empire city tackle

4 Kudos

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author

Comment

Housatonic Quill

Re: Rant re-redux?

#21

[-]

Posts: 836

08/05/2007 15:42

Pat
The newspaper article George mentioned to you is a find indeed. If it proves out, I'll be happy to embrace the existence of T&E. Their product remains a problem for me, however.
Charlie's question really gets to the heart of it: How did whoever it was back in the 60s or 70s ID the first Empire as T&E? There are no papers, no comparable rods, no company records, no surviving makers, no family tradition, no similar identifiable hardware (remember, nobody's even heard of Landman in the 60s or 70s).
Here's my own entirely fictional scenario:
30 or 40 years ago, somebody picked up a rod marked Empire City at an auction/tackle show/flea market/tag sale, and said to him/herself "This is a well-made early trade rod. Wonder who made it?" For the moment, let's assume that he/she knew all about the A&I/Empire City connection.
So where did he (the hell with being PC!) turn to follow out this mystery? First assumption would be New York. Now the rod has rolled-and-seamed hardware, which means it's fairly early. But wait, he can find it in his copies of early A&I catalogs dating back to about 1900. Not all that early, then. So who used r&s hardware around that time ? Kosmic, that's who!
Now that's Thomas, Edwards, and Payne. Not Thomas, we know what his early work looks like. Same with Payne. Edwards? Perhaps. But he'd moved back to Maine, like Thomas. And our not so fictional sleuth has seen an article that mentions Thomas and Edwards setting up together in Brewer. Eureka!
A rod attributed to 2 great makers combined should sell better'n'hotcakes. And they're about the right period, and that period's a black hole in rod-making history, and nobody can prove they didn't make the rods - so, unless and until someone can come up with an alternative, Thomas and Edwards it is.
And so a true canard is born - 1/3 research, 1/3 conjecture/wishful thinking, and 1/3 marketing.
Dave

Reply Quote

pcg

Re: Rant re-redux?

#22

[-]

Posts: 3541

08/05/2007 17:09

Admin

Okay, good reasoning. So... let's forget Campbell: as duly noted he offers no T&E proof. And we'll forget Keane: what did Gene Edwards know? He was probably making it up in that mid-1970s interview. (The guy was pretty old by then,) Also by default we have to throw out Schwiebert: when he wrote Trout he was just repeating what he'd heard from others. Who's left? Oh yeah--Jeff Hatton. We have to assume Jeff misattributes all the T&E rods as well. Then there's that troublesome FE Thomas interview--what what did old Fred know?! Last... there's George Black! What does George know? Of course then there are three or four minor authors who also describe the partnership--but then they're minor authors.

Oh yeah--the rods labeled T&E at the American Museum of Fly Fishing are probably Landman's. And all the T&E rods sold by Keane, Corsetti and other reputable dealers are... well, they're Landman's too. These guys are dealers, after all. They'll do anything for a buck, right? Right.

I must be leaving someone or some institution out. Perhaps not. But it's obviously a... canard, whatever that word means (wait--isn't canard French for fish? That's appropriate (I think)). To avoid such red herrings (isn't that another fish?) we'll revert to calling it what it is: a conspiracy conceived solely to bump up the price of those low-end Empire City rods.

All of that aside, I'll admit to adherence to the principle of Occam's razor. Let's keep it simple. Every complicating argument steers away from what's the most simple explanation: T&E built rods for an as yet unknown period of time, built an unknown series of rods and broke up for unknown reasons leaving no paperwork for later historians to study. But they existed. Unless Gene Edwards & Fred Thomas were both liars.

(Now, I sure would like to see that period newspaper article Black referenced! And I agree with you, Dave--there's virtually no definitive way to pick up an EC rod & say, THAT's a T&E rod!")

Reply Quote

Housatonic Quill

Re: Rant re-redux?

#23

[-]

Posts: 836

08/05/2007 18:46

Pat -
Actually, canard is French for duck - and it looks like I'd better with all the shellfire coming in! (CDC, cul-de-canard, means duck'sass, by the way).
Everything you've said brings light to bear on the existence of T&E, which isn't the point of this controversy. Nothing you have said brings forth evidence of their authorship of the Empire City rods. So far, you've cited authority after authority, none of whom have provided evidence of that authorship, and some of whom don't even mention it. As Charlie said, what is it that convinces YOU that the ECs were made by T&E? - never mind Gnome or Banjo or Jeff or Bruce or me or Campbell or Keane or (shudder!) Schwiebert. What makes YOU think so?
As far as Landman is concerned, I admit to thinking he's a largely unsung genius. I do NOT know, however, that he or his son made anything but some, or even all, of the EC hardware. The rods themselves? Damned if I know. And that, I think, is where any researcher with any rigor in his approach must wind up, given the current state of knowledge.
The same, however, is not true when it comes to the VL&A, VL&D and Folsom rods that our predecessors also attributed to T&E. Many of them could have come from no other hands than JGL's .
Cheers,
Dave

Reply Quote

Housatonic Quill

Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ...

