, or the equipment used to weigh the item needs to be calibrated and certified.
Once that is done and a disparity is discovered, then proceedings can begin.
Are we there yet......
Going back to the OP, I have only last month had dealings with Trading Standards (very nice people) and although my issue was with regards to volumes.
Their principal applies to both weights and measures in that as arbiters in a dispute, the item(s) in question will be subject to measurement on their tested and calibrated equipment.
Either the rod weight needs to be verified by them, or the equipment used to weigh the item needs to be calibrated and certified.
Once that is done and a disparity is discovered, then proceedings can begin.
Are we there yet......
steve2
Well-known member
May be companies should not state weights and leave it up to the angler to decide what is best or feels best for them and not get taken in by advertising blurb.
I'm sure we all enjoy the way new materials etc have transformed the gear we use, appreciate lightweight tackle and expect what we buy to be accurately described. But when it comes to a few grams, most of seem to have reasonable expectations and keep a sense of perspective. Anyone for whom those few grams are so important that they fulminate at length about them - principles, the letter of the law, litigation etc - would surely be best advised not to buy online but to go to a shop that sells what they want, taking their accurate scales, and weigh the item before buying. There are sides to the issue that are actually quite interesting and relevant, but beyond a certain point ..... Back in the day, when people wrote letters to newspapers on paper, those who insisted they had discovered a major scandal that needed to be exposed were known as the Green Ink Brigade.
Maybe companies shouldn’t be held to ransom by people with nothing better to do over minuscule amounts or definitions of the word ‘average’.
@Clive
Well-known member
They aren't.
sam vimes
Well-known member
I reckon some folks may need to be careful what they wish for. My real interest in rod weights stemmed from a combination of distance buying of gear that it was simply not possible to get to see in the flesh, liking 15'+ rods where small weight (and balance) differences become increasingly important, and manufacturers (and many buyers) talking about rods being "super light" (or some similar superlative) without giving even a vague idea of what that may mean. I have zero interest in the weight of any rods other than float rods. Weight is of no importance to me if a rod doesn't spend most of its life in hand. That means nothing but rods I may use for floatfishing on rivers. It becomes increasingly important as rod lengths increase.
These days, quite a few manufacturers state an average weight. I'm quite happy with this, though I expect a variance of +-10g and possibly more. Manufacturers stating an average weight is far preferable to unqualified superlatives or stating bare blank weights, as some manufacturers have done in the past without ever being explicit about it. IIRC, the largest weight difference I've encountered in two examples of a single type of float rod was approximately 20g.
Lowest weight is not the deciding factor in what my favourite rods might be, but it's not a total irrelevance either. If all else is equal (action, power, balance etc), I'll choose the lighter rod every time if it's for trotting. If a float rod is going to be used on a stillwater (on rests), it's not that important. If a rod is more powerful, I know that will come with a weight penalty. If a rod is longer, weight is going to increase and it's likely to have an impact on balance too. As things stand, I have three rods that are lighter than the lightest equivalent length Acolytes. Only one of those three do I consider a favourite. However, my favourite trotting rods are a bit heavier. They are favourites because they are the best trotting rods I've ever used.
As far as I'm concerned no 13' float rod exceeding 160g can be considered "super lightweight" by modern standards. However, that can be revised slightly upward if the rod happens to be a genuinely powerful float rod. The lightest 13'er I own is about 15 years old and 139g. I know of one more recent 13'er that will be lighter, but don't own one. I do have a very recent top line 13' rod that the marketing types described as being light. At 202g, which is heavier than many rods they made in the 90s, I don't think it's reasonable to describe it as light. However, being really well balanced makes it useable without have to add weight or fitting a heavy reel to it. Compared to split can and fibreglass stuff, it's a veritable miracle.
These days, quite a few manufacturers state an average weight. I'm quite happy with this, though I expect a variance of +-10g and possibly more. Manufacturers stating an average weight is far preferable to unqualified superlatives or stating bare blank weights, as some manufacturers have done in the past without ever being explicit about it. IIRC, the largest weight difference I've encountered in two examples of a single type of float rod was approximately 20g.
