|
The enthusiast restorer has one great advantage over
the manufacturer - he does not have to be The enthusiast restorer has one
great advantage over the manufacturer - he does not have to be quite so
‘cost-effective’. This term probably hadn’t even been coined when the old
manufacturers were extant, but it means the restorer does not have to return
the same predictable profit. Despite the undoubted skills possessed by their
highly trained artisans, the old manufacturers were constrained in the amount
of time that could be allotted to each rod by the necessity to turn out goods
at a price the public would pay. The basic process of rod construction could
not be reduced very much, but the finishing work - handle, whipping, and
varnishing - could. I have had the opportunity to inspect many rods in
perfect original condition, some of then unused for forty or fifty years. I
have been surprised to see just how poor the finish often was, compared to
the super-fine finishes that we expect these days. There were exceptions of
course, prestigious London firms like Hardys, Ogden Smiths, and Farlows: in
Birmingham, Westley Richards: in Newcastle Papes, and several fine rod-makers
in the Scottish cities. These high class firms catered for a more Patrician
clientele, who were prepared to pay for the best. The vast majority of rods
though were finished in quite an ordinary way. The restorer, with no time
restraints, and motivated by a pursuit of perfection, can transform
restoration rods to a standard that would put even the best rods of Hardys to
shame. What’s in a name? For many years I laboured under the mistaken
impression that ‘proper rods’ were made to carefully calculated tapers.
Further to my discredit, and probably to the detriment of my rods’ abilities,
I would never have dreamed of buying a rod from an obscure maker who had
‘borrowed’ a famous rod name. A Mk.IV made by any company other than B.James
was not a real Mk.IV. Without the right label, it was the wrong rod. What
stupidity: how many missed opportunities I must have suffered. More recently
I have discovered that famous-named old rods can vary enormously between
samples. Not only do they vary in ‘feel’, they vary in split-cane dimensions,
and particularly in whole cane dimensions. They vary in weight, and in colour
of cane, indicating variations in baking times between one batch of cane and
another. Nevertheless, they all have the same name on the butt, and are all
regarded by anglers as the same rod model. Clearly this is not rocket
science. Less clearly, but just as surely, a rod made from cannibalised
lengths of cane can be as sweet and efficient a creature as anything blessed
with a great original label. New makers have taken to producing rods with great
names that bear little resemblance to their illustrious originals. The
original Kennet Perfection was made by B. James. The latest version made by
Barder is a ‘Kennet Perfection’ in name only. It is stiffer, heavier overall,
and even has a hollow butt section. It is a very fine rod indeed, but it is
not really a Kennet Perfection. This doesn’t matter a jot. The essential
thing is that it is a first-class fishing rod. The name is an indication of
what the rod is, rather than a precise description of a machine-made product. Not even registered names have been entirely immune
from this process. As far as I am aware, no-one has actually attempted to
market a rod with the famous Wallis Wizard name, but rods with remarkably
similar specifications bearing the names, Wallis Master, Avon Wizard, and
Senior Wizard, have been seen. It would be interesting to view Hardys’
reaction to an alternative manufacturer’s marketing of the highly desirable
C.C.de France, Fairy, and Marvel models. Of course, famous rod types may
still be produced by alternative manufacturers after the original makers have
changed their specification, or have gone out of business. Most fair-minded
observers would consider that to be acceptable. Playing around with a stack of blanks and a
micrometer, it is remarkable to find that there is precious little variation
in tapers between one rod and another. It is certainly true to say that split
cane in fly rods tends to be made with slower tapers than those destined for
coarse rods. It is also true to say that in spite of this, marriages between
lengths of fly rod blank, and lengths of coarse rod blank can produce
delightfully usable rods. Mixed marriages do work. What I am trying to convey
is the amenable and forgiving nature of these materials. There is good reason
to believe that a ‘near-enough’ replacement for a broken rod section will be
even more successful than the carefully calculated original. It is very nice to have a prestigious name on a rod,
but it is always good to remember that the name of the game is fishing - not
posing.
Return to home page |