#24

[-]

Posts: 836

08/05/2007 19:07

Sorry, fingernail.
Dave

Reply Quote

fingernail

Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ...

#25

[-]

Posts: 1594

08/05/2007 20:43

No problem, it's pretty interesting, two of my favorite rod makers, a little debate, it helps pass the time, I posted a pic of the rod in question, but I think it may have gotten overlooked in the quest to prove who is wrong, both perspective are pretty convincing, but I will have to say quill's theory on basic assumptions makes a lot of sense, you see it from time to time on the board, and pcg's razor, well sometime most get so invloed they forget to see the small or obvious things, you guys should trade shoes..at least I got two pages out of this post. Thanks Guys! All and all it ended up being a pretty cool post.

Reply Quote

pcg

Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ...

#26

[-]

Posts: 3541

08/05/2007 21:07

Admin

Dave,

I largely agree with you. I find Edwards fingerprints everywhere except on the so-called T&E EC rods. One constant w/ Edwards' rods is elegance, or as often simply a fine sense of innate design. The EC rods are stolid at best, and frankly are a notch below (& missing the "wow factor" that came with) the Kosmics. Were the boring ECs due to Thomas' influence? Doubtful because Thomas himself could sure craft a mean rod at times.

My point in listing so many authorities (& yes, everyone of them did mention T&E) was simply that it's difficult to presume in 2007 that over 30 years of tackle writing could be flat wrong. Could be, of course. In a number of cases I know that the writers were just copying each other (& not conducting original research).

And on that count I'm as guilty. I've turned up nothing unique, though I've scrambled for quite some time to do so for 1895-1900. I think you'll find that when the Edwards book comes out in early 2008 that there's a fair amount of new and important information, and I hope it'll prove to be a good resource. But that being said, the T&E period is a void that must be filled with (1) references to past writers, followed by (2) a disclaimer similar to what we've been hashing about over the last couple days. And I do note in the book that some experienced collectors question whether T&E ever actually made rods.

Yet... yet, I go back to the Occam's razor comment. The simplest explanation is likely to be the best. My instinct is that T&E existed. But without evidence, a writer has to discriminate and note the difference between instinct and evidence.

I will chase down the newspaper article that Black references. And you have to personally wrestle with the veracity of not only Gene Edwards, but that of EW's partner, Mr. Thomas. Gene would have grown up listening to his father's occasional stories. And of course Thomas knew better than anyone other than EW himself.

So how to explain two highly reliable sources, one a first hand witness, who say without equivocation that T&E not only existed, but built rods?

Reply Quote

cwfly

Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ...

#27

[-]

Posts: 1163

08/06/2007 10:21

I should add the following to make some of my previous comments clear. I have the highest admiration for those individuals who have spent countless hours researching the history of fly rods. Marty Keane, for example, was kind enough when I was younger, in the early 1970s, to meet with me at his office and house for most of a day to look at rods and talk about rods. I have read, and certainly will read again Campbells book and Jeffs book. I certainly consider them, and several members of this board, myself not included, to be experts.
On the other hand, I have never seen any indication of what it is about any Abbey & Imbrie Empire City Special rod that leads to the probability that it was made by hands of Thomas and Edwards. Also, in The American Fly Fisher article by Mary Kelly (Summer 1984)about Kosmic rods, she wrote:
Speculating, I favor Thomas, Edwards, and Hawes as builders of Kosmic and Walton rods, both with Spalding and U.S. Net & Twine. After the demise of U.S. Net & Twine, Thomas and Edwards continued to build these rods for H. A. Whittemore and Company. It seems too coincidental that Thomas and Edwards outfitted a factory just at the time U. S. Net & Twines assets were disbursed. Very likely they acquired some of this inventory, such as patents, trademark, raw materials, and perhaps machinery. Ultimately, then (after 1901), Thomas may have become sole proprietor of Kosmic.
Finally, permit the following. When Spalding sold its retail tackle business in 1894 to USN&T, including Kosmic, USN&T opened its retail store at 316 Broadway, NYC, with a tackle department supervised by E.S.Osgood who had supervised NYC retail tackle for Spalding. When USN&T went out of business in 1898, the retail location at 316 Broadway was taken over by Abercrombie & Fitch, with, I believe, E.S. Osgood still in charge of the tackle department. I know from early 1900s catalog that A & F was an agent for the manufacturers of Kosmic rods and offered them for sale at its 316 Broadway store. If Thomas and Edwards and then Thomas were making Kosmic rods, it seems unlikely to me that they were also making rods branded with the name of a New York City competitor, Abbey & Imbrie. The connection with Spalding, USN&T, and A & F seems as though it would have provided a natural retail source for rod sales by these gentlemen.
Yours for further speculation, Charlie

Reply Quote

pcg

Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ...

