Nodes and node placement by past masters

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Gnome	Nodes and node placement by past masters		Lead	[-]
Posts: 2080 04/20/2009 09:26 King of the Gnomes	Tags : None Had a great afternoon yesterday as I had a visit to the cave from Jerry Stein. It was my great pleasure to give him and his significant other a private tour through the GTRS Jerry brought along a small group of stunning rods which included a 7.5 granger in near mint condition and an 8' F.E.Thomas browntone and a Halstead 8'er and a Gillum 8'er. While drooling over the Hallstead and the Gillum I noticied that they had the same node placement as a Paul Young I looked over at SRG last fall. Remmeber that one Mr. Bob Nunley? All three of these rods by excepted masters had the darndest node spacing. In some places there where three nodes side by side with the stagger being one node length above the other two that where side by side. In other words they did not pay much attention to that aspect of rod making. At least from some of the rods I have inspected/drooled over. Both the Halstead and The Gillum where as sweet a casting tools as can be made. How many of you have rods by past masters that you love their performance but they would never make it in todays market as their construction would not meet the expected standards of today? Just curious as to how many of the past masters where not that concerned with their node placement. I have a fair idea but would like to hear others take on this. Thanks Jeff Last Edited By: Gnome 04/20/2009 15:46. Edited 2 times.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
bluejayee		#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 730 04/20/2009 12:34	Hi Guys, I have a Payne that follows that sort of 'un-pattern.' I got it from Hoagy so it's 'the real deal.' Jay Edwards
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
fisheye444	wondering the same thing . . .	#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 113 04/20/2009 12:40	Ditto. How would they look if we turned today's mirror on them? Glue lines, node placement, gaps in wraps? Just goes to show that cosmetics have zero to do with performance.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
tapermaker		#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 746 04/20/2009 12:52	my freind dwight lyons has a leonard that has nodes right in the middle of the ferrule tabs.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
AJ Bamboo		#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 808 04/20/2009 17:17	as i was told at one time when i questioned a well respected past makers lack of apparent node pattern, "the pattern is so complex and sophisticated that you don't have the skill to interpret it" uhhh, riiighhht
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
gooseberryrods		#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 608 04/20/2009 17:48	I would not make a rod nor would I purchase a rod that had 3 nodes "side-by-each" on successive strips. Those sections should have been tossed in the pile marked "kindling". I saw this on an early PHY "Ace" and I promptly returned the rod. Actually, I wouldn't feel good about keeping a rod if it had two adjacent nodes. As noted above, our standards today are much higher than by most of the icons of our craft. Scott
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
john channer		#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 737 04/20/2009 23:15	I haven't seen al that many rods made by "old masters", but I have seen a bunch of production models and I know they didn't even realize that bamboo has nodes, they just grabbed strips out of the pile and glued them up. Of the few really nice rods I've seen, only Granger and Leonard had a recognizable node pattern, the 3 Paynes I've had the opportunity to really study all missed having a true spiral by more than just a little. Maybe not so oddly, the Heddon 14 I had had really good cane work and even tho a random node spacing, someone took enough care that no 2 nodes were too close for comfort. john
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
oysterbamboo		#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 298 04/22/2009 00:08	fisheye444 wrote: Ditto. How would they look if we turned today's mirror on them? Glue lines, node placement, gaps in wraps? Just goes to show that cosmetics have zero to do with performance. I got to cast a rod by one of the most famous of these masters just this week (I won't name names to avoid suffering the wrath of the collectors). Not only were the cosmetics pretty marginal and the nodes a wreck, the performance wouldn't win any awards either (downright poor actually). Sometimes, the reputation is less about the cosmetics, OR the performance... and more about the reputaion. Bill O.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
quadrate		#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 81 04/22/2009 04:13	I haven't seen many rods by past masters that had node problems. I'm not saying I haven't seen any just that they have been infrequent. I have thought for a long time that the standards of todays rods is over the top. These are fishing rods, not museum pieces. I personally would rather have a rod that cast and fishes great that had the guides put on with band aids than a poor casting rod. I try to make my rods to the highest quality I can make them but what people expect today is sometimes crazy. I always think its funny when someone tells me they have a mint rod by so-and-so and that its worth a lot of money. I ask why its still mint if its soooooo good. Its probably mint cause it didn't cast and fish well. When you see a well used rod take a hard look at it. The action is probably pretty good. I also thing that the engineering aspect of rodmaking has made people worried about rod strength. I don't put nodes side by side but if you every put a piece of raw bamboo in a hoop its not the node that breaks. Its either side of the node that is weaker. In the end the rods with the best actions and performance will rise to the top except for the collector world. TZ
