I have begun to see a lot of, I mean lot more than just recently long ago, low cost boo rods being sold that look real good. These appear to be being
made in what has become the American way. This done here, that done there, assembled... where-ever, packaged partly who knows where,
and put in its final packaging, again, who knows... but, with an American rod makers input and name somewhere in the mix and shipped from an American address.
The quality is fine. They cast just as good as any cane rod.
They use the best traditional American tapers so why wouldn't they?
Why buy a cane rod? They're heavy. They don't catch any more fish than a rod made of some other material. They don't set a hook as easily as graphite, or composite. Resultantly, fishing with a cane rod may cost a fisherman a fish. Why buy a cane rod?
There is a symmetry in the flow from the first lift of the line through to the connection with ones aim; yes. And, I am glad to see this made available to a wider audience (up to a tipping point). My concern arises in the consideration that amongst those who fly fish, this holistic grace of symmetry will be lost on all but a small percentage of enthusiasts. Considering that fly fishing is not the most dominant approach to the sport of sport fishing, it becomes obvious that we are then speaking of a relatively small percentage of individuals who may involve themselves, primarily, for this aesthetic of continuity. Why then, buy a cane rod?
Tradition, I feel, offers much to the resolution of this question.
There is an entirely alternate, yet parallel, relationship with continuity involved in why many of us are enamoured with our pursuit of cane. There is a unique connection with the past. The makers of today who have had the craft passed on to them, from the masters before them, pass on to us an undilute yet collective and interwoven heritage.
Selling an image is not a bad thing. A & F, was not the first, nor was LL an innovator; more an example of real time follow-through - from observation, acknowledgement and understanding (integration), valuation, and transference of lateral marketing. So, why hammer new entrepreneurial thinkers for doing nothing more than trying to capture what they can from what they see as a niche in today's market?
Leonard/Mills - Mills the winner. Edwards/Bristol - Bristol the winner. What does this teach us? Use genius craftsman to capture your share of the market and pat the genius on the head while slipping him some chump change so he doesn't starve before you get every drop of blood out of him - at least as long as what he has to offer keeps you in the market place.
And, more current with free market vogue, pass the designs off shore for cheap manufacture to bring them back home as good old American craftsmanship, put the dollars in ones pocket while real American craftsman, carrying on the real tradition, work themselves after hours in their home work shops in an effort to keep something uniquely American alive.
I'm not a maker, or stake holder; just a guy who likes fishing, particularly fly fishing - and when its suitable, or as far as I feel comfortable stretching the suitability of, fishing with boo.
More-so, I am not a "Buy American" only sort.
But, I live where the mills no longer make sweaters, and I think it would be a shame if we left our cane heritage to kids who think fishing the best is fishing with cane but fishing with cane means fishing BMW, KIA or Nike boo.
American makers should not undercut other American makers by short cutting the manufacturing process. I hear your answer, "The market will speak loud and clear on its own."
I don't particularly like what I've been hearing the market say.
The market has a big mouth.
But, not so much soul or heart as to my liking.
They use the best traditional American tapers so why wouldn't they?
Why buy a cane rod? They're heavy. They don't catch any more fish than a rod made of some other material. They don't set a hook as easily as graphite, or composite. Resultantly, fishing with a cane rod may cost a fisherman a fish. Why buy a cane rod?
There is a symmetry in the flow from the first lift of the line through to the connection with ones aim; yes. And, I am glad to see this made available to a wider audience (up to a tipping point). My concern arises in the consideration that amongst those who fly fish, this holistic grace of symmetry will be lost on all but a small percentage of enthusiasts. Considering that fly fishing is not the most dominant approach to the sport of sport fishing, it becomes obvious that we are then speaking of a relatively small percentage of individuals who may involve themselves, primarily, for this aesthetic of continuity. Why then, buy a cane rod?
Tradition, I feel, offers much to the resolution of this question.
There is an entirely alternate, yet parallel, relationship with continuity involved in why many of us are enamoured with our pursuit of cane. There is a unique connection with the past. The makers of today who have had the craft passed on to them, from the masters before them, pass on to us an undilute yet collective and interwoven heritage.
Selling an image is not a bad thing. A & F, was not the first, nor was LL an innovator; more an example of real time follow-through - from observation, acknowledgement and understanding (integration), valuation, and transference of lateral marketing. So, why hammer new entrepreneurial thinkers for doing nothing more than trying to capture what they can from what they see as a niche in today's market?
Leonard/Mills - Mills the winner. Edwards/Bristol - Bristol the winner. What does this teach us? Use genius craftsman to capture your share of the market and pat the genius on the head while slipping him some chump change so he doesn't starve before you get every drop of blood out of him - at least as long as what he has to offer keeps you in the market place.
And, more current with free market vogue, pass the designs off shore for cheap manufacture to bring them back home as good old American craftsmanship, put the dollars in ones pocket while real American craftsman, carrying on the real tradition, work themselves after hours in their home work shops in an effort to keep something uniquely American alive.
I'm not a maker, or stake holder; just a guy who likes fishing, particularly fly fishing - and when its suitable, or as far as I feel comfortable stretching the suitability of, fishing with boo.
More-so, I am not a "Buy American" only sort.
But, I live where the mills no longer make sweaters, and I think it would be a shame if we left our cane heritage to kids who think fishing the best is fishing with cane but fishing with cane means fishing BMW, KIA or Nike boo.
American makers should not undercut other American makers by short cutting the manufacturing process. I hear your answer, "The market will speak loud and clear on its own."
I don't particularly like what I've been hearing the market say.
The market has a big mouth.
But, not so much soul or heart as to my liking.
If
not, disregard or just read it for the heck of it.
