<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="/feed/bypass/styles/feed.css" media="screen"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/feed/bypass/styles/feed.xsl"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/">

	<channel>
	  <!-- main channel info -->
        <title>Correct nomenclature</title>
        <link>http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/topic/25562/t/Correct-nomenclature.html</link>
        <description>
        <![CDATA[ I&#39;m curious what others think correct nomenclature is for older rods from modern rodmakers. Obviously we have a term for older rods which is vintage. But
at what point does a rod become vintage? Is it after the rodmaker has passed away? Is it rods more then a certain number of years old? Rods from as new as the
seventies or eighties? For instance, if I buy a Bob Taylor rod that is say twenty five years old, is it considered vintage? Do we term it an &quot;early&quot;
Bob Taylor rod? An... ]]>
        </description>

		<!-- optional elements -->
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2006, Yuku</copyright>
		<managingEditor>feeds@yuku.com (FeedMaster)</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>webmaster@yuku.com (WebMaster)</webMaster>
		<!-- note: dates need to be RFC 822 formated "Sat, 07 Sep 2002 00:00:01 GMT" -->
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:38:29 GMT</pubDate>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:27:56 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>Yuku Feeds 1.0</generator>
		<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
		<!-- <cloud domain="rpc.yuku.com" port="80" path="/RPC2" registerProcedure="pingMe" protocol="soap"/>-->
		<ttl>60</ttl>
		<!-- feed image -->
		
		<rating>
		{pics-1.1 &quot;http://www.icra.org/ratingsv02.html&quot; l gen true for &quot;http://yuku.com&quot; r (nz 1 vz 1 lz 1 oz 1 cz 1 ) &quot;http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html&quot; l gen true for &quot;http://yuku.com&quot; r (n 0 s 0 v 0 l 0 ))
		</rating>
		<textInput>
			<title>Search</title>
			<description>Search Domain</description>
			<name>q</name>
			<link>http://yuku.com/search/direct/</link>
		</textInput>
		<!-- skip
		<skipHours>
			<hour>23</hour>
		</skipHours>
		<skipDays>
			<day>Monday</day>
			<day>Wednesday</day>
			<day>Friday</day>
		</skipDays>-->
		<!-- extensions -->


		<!-- channel items -->
		<!-- descriptions should be shorter than 500 char to be polite -->
		<!-- html shoud be stripped or escaped -->
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Correct nomenclature ]]></title>
			<link>http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/reply/143684/t/Correct-nomenclature.html#reply-143684</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ I think the terms are useful. My humble understanding would be:
<br>
Classic = Has stood the test of time, exhibiting values as valid today as at the time of origination. Note the requirement of passage of time, a <em>test</em>
of time. &quot;Value&quot; could be intrinsic or artistic or both. My h.u., again, would be not to award &quot;classic&quot; stature in many cases, and what
cases that might be would certainly and fairly be open to debate. 
<br>
<br>
Vintage = Old. Note the lack of any... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (levertonhatches)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/sreply/143684</guid>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:21:29 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Correct nomenclature ]]></title>
			<link>http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/reply/143582/t/Correct-nomenclature.html#reply-143582</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ <br>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><strong><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">vintage
definition</span></strong></p>