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
HERMES2069		#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 531 04/22/2009 06:56	Nodes are the weakest part of the strip. When you stagger them they are solidified by the adjacent strips. Its not rocket science. But placement may have a little difference on the action. That's what makes experimentation good fun. In terms of Past Masters. I buy the scarce, rare rods as an alternative to stock market investments. You can OOO and AHH at them now and then. I use my Leonard 39-5 regularly, because it does what I want on the stream. Phil
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
oneculm		#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 530 04/22/2009 07:18	I have always spiraled the nodes and when trying to keep them a ways from the tip a lot of bamboo is used. Much more than if 3X3 / 2X2 or random. It could be that the period when the so call past masters rods you observed was during the embargo. There had to be less bamboo available so in order to use the best of what they had they were more concerned on getting the most strips from each culm that they could. We all have seen poor node placement but is it not interesting that the rod /rods we have seen it on are still fine. I have seen cracks at nodes, but I do not think it had anything to do with another node next to it.I cannot remember seeing a rod break due to the placement. I agree that many of todays rods are works of art and my hat goes off to those builders who produce them. I know anything I make will fish just fine but never pass the 10X loop inspection. dave
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Gnome		#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2082 04/22/2009 08:45 King of the Gnomes	Form follows function!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The rod must fish well first and foremost and then if they can look perfect all the better but we are human and we do make mistakes. Oneculm, the rods I have inspected and talked about in this post where made prior to the embargo by at least 20 years. And rods from the 1940 and earlier have the tendency to show the erratic placement of the nodes as at that time it was not viewed as being that critical. I have Leonards from 1872-4 up to the 1920's and their are more than a few that exhibit the less attention to node placement than we do today. My rods will not pass the 10x loop test either (as most will not also especially if inspected by another rod maker) but they do fish pretty well and that is what it is all about. Jeff Last Edited By: Gnome 04/22/2009 10:03. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
PaducahMichael		#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 597 04/22/2009 21:22	quadrate wrote: I have thought for a long time that the standards of todays rods is over the top. These are fishing rods, not museum pieces. I personally would rather have a rod that cast and fishes great that had the guides put on with band aids than a poor casting rod. I try to make my rods to the highest quality I can make them but what people expect today is sometimes crazy. TZ Quadrate, You're my hero. I've thought exactly the same thing for a long, long time. For some reason I've been too cautious to give voice to that opinion. 10x loupes are for jewelry, not for rods. I applaud those makers whose work will pass that test, but I cannot count myself among them. Try as I might, there's always something I see that I wish I could do better. I'm still trying to get better! For the record, I think 3x3 nodes ala Granger are the best for getting good separation without using an excess of cane. The New Divine Rods Last Edited By: PaducahMichael 04/22/2009 21:25. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
quashnet		#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2555 04/22/2009 23:22 Moderatus Muscae	Checking a few of my Paul H. Young Co. rods, I find: PHY Ace (probably late 1940s, built by PHY): 2X2 Butt, one tip 2X2, one tip 3X3 PHY Para 17 (1951 by PHY): 2X2 Butt, both tips 2X2 PHY Driggs (circa 1953-1955, by PHY): 3X3 Butt, both tips 2X2 PHY Martha Marie (1962, by Summers): 2X2 Butt, one tip 2X2, one tip 3X3 PHY Para 15 (1967, by Summers): 2X2 Butt, one tip 2X2, one tip 3X3 My belief is that at the PHY Co. the first selections were made up from rough split cane as 2X2, then 3X3 was acceptable as supply dwindled, in order to use up available stock. But you will not find two adjacent nodes on a blank. Blanks found to have adjacent nodes were sometimes used by the PHY rod makers to make their own personal rods. In 2008 Bob Summers showed me the first Para 15 he built for himself in 1957. Four nodes are grouped together. Bob explained that the rod had been fished every year for over five decades. I then cast the rod. It is a fine rod. This Para 17 was built in November 1951. It was built about the time that Paul Young wrote a sentence that was printed in his 1952 catalog: "There are a number of models that we are skipping in face of a critical shortage of everything needed to make fine rods." - thanks to the lingering effects of World War II, the Korean conflict, economic uncertainty, and the cane embargo. This was about the same time that Art Neumann was running the Wanigas Rod Company out of a reconditioned chicken coop. It amazes me how well the rod makers of that time coped with their circumstances. Yes, there are small glue lines and varnish irregularities on this Para 17. No, they don't bother me. Quashnet's Paul H. Young Rod Database has photos and descriptions of over 450 PHY Co. rods, plus catalogs, accessories, etc. Thank you to all who continue to send me PHY rod photos and info.