Lowest weight is not the deciding factor in what my favourite rods might be, but it's not a total irrelevance either. If all else is equal (action, power, balance etc), I'll choose the lighter rod every time if it's for trotting. If a float rod is going to be used on a stillwater (on rests), it's not that important. If a rod is more powerful, I know that will come with a weight penalty. If a rod is longer, weight is going to increase and it's likely to have an impact on balance too. As things stand, I have three rods that are lighter than the lightest equivalent length Acolytes. Only one of those three do I consider a favourite. However, my favourite trotting rods are a bit heavier. They are favourites because they are the best trotting rods I've ever used.
As far as I'm concerned no 13' float rod exceeding 160g can be considered "super lightweight" by modern standards. However, that can be revised slightly upward if the rod happens to be a genuinely powerful float rod. The lightest 13'er I own is about 15 years old and 139g. I know of one more recent 13'er that will be lighter, but don't own one. I do have a very recent top line 13' rod that the marketing types described as being light. At 202g, which is heavier than many rods they made in the 90s, I don't think it's reasonable to describe it as light. However, being really well balanced makes it useable without have to add weight or fitting a heavy reel to it. Compared to split can and fibreglass stuff, it's a veritable miracle.
They soon could be …
I may get laughed at but I have been thinking for a while about going back to using some fiberglass rods again as they are bullet proof. Some of the modern carbon rods I see are just begging to get snapped if you come within 100 yards of a tip bending bramble bush.
It won't be everyones cup of tea for reasons of weight and action but for a roving/travelling angler fishing off the beaten track in nooks and crannies I recon fiberglass might be worth another look.
It won't be everyones cup of tea for reasons of weight and action but for a roving/travelling angler fishing off the beaten track in nooks and crannies I recon fiberglass might be worth another look.
steve2
Well-known member
Fiberglass rods are making a come back with some very expensive fly rods.
@Clive
Well-known member
I still regularly use two Philip. A Hardy Matchmaker 13' float rod and a Hardy Richard Walker Avon. The first cost me nothing and the other about eighty quid. They are a delight to use. The Avon is great for chub and mullet and it has a screw end guide that takes a swing tip. The float rod is pure nostalgia in that it is a very close imitation to my old ABU Ferralite Mk. 6.
Fibreglass? I bought a cheap glass 11' leger rod for an Irish holiday in 1985. I think it cost about £15. Years later I chopped it up and re-used the parts, modified in ways too long to mention, and made a set of Tri-cast type put-over tips for it. It's still going, at about 9', and has caught all kinds of brook, pond and small river fish. It's tough enough to beat down nettles with the butt section, and forgiving enough to land anything on 4lb line. With a bit of weight in the end of the handle, it feels perfectly balanced, has a lovely playing action and has proved indestructible. It's on its third set of rings and second coat of paint/varnish.
@Clive
Well-known member
I still have a couple of fibreglass rods:
10ft Vortex Avon rod in green glass
12ft Bruce & Walker 12L match rod. This rod at the time was 'state of the art'. In about 1977 I paid £43 for it new - a lot of money then! It's still perfectly usable but now seems so heavy and thick at the but end compared to modern match rods. Had some big roach on it.
10ft Vortex Avon rod in green glass
12ft Bruce & Walker 12L match rod. This rod at the time was 'state of the art'. In about 1977 I paid £43 for it new - a lot of money then! It's still perfectly usable but now seems so heavy and thick at the but end compared to modern match rods. Had some big roach on it.
@Clive
Well-known member
Fibreglass was first used to make fishing rods by a French telephone engineer who adapted the fibreglass insulation used on telephone cables to make a fishing pole. The first company to sell fibreglass rods was Lerc who brought out a 5 metre pole, or whip as we now know them. You can still buy reasonable examples of these over here for a tenner. An American firm quickly pinched the idea and introduced Conolon rods some of which were exported to France under the Mitchell name. The first Conolon rods sold in France had brass ferrules. Pezon et Michel the largest tackle company in France came to an agreement with Hardy to obtain fibreglass blanks. The Hardy Jet fly rods and their spinning rods have identical blanks to the Pezon et Michel Telebolic rods. Just the guides and wrappings are different. Also, the 10 foot spinning rods are made on the same blanks as the Hardy Carp and Avon rods.