<p><span class="orth2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 14.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><strong><font color="#3366CC">vin·tage</font></strong></span></span> <span class="pron"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">(</span></span><font face="Tahoma"><span class="symb2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 14.5pt; COLOR:... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (PkwyAngler)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/sreply/143582</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:11:14 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Correct nomenclature ]]></title>
			<link>http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/reply/143580/t/Correct-nomenclature.html#reply-143580</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Dan I would have preferred if you had used my complete title of &quot;Grumpy Old Fart&quot; , but I suppose it does not matter. dave
<br> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (oneculm)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/sreply/143580</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:55:01 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Correct nomenclature ]]></title>
			<link>http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/reply/143569/t/Correct-nomenclature.html#reply-143569</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ As oneculm notes, nomenclature probably doesn&#39;t matter.  What&#39;s in a name?  I agree, but while we&#39;re on the subject, &quot;vintage&quot; seems to
place emphasis on the age of a rod while &quot;classic&quot; emphasizes style or some other attribute.  Maybe vintage is in he eye of the beholder.  Perhaps
the line that separates modern and vintage comes at some arbitrary point defined by whoever uses the term and whose credibility rises or falls depending on how
he uses the term.  In... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (RPL)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/sreply/143569</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:39:45 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Correct nomenclature ]]></title>
			<link>http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/reply/143568/t/Correct-nomenclature.html#reply-143568</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Please don&#39;t be too grumpy oneculm. <img src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif"> For every possible opinion on any infinium subject there&#39;s bound to be someone who thinks it matters. I was
asking because I had this discussion with a friend over the weekend who has some old rods from a rodmaker who&#39;s still turning them out.
<br>
Myself, I prefer the term &quot;early&quot;. Appreciate the comments fellas.
<br>
<br>
Dan ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (softstick)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/sreply/143568</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:35:19 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Correct nomenclature ]]></title>
			<link>http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/reply/143563/t/Correct-nomenclature.html#reply-143563</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ In Connecticut for antique or vintage American cars it&#39;s 25 years.
<br>
Nothing more irritating than seeing a 1985 Toyota Celica with 19&quot; chrome rims, low profile tires and curb feelers with a &quot;antique Car Plate&quot;
<br>
<br>
For rods of makers still alive, I like the term and early rod. ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (pvansch1)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/sreply/143563</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:35:58 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Correct nomenclature ]]></title>
			<link>http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/reply/143558/t/Correct-nomenclature.html#reply-143558</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ A term commonly applied to rifles that have been altered to better suit their owners purposes, changing sights, changing stocks, etc.  Think of
&quot;Grandpa&quot; taking a file to a grip, changing guides to something he wanted, changing old loose ring guide to snake guides.
<br> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (mer)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/sreply/143558</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:08:46 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Correct nomenclature ]]></title>
			<link>http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/reply/143556/t/Correct-nomenclature.html#reply-143556</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ I&#39;d prefer to use &quot;early&quot;. ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (FWdB)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/sreply/143556</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:45:41 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Correct nomenclature ]]></title>
			<link>http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/reply/143553/t/Correct-nomenclature.html#reply-143553</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Does it really matter?
<br> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (oneculm)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/sreply/143553</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:35:05 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Correct nomenclature ]]></title>
			<link>http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/reply/143552/t/Correct-nomenclature.html#reply-143552</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ There&#39;s a difference between being &quot;classic&quot; and being &quot;a classic&quot;.  My 3 y.o. 7&#39; Jennings with lemon wraps and olive wood seat is
classic Jennings but is not (yet) a classic.  I would say that a 25 y.o. Bob Taylor might be considered vintage Taylor but not a vintage rod.  I think
&quot;early&quot; Taylor would be an accurate and apt description.
<br> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (spruce grouse)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/sreply/143552</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:31:21 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Correct nomenclature ]]></title>
			<link>http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/reply/143551/t/Correct-nomenclature.html#reply-143551</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Classic and Vintage are so overused, both individually and collectively they are interchangeable for all practical purposes.  I use both  depending on whether
or not my style is tending toward banal or pedestrian.  &quot;The vintage rod has been professionally refreshed giving it that classic look.&quot;
<br>
<br>
<br> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (tedgolden)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/sreply/143551</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:30:37 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Correct nomenclature ]]></title>
			<link>http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/reply/143550/t/Correct-nomenclature.html#reply-143550</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Sporterized?? ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (Southbranch)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/sreply/143550</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:27:54 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Correct nomenclature ]]></title>
			<link>http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/reply/143545/t/Correct-nomenclature.html#reply-143545</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote>
  <strong class="quote-title">softstick wrote:</strong>
  <hr>
  Rods from as new as the seventies or eighties? For instance, if I buy a Bob Taylor rod that is say twenty five years old, is it considered vintage?
</blockquote>That 25 year old Bob Taylor rod would have been from as new as 1984.
<br>
<br>
Why not just say it&#39;s a Bob Taylor with a born on date of 1984?  Early/Old/Late/Vintage Bob Taylor starts to sound like &quot;PreFire/PostFire/Maxwell
Leonard&quot;.
<br>
Is... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (mer)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/sreply/143545</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:49:12 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Correct nomenclature ]]></title>
			<link>http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/topic/25562/t/Correct-nomenclature.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ I&#39;m curious what others think correct nomenclature is for older rods from modern rodmakers. Obviously we have a term for older rods which is vintage. But
at what point does a rod become vintage? Is it after the rodmaker has passed away? Is it rods more then a certain number of years old? Rods from as new as the
seventies or eighties? For instance, if I buy a Bob Taylor rod that is say twenty five years old, is it considered vintage? Do we term it an &quot;early&quot;
Bob Taylor rod? An... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (softstick)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/topic/25562</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:38:29 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
    <!-- end items -->

  </channel>
</rss>