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
thousandstar	experment	#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 169 04/25/2009 12:01	If I had the time I would love to make 4 tip sections from the same taper. Use different node spacing for each tip, with one tip having all the nodes next to each other. Ferrule each end with a male ferrule and clamp then horizontally via the ferrule. Create a gridded background to photograph the curve of each section as various progressive weights were applied to the tip. Increase the weight until failure with each tip. This would give us a pretty good indication as to how node spacing effect the curve and strength of rods.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
quadrate		#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 85 04/26/2009 03:59	I would be curious if the node placement had any different effect at all on the rod action. I tend to think it wouldn't. Experience has taught me that rod action is primarily determined by rod taper. Everything else has an effect on it albiet much more minor than the actual taper. Where you took the cane from in the culm (i.e. tip end or butt end) would probably have more effect than node placement on the strength. The curve of the rod will stay the same with a given taper. The strength could be tested the way you mention but if all of the sections were tapered the same they would take the same relative curve. TZ
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Gnome		#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2090 04/26/2009 09:18 King of the Gnomes	Exactly what Tim Said above!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jeff
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
thousandstar		#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 172 04/26/2009 15:39	I think this experiment would yield enough info and surprises to be worth doing.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
flyman.flyfishingarkan...		#18	[url]	[-]
Posts: 9 04/27/2009 02:04	I also agree with Tim. The quickest way to prove that node placement does not affect the strength of a rod is to line up all the nodes on a tip and do the Nunley stress test. it wouldn't even need guides or finish, just well cured glue. If it doesn't break, and I doubt it will, we can all decide whether we want to maximize cane use or make pretty patterns. I'd do it on the rod I've got on the forms now, but it is for testing a different idea and I don't need two variables at once. If no one else is willing to sacrifice 6 strips, then I will eventually do the experiment... probably next winter. Larry Lohkamp
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
JPMarci		#19	[url]	[-]
Posts: 185 04/28/2009 17:55	Love the thread. I can not offer very much but I appreciate the content. One question - has anyone had or heard of a well made rod with adjacent nodes fail? There are a number of very good builders and restoration folks on this thread. Is this much to do about nothing? I have a couple of good rods that cast great that have standard spacing. I also have an HI Old HI Test Registered with awful node spacing that casts a DT 6 very nicely. Just a good fishing pole. It is not a Young or even a Granger but if you can cast you can present a great line with it and I would not expect it to break at a double node. Regards John
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Greg Reynolds		#20	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1946 04/28/2009 19:54 Orvis Database Founder	PaducahMichael wrote: quadrate wrote: I have thought for a long time that the standards of todays rods is over the top. These are fishing rods, not museum pieces. I personally would rather have a rod that cast and fishes great that had the guides put on with band aids than a poor casting rod. I try to make my rods to the highest quality I can make them but what people expect today is sometimes crazy. TZ Quadrate, You're my hero. I've thought exactly the same thing for a long, long time. For some reason I've been too cautious to give voice to that opinion. 10x loupes are for jewelry, not for rods. I applaud those makers whose work will pass that test, but I cannot count myself among them. Try as I might, there's always something I see that I wish I could do better. I'm still trying to get better! For the record, I think 3x3 nodes ala Granger are the best for getting good separation without using an excess of cane. I agree. I've never understood the view that fishing rods are fine art and the resulting expectation of cosmetically perfect rods.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Nodes and node placement by past masters

Nodes and node placement by past masters

Quick Reply