#28

[-]

Posts: 3541

08/06/2007 10:51

Admin

Charlie... your post reminds me of how often I have longed for a time machine...

Reply Quote

Housatonic Quill

Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ...

#29

[-]

Posts: 836

08/06/2007 11:04

Pat -
You ain't kiddin'! Or even a time videocam.
Dave

Reply Quote

Housatonic Quill

#30

[-]

Posts: 342

08/08/2007 13:20

Providing the missing posts or at least as much as Yuku permits:

Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ... This I could find reasonable. If when Fred Thomas went back up to Maine he needed to make a living (reasonable since these folks as far as I can tell were not altruistic rod groupies) he certainly had sufficient NYC contacts and the ability to make a Kosmic rod. But, to do so he had no right to use the Edwards ferrule patent. So Eustis comes back and agrees to let him use the patent (or even make his ferrule) and lo and behold they have a business. Rank speculation, but it seems to make more sense then these two fellows hooking up with Abbey and Imbrie given the other contacts they already had. Charlie
pcg Registered User Posts: 637 (8/7/07 7:56) Reply	Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ... Charlie, my memory is that Payne in NY continued making Kosmics, not Thomas (although I remember he was pegged with making some Waltons, wasn't he?). And I like your theory of Thomas needing Edwards' ferrules, but have you ever seen a (supposed) T&E that used the Kosmic-style ferrules? I haven't (but then nothing would surprise me). The ECs & A&Is I've handled use a more generic N/S ferrule combo. Back in '06 Jeff posted a series of photos of T&E-period rods that were made by four or five different shops that all, essentially, looked the same. At the least this was a period of little originality & workmanlike production at best. If I dare summarize the last couple days of "rants," I'd say we've identified a period in angling history that needs a very experienced person with a very good eye to take this aside as a three or four year project. We may wish this starry-eyed person lots of luck, & then cross our fingers that something really definitive comes out of the massive effort. Pat
cwfly Registered User Posts: 409 (8/7/07 8:26) Reply	Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ... Pat, You know, before Keane, Campbell, Kelly, and Black, Sparse (Alfred W. Miller), who was born in 1892, penned some comments in "Great Fishing Tackle Catalogs of the Golden Age" next to the Wilkerson Co.(Chicago) ad for Kosmic rods, reels and lines. He referred to "legend" and was, IIRC, of the opinion that such legend held that Payne and Oram, backed by the Pratt Standard Oil investment, made Kosmics UNTIL USN&T went out of business and then stopped and set up their own rod company. Of course he does not mention Spalding or Whittemore or offer any suggestion of who picked up the Kosmic rod making. Somebody was working with cane and putting ferrules, the patent to which was owned by Eustis, on rods. Charlie
pcg Registered User Posts: 638 (8/7/07 9:56) Reply	Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ... I'd caution you about relying on what SGH wrote. Much of it was fast & loose, & much just sloppy. He was a great fisherman & a master at marketing himself (& always an interesting writer). His "facts" though have been proven wrong repeatedly. For instance, he's off on Oram by two decades. Not to mention the demeaning references to Edwards that are sprinkled through many of his writings. Take it all w/ a grain of salt. And a smile.
Housatonic Quill Registered User Posts: 341 (8/7/07 11:20) Reply	Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ... Charlie - Your hypothesis makes so much sense that I'm ashamed it never dawned on me. It explains the apparent lack of product of the partnership (yep, I said it ... I'm beginning to be convinced) and substitutes a realistic and possibly verifiable line of descent for the Whittemore Kosmics. As you said, whoever was making them had to have Eustis' permission (at least until 1907-0 and that's a permission that he would probably not have granted if he were himself involved in a rod-making partnership. And what a perfect opportunity for someone trying to change careers and set himself up as a photographer. Allow Thomas to use his name and his ferrules in exchange for a cut of the profits on the Kosmics. It'd be like having an annuity pay out. I'd suggest that we should be looking through the earliest available Thomas financial records (if available), rather than spending any further effort trying to attribute rods. It looks to me as though we might have found the right attribution. Pat - And I like your theory of Thomas needing Edwards' ferrules, but have you ever seen a (supposed) T&E that used the Kosmic-style ferrules? I haven't (but then nothing would surprise me) I don't follow