The idea of the fixed spool reel was also invented by a French man. In 1903 the Viscount Henry de France used an empty tin can mounted under his rod in a casting competition. He took first prize in the 15g & 7.5g categories that he competed in against conventional drum type reels with casts of 48.55m & 45.3m. He had to retrieve the line by hand. Two years later a Yorkshire textile magnate by the name of Illingworth who was also a tournament caster devised a mechanical way of retrieving the line using the processes found in the textile industry. He produced a series of what we now know as fixed spool reels using his inginuity and his mill mechanics and never took a penny from his inventions. (Yorkshire people are known for their generosity). The Illingworth reels were principally used for trout spinning.
The idea of the fixed spool reel was also invented by a French man. In 1903 the Viscount Henry de France used an empty tin can mounted under his rod in a casting competition. He took first prize in the 15g & 7.5g categories that he competed in against conventional drum type reels with casts of 48.55m & 45.3m. He had to retrieve the line by hand. Two years later a Yorkshire textile magnate by the name of Illingworth who was also a tournament caster devised a mechanical way of retrieving the line using the processes found in the textile industry. He produced a series of what we now know as fixed spool reels using his inginuity and his mill mechanics and never took a penny from his inventions. (Yorkshire people are known for their generosity). The Illingworth reels were principally used for trout spinning.
John Aston
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2007
- Messages
- 930
- Reaction score
- 2,355
Well, you can buy a new one again but I only know one person who has taken the plunge. He's bought an expansive Japanese job - I think 3/4 weight and 8'. I had written them off as Emperor's New Clothes but on the evidence of a few casts I was impressed . It was light**, had a much faster recovery than I expected (glass fly rods were often very slow , if not as glacially slow as cane ) and I'd happily fish with one for a day.
Better or even as good as even a budget carbon rod ? It may be for those who like the action but it wasn't for me , I far prefer the action and speed of recovery of carbon. One of my many fly rods is a fifty quid Shakespeare 6' #3 weight - compared to any cane or glass rod I've ever used it is on a different planet .
*** I must apologise for not having weighed it .
@Clive
Well-known member
I preferred the slow action of cane for grayling nymphing. At this time of year I used to spend a few hours at Collingham fishing the Wharfe and the rythm of the old 9 foot #6 Forrest of Kelso cane rod suited me fine. My first proper fly rod was built on a glass Hardy Jet blank. That served me well until I took the plunge and bought a carbon Bloke #6. The Hardy Jet was given away soon after. But I kept the cane rod for the winter nymphing. I know that Bloke are now doing glass fly rods and I do wonder if the modern tapers give them the edge over the old glass rods.
It would be interesting to see what can be done with fibreglass today. I can't imagine it being of any use for float rods, but for shorter rods it does have some good qualities, like robustness for "rough" fishing and an elastic softness for some delicate tasks. For instance, I've owned several "wands" , shop-bought and home-made, in more expensive carbon, that could never reproduce the action of the glass Shakespeare Sigma.
Generally, I'm far from nostalgic for glass. I remember saving up as 15 year old for a B&W CTM 13A match rod. An old chap on the canal had one, and I thought it was a key part of his angling savoir faire - lovely looking rod. I should have asked to try it, but he was a miserable old sod. I've never been more disappointed with a fishing rod. If I bumped into any old quality glass float rods these days, I'd be eyeing up the top sections as possible donors for a wand.
Not that there were no good B&W glass float rods; a later model, the Flyer, was very good by the standards of the day. I just bought unwisely.
Generally, I'm far from nostalgic for glass. I remember saving up as 15 year old for a B&W CTM 13A match rod. An old chap on the canal had one, and I thought it was a key part of his angling savoir faire - lovely looking rod. I should have asked to try it, but he was a miserable old sod. I've never been more disappointed with a fishing rod. If I bumped into any old quality glass float rods these days, I'd be eyeing up the top sections as possible donors for a wand.
Not that there were no good B&W glass float rods; a later model, the Flyer, was very good by the standards of the day. I just bought unwisely.
