The Great Rod-Making Companies

Split-cane rods can be made on grooved wooden hand planing forms that are cheap and relatively simple to construct. Very little capital was required to acquire the tools  and raw materials  required to start rod-making. With the necessary knowledge and skill, perhaps gained whilst in employment with one of the large rod-making firms, it was possible for almost anyone to set up in private business as a rod maker. Hundreds of rods were made by one-man-band operations. Despite the simplicity of the method, it was perfectly possible to build to fine tolerances, and some excellent rods were made by these small businesses. Output was small compared to that of the big manufacturing companies, nevertheless, it was sufficient to provide a reasonable income. Towards the end of the split cane era, some comparatively small companies acquired machines for beveling their cane, and their production capability was easily able to keep up with the demands of the shrinking market. When tubular fibre-glass became available, and split cane fell from general favour, many cane beveling machines became redundant. When the Sharpes of Aberdeen rod-making business was sold, the stock inventory included two splendid cast-iron cane bevelers. Unbelievably, one complete unit was smashed with a sledge-hammer because it was too big to store in its new factory. The same fate probably befell other fine ‘out-dated’ machines.

 

Although there are still plenty of rods in existence that were entirely hand-planed on wooden forms, the vast majority to be found will have been made by one of the big concerns, and will have been machine-beveled. There is no implied criticism in that description. Hand-planed strips should be completely consistent in shape, but the human input into each strip means, almost inevitably, that there will be minor planing inconsistencies. These inconsistencies (and other possible factors) lead to a marked ‘spine’ in the rod - a tendency to have one or more weak planes. Ideally, these would be absent from a perfect rod. Machine-beveled strips SHOULD be more consistent, and therefore offer better components to go on to the gluing process. Of course, perfectly beveled 60º strips are only one of many elements that go into the production of a ‘perfect’ split cane rod, but without them it is unlikely that the completed cane will be perfect. The completed rod was an accumulation of many raw material and manufacturing inputs. We therefore find that despite possible inconsistencies caused by hand-planing on wooden forms, the rods made by master rodmakers such as Ted Southwell and Ted Oliver, are profoundly superior to those made with machine-beveled cane marketed by (say) the Modern Arms company.

 

The restorer finds that rods vary tremendously in quality. Even the great names produced rods that varied considerably from batch to batch, and particularly from generation to generation. For example: the famous Allcocks Wizard rod seems to have reached its quality zenith during the late nineteen-thirties and forties. Wizards from this era are beautifully made, and when restored are often found to be superbly steely. The butt sections of Wizards from late production appear to have been made from smaller diameter whole cane, and the split cane sections often seem to be a little tired. As much as anything, this may be simply a reflection of the quality of raw materials available during the later production period.

 

Some makers offered two or three grades of rod to suit the varying depth of customer’s pockets: it wasn’t everyone that could afford a ‘best rod’. In some cases it seems that the grade was dependent upon the quality and price of the fittings. In other cases the manufacturer appears to have uses lower quality standards throughout, and (it’s likely) lower grades of raw materials. This variation in grade is particularly noticeable in late production rods. Before the second World war, and perhaps up to the early 1950’s it was a matter a pride within some companies to reject any material considered to be less than perfect. I have been told that before the war Hardys rejected up to 70% of each batch of Tonkin. This highly selective view of Tonkin stock worked well until the supply of Tonkin dwindled. It seems that a more pragmatic selection process would then have become inevitable.

 

It is difficult to know how many of the named rods were constructed from split cane made ‘in house’. It was common for highly respected ‘rod makers’ to buy in completed split cane from specialist makers. These blanks were sometimes made to the preparation and taper specification of the shop, but many appear to have been of a generic type for a purpose, e.g. two piece 8’0” spinning rod for 8 - 12 lb. line, or three piece general 11’0” bottom rod, or 9’ fly rod for 6 weight line. Such blanks would be finished and brand-labeled by the seller, and would be regarded (rightly or wrongly) as products of that seller. To complicate matters further, some of the great fishing tackle houses also made completed products for others to brand. For example, I am told that Milwards made hundreds of rods under contract. With the rod-building skills within that company, these products are likely to have been made to a consistently high standard.  Continuation of article

The enthusiast restorer has one great advantage over the manufacturer - he does not have to be