your reasoning here - are you suggesting that because none of the "T&Es" have Kosmic-style ferrules, Edwards wasn't involved in the production of the Whittemore Kosmics? Let's use the famous Razor again. The simplest explanation for the ferrule question is that Edwards was involved , to a greater or lesser extent, in the production of the Kosmics, but may not have been involved in the EC, etc. rod production. Occam would have loved it. I'd caution you about relying on what SGH wrote. Much of it was fast & loose, & much just sloppy. He was a great fisherman & a master at marketing himself (& always an interesting writer) Whoa, there - SGH belonged to an even earlier generation of fishing writer than Marty or AJ. There were even fewer standards of research then. But that doesn't prevent the odd chance-caught glimmer of truth shining though, and ad hominem argument shouldn't substitute for an examination of factuality. I too remember Jeff's posting of the period rods, but my memory is really foggy on them - I thought they were rods from different retailers, not different producers. Jeff, could you enlighten us? Dave Edited by: Housatonic Quill at: 8/7/07 11:23
pcg Registered User Posts: 639 (8/7/07 11:34) Reply	Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ... Sorry, I apparently misread the ferrules comments. I thought the theory being tossed out was that Thomas needed Edwards so that he could use Edwards' patented ferrules. What you're saying the thread was positing is that Edwards was collecting income each time that Whittemore made a Kosmic. To that I'd agree--the patent would still have been very much in force. My misread! Not slighting SGH, but reminding Charlie that he can't rely on him for the finer details. Both Sparse & Schwiebert (who was another much beloved writer) are often wrong on facts. I've also found they copy each other a lot, repeating errors (& perpetuating them as a result). Keane is SO much better, Black better still--a natural phenomena. The books become more accurate as we learn more. 30 years ago the world of tackle history was virtually nonexistent. Now... it's better, but there's still so much more to uncover.
jeffkn1 Registered User Posts: 1277 (8/7/07 12:10) Reply	Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ... Though the patents issued to Hawes and Edwards showed no share being assigned to anyone else, I don't see why the rights might not have been sold upon each's departure from the company. In fact, it's written somewhere that Loman made the others buy him out when he left. That could have included the ferrule. And it stands to reason that Edwards, newly married and about to embark on a trip West, could have sold out his rights as well. I think once he left he never looked back, and that the ferrules were of no practical use to Eustis at that point. BTW, I found it interesting to note that those two patents were applied for so early in 1890 (end of January and the end of February) that it seems odd for anyone to say they left Leonard that same year. Looks more like 1889 to me. Maybe. It could happen.
Housatonic Quill Registered User Posts: 342 (8/7/07 12:51) Reply	Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ... Pat - I thought the theory being tossed out was that Thomas needed Edwards so that he could use Edwards' patented ferrules. Yes, that is the theory. ...Edwards was collecting income each time that Whittemore made a Kosmic I don't think Whittemore ever made a rod - I'm pretty sure they only retailed them. The theory is that Thomas &Edwards made the Whittemore Kosmics, using the Edwards patent ferrules. The Edwards ferrules don't appear on the EC or any other supposed T&E rods, which, in my book, would be just one more reason to suppose that T&E didn't make them. You're right - with every new addition to the canon, the scholarship gets better and better. Problem is that Mary Kefover Kelly (in rods and general tackle), Steve Vernon and Phil White (in reels) and our own Mike Sinclair (in rods and maker histories), Gnome, and Jeff Knapp (damn it, Jeff, publish!) have set new and more rigorous standards that the previous writers just don't meet and couldn't meet, given the sources they were working with and the audience they were addressing. Dave Edited by: Housatonic Quill at: 8/7/07 13:04
cwfly Registered User Posts: 411 (8/7/07 13:09) Reply	Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ... After USN&T closed, Whittemore was not the only seller of Kosmic rods. In 1904 Abercrombie & Fitch was located at 316 Madison Avenue, the former retail location of USN&T. In 1904 Abercrombie sold Kosmic rods as "agents for the famous Kosmic rods… {and] the manufacturers warrant every one of them." "We call particular attention to the mechanical principle of the Kosmic ferrule." The Kosmic was the most expensive rod it sold, more than the Bic and the Touradif, which it described as of its own manufacture and with its own guarantee. The name Whittemore does not appear. Charlie
pcg Registered User Posts: 640 (8/7/07 13:3 Reply	Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ... Jeff, excellent point about assigning patents. Could be. Maybe not. And I agree that when Edwards split, he never looked back. Chances are excellent that he assigned rights to the new T&P. BTW, I'm not aware of any writing stating that Loman requested that he be bought out. The episode of his leaving is itself confused. I'm still not certain precisely when he leaves (although he clearly does), or why. It's certain however that he dies very soon thereafter. Dave, thanks for the further clarification. It's probably now safe to say I get it. And I didn't mean to imply that Whittemore actually made the rods. Fuzzy writing from over here. The theory? Well, I like the theory. Income from building Kosmics would have been a great cushion for Thomas, and would have justified him buying the old TE&H beveler. And whether Edwards had retained ferrule patent rights or not, he would have been one heck of a right hand man. Now... Payne is also attributed as being a post--USN&T Kosmic maker. And there are known Payne rods circa 1900 that use Edwards Kosmic ferrules. Hmm. Whereas none of the early Thomas rods do. Hmm. This is getting complicated. So... Payne is making Kosmics. T&E, based on the theory, is making Kosmics. Whittemore, that took over the Kosmic trademark in 1899, must be in rod-buyers heaven. It's got the entire Kosmic crew making... Kosmic rods! I know I sound facetious. But the truth is that no one seems to know for sure. It's a great theory. That razor does cut deep. I'm beginning to feel nostalgic for those old T&E Empire City creations. Life was once so simple. ">
pcg Registered User Posts: 641 (8/7/07 13:44) Reply	Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ... Postscript: just checked the ms. Loman dies of TB in 1897.
Housatonic Quill Registered User Posts: 343 (8/7/07 13:44) Reply	Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ... Right, Pat - once upon a time! Oh well...
cwfly Registered User Posts: 412 (8/7/07 16:13) Reply	Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ... Pat, According to Mary Kelly, Whittemore did not exist until 1901 so it could not have acquired the Kosmic trademark in early 1899 when USN&T went out of business. In 1915, according to a piece of Whittemore letterhead, it stated it was then the "sole agent" for Kosmic, which sounds a bit different than owner or maker and means that Abercrombie & Fitch, that was a Kosmic agent in 1904, no longer had an agency relationship. Don't forget that around 1907 Mr. Fitch and Mr. Abercrombie terminated their partnership. I do not believe that Whittemore ever had dealings with USN&T; but it could have had such dealings with A&F and it certainly could have dealt directly with the principal (i.e. whomever was actually making these rods) in this so-called agency relationship. Incidentally, Mary Kelly also wrote that Spalding owned the "Walton" name which it sold to USN&T with the Kosmic name. USN&T lengthened it to "The Isaak Walton." Lastly, Mary Kelly wrote that there were never any assignments (i.e. sale of ownership) of Loman Hawes and Eustis Edwards ferrule patents. To have any validity as to third parties, any such sale would have had to have been recorded in the USPTO. Just like a real estate deed being recorded in the land records. These folks dealt with patent lawyers and large businesses. I for one feel that if the patents were ever sold, such a sale would certainly have been recorded by the purchaser. Sorry again fingernail. Charlie
pcg Registered User Posts: 642 (8/7/07 16:39) Reply	Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ... Charlie, Dr. Todd Larson published a updated article about three months ago on the entire Kosmic period. Mary's work was good for its time, but Larson uses a tremendous amount of original research and sheds a huge amount of light on these issues (the article has been mentioned on the forum a couple times in the last 2 mths). Critical reading for anyone interested in the period. (If you haven't seen it, PM me w/ your address & I'll mail you a copy (although mine is somewhat marked up).) Essentially, Spalding owns TE&P (T&P at the time of the sale) AND owns the Kosmic trademark (which they invented, not TE&P). Everything is sold to USN&T in Apr '94. In 1899 USN&T goes into receivership (sounds familiar, doesn't it?) and Whittemore buys all rights. Of course by then T&P has itself split, leaving only Payne to continue making Kosmics from his new Highland Mills shop. Whittemore continues spitting out Kosmic-branded items well into the 1920s. We have to presume that Whittemore granted a distribution license to A&F during the very early 1900s, as Whittemore clearly owned the name. (I haven't been focusing on the Walton line, so can't comment.) At that point "Kosmic" was being used to sell everything from rods & reels to lures.
cwfly Registered User Posts: 413 (8/7/07 16:56) Reply	Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ... Pat, I have read Todd's article and he may well be right. It is correct that Edwards' patent application was Jan 27, 1890, Spalding's Kosmic trademark application was Feb 1, 1890 and Hawes' patent application was Feb 27, 1890, and although I'm not certain that Spalding owned the gentlemen, it certainly looks from the timing that they knew they were going into business together. The patents were, however, never assigned and Spalding never bought them. I'm just surprised, since Mary Kelly did so much patent and trademark research, they she never referred to a sale of the trademark from USN&T to Whittemore. Charlie
cwfly Registered User Posts: 414 (8/7/07 20:26) Reply	Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ... Pat (with apologies to fingernail and board members screaming out "enough") I have reread Keane's (pp. 100 - 101) and Campbell's (pp. 129-134) discussion of Kosmic, noting that Campbell cites to Keane as his source, so the text reads much the same between the two books on this subject. I have not had a chance to re-read George's book. Keane and Campbell both write that the Kosmic business was owned by Thomas Edwards, and Payne (TEP), TEP first retailed rods through Spalding, and then TEP sold the business to U.S.Net & Twine. I do not believe that is historically correct and I believe the business was owned by Spalding. Keane writes that when Eustis returned to Brewer in 1898 he was joyfully surprised to find his old friend Fred Thomas there, "and in a few short weeks they acquired the beveling machine from the now-defunct Kosmic Rod Company…." Campbell writes that sometime around 1896 or early '97 ("during the same period") "Ed Payne fashioned the last of the marked Kosmics." Campbell also writes that, "back in Maine in 1898 Fred Thomas acquired the original Thomas, Edwards & Hawes beveling machine from Payne. Campbell also refers to a Thomas rod marked Brewer, Maine with a Kosmic ivoroid reel seat and Kosmic grip check. So both Keane and Campbell believed the last Kosmic rod was made by Payne just before he sold the Kosmic beveler in 1898 to Fred Thomas. If you thought that to be the case, and I don't since I've seen and owned Kosmics made after that as well as later ads, then you would have to come up with some rod to have been made by Fred Thomas (even Thomas and Edwards) to fill the gap in their rodmaking. We know, however, that later Kosmics were, in fact, made. According to Keane and Campbell they weren't made by Payne since he stopped in 1898 when he sold the beveler to Fred Thomas. We know that Fred Thomas acquired the Kosmic beveler right when Eustis was showing up. Mary Kelly says the ferrule patents were never assigned and I suggest that it is more likely that Thomas made Kosmic rods than Abbey & Imbrie Empire City Specials. Charlie
pcg Registered User Posts: 643 (8/8/07 7:00) Reply	Re: Rant re-redux? Or how a thread gets highjacked ... Charlie, I think Larson's belief that Spalding basically created & owned TE&P makes tremendous sense. Nothing better explains why the firm never sold a rod except to Spalding. It also explains how they were able to obtain immediate & deep capitalization, allowing them to rent factory space, buy extensive equipment, supplies, cane, etc etc, all the while paying themselves during the months that went by before their first rod was built. Spalding would have made that easy w/ a small investment that would have been otherwise impossible for three young craftsmen. My belief is that Edwards was invited by Thomas to return to Brewer, lured partially by the news that the TE&H beveler would be there, as well as work. Keane's "joyfully surprised" sounds like... well, typical Keane. And I also think that the "Theory" tossed around the last couple days makes tremendous sense: T&E may have made some Kosmics in parallel with Payne. Why not? And who knows? They may have also made some ECs as well. How long the small firm lasted & why they broke up is unknown. I don't think the friendship had anything to do with it. Perhaps when USN&T went into receivership in '99 the Kosmic orders died temporarily, & things looked bleak. So EW unpacked his NY photographic equipment, & decided the most important thing was feeding his family. Thomas had no other skill, so crossed his fingers. Remember too, that as a hedge, he had installed a commercial laundry in his basement. These guys did not have high expectations. I did hear back from Black a couple days ago regarding the newspaper article. He affirmed that the paper said the business was "thriving," but said the article was stored away somewhere. I may go through the library records in Brewer when I'm there in Sept.

Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image

Topic Commands

Cultivate doubt as the beginning of wisdom.

Reply Quote

pcg

#31

[-]

Posts: 641

08/08/2007 13:49

Admin

Well done!

Reply Quote

cwfly

#32

[-]

Posts: 411

08/10/2007 12:25

Pat,

My theory, tossed around for a couple of days is not that Thomas and Edwards made Kosmics "in parallel" with Payne, but that assuming T & E existed, they were making Kosmics along with Isaak Walton rods.

I neglected to earlier remember this 6/11/07 post by Jeff:

"Jerry Girard was kind enough to give me an HA Whitmore letterhead at the Lang's dealer show in April, and it had a 1902 date on it. While filing it yesterday I noticed that the other HAW letterhead I had was dated 1918. Both letterheads proclaimed sole distributorship of Kosmic and Isaac Walton, meaning that for at least 17 years all Kosmics were sold by H.A. Whitmore. That is more than the previous owners' combined years, yet the number of Whitmore/Kosmics we see doesn't give me that impression. Might it be that Kosmic wasn't a big seller during that period? Not 'modern' enough?"

I suppose that as "sole Distributor" could mean just that as opposed to being the exclusive retailer since Abercrombie was indeed selling Kosmics in 1904. But the 1902 Whittemore letterhead certainly combines both the Isaak Walton and the Kosmic in one "exclusive" distributor, which, presumably infers an exclusive relationship with the maker.

Charlie

Reply Quote

Reeleasy

#33

[-]

Posts: 27

08/10/2007 17:42

Pat, Dave, Jeff, Bruce, Charlie and all the boys,

This has been a fascinating discourse on a subject we all clearly are impassioned about. Thankyou all for sharing your thoughts. I am cautiously posting as I am not an expert, but I do own the EC which is depicted in this thread and would like nothing more, except a 65 pound Atlantic Salmon on the end of my line, than to know to a reasonable degree of probability that my EC Special is a T & E. I just cannot make that logical leap. I understand the logic in the connection between Thomas and Edwards with the Kosmic rods given the historical references. Thomas acquired the Kosmic beveler and Edwards had the ferule patent after Payne left. The boys needed to make a living making rods(something they knew how to do) along with photography and perhaps a new laundrey business. The Kosmic continued to be made as evidenced by Abercrombie and Whitamore catlogues. Logically, the craftsman who were associated with the Kosmic, who controlled the patent and who had the beveler continued to make them for the big retailer/outfitters of the day.

I do not see the same connection between T & E and EC. The Ec has a Landman reel seat, form case and distinctive Landman canvas and leather sheath-all objective pieces of evidence from which to draw a reasonable inference that the EC rod can be attributed in significant part to Landman's shop. If there is no connection between Landman and T,E, or Payne, I cannot understand why T & E would be selling their rods with Landman components, form cases and sheaths. It seems to me that there is pretty good evidence of Landman's work here.

My thought process is perhaps too simple, but I would think that to attribute the EC to T & E, there would have to be some objective evidence in the rods themselves that point that way, not simply their vintage or the use of the term"special". Is there something that you have concluded about the cane, glue, assembly, ferrules, reelseat, hardware, wraps, the form case, the sheath or any other tangible component of EC rods that is distinctly a T & E trait? If so, please toss that objective evidence into the discussion. I think that the rod itself is the most concrete evidence we have. A discussion on the rod itself would be fascinating. Thanks.

Reply Quote

Housatonic Quill

#34

[-]

Posts: 345

08/10/2007 19:46

Reeleasy -
Welcome to the shooting gallery.
Here's what little I (think I) know, based on the eight I possess and the 50 or so I've seen. CAVEAT - with that limited a sample, I'd think it'd be fairly easy to come up with a rod or rods that don't fit this pattern:
I have so far found two models of ECFT rods - the HandMade and the Special Grade. Bruce seems to have another - it looks like a HandMade, but has no markings on it. Their fittings are consistently rolled and soldered. The HandMade and the Special Grade both have the same Landman reelseat, but several of the HMs I've seen have a Prichard patent slide band, consistent with their A&I lineage. They also share this reelseat with several marked Landmans. The HM's male ferrules, from the rods I've seen, are two-piece rolled-and-soldered, with a a one-piece shoulder and slide (looking very much as though it were drawn tube) and a copper disk waterstop. The Special has more conventional three piece males, also rolled and soldered, also with copper disks. Original guides on both seem to be English twist bronzed snakes, although I have seen a few with NiS snakes. The bamboo is light straw in color - I haven't checked the node pattern on all I've seen, but on those that are close to hand right now, it seems to be random. Wraps are black with rather thick, either red or black, intermediates. I have seen no doubling of the wraps near the ferrules. HandMades have 1/4 inch corks, Specials have either 1/4" or 1/8" corks, or sheet cork with NiS wire winding. Winding checks on both models are fairly wide cup-tapers with either a single or double incised line. Form-cases on the HM are generally covered with olive velvet with a leather or velvet cuff on the tip end, a black wooden dome top on the butt end, and a tapered canvas bag into which they fit. The Special Grades are lodged in similar cases, generally in dark blue velvet, with leather cuffs, and no dome tops. They can have a distinctive pattern of NiS nails on the butt end, holding the very carefully folded velvet against the wood. The bags I have found - and they've been few and far between - have been tapered olive canvas, with a leather-sheathed tip and, sometimes, a fold over top with a leather strap and buckle. Even though nobody knows if Landman had the ability to make rod blanks, all of the other parts are consistent with Landman manufacture, if not Landman assembly.

Cultivate doubt as the beginning of wisdom.

Last Edited By: Housatonic Quill 08/10/2007 19:51. Edited 1 time.

Reply Quote

pcg

#35

[-]

Posts: 658

08/10/2007 20:13

Admin

ReelEasy's post set off another thought on my part. When did the EC rods first appear in writing--by that I mean, who first notes that an EC rod is a T&E? For that matter, who first mentions EC rod? You might have already guessed, but...

I started w/ the Godfather, Mr. Keane. In 1976 he mentions T&E, & includes a photo of what he describes as "the ultrarare T&E rod" (page 15). He doesn't mention EC, but the rod pictured is a dead ringer. Still, nothing written per se about EC. He does mention a VL&D rod, & attributes it--unconvincingly--to T&E.

I then bounced over to Schwiebert's Trout, 1978, expecting more. No mention of EC, let alone T&E. So no luck there. The trail remains cold.

Eighteen years later, Campbell publishes. And he cites T&E, and ECs. With photographs, and stories, and descriptions. And I believe that the connection is made for the first time.

There's no one in-between Schwiebert and Campbell. Later writers repeat Campbell's assertions.

So to the best of my knowledge we're chasing an assertion made in 1997 by Campbell, who--as I believe Charlie said a few days ago--offers no proof of the connection. He just states it as fact.

Reply Quote

Reeleasy

#36

[-]

Posts: 28

08/11/2007 09:19

Dave and Pat, thanks for the follow up. I have enjoyed my apprenticeship wading through history with cane sleuths! In my humble opinion, I think we can make the reasonable inference that Landman was involved with the EC rods as his "finger prints" are on the rods themselves. If Landman was a gun smith, tool maker, or skilled craftsman we can probably also draw the inference that he was involved in making reel seats, perhaps the hardware, forms and sheaths. If the cane on the ECs has some reasonable similarity to T & E cane, perhaps T & E were selling "less than Kosmic quality" blanks to Landman and others. Thomas didn't like the idea of wasting a sound blank for cosmetic reasons so he introduced the Bangor and Dirigo rods rather than squander good craftsmanship. Maybe that concept developed during the early post-Payne Kosmic era. The boys needed money and they sold blanks that didn't make the cut for Kosmics or Issac Waltons. Landman may have been assembling rods using T & E blanks. Did the ECs have watermarks or cosmetics that parallel the cane used in Bangors and Dirigos? Are the tapers on EC rods T & E tapers?(kosmic or walton). Well, gents I have to cut the grass and head out in search of early Albies in the kayak. Then back to the bench tying Atlanti Salmon treats and dreaming of September rain and silver. Have a great weekend.

Reply Quote

jeffkn1

#37

[-]

Posts: 1275

08/11/2007 11:33

Landman's rod career began in the 1870's, conceivably after learning from somebody like Frederick Malleson, or Harry Pritchard (which would make more sense). From the 1879/1880 Lain's Directory (Brooklyn) comes the following:

LANDMANN Conrad hatter h 53 Ewen
LANDMANN Constantine liquors 58 Lorimer
LANDMANN George turner h 124 Central av
LANDMANN John watchman h 244 Floyd
LANDMANN John G. fishingrodmkr. h 17 Melrose
LANDMANN Leonard tailor h 124 Central av

In the next 10 years his son's name would be listed right under him, also referred to as a fishing rod maker. I'm still having trouble believing he was incapable of making his own rods. The 17 Melrose address was his home, to change in the 1880's to 56 Cedar, where he lived the rest of his life.

Last Edited By: jeffkn1 08/11/2007 11:37. Edited 2 times.

Reply Quote

pcg

#38

[-]

Posts: 661

08/11/2007 11:35

Admin

Reeleasy's last comment hits it on the head: what are the physical similarities? Does the very early Thomas work relate to the Kosmics from a year or two earlier? Cane, node placement, wraps, tapers, even guides? A Theory is one thing. But does it relate to the physical evidence--?

Pongee Madness

Last Edited By: pcg 08/11/2007 11:38. Edited 1 time.

Reply Quote

gooseberryrods

#39

[-]

Posts: 439

08/11/2007 11:44

Patrick- please check you inbox.

Scxott

Reply Quote

Housatonic Quill

#40

[-]

Posts: 348

08/11/2007 13:40

Landman (father or son?), didn't spend all his time behind his desk. I'd assume that one of them was the George Landman who won the National Sportsman's Association Fly Accuracy contest in January of 1898, and came in second in the Class M Distance competition ( he wuz robbed! one of the judges, a gent named Fred Divine, was biased). He didn't place in the Obstacle casting competition, where first was swept away by a nobody called something like Edward Ringwood Hewitt. And, of course, Rube Leonard smashed him in the Bass fly casting contest, with Hiram Hawes coming in second (Charlie, one of the judges was E.S. Osgood!), and Rube took him again in the Unrestricted Expert Distance Casting.
I love this old stuff!

Cultivate doubt as the beginning of wisdom.

Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

empire city tackle

